Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2 started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2006,12:37

Because the 'new page bug' accumulated in the old thread, we begin anew.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

When I first proposed my hypothesis a few days ago, I asked for comments and critique.  I have now received this and have updated my hypothesis to reflect this.  You can see this discussion under "AFDave's God Hypothesis."  Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

I will now restate my updated Hypothesis (added a few points) and set forth the updated rules and framework which I wish to use for my reasoning.

MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman. Having sold my second business, I am now what you might say "between businesses" and am spending a lot of time on non-profit endeavors. I do have an aircraft charter business (a single King Air to fuel my flying "habit") and I am into alternative motor vehicle fuels with the possibility of a future business venture, but I'm not currently doing anything big in business.  I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar.  But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  It appears to me that while there are many good scientists doing a truckload of good work for the benefit of humanity, there seems to be a big disconnect with reality when "science" begins speculating about how life began and developed.  I was pleased to see the article mentioned below by Meyer because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again. I am apparently in very good company and the pace of new research in this area is accelerating.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
I need to say right up front that my reasoning with respect to this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  

Here's a little blurb on Abductive reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer.  I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend reading his entire paper (only 23 pages) called "The Return of the God Hypothesis" which can be found here ...

< http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf >

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.  

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.  For instance, Peirce argued that skepticism about Napoleon's existence was unjustified although his existence could be known only by abduction: Numberless documents refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed" (Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers. Eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

So now you have the "AF Dave Creator God Updated Hypothesis" ... this is my second draft and almost completely my own words.  While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b).  This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

As soon as I am satisfied from my feedback from you that my framework of reasoning is sound, I will proceed to provide evidence which I believe supports each point in my Hypothesis.

This should be fun ... I welcome your comments!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 22 2006,13:10

stevestory,
I think MidnightVoice had a good idea in the "Broken Thread" discussion.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Try locking the old thread and leaving a link to the new one as the last post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Still Possible?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 22 2006,13:13

I'll add a link.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 22 2006,13:35

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2006,17:37)
I suppose I should be more considerate and at least give you a fair chance to explain why it makes sense, even though it makes no sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee Dave, it makes sense to the rest of us. What's your problem? Do you think maybe the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't want it to make sense?

As I've said before, it's difficult to make a man understand something when his religious beliefs depend on his not understanding it.

The thing is, Dave, you have no valid reason for supposing the earth is only 6,000 years old. You know you've never been able to find any method of dating anything which always results in dates less than 6,000 years. The most you've ever been able to do is throw up your hands in defeat and claim that it's impossible, even in principle, to date anything other than by reference to your Bible (which, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, is not self-authenticating, and that it gets some things right is no guarantee that it gets everything right).

Did you read my post from yesterday, Dave? You have two choices: you can believe that everything ever written on science in the last hundred years that has any bearing on the age of the earth is wrong, or you can believe that one book is wrong. But for some reason, you take the infinitely more unlikely choice, and put your one book (which even you admit has errors in it) against the hundreds of thousands of other books, papers, articles, etc., and claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever that your book is right, and all the others are wrong.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 22 2006,13:40

Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 22 2006,13:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did I read that right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, Davie-doodles.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never noticed this before!  I was laughing so hard that John was griping about my miniscule range of Y-values being only slightly more miniscule than Dalrymples that I didn't even notice the X-axis values!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I never griped about any minuscule range of Snelling's Y-values; I wrote "Dalrymple's data is fine, accurate and well above the threshold of the instrumentation.  So is Snelling's."  I griped about your misleading plot that, due to inappropriate axis scaling, gave a false impression of the points not lying essentially exactly on a horizontal straight line.  Of course the range of Snelling's data is small; that's what we expect from a horizontal line. And that data defines a nice horizontal line when the axes are scaled appropriately, or when analyzed with an appropriate line-fitting algorithm.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, Davie-doodles.  Large.  Compared to the only relevant standard; the accuracy and precision of the measuring instruments.  I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you mean to tell me that you think this meteorite is 4.6 GYO because they measured these infinitesmally miniscule values and they plot on a nice line with a slope?  Wow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite, we think that meteorite is 4.6 GYO because we measured the ratios of isotopes with accuracy of 3-4 significant figures, and they plot on a nice line with a statistically significant slope.  As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!

I notice you're no longer claiming that Snelling's data doesn't define a horizontal isochron, and you have no response to my pointing out the difference between uptake of different isotopes of the same element and different elements.  Is it possible some facts have finally penetrated your pointy head?  My bet is no.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And mind you, I do understand why positive slopes LOOK like old age, but I just keep hearing Dalrymple's statements ringing in my ears ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and migrates IN also, JonF, as we have seen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True (except, of course, there's been no discussion of the kinematics of argon in molten rock) ... but argon does not migrate in either direction after solidification, Davie-dork.  Argon moves freely in or out as appropriate in molten rock, doesn't in solidified rock.  That's why we can see excess argon in some (but not all) ancient rocks (if the argon were mobile there'd be no noticeable argon of any parentage), and it's why the K-Ar method works as well as it does.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the famous Cherry Picking statement ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True in any field that involves selecting samples, and not evidence of cherry picking.

You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And tomorrow ... Mineral Isochrons!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Oh BTW ... did anyone notice that the chart we just discussed with the miniscule range of values was primarily a MINERAL isochron chart?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ... just as at least some K-Ar ages are correct because excess argon is not universal ... and we can therefore conclude that your hypothesis of a young Earth is falsified.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 22 2006,14:50

Quote (Russell @ Sep. 22 2006,19:40)
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I missed that.  Just goes to show; the sheer quantity of Dave's pathetic attemps at deception precludes any one person tracking them all.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 23 2006,01:38

Russell ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.  Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?  

But wait!  If they mess up they cherry pick them like in the example I gave you at Koobi Fora.

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Correct" WRT to what?  That's the whole problem.  You have this preconceived notion of "correct" dates and the whole geochronological community beats their drum to this tune.

No, Jon, my CGH is not falsified ... far from it.

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

JonF...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,03:15

AFDave,
As a preamble, I'm a chemical engineer and have worked in the chemical/agricultural process industry for ten years.  Lucky for me I'm still in a position where I can use skills and knowledge that were taught in university.  Also, PSS stands for Project Steve Sibling since my brother is on the < list >.  Before university I was enlisted in the Air Force fixing jets (F-4G, F-4E, F-16, A-10, and others) and teaching pilots how to properly use new avionics technology on the planes.
I've worked and trained Air Force pilots before and know that their egos get in the way of there brains sometimes.  I found that the only way some of them accept a fact is to make them think they discovered it themselves (as opposed to having someone else pound it into their thick skulls).

My < presentation > of Material Science facts regarding crystal structure and formation (and JonF's < additional > and detailed information) are based upon measured values of observed phenomena.  These values have nothing to do with age of the earth.

So when you respond with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I wonder what you actually know about any of the basic sciences like physics, chemistry, math, statistics, etc.... being discussed.  At some point AFDave you'll have to take your Isochron argument back to the basic math and science of the method because your present line of arguments lead directly back to these facts.

AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Your lost in this argument and getting more desperate by the day.  Either learn some basics, accept some basics, or accept defeat of your argument and move on.

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 23 2006,03:16

WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage
6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time according to Encyclopedia Britannica, and is characterized by gaps, not a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why?  Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
14) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
16) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe
19) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.

And much of this can be found at ...

Answers in Genesis International ... <a href="www.answersingenesis.org" target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.org</a> which has many scholarly articles written by scientists with PhD's in many different fields.

Ditto for the Institute for Creation Research ... <a href="www.icr.org" target='_blank'>www.icr.org</a>

Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,03:29

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,03:38

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Russell ...      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unsupprted assertion, as usual.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because other methods are more accurate (although K-Ar is stil useful and used, and is accurate enough to disprove your hypothesis by orders of magnitude) and more widely applicable. 
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



  • Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line.
  • Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mixing test!  They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.

You've been led to the water many times, Davie-doodles.  Drink up!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  Just not as widely used, because improved methods have been developed.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then tell us, Davie-poo, what's  the significance of the patterns of isochron slopes, the patterns of isochron intercepts, and the patterns of concordance between differnt methods.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, so many places to choose from! < here >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < here >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The above picture shows a typical lava flow.  Now the theory says that for the isochron to be valid, the initial Sr ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is HOMOGENEOUS.  Now one could argue whether or not the flow above is actually homogeneous, but for the whole rock isochron method to work, this is the assumption.  The typical assumed initial value is around 0.70 depending on whether you are talking about island volcanoes or continental volcanoes.  I think it's a little higher for contintental.  But in any case, it is ASSUMED to be homogeneous.  Now IF the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is homogeneous, this means that the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is ALSO homogeneous, and this means that we would have only ONE data point on the isochron diagram if we were to analyze any sample in the lava flow.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{emphasis added}

And < here > (the same post in which you made it absolutely clear that you thought the intial daughter ratio was assumed rather than calculated):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

BUt again, you are missing his point which is that WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS are either (a) homogeneous and meaningless (single point), or (b) heterogeneous and invalid (no way to determine initial daughter ratio ... remember, Jon, we are not talking about single crystals yet, we're talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember, Davie-dippers, we're talking about Snelling's big samples containing all kinds of crystals, and a whole-rock isochron that demonstrably is not a single point and has an intercept that determines the intial daughter ratio.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I guess you don't have the faintest idea what significant digits are.  Not surprising. From < significant digits >:

"The digits of the decimal form of a number beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices used to obtain the numbers. Also called significant figures."

{emphasis added}

Davie-moron, significant digits have nothing to do with graphs or graph scales.  If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 1983.0, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumenttion warrants it.    If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 0.18573, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumentation warrants it. The absolute size of the number does not matter, the size of the number relative to the accuracy of the instrumentation matters; and by that measure (the only meaningful one), Dalrymple's numbers are large.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,03:53

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,05:14

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,06:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Could you kindly show me where I said that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,05:30

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, not exactly, Dave. These points, these things you've "shown" us, have been refuted < again > and < again > and < again > and < again. > Do follow the links, Dave; they'll refresh your memory.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Glad to see you're finally giving up on radiometric dating, Dave (even though you'll never admit defeat, it's not like it isn't obvious you have been). Of course, you've only managed to completely mangle your understanding of basically two radiometric dating techniques out of the 40 or so that exist, but that's okay. I'm sure you're sick of getting the snot kicked out of your arguments (even though you'll never admit it).

So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,05:41

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He hasn't come up with a case for anything yet.  Assertions, yup, by the barrelful.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 23 2006,05:41

ericmurphy:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,05:56

BTW, Wesley mentioned a while ago that the bug which bedeviled the former thread seems to result from very long posts. So those of you who make such posts might want to break them into chunks.
Posted by: Russell on Sep. 23 2006,06:19

Recapping...
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... and after:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

to which the irrepressible AF "Don Quixote" Dave responds:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What difference does that make?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, now. That's a good question. Why did you excise the bolded part? To save precious bandwidth?

What we have learned so far:
No matter how thoroughly, devastatingly, "over-killingly" Davie's bizarre take on reality is demolished, he will keep summarizing all his ignominious defeats and retreats as glorious victories, thus firmly securing his reputation as the "Baghdad Bob" of internet creationists. One could, I suppose, go back and re-demolish each one of those "victories", but then one will have fallen for Davie's ploy of having one run around in infinite circles, covering the same old ground over and over.

Instead, one might ask Dave why, if actual practising scientists have been so decisively shown wrong on these extremely basic points, why are these "fallacies" still universally accepted in textbooks and in the professional scientific literature and practice?

Though that, too, would be covering old territory, as Davie will undoubtedly return with some variation of the "Atheist/secular humanist" conspiracy.

Here's one question, more or less randomly chosen from what must be at this point hundreds of dodged unanswered questions, I'll take as emblematic of the rest: Davie dismisses all the isotopic dating results as "unreliable" or "meaningless". Which, if it were the case, would predict a random, meaningless, array of dates for the age of the earth. Yet he's been shown volumes of data that all converge on the same remarkably narrow age: 4.55 x 10^9 years.

Which brings us back to the Dalrymple quote, and Davie's artful editing of it. I believe Davie's hilariously lame response to the obvious question is "cherry-picking".  So Davie is accusing Dalrymple (and the entire scientific community, for that matter) of the most contemptible sort of malfeasance when they point out, as Dalrymple did in the quote, that samples are selected before analysis.

I'm seriously considering using highlights from this thread for the very purpose Davie claims to be passionate about: teaching kids. I'm convinced that any high-school science student incapaple of recognizing the difference between "science" and "deluded zealotry" is beyond the reach of more sophisticated logic, and should probably not be wasting the time of science teachers anyway.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,06:21

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,11:41)
ericmurphy:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Touché GoP.  Touché.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2006,06:44

Since we're posting lists
A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
(1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
(2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
(3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
(4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
(9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
(10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
(11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
(12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
(14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
(16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
(17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
(18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
(20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(21)  Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(23)  How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(24)  If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(25)  Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft")
(26)  You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
(29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
(30)  Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
(31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
(33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
(37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

> This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
(38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
(39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
(40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
(41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
(42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
(43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
(44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
(45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
(46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
(47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
(48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
(49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
(50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?

I would accept a global stratum that indicates a global flood. Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
What creationists do is wave their delicate hands at ALL sedimentary layers and say "that MIGHT be one" without EVER clearly saying "here is the preflood basement...here's layer(s) X that were laid during the flood...and here are post-flood depositions."
Continents zooming around clearly did not occur 4300 years ago, nor is there any indication of a post-flood "ice age" which happened while the Egyptians and many others were still literate and writing. I'd accept a global strata, evidence of a massive die-off at that time, including freshwater fish, insects, plants, annelids, etc. but the fact is that no such layer can be shown to exist.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 23 2006,07:05

Let me be even more direct: I have no ideological inherent bias against the notion of a "flood" or a young earth for that matter. If such things were so, then the data would clearly indicate it. There would BE loud, clear unambiguous evidence of it everywhere. There would be short-half-life isotopes naturally occurring, there would be a global stratum, since floodwater carries suspended materials. There would be NO post-flood Egyptian or Sumerian civilizations. And a thousand other concordant facts. But NONE of those things are apparent, hence my rejection of this "hypothesis that is better than any other" since it has no factual basis.

Instead what there is evidence of is unfalsifiable fantasies by creationists--a flood that originates from water sources that "collapsed" and are therefore invisible now...a flood that left no clear traces that any creationist can clearly define....and  floodwaters that SHOT OFF INTO SPACE vanishing mysteriously. None of these things left a trace, they all are unfalsifiable, they all have no evidence at all to support them...but they are the mainstay of YEC (Christian) claims.

Creationists like Dave have no choice but to be dishonest, since the data is by far against them, yet he'll pretend to "win" arguments he knows nothing about, he'll repost a list of things he claims to have shown..while never having addressed directly those issues or any of the counterarguments directly under questioning. Anyone that reads the threads can see this is so, regardless of their views on YEC-ism, if they are honest.

As I said, I have no inherent bias against AirHead's claims, I was not born with a chip in my head forcing me to agree with an old earth, I am skeptical enough to reject claims that have sufficient evidence against them -- and theoretically, that COULD mean that I would reject an old-earth timeline...but the data is not against an old earth, it is clearly in opposition to AirHead's cartoon version of history.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,07:27

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.

AFDave,
Don't hold back.  State what you truly < believe > about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.

Mike PSS
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 23 2006,09:01

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops!  Looks like he < already has >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah and if your meter is off by 5 orders of magnitude because you close your eyes to the possibility of a Creation event and a Flood event that might have caused accelerated decay, then you can take a BILLION measurements and you'll be wrong a BILLION times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< And again >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The RATE Group claims that there is direct observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period in the past--we will be looking at this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And radiohaloes?  Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, we will be moving on to Uranium and Polonium radiohalos, which, according to ICR, provide direct, observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period of time in the past ... we shall see!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 23 2006,09:09

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,15:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops!  Looks like he < already has >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I stand humbly corrected in awe of your search prowess.

AFDave,
You missed (at least) one:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


21) You have been shown that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.  (i.e. Portuguese = French + Spanish  and you didn't think I knew math!!!;))
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 23 2006,10:28

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,12:00

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, this is the evidence I would expect to see if Dave's "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis" were correct:

  • Evidence that there was ever enough water to produce a layer of water approximately 5,000 feet above current sea level (this is a tough one to pin Dave down on, because he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that even without taking mountain ranges into account, continental terrain varies between a few hundred feet below sea level and ~5,000 above sea level, and he's never been able to account for such variation, even with continents rushing around at hundreds of miles an hour). I would want a description in detail of where the water originated from, how it got there to begin with, how it supported the weight of the rock above it and managed to remain in liquid form, and what is now in the place where that mile-thick layer of water used to be.
  • Evidence of where and how that water got to the surface. Given that several billion cubic kilometers were ejected from some distance beneath the surface into the atmosphere, there should be some evidence of escape routes for the water, which would have eroded hardly at all in less than 5,000 years.
  • An accounting for what happened to the water after the flood ended. I.e., where did it drain to? Or was it ejected into outer space?
  • A global layer of sediment laid entirely by water, datable to ~4,500 ya (Dave can use any method outside of reference to the Bible for dating this sediment), consistent with a layer of water between 5,000–7,500 feet (i.e., 5,000 or more feet of sediment is inconsistent with a layer of water 5,000 feet deep) above sea level.
  • Evidence that every human settlement in existence at the time (c. 2,500 B.C.) was utterly destroyed by a mile-deep layer of water.
  • A layer of partially-fossilized remains of holocene organisms (and no others) concentrated in the layer of sediment deposited by the flood, in no particular order, since the kind of turbulence associated with a mile-deep layer of water deposited in less than a year would certainly not allow for any sort of "hydraulic sorting."
  • Much smaller diversity in living organisms than we currently observe, since 4,500 years is nowhere near enough time for several tens of thousands of "kinds" of organisms to have radiated into the tens of millions of species observed today, aside from some sort of ultra-macro-hyper-evolution far beyond anything asserted by evolutionary theory.
  • All mountain chains worldwide should show the same amount of (very little) erosion, because 1) they'd be only a few thousand years old, and 2) they're all post-flood, so none of the accelerated erosional forces Dave assumes would be available.
  • Very little in the way of sea life, due to the huge dilution of seawater by fresh-water rain, unless Dave claims the floodwaters were seawater, in which case there should be almost no freshwater fish, molluscs, or crustaceans.
  • Evidence of a genetic "bottleneck" in not only humans, but in all organisms, datable to less than 5,000 years ago. There should be very little genetic variability among humans (to say nothing of other organisms), since 5,000 years is not enough time for much genetic variation to accumulate.

These are just a few things I could think of in ten minutes or so. Anyone else, feel free to add, but I should point out that the absence of just a few of these pieces of evidence is more than sufficient to completely falsify Dave's "hypothesis."

I should also point out that since it's Dave's hypothesis, it's his job to come up with evidence to falsify it, not ours, and he has never done so. Evidently he doesn't think it's possible to falsify it, which would be in accord with his statements so far.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 23 2006,13:04

Also lots of discontinuities between fossils just below the flood level, compared to what lives/lived after the flood - on each island, continent, body of water, or other isolated region.

Ice caps should be no deeper than expected from < 4500 yr. accumulation.

Henry
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 23 2006,13:27

This is actually very useful.  Having come in so late to the conversation I never went back and read the previous 200 pages so I never saw the original hypothesis.  Just want to look at one point and that is section K:

The recording by Adam and Seth of these events that were passed down to Moses...

gonna need a reference on this one, in fact I don't think I've ever heard this before.  Can you supply some more info please?
Posted by: bystander on Sep. 23 2006,15:32

I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either)

1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size?

2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come?

Jordan (age 9)
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 23 2006,18:09

Dave,

You never answered...

Does the sun revolve around the earth?....Is the earth the center of the universe?

It's in the Bible...spit it out.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 23 2006,18:14

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paley,

You're like the third man in, in a hockey fight.  A born coward/pussy....pick you term.

How about posting something that proves 6000 year Creation.  Back it up or piss off.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 23 2006,18:28

I'm happy to report that the page just rolled over with no 'new page bug'.

cheers!

(shot of lime vodka with pomegranate juice)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 23 2006,19:30

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 23 2006,20:32)
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pretty embarrassing, isn't it, Dave, that a 9-year-old can ask questions about your "hypothesis" that you can't answer.

But you believe your hypothesis is correct because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of it." Except you can't remember what any of that evidence is…
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 24 2006,00:56

DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.  I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.  I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

WHO'S THE REAL REGURGITATORS?
JonF...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.  

ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
You are correct that all the hoopla about excess Ar etc is NA if accelerated decay happened, but one of my goals is simply to get people thinking ... and pointing out that they have swallowed a very popular myth for many years is a good way to do it.  Some of you will say "Hmmmm ... I used to think Argon dating was accurate, but look at this evidence, and look at that evidence ... wow, I guess not.  I wonder what ELSE I've been taught is wrong."  IF accelerated decay happened, it happened mostly before life was created.

MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.  So they are miracles to US, but not to the Being performing them.  A native in the middle of deep dark Africa might think that our technology is magic also.  And to him it is.  But to us it is not because we understand it.  So let's quit spouting nonsense about "magic" and "miracles" shall we?

*******************************

Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Skeptic ... p. 82 of the old thread answers your question very thoroughly.  Hopefully a downloadable text file will be available soon.  I also hope to rev up my blog and post these things for reference over there.

Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 24 2006,01:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting. Can your hypothesis explain this?

Posted by: afdave on Sep. 24 2006,01:09

STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 24 2006,01:41

There aren't enough details four you, Davey? You have a model but you're not quite sure whether it fits the 65-135 Myear-old crust near the shoreline and you want to be sure it's not 64-134 million years? Man, I wish I had an irony-meter. :D
You could just give your typical explanation like "accelerated decay made the tectonic plates look older than they are, tada!". And then "we have successfully covered plate tectonics, blah blah... I declare victory. :)"

Since you seem a bit lazy : < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading >
Posted by: tiredofthesos on Sep. 24 2006,02:16

:angry: "He's all over the place! 900 feet to 1300 feet!?!  What an #######!"   Airplane

 Part TWO!!!!  NOOOooooo!!!!!

 This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.

 Let him be remembered as the dumbest troll ever, with a permanent link to "Part 1" as his headstone (perhaps one like those painted styrofoam ones at the "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" tourist traps: "Here lies [how apt a metaphor!] Les Moore..."). but let it die!!!!!! :O
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 24 2006,02:56

Dave,

"FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?"

Now who is being disingenuous?  Are you attempting to interpret the written word of God?

So that whole Galileo being tossed in prison was just about turn of phrase??? Can't have it both ways.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2006,03:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, like flying hydroplates of continents zipping around the Earth at speeds that would boil off every drop of water on the planet.
Or accellerated decay.
Or "fountains of the deep " that mysteriously vanished...
and floodwaters that flew off into space.
And a global flood that left no identifiable global strata, nor can any creationist identify the beginning of the flood anywhere by strata.
Or how about that testable hypothesis about "God created the Earth 6000 years ago?"
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of accellerated speciation that resulted in millions of new species in a two thousand year span?
Or how about that ice age that happened after the flood that NO ONE in history ever wrote about?
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of dinos that lived..AFTER the flood, 'cause NOAH, according to DumbAssDave...had dinos on the ark!! BWAHAHAHA
Yeah, real "testable" stuff there, Stupid.
By the way, AirHead, I love your pretense at "being scientific" after you fail to show how to falsify your hypothesis
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,03:59

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you AFDave for admitting that the science of crystal formation is valid in your worldview.  The question wasn't meant to be "STUPID", only to establish a baseline that we both can agree upon.

My point in asking this (and other) questions goes back to your arguments in p.194 - p.202 of the 1st thread.  You (and Arndts and Overn) say you can't have a whole rock Isochron sample vary it's Rb/Sr ratio but the science of crystal formation directly contradicts your claim.

If you wish to carry on with your "ALL ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES" claim then you have to show how the science of crystal formation supports your claim.

MANY (remember that definition) people warned you that you probably didn't know enough information to argue about Isochrons.  There are enough knowledgable people here to reveal what learning is required to understand this stuff.  However, your latest diatribe against "millionofyearsism" is troubling for this idea....
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll leave this for another day.

Mike PSS
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 24 2006,04:54

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No problem here, Davie-dip; takes a minute or two to load (with images turned off) and search isn't really zippy, but it works.

Of course, if you're searching for answers to the tough questions that you've already given, you ain't gonna find any.  Hee hee hee hee..


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HTML is a text file, Davie-doodles, which you can open in Wordpad or Notepad.  It's not as nicely formatted as it is in a web browser, but all the text is there.

I'll see what I can do.

No matter how you slice it, it's a big file.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, but he didn't find any answers to questions, like "where'd the heat go?" and "what shielded Noah from the radioactive atoms in his own body, and in the animals, and in the gopherwood?".
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until you have evidence for this alleged high technology, it's arm-waving and invocation of magic.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where they'll find you just asserted, provided no evidence, and ran away from the questions (e.g. < Message 30422 >:
Quote (Jonf @ Sep. 3 2006,11:22)
OTOH,creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of the fossil record other than magic; the so-called "creationist explanations" for the order in the fossil record (differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation) fall apart when examined.

Let's look at grass and fern pollen.  Grass and ferns grow pretty much everywhere that any plant grows on land.  Grass doesn't run very fast, and ferns are famed for their lack of running ability.  Grass pollen has the same hydrodynamic properties as fern pollen.  

But fern pollen is found in abundance in strata from circa 400 million years ago to the present, and grass pollen is only found in strata from circa 70 million years ago to the present.

How did that grass pollen get sorted out, Davie-diddles?

Or take plesiosaurs and dolphins.   They live (or lived) in the same environment, moved the same way, and have the same hydrodynamic properties.  Plesiosaur fossils are found in strata from 200-65 million years old and no more recent, dolphin fossils are found in strata from 13 million years old to the present.  How did that happen, Davie-poot?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Explain those, Davie-dumpling.  You haven't. You can't.

Your hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation, differential escape, or any combination thereof is falsified by the observed patterns of fossils.

And, of course, I found that by searching the downloaded copy in Notepad.  No problem.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Running away again, hum, Davie-moron?  You finally realized that you did claim, multiple times, that a horizontal-line whole-rock isochron cannot be obtained from fresh lava, and that's your (and Arndts and Overn's) entire argument against whole-rock isochrons?  And that your claim is falsified by Snellings's, a creationist's, data?  And that this proves yet again that creationists think of everything in isolation, never cross-comparing?

Did you finally figure out what significant figures are?  Still got a problem with Dalrymple's numbers?  

Got any defense for the scaling of your graph of Snelling's data, other than "Davie's too dumb to figure out an appropriate scale and doesn't have a prayer of figuring out how to implement one in Excel"?

And, of course, the problems that terrify Dave beyond any others 'cause he can't address 'em:

  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.


Let's say that again, Davie-pootles:  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern of concordance is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.  Your hypothesis doesn't explain the observed patterns.

So, to summarize what we've learned of radiometric dating so far:

  • A few rocks have excess argon which screws up K-Ar dating, but most do not.
  • There is no reason to suspect that even a majority of K-Ar dates are wrong.
  • Snelling's study of isotope systematics is irrelevant,  his claims are not supported by his data, and the claims are falsified by easily-available evidence.
  • The claim that any whole-rock isochron must initially start as a point on an isochron diagram (unless it is a result of mixing) is false.
  • There is no evidence that any appreciable number of whole-rock isochrons are not true indications of the age of the rocks.
  • There is lots of evidence that the vast majority of whole-rock isochrons are not the result of mixing, but rather are the result of radiaoctive decay in-situ over millions to billions of years.
  • Davie's young Earth is falsified.

Hee hee hee hee..

Hey, Davie, bet you're even more ignorant of concordia-discordia than you were of isochrons.  What do you wanna bet?  Hee hee hee hee...
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 24 2006,05:41

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave.  And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible.  That's excellent progress, Dave my boy!

Now I want you to try expanding on that concept.  Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,06:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,05:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I have a searchable copy of the entire first thread (it's a webarchive format readable—and searchable—by Mac OS X's Safari web browser), so I know for fact that, e.g., you never even discussed the evolution of whales anywhere on this thread. At least when it comes to me, you can run, but you can't hide, and you can't lie about what you have and have not "proven," or even discussed.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I've looked at Walt Brown's Hydroplate "Theory" and various rebuttals of it, and I am well aware that 1) the "theory" is impossible on its face, and requires multiple miracles for it to have happened the way Dr. Brown claims it happened, and 2) there is no evidence, from geology, paleontology, or any other field, that Brown's claims are accurate. And just for review, Dave, you might want to read < this > again, assuming you ever read it in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what Brown may think happened, he hasn't presented any actual evidence that it happened that way, and he presents none of the evidence I said I would need to credit a "global catastrophic flood hypothesis." In other words, he's answered none of my questions. If you think he has, feel free to post it here. Remember, this is your hypothesis, and it's not my job to hunt around for evidence supporting it; it's yours. If you can find any evidence at all of the kind I told Bill I would need to credit your "hypothesis," I strongly urge you to post it. You claim you've already seen such evidence, so it shouldn't take long to find it.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Sep. 24 2006,07:43

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Sep. 24 2006,07:16)
This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Easy there fella!  As a (mostly) lurker, I can certainly agree with this sentiment.  However, if you take Dave seriously, you'll most likely go insane or be filled with revulsion!  His value lies (aptly) in taking him humorously.  How could anyone be so astoundingly, moronically, and irrationally stupid?  And all in the name of some magic sky-pixie dictator fantasy worship?!?!?  It boggles the mind!  You simply can't script this kind of humor.

Back in the 80's I used to watch televangelists just for laughs.  I found most of them to be hilariously funny.  Unfortunately, I don't have cable now so don't get to see much of them.  And, not surprisingly, Dave has taken their place for me in the humor department.  So I say let him drool and distort and wiggle and twist.  He's a great example of why I would never freely choose to be religious, in general, or Christian, in particular. Yes, he can be trying at times, but generally, I love the laughs.  I also appreciate the wit, humor, and knowledge of those who engage him on a regular basis.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 24 2006,07:56

Bwhahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehe.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  by lies for kids AFD
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




AFD you lying piece of ****.


You hold all evidence in total contempt,

You are pathologically incapable of accepting the rules of evidence.

If you were in a court you would be put away for contempt, for being the recalcitrant liar you are.

You and your fellow blow hard scam artists aka creationists, reduce your religion to nothing more than an ignorance peddling criminal activity.
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 24 2006,09:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:09)
... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After having read about 150 pages of the previous thread, I assure you that you are in no position to be able to do this.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 24 2006,09:12

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Super.  Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,10:53

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I'd take this opportunity to show, once again, how much of a liar Dave really is. He claims to have already covered < these > 20 topics. I've already < shown > he hasn't even begun to prove any of these assertions, or even present any evidence for them, but I thought I'd show how much of a liar is with one of them in more detail.

As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread, but it's hard to prove a negative without posting all 20-some megabytes of the entire thread. But I can provide affirmative evidence that dave is lying when he says "No one has ever showed [sic] me how the LCA [of humans, chimps, and gorillas] of 8 my was arrived at."

In other words, Dave claims he hasn't been shown any evidence for the assertion that humans, chimps, and gorillas have a common ancestor. Now, if he'd said he didn't believe that evidence, that would be one thing. But let's see what incorygible had to say on the subject back in May, in a < post > that I think deserved something along the lines of talk.origins "post of the month" award:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, while you're parsing the sequence similarities between chimps, humans and gorillas, I have this nagging fear that once again you're going to miss the point.  Those similarities are interesting, but they aren't as relevant as this is going to be.  (I nevertheless eagerly await your response.)

In the meantime, please pay attention to this post.  It’s going to be long, but I’m really going to try to meet you halfway.  It is often said by some overzealous "evolutionists" that Creationism makes no testable predictions.  While this is often true (“goddidit” predicts nothing), it is by no means universal: there are many places where Creationists say “goddiditthisway”.  We’re going to talk about one of those.  The age of the earth is another great example yet to come, but we’re going to talk about the relationship between humans and (other) apes.  We’re going to assume that your theory (I’ll bite the bullet and avoid the scare-quotes) is, as you have claimed many times, “just as good” as ours.  We’re going to use our respective theories to make predictions.  You game?

A few notes before we begin:  When I make predictions on your behalf regarding Creation theory, I will disregard age of the earth, resulting rates of mutation, etc., and assume only the following (correct me if I’m wrong on either): (1) God originally created a human kind and an ape kind, the latter of which includes gorillas and chimpanzees; and (2) DNA is a valuable tool for examining and comparing exactly how God designed his creations.  Are you okay with those?  I will use parentheses to denote phylogenies, with H=humans, C=chimpanzees, G=gorillas.  For example, (H(CG)) represents a phylogeny where chimps and gorillas are most similar and humans are an outgroup, whereas (G(HC)) represents a phylogeny where humans and chimps are most similar and gorillas are an outgroup.  Finally, note that when we talk about frequencies of predicted phylogenies below, these are the percentages of sequences for which two species are predicted to be more closely related than the third.  These percentages are not the same as actual sequence similarity.  In other words, don’t get confused with the percentages below and the percentage sequence similarities in my earlier post – they’re related, in that the percentages we’re talking about here reflect how often chimps are more similar to gorillas, etc., but they are not the same thing.

All good?  Away we go.

Let’s assume it is 1985, and you and I are in a coffee shop having a congenial scientific discussion about the new-fangled genetic technology that is just being developed (and won’t really come into its own for another 10-20 years or so).  We’ve been over the same old ground many times about your Creation theory and my theory of evolution, including why you distrust dating methods, why you distrust the fossil record, etc.  These are accepted areas of disagreement.  Today (1985), we’re going to use our theories to predict what genetics will reveal about the relationships between humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Specifically, we’re interested in novel mutations.  We both believe these are random changes in the genome.  I think they are responsible (along with natural selection and a host of other mechanisms) for the diversity of life on earth, whereas you think they reflect degeneration of God’s Creation since the Fall.  This disagreement in views won’t matter.  Since we only have the back of the envelope, we’re going to simplify mutation as completely random changes in any sequence of DNA that occur at the same rate in each of our three species.  We’re going to assume that the rate at which these random novel mutations accumulate is dependent only upon time, but we’re going to keep time relative (so as to avoid that whole millions vs. thousands of years problem).

We start with a few null hypotheses that neither of us believes.  We believe genetics will reveal some sort of phylogenetic relationship (as opposed to none, or a purely random relationship).  For example, from the evolutionary perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were unrelated, or if they diverged from a common ancestor at the exact same time, I might predict that when we look at their genomes, 1/3 of my predicted phylogenies would be (H(CG)), 1/3 would be (C(HG)), and 1/3 would be (G(CH)).  However, the fossil record gives me good reason not to believe the null hypothesis (which doesn’t mean we don’t check it!.  Similarly, from a Creationist perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were created as separate kinds, you might predict the same 1/3 for each phylogeny.  However, you believe chimps and gorillas were created as part of a single “ape” kind, and even if they weren’t, you might predict “common design” to create the appearance of relationships that would refute the null hypothesis.

So I start with my Theory of Evolution prediction, based on what we know of the fossil record in 1985 (the timelines have changed a bit since then).

Predicted initial conditions:  Humans, chimps and gorillas shared a common ancestor as recent as approximately 8 million years ago.  From that LCA (8 mya), the gorillas diverged from the line that would eventually become both humans and chimps.  Humans and chimps themselves diverged about 5 million years ago.

Predicted genetic relationships:  If we assume random, time-based mutations occurring independently in each line, then we can expect that each of the three phylogenies may be produced, depending on the sequence we are looking at.  For example, if a novel mutation in a given sequence occurs independently in the human line, than phylogenies based on that sequence will group chimps and gorillas: (H(CG)).  If the mutation occurs in the gorilla line, the sequence will group humans and chimps (G(CH)).  However, we should be able to roughly estimate the frequencies at which these predicted phylogenies will occur, based on the ancestry pattern found in the fossil record and the relative timeframes for each lineage to mutate.

As in our null hypotheses, if they all diverged from the LCA at the same time, we would predict a 33% occurrence of each "tree".  However, I believe they diverged in the manner and times above.  Chimps and humans shared a lineage for 3 million of the 8 million total years, and this would tend to increase the frequency of (G(HC)) phylogenies by an amount we can estimate.  I therefore predict the following frequency of phylogenies:

(G(HC)) = 39% (from independent mutations in the gorilla line: 0.5*(3/8)+0.33*(5/8)) + 19% (from accumulation of mutations in the shared human-chimp line: 0.5*(3/8) = 58%

(C(HG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the chimp line: 0.33*(5/8))

(H(CG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the human line: 0.33*(5/8))

So I predict 58% of the sequences we look at will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas, 21% will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and 21% will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans.

You then counter with Creationist Theory.

Initial conditions: the human kind and the ape kind were separately created, and never shared a common ancestor.  Already we’re in trouble, because we have no information on the genome of those two ancestral kinds.  We have reason to suspect they were similar (common design, like Escorts and Tauri in 1985), but we don’t know how similar.  We can’t do the same kind of relative calculations that I did by assuming one common ancestor (which do not require knowledge of its actual genome, just that it was shared).  However, we do know that any differences between these two ancestral kinds should inflate the frequency of (H(CG)) phylogenies predicted.  So right from the initial conditions, you predict that, when we look at a lot of genes to get overall frequencies, the predicted frequency of the relationship (H(CG)) will be greater than 33%.

Creationist Prediction:  We don’t have any information on when (relative to initial Creation – actual years don’t matter for this) chimpanzees and gorillas diverged via “microevolution” (changes within a Created kind).  However, we know it was some time since the Fall.  Without relative time-spans like I had, we can’t do similar estimates like I did, but we can predict that the shared ancestry of chimps and gorillas prior to divergence will increase the frequencies of (H(CG)) even further (as it did for the (G(HC)) phylogenies in my example).

So you end up predicting that more than (far more than?) 33% of sequences we look at will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans, less than 33% of sequences will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and less than 33% of sequences will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas.

So, armed with our predictions, we meet back up in a bar 20 years later to discuss the results.  I bring along some papers from the prolific new genetics literature.  Specifically, I show you the following:

Satta, Y., J. Klein, and N. Takahata. 2000. DNA archives and our nearest relative: the trichotomy problem revisited. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 14:259–275.

Chen, F.-C., and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68:444–456.

O’hUigin, C., Y. Satta, N. Takahata, and J. Klein. 2002. Contribution of homoplasy and of ancestral polymorphism to the evolution of genes in anthropoid primates. Mol. Biol.
Evol. 19:1501–1513.

Kitano et al. 2004. Human-Specific Amino Acid Changes Found in 103 Protein-Coding Genes. Mol. Biol. Evol.:936-944.

Combined, these studies examined hundreds of sequences for their predicted phylogenies.  Each one found that, on average, approximately 60% of these sequences predicted the (G(HC)) tree (i.e., humans and chimps closer to each other than to gorillas), and the remaining 40% predicted the remaining two trees in roughly equal frequencies (i.e., humans and gorillas closer to each other than to chimps, and chimps and gorillas closer to each other than to humans).  (You can look this up if you don’t believe me Dave – I’m more than halfway here.)

I order you a double scotch (you’re gonna need it! as we pull out the faded napkin and look at our predictions.

If you’re still with me, here’s the pop quiz:

What did Creation theory predict?

What did the ToE predict?

What did we actually see?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, Dave—still saying it's ridiculous to claim that apes and humans have a common ancestor? Or that no one showed you how a date of 8 mya was arrived at?

Of course, on one level it is absurd to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor, because humans are apes. But I can fix that by asserting that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. I know saying that makes Dave's blood boil, but that's why it's so much fun to say it!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,12:32

I notice that AFDave's posts are a bit more shrill and contain a bit less truthiness.  I think this little exchange is going on in the background (a la Top Gun).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kids4Truth: “WHAT? WHERE'RE YOU--HEY, WHY THE HECK DON’T YOU POST?”

AFDave: “MY ARGUMENT DIDN'T ... AHHH...LOOK GOOD.”

Kids4Truth: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT DOESN'T GET TO LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN THAT?”

AFDave: “NO. NO GOOD.”


{Later at the water cooler…}
Ken Ham walks up to Andrew Snelling who waits near a Piltdown Man replica.

A. Snelling: “He just won't engage. He can't do it, Skipper. He can't get back on the horse.”

K. Ham: “It's only been a day. Keep sending him our reports.”

A. Snelling: “I've seen this before.”

K. Ham: “So have I.”

A. Snelling: “Some guys never get their cognitive dissonance back.”

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,15:02

Dave, a couple of posts ago I asked you to present evidence for the outlets of the "fountains of the deep" water that produced your flood. I said that in the last 4,500 years they should not have eroded very much, and should be easy to locate.

So where are they?

4,500 years ago isn't very long ago, and these suckers should be huge to have disgorged several hundred million cubic kilometers of water in a matter of a few hours, according to Walt Brown.

So where are they?

By way of contrast, Dave, the < Chicxulub crater > dates to 65 million years ago, and it's underwater, but it took less than 10 years of looking to locate it.

And by the way, here's a list of evidence for the impact:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

  • The iridium excess in the 65 My-old soil layer has been confirmed at many points around the world.
  • The same soil layer contains grains of quartz that were deformed by high shock pressures, as would occur in a giant explosion. (The deformation is a microscopic structure called "twinning," in the crystals).
  • The same soil layer contains enough soot to correspond to burning down all of the forests of the world. This suggests that massive fires were touched off at the time of impact.
  • The same soil layer, especially around the Gulf of Mexico, contains massive deposits of tumbled boulders, as would be generated in a large tsunami, or "tidal wave." The geographic distribution of tsunami deposits suggest the impact was in the Caribbean area.
  • After a decade of searching, scientists in 1990 identified the crater associated with this material. It is no longer visible on the surface of the Earth, but is buried under sediments. It straddles the coast of Yucatan. It is revealed by mapping the strength of the gravity field over that area, and by drilling; it has been dated to 65 My old.
  • Astronomers have charted numerous asteroids that cross Earth's orbit. From studies of orbit statistics, it is estimated that asteroids of 10 km size can hit the earth roughly every 100 My or so -- which fits with the idea that we actually did get hit 65 My ago by an object this size. (Smaller hits are much more common).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And just so you know, Dave: that list is an example of what "evidence" looks like. You know, that thing you've been unable to provide in support of your "hypothesis" for the past five months? Now, I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but you cannot deny that evidence has, in fact, been supplied. This stands in stark contrast to your inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for a flood, or a young earth, or indeed any other assertion you've made, that isn't far, far better explained by alternative theories.

But let's not get sidetracked here: WHERE ARE THE OUTLETS FOR THE "FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP," Dave?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 24 2006,15:52

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in < AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him >.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,16:59

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 24 2006,20:52)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
   
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I < stated > earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in < AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I found it. It's your typical argument from incredulity. Dave himself doesn't find the evidence that whales are descended from land mammals persuasive, based on his extensive background in paleontology, comparative anatomy, and cladistics.

He sure convinced me. I'd certainly expect an undergraduate EE to be able to look at web graphics depicting fossilized remains and determine cladistic relationships from them.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 24 2006,17:13

AFDave,
Let's kick it up a notch and start putting some of the pieces of the sciences together to get a clearer picture of what is going on in Isochrons.

You accept the science of crystalization.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably,{snip}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I asked this question because I wanted a baseline of agreement for our discussion.

I'm going to use an example at University of Wisconsin-River Falls Dept. of Planet and Earth Sciences.  Nothing special about this selection, just near the top of the Google search for "Olivine mineral formation".  One < member of the faculty > is a PhD of geology in the department.  Who he is doesn't matter for my point, BUT he has co-authored an article about the subject we are talking about, BUT we won't discuss ages or time just yet.  I'm just showing that this particular reference is valid to our discussion.              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{snip}, 1976, "Rb-Sr Geochronology of Granite Gneiss from Horse Creek, Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana", Geochron West, Summer, p. 49.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The department has < catalogued > a lot of Wisconsin minerals but I want to point to < Olivine > specifically since this mineral is found in magmas AND in chondritic meteorites (remember the Minster graph?).  The Olivine page lists the identified locations of Olivine found in Wisconsin.  The entries are by county and indicate platte map references for location so any other geologist who is searching for this particular mineral can "find it quite easily" (a relative statement I'm sure). Notice that the Olivine page (and the other mineral pages) don't mention age or time, only location and geographic structure.  The site also has a bibliography of numerous references < here >, < here >, < and here. >

The Olivine page also has this heading: OLIVINE (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 Orthorhombic.  Ignore the chemical formulae for now, we can get to that later.  However, notice the "Orthorhomibic" entry because this describes the crystal structure of Olivine.  In fact, almost all the entries in the < list of minerals > have a heading with a specified crystal structure of the mineral.

So.... Olivine is a crystaline mineral with orthorhombic structure found in numerous places in Wisconsin and catalogued extensively.  Nothing hypothetical about this information that I can see.  I'm going to end my boring entry right now since there is enough corroberrated information above to ask a NOT-SO-STUPID question.

AFDave,
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?


If we can agree on the structural mechanics of Olivine then we can start on the chemistry.  Are you still game to continue with discussing Isochrons?
Mike PSS
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2006,17:53

Oi, man. I hadn't read all of Stupid's "AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution " thread before...hah, he started out there just as arrogant and stupid as he did on the original thread of this. And got slapped around just as easily.
In particular, this claim set me laughing:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahaha. He abandoned that crap as soon as he could, after getting batted around like a pinata--he can't even claim a shred of "scientific" evidence at all, since his hypothesis isn't falsifiable and isn't science. What a wanker. I'll be glad when one of his kids grows up and learns enough to spit in his smug, stupid face (metaphorically speaking, of course, hahaha). $500 bets on "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"...hahahaha, oh, man. That's almost as funny as him getting caught lying so many times. And quote-mining. And changing his claims. And running from data. And faking "data."
AirHeadDave is clear proof that being a creationist means you HAVE to lie -- he has no other option.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 24 2006,18:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 24 2006,18:56

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paley, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for the Sun revolving around the Earth and a 6,000 year old universe. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 25 2006,02:45

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,00:38)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I have found so interesting in this thread is how our resident YEC has tried to use the "paragons of YEC" at AIG and ICR to support his arguments yet someone like myself with an undergrad education and some time in my field can overcome these arguments with LITTLE effort.  Some critical analysis of the YEC papers is all you need to shoot down their claims.

In AFDave's present train wreck called Isochrons I'm not even trying hard to find references or facts to support my claims, yet what little I find and use is damning to AFDave's argument.

C'mon Dave!
Give us something tough!
Your wrong about Isochrons!
Post some more evidence from many different disciplines!


Mike PSS
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 25 2006,03:44

Mike PSS

Right now lies 4 kids AFD is in the middle of compiling one of his long screeds of utter vomit.

Like the mythical Cyclops he believes he is a giant among men, even though he is half blind and easily fooled.

AFD thrives on the energy of others, he literally craves to be told he is a lying, contempable arsehole.

Evidence? You will never get any from him, lies yes.

Now back to our reularly scheduled program.

Take it away..... lies 4 kids AFD.......
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,04:27

Thanks for the legwork (and kind words) in digging up that post, Eric.  However, since that whole exercise started from an LCA estimated at 8 mya, and Dave has (for four months now) tried to weasel out of the questions posed in that post with his, "You never told me where you got 8 mya" (as if that was particularly relevant to the qualitative issue at hand), I will follow with a simple demonstration of how egregiously Dave is lying in his #2.

First, let's restate Dave's claim from September 23:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Eric posts a response of mine to the first part. (I'll also refer to this < post >, which details genetic differences between humans and other apes, and was the source of the infamous "all you've got is 1%?!" argument.) As for Dave's second claim (and when humans and other apes diverged from a common ancestor is most definitely a secondary question Dave wants to distract us with, as opposed to the primary fact that they did), I submit the following:

First, my < post > on May 27 probably provided sufficient documentation for my methods to at least back down on any "how did you get THAT value" claim:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, are you engaging?  This must be some kind of trick!  I wasn't going to reply further, but this is a fair question.  Unfortunately, I can only give you a general answer at the moment.

To get my estimates from the fossil record (and I should have been more accurate and said anything "non-genetic"), I initially searched ISI Web of Science abstracts from 1976-1985.  Unfortunately, I couldn't immediately find the information I was looking for in the abstracts themselves with a few quick search strings.  Online publication access doesn't generally go back that far (so I couldn't read the full papers I wanted to read), and you'll forgive me if I wasn't about to take any more time away from my actual work to trek across campus to the stacks.  Luckily, our lab library has a dusty shelf of old texts on human evolution (everything from Louis Leaky to Desmond Morris).  I picked an old physical anthropology textbook off the shelf (looked to be for an old undergrad course).  If I recall correctly, it was a 2nd edition published in 1987, which I figured was close enough.  I know the simplified numbers I used were the midpoints of ranges (4-6 mya and 5-10 mya, IIRC).  However, for the exact bibliographic information, you'll have to wait until I'm actually back in the lab (middle of next week) and get a chance to look it up again.  Okay?

In the meantime, maybe you could start on explaining why the Creation Theory prediction was QUALITATIVELY wrong?

Thanks.

Edit: Also, Dave, please keep in mind that I know those numbers have changed (and say so in my original post).  For example, Dawkins (2004) gives 6 mya for chimps and 7 mya for gorillas, which would have made the numbers match up less well.  What actually matters isn't the mya, but the time shared vs. time separate.  For example, 3/8 shared (HC) that I used in our back-of-the-envelope calculation, vs. 1/7 shared (HC) that I would use if I started from Dawkins.  So the value of the numbers I arrived at, while remarkably close to the genetic data, is probably just a coincidence, and could easily have been different (and I am well aware of this).  So fun as it was to think that, if I had that textbook in '85 and had made my prediction, I would have been bang-on, this isn't really the point (kind of a fluke).  The point is that evolutionary theory points us in the right direction (and gets us pretty close), and creation theory points us in the wrong direction.  I'd be grateful if you could address that.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



However, were that not sufficient, my < post > on May 29 answered his question fully (in more than enough detail for anyone honest to abandon claims that it had not been answered):

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
FYI (the source of my info in the little prediction exercise):

Lewin, R. 1984. Human Evolution: an illustrated introduction. Freeman, New York.

Stein, P.L. and Rowe, B.M. 1989. Physical Anthropology (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill , New York.

The Lewin text provides some good estimates of time bp (including the 5-10 and 4-6 that I ended up using), whereas Stein and Rowe further review fossil finds, comparative morphology, early protein sequence data, etc., and provide a series of (sometimes conflicting and often uncertain) dates (e.g., compare chapters 13 and 14), including those above).  Interestingly, back then, the timeline with gorillas splitting off earlier was the new kid on the block in the marketplace of ideas, though I get the feeling it had more traction in the primary literature than in undergrad texts.  Stein and Rowe still seemed to settle on placing gorillas in Panidae with chimps, but highlighted this was questionable.  Lewin's second edition (1989) is updated to less equivocally show the gorillas branching off first.

In framing my prediction, I ran with this "new" perspective (I could be accused of employing the benefit of hindsight, to be sure, but it beats wilfull blindness).  I suppose I could have gone with the old timeline (or the general uncertainty at the time), and run into the same problem as Dave's CGH (i.e., predicting more similarity between gorillas and chimps, or no definitive prediction at all).  Of course, in our little scenario, I would have revised that theory when the data came in (just as the field actually did -- hello, science!;), while the baraminology sect would continue to hide, deny and obfuscate their little "theory" right up until now.

Anyhow, as only one key participant in this discussion seems to have missed (thereby exhausting my patience), the key point relevant to this thread is NOT that evolutionary science at the time generated the right prediction (though it very well might have, and it was fun to try) -- it could have been wrong, but eventually revised to accomodate the new data.  The point, which you all know already, and which remains completely unaddressed by its proponent, is that a definitive prediction of the "CGH" is dead wrong.

I'll let others show why what is perhaps the most important prediction (i.e., a 6,000-year-old universe) is similarly out to lunch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, you have been lying about this for 4 months now.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,05:00

Hmm, I forgot there was more, back when Dave first started claiming he was never told how the African ape LCA was determined.

On June 7, I post a further < reply >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,09:21)
I will say to Incorygible that I am still waiting to hear why you think it is valid to say that gorillas diverged at 8mya and chimps and humans diverged at 5mya.  I know you read it in a textbook, but my questions was, 'Why did the textbook think this is valid?  What is the basis for saying this?'

That would be as easy as reading my answers and checking the references, wouldn't it?  Lewin (1989; Chapter 3: Historical Views) gives a detailed history of scientific thought on human-ape relationships between the 1890s and the present.  He covers fossil hominid discoveries, early protein comparisons, etc., and the dates they suggested for branching in the ape lineage.  This includes the earlier and longer-held notion that chimps were closer to gorillas, and why this was overturned.  If you want even more details on some of this evidence, I provided you with a good reference (Stein and Rowe 1989) and relevant chapters.

Now, rather than implying that I don't answer your questions because I'm not spoonfeeding you dozens of pages of text, how about answering the one big question I posed to you many times regarding why your "Creator God Hypothesis" doesn't match the data?  This has nothing to do with what evoltuionary theory says and why.  Whether you view the "1%" as important or not, it is clear that the differences between us and chimps are smaller than your proposed "microevolutionary" variation within the "ape kind" (chimps and gorillas, plus we haven't even touched orangutans, which you would group in the ape kind, but have been known to be a significantly different outgroup since the 1920s).  Why do your Creator's code and the fossils of His Flood so strongly suggest to us that humans are just another ape, contrary to His book?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then, after he persisted, on June 21, I painstakingly < typed out > a key chunk of the book I was using in an effort to finally put this "how did you get the 8 my" lie to rest:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,11:21)
No conspiracy.  Just a rather arrogant consensus that the Bible is a fairy tale and anything that sound 'Biblical" or 'religious' is pretty much ignored with no investigation.

You're wrong, Dave.  You're not the first to use the Bible as a source of hypotheses.  It's been used in exactly that fashion for two thousand years.  Caused no small degree of consternation when those hypotheses didn't pan out.  Where the Bible matches the evidence (e.g., history), it remains a source of information.  Where it doesn't (e.g., science), there's not much left to investigate.  And "arrogance" is an interesting characterization by somebody with such lofty opinion of his own faith and knowledge that he's willing to discount practically every biologist, physicist, and geologist on the planet.

Quote
You keep repeating this, but why?  My question is why?  Why the millions of years?  Do you have some math formula or something?  Or is it just a regression of 'this book quotes this other book which quotes this other book which quotes this other book' etc. etc. all the way back to Darwin or somebody?  Who put it in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya?  And why did they say this?  That's what I am trying to get you to tell me.


Why, Dave?  Why?  I repeat it because it illustrates the difference between your worldview and mine, and the projections you make.  You are so confident in revelation without method, assertion without evidence, and knowledge without information that you assume that's where my "belief" comes from.  You really think we can trace scientific understanding of life and the universe back to the pronouncements of some prophet on a mountain top, analogous to the source of your knowledge.  Yes, Dave, books quote other books.  They summarize them, answering the "why" on one level.  If you want more, you go to those other books.  But if you really think all of evolutionary theory (or even just the phylogeny of the great apes) reduces to "who put it in print first", you just don't get it.

But to answer your simple (and rather irrelevant) question: "Who put in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya? And why did they say this?"

Once again, I will refer you to that Lewin book you said you read, specifically Chapter 3 "Historical Views", which I referenced for you:

"During the past century, the issue of our relatedness to the apes has gone full cycle.  From the time of Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel until soon after the turn of the centruy, humans' closeses relatives were regardes as being the African apes, the chimpanzee and gorilla, with the Asian great ape, the orangutan, being considered to be somewhat separate. Then, from the 1920s until the 1960s, humans were distanced from the great apes, which were said to be an evolutionarily closely-knit group. Since the 1960s, however, conventional wisdom has returned to its Darwinian cast."

...
[skip 2 pages of description regarding the players and positions in the first half of the 20th century]
...

"During the 1950s and 1960s, fossil evidence of early apes accumulated at a significant rate, and it seemed to show that these creatures were not simply early versions of modern apes, as had been tacitly assumed. This meant that those authorities who accpeted an evolutionary link between humans and apes, but did not accept a close human/African ape link, did not now have to go way back in the history of the group to 'avoid' the specialization of the modern species. At the same time, those who insisted that the similarities between African apes and humans were the result of common heritage, not parallel evolution, were forced to argue for a very recent origin of the human line. Prominent among proponents of this latter argument was Sherwood Washburn, of the University of California, berkeley.

"One of the fossil discoveries of the 1960s -- in fact, a rediscovery -- that appeared to confirm the notion of parallel evolution to explain human/African ape similarities was made by Elwyn Simons, then of Yale University. Ramapithecus was the fossil specimen, an apelike creature that lived in Eurasia about 15 million years ago and appeared to share many anatomical features (in the teeth and jaws) with hominids.  Simons, later supported closely by David Pilbeam, proposed Ramapithecus as the beginning of the hominid line, thus excluding a human/African ape connection.

"Arguments about the relatedness between humans and African apes took place against a rethinking about the relatedness among the apes themselves. In 1927, G.E. Pilgrim had suggested that the great apes be treated as a natural group, with humans evolutionarily more distant. The idea eventually became popular, and was the accepted wisdom until molecular biological evidence undermined it in 1963, the work of Morris Goodman at Wayne State University. Goodman's molecular biology on blood proteins indicated that humans and the African apes formed a natural group, with the orangutan more distant.

"Thus, the Darwin/Huxley/Haeckel position was reinstated, with first Gregory and then Washburn its champions. Subsequent molecular biological -- and fossil -- evidence seems to confrim Washburn's original suggestion that the origin of the human line is indeed recent, lying between 5 and 10 million years ago. Ramapithecus was no longer regarded as the first hominid, but simply one of many early apes."

...
[skip a few pages discussion of more recent fossil hominids, too use, etc.,  not to mention historical phylogenetic trees showing the perceived evolutionary relationships between men and apes, including a 1927 version with "negroes" and "negroids" divering not long after Neanderthal]
...

"During the past decade, not only has there been an appreication of a spectrum of hominid adaptations -- which includes the notion simply of a bipedal ape -- but the lineage that eventually led to Homo sapiens has come to be perceived as much less human. Gone is the notion of a scaled-down version of a modern hunter-gatherer way of life. In its place has appeared a rather unusual African ape adopting some novel, un-apelike modes of subsistence.

"Hominid origins are thereforenow completely divorced from any notion of human origins. Questions about the beginning of the hominid lineage are now firmly within the territory of behavioral ecology, and do not draw upon those qualities that we might perceive as separating us from the rest of animate nature. [HINT: These are "qualities" like writing, SATs, and table manners, Dave]  Questions of human origins have now to be posed within the context of primate biology."

...
[Exit the chapter on Historical Perspectives demonstrating that there was NO pronouncement by any patriarchal authority, but that thought developed, changed, and changed back more than once as the evidence appeared.  Turn to Chapter 9 on Molecular Perspectives, which describes dated fossil finds and DNA data.]
...

"The shape of the hominoid tree according to the molecular evidence available in the early 1980s was therefore as follows: gibbons split away first, about 20 million years ago; orangutans next, about 15 million years ago; leaving humans, chimpanzees and gorillas in an unresolved three-way split, close to 5 million years ago. A three-way split of a lineage is biologically unlikely, and in this case it meant that the timing of the different divergences was so tightly bunched that none of the techniques was able to prise it apart with any confidence.

"Meanwhile, most morphologists had since the 1960s accepted the notion of a human/African ape clade, with an African ape clade existing within that. The expectation among molecular biologists, therefore, was that their data would confirm this pattern. showing that the common ancestor of humans and the African apes diverged to produce the human lineage on the one hand and an African ape lineage on the other, which then subsequently split to produce gorillas and chimpanzees.

[WOW, eh Dave? In the early 1980s, they were still expecting chimps to be closer to gorillas.  Do you think a certain amount of your "I wouldn't invite a chimp to dinner" thinking led to that expectation?  Kinda different then your idea that we have an innate, arrogant urge to convince everyone he's a monkey, eh?]

"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
               Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).  The gorilla estimate from 1989 was 7.7-11.0, but this included some of the new DNA techniques that we were supposed to be "predicting".  So I went with a ballpark around 8 mya, which was the upper end of the 5-8 mya range of the "convergence" between fossils and "molecules", nicely "between 5 and 15, but closer to 5" from early 1980s fossil discoveries, the lower end of the 8-10 mya range from the first 1984 foray into DNA technology (which I would have been rightly skeptical of, but intrigued, in 1985), and closest to the 5 mya for the "three-way-split" from established molecular studies.

That's where I got my dates for in my silly (but fun) little hypothetical exercise, Dave.  Don't you wish you could give an answer like that for your own arguments?  Something other than "it's obvious" or "imagine you went to dinner/bed/school with a chimp"?  Ever?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this doesn't elevate Dave's lie from egregious to unequivocally sinful, I don't know what would. You are an evil liar, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,05:57

You know, the interesting thing about Dave's take on all this is that he makes a big deal (one might say a huge deal) out of the fact that science cannot develop an irrefutable proof that, e.g., humans are more closely related to chimps than either is to gorillas, or that the universe is 13.7 by old. He's right about that; there are no such irrefutable proofs.

But what's the standard he holds the Bible up to in terms of "irrefutable proofs" of its inerrancy? Well, that's hard to say, because Dave has in fact admitted two things: 1) that no Bible he has ever read or even heard about is actually inerrant; and 2) although he's sure there used to be a version of the Bible that was the inerrant word of God, he's never read or even heard about such a version.

So on the one hand, Dave claims he believes the Bible is inerrant because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence" supporting such a belief. But when pressed to provide such evidence, he has come up empty-handed every single time.

And on the other hand, Dave admits that no currently-existing Bible actually is inerrant! Moreover, he admits he has never read an inerrant version of the Bible, and therefore has no way of knowing (other than by reference to non-existent evidence) which parts of the Bible are correct and which are not. Improvious < asked > Dave yesterday how he knows which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and which are merely "figures of speech." It would be interesting to see how Dave would answer that question, if there was a chance he ever would.

So, on the one hand, Dave wants absolute proof of any assertion made by science, but on the other, doesn't seem to need any sort of proof, or even evidence, at all for an assertion made by the Bible. So much for his claims to be a "skeptic," or "scientific," or even honest.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 25 2006,06:03

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064 >

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 25 2006,06:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,12:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.  None of those embarrasing questions that you can't answer will show up on your blog, will they, Davie-doofus?  No questions about the pattern of grass and fern pollen in the geological column, the pattern of dolphin and plesiosaur fossils in the geological column, the pattern of concordance of radiometric dates, the falsification of your claim that whole-rock isochrons that don't result from mixing must be a single point, and on and on and on and on and on ...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have both an HTML and PDF version with no images that load pretty quickly and search fast (1:15 from the beginning for a four-word phrase found only at the end); the load and search times are comparable to Notepad on a text-only version, and I'm loading full-bore Acrobat (not the reader).  Of course, the PDF and HTML versions are preferable to text 'cause you can set up links directly to appropriate messages with the "Permalink" link. (I know Davie-doodles couldn't stand claiming he's answered a question in the other thread without providing a link to exactly where he answered the question.) I'll make 'em available soon, but right now the FTP is gebroken 'cause my domain name expired yesterday with no reminder or even transmission of the invoice they generated on 8/19.  Grrrr!!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

More soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looking forward to your respoinse to Mike PSS on crystallization, and your response to me on the patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and radiometric dating concordance.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,07:31

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064 >

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I dare you to allow others to post comments to your blog. When you say you'll post "selected material," I can only imagine how dishonestly you'll quote mine others (and even yourself!) on your blog.

Also, you're going to have to find some way to download the file yourself that involves miracles of some sort, because even as a text file with no images, the AFDUCG"H" thread is several tens of megabytes. I managed to do it, but it's way too big to e-mail; otherwise I'd just send it to you.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 25 2006,07:37

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Might I suggest including my above selection of posts, Davey? After all, even my deficient atheistic morality ranks lying as a reprehensible act, and I have openly and publicly accused you of such, and documented the reason therefore. I know I would feel the need to respond to such charges.

You could title your post, "An Evolutionist Accuses Me of Lying!"

Then you would post your claim of 23 September:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Follow it with the four posts I quote above, in their entirety, with the permalinks to the time and date they were posted.

Then post my charge that you are lying here, including this challenge.

Now explain why my charge is false. Justify your claim that no one has ever provided you with an explanation for how the LCA date came to be. Don't waste time on why you don't believe that explanation -- that's not your claim as you've stated it for four months, and you have had plenty of time (and encouragment) to revise it accordingly into something that wasn't misleading and misrepresentative (read: a LIE).

C'mon, Dave. You believe you are being honest, right? So right on your blog, show the world how we evolutionists have laid heinous charges of dishonesty upon you without justification. Dare ya.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 25 2006,09:20

I'm actually hoping Dave does manage to obtain a searchable version of his AFDUCG"H" thread soon, so he'll be able to post what he supposes are his responses to the very large number of questions and objections to his "hypothesis." I think it will be intriguing to see what Dave sees as "answers" to those questions and objections.

Yesterday I gave Dave an example of what actual "evidence" in support of an assertion looks like (in the context of the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico), so he should be able to compare that evidence to what he thinks is "evidence."

But I think Incorygible has pointed out a major misconception Dave has about how science works. Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that science works the same way Bible study works. He seems to think that if you trace back the foundation for an assertion such as "Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor ~5 million years ago, and the common ancestor of humans and chimps diverged from the common ancestor of gorillas ~8 million years ago," you'll eventually just come to an unsupported assertion made by "some scientist." He doesn't seem to get that scientists are not in the business (generally) of making unsupported assertions, and that assertions such as that about humans, chimps, and gorillas is based on actual research and investigation, a concept that is foreign not just to Dave, but to creationists of all stripes.

Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Which, of course, is far from the case, because otherwise those papers would never get past peer-review, and even if they did, they'd be utterly demolished by other workers in the field, in a manner not dissimilar to the way Dave's unsubstantiated assertions are demolished here.

You just don't get science, Dave. You don't understand that the science paradigm is very different from your paradigm of reference to books that are just assumed, as a matter of faith, to be accurate.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 25 2006,09:32

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,15:20)
Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This first of which is, of course, "there is no God."
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Sep. 25 2006,15:34

Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 25 2006,16:42

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2006,20:34)
 
Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonsense
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong.







(See, I can do O'Brienesque answers, too! )
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,03:50

THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Now available at my blog site ...

< http://airdave.blogspot.com >

******************************************

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"

(All quotes are from the 2006 online edition)

ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.  This is one of the biggests shams in science today, friends.

CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rubidium–strontium (Rb–Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium–neodymium (Sm–Nd) parent–daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.  The simple fact that we have to cherry pick certain rocks to get "acceptable" dates proves that the whole approach is worthless simply because it confirms that we really do not know the initial conditions and the histories of the rocks.  And we MUST know these things if RM dating is going to be valid.

RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."
Here's another quote I like ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.

******************************************************

CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium–lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium–lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium–lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium–lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter–parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium–lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now am I reading this right?  You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?  We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?

*******************************************************

STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.  However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.  Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?  It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).  As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?  Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?

*****************************************************

EVERYONE IS BIASED
JonF...        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.
Posted by: Ved on Sep. 26 2006,03:59

Dammit, quit shouting. It's too early.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, it is.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 26 2006,04:45

geez AFD how long did that last bit of creo-crap take you?

You have made a mistake, let me correct it for you.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL a fable, EYEWITNESS imagined HISTORY, A COMPILATION authored  BY  MOSES by unknown people based on Gilgamesh and other ancient Myths OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS ancient fireside pre-literate tales, passed down through oral tradition
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



....get it right AFD, like every other stupid ignorant thing you write, your carefully planned, but crude, lies unveil your god to be the god of contempt for Man's revealed knowledge.

Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,05:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...except for when it's figurative.  How do you tell the difference, Dave?
Posted by: Robert O'Brien on Sep. 26 2006,05:00

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,09:45)
Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weta:

According to whom? (Hint: non-religious != atheist)
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 26 2006,05:40

The trends as I understand them are laid out < here >.

Christianity in America (and Canada) is dropping by almost one percentage point a year.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca.

Another tidbit:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think people like AFDave are doing quite a lot to contribute to that trend. Evangelical Christians are doing a lot to drive away intelligent people.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,05:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just like Dave.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,05:49

AFDave,
Your assertion that        
Quote (afdave @ Posted on Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is funny in the extreme.  I know that you tried this argument in the past and were smacked down.  Are you now changing your Rb/Sr Isochron argument to the above position instead of what you argued three days ago?      
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 23 2006,09:16)
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

.
My verbose prose on crystallization was only the beginning of the science lesson in showing you how Rb/Sr Isochron methods are valid.  You haven't responded to my last < question > regarding Olivine and crystallization.  Here it is again.

Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?

We have a basis in understanding that we can agree upon and I'm trying to build upon this basis.  
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From this beginning I intend on showing you how electrochemical selection will vary the Rb uptake in a crystal formed in an olivine melt and how this uptake variability results in the linear relation found on the Isochron graph.

Your cherry picking argument can only be applied to the global scale, not the local scale.  You have to show that cherry picking a sample to fit the Rb/Sr testing method (remember, the rocks are chosen BEFORE they are tested so no age bias is introduced to the rock selection) somehow invalidates the results of the test.

AFDave, eventually the ony argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial < counter argument > you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
I look forward to another smack-down.
Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,05:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, repeating the same old crap that's been completely blown away over and over again on this very thread, EVEN WHEN IT'S BOLD AND ALL-CAPS, doesn't make it any more true, or any less of a lie.

Now, with regard to your statement that because rocks are very carefully selected for radiometric dating, that amounts to "cherry-picking," that's got to rank up there with one of the dumber comments you repeatedly make. Would one's decision not to date a chunk of granite using C14 be "cherry picking"? Of course not. So why is being very careful to make sure a crystal you're using for U-Pb dating is a closed system "cherry picking"?

You're mistaking careful experimental technique for "cheating."

So you really believe that if you can't radiometrically date every single rock out there, you can't date any of them? Would you care to favor us with the logic behind that statement?

And one more time, for the learning-impaired: fossils provide relative dating of sediments; radiometric dating provides absolute dates. Get it yet? Of course not, and I could repeat it every day for a month and you still wouldn't get it, because you don't want to get it.

And you think I'm repetitive.

Well, here's one more thing I can repeat: where's your evidence for Biblical inerrancy, after you've already < admitted > it's not inerrant?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ...

But I use NKJV ... it's close ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see why making statements like that persuade everyone here you're an idiot?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,06:19

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not going to wriggle out of this, Dave.

Your claim was that no one had ever shown you how a figure of 8 my for the divergence of humans/chimps and gorillas was derived. That was lie, because you were shown. Now, in a classic goalposts-moving maneuver, you change your claim to


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence. (We already know why you don't believe the evidence: it's because you "resent" the notion that humans could be related to other apes.)

Incorygible already warned you not to change your claim to that you don't believe the evidence that humans/chimps and gorillas diverged 8 mya. But you went ahead and did it anyway, hoping no one would notice.

Busted, Dave. And not for the first time, nor the last.
Posted by: Ved on Sep. 26 2006,06:42

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,07:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So with the insertion of "fundamental", you acknowledge that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is a lie that you have been trumpeting for four months. I still have no "fundamental" answer for why you believe the garbage you believe, Dave, but I wouldn't claim you haven't  been able to "show me". That would be a lie, and I don't lie.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. I'm sure it's a one-time mistake that won't happen again. After all, I know you wouldn't ignore the bulk of actual content on this board in favour of simply trumpeting your "victories" and making claims that no one has been able to answer your questions. Furthermore, speaking of "cherry picking", you wouldn't dare pull a table of numbers out of context from the paragraphs describing it (with citations), only to claim it was "lost" amidst that explanation and demand further explanation, right?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, if tables of data, multiple pages of explanatory text, numerous citations, and an extensive hand-typed selection (bordering on copyright infringement) from a published source are what you consider "close to a good answer" on an internet forum, then: (1) you have lazy, ridiculous standards; and (2) you should apply them to your own "answers" before lying about the quality of those provided by others.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh* Read, Dave. Read. Read what I re-posted. Not satisfied? Read the many posts of mine that I didn't re-post (maybe more stuff "got lost in all those paragraphs"?). Finally, and most importantly, if you're still curious, READ THE FREAKING LITERATURE. Plenty of citations are given, and -- believe it or not -- you can use Google Scholar for more than counting "hits".
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Not close at all. Read, Dave. Read more. Learn. If you do that, then starting a sentence with "Best I can tell..." might actually carry a little weight. Until then, it means dick all.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New data. New methods. Excising of errors. Reduction of uncertainty. SCIENCE, Dave. The understanding it provides is known to change over decades. It's one of the main reasons that it provides a more accurate picture of the world than millennia-old texts and dogma.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read, Dave. At least you're getting closer (I notice you've dropped "favourable" and replaced it with "neutral" in scare-quotes).  (Note that scare-quotes around "neutral" might be used to good effect by a scientist who actually understood this material, but I think you're implying something different entirely.) There are plenty of answers to this right in my posts (and those of others). Even better, there are literally dozens of citations to scientific literature and introductory texts that would give you a much better idea of how it works and what the "fundamental assumptions" are.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. You have been lying. Period. You are a LIAR. Saying you have not read enough of what we have provided in way of an answer would be honest. Saying that you still do not understand that answer would be honest. Saying that we have not answered it is LYING, by any reasonable, objective assessment.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, if one desires intellectual satisfaction beyond the level of introductory textbooks, it takes much, much more to learn exactly "how" any field of science actually works than even the most prolific internet posting, especially if one writes more than one reads. Incorygible does not "buy the textbook's theories", and would not be wholly convinced by two pages from any introductory textbook (although he might be provisionally accepting of most textbooks, because Incorygible understands the investments other researchers have made in obtaining their answers, and the vetting process by which those answers are deemed "convincing"). Incorygible can recognize would-be commenters who have not made this investment or properly vetted their convictions. In answer to AFDave's question, Incorygible pulled this specific introductory textbook for a particular pedagogical exercise in an effort to educate AFDave, who is apparently not up to the introductory level. For his own "convincing", Incorygible relies on a large selection of the even larger body of literature in evolutionary biology. Incorygible even contributes to that literature in his own field of specialty. After many years of reading, education and practice, Incorygible is, indeed, convinced. However, for Incorygible to impart this evidence-based conviction to AFDave, without lazy AFDave reading even the smallest smidgeon of the available literature (or even Incorygible's own posts) and without AFDave making the slightest honest effort toward his own education, would require direct neural manipulation beyond the present scope of medical science (not Incorygible's field). Nevertheless, here is Incorygible, and many like him, attempting to provide free, hard-earned answers to AFDave, after spending a morning providing some of those answers to dozens of students who have invested many more hours of honest learning than AFDave (and a fair chunk of change) for the opportunity. Meanwhile, AFDave, like a spoiled child, will simply claim yet again that Incorygible has provided no answers, and therefore has no answers. AFDave will claim that he is "bringing the truth" to Incorygible regarding evolutionary biology. Sad but true.

Read more, Dave. Or, at the very least, read something from a source not linked to AiG and their ilk. Read the evidence and arguments you try so hard to avoid. We've given you a good head start. Give us a reason to elevate your "Best I can tell..." assessment to a level above the perceptive ability of a deaf, dumb and blind amoeba.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,07:48

Ved...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They were preserved.  They are Adam, Noah, the Sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael & Isaac, and Esau & Jacob.  For example, Noah's account goes from Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a, concluding with the phrase "these are the generations of Noah."  Note that there is no name given in the first section which concludes with "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth" in Genesis 2:4a.  This makes sense when you realize that there was no human eyewitness alive yet to witness the acts of creation.  Note that it was probably Moses who inserted the names at the end of the proper section as he compiled these tablet records into one volume probably written on vellum.  See my blog at airdave.blogspot.com and the article referenced at the end of my blog article for more info.
Eric...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,07:54

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, THAT...

< Here you go! >

Enjoy. Come back when you're done, and we'll talk about any remaining general questions or concerns you might have.

(If you want a narrowed down version, might want to search the thread for particularly relevant titles.)
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,08:18

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,13:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then it makes no sense whatsoever that you were not following up and reading all of the links and source material that people were citing here.

The truth is that you don't really want to know that stuff.  All you want to do is dig up little tidbits so you can use them out of context to support your own rationalizations.  You don't really want to know the truth.  You just want to know that you're right.

So, Dave, how do you tell the difference between the figurative and literal parts fo the Bible?

And how long does a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,08:20

As an example:

Dave, I know that one of the very first papers we (repeatedly) recommended you read was the infamous Nature chimpanzee paper that was fortuitously published online in late May, right around the time that we started this discusson. We referenced it repeatedly. Did you ever read it?

Once again, that's:

Patterson, N., D.J. Richter, S. Gnerre, E.S. Lander, and D. Reich. 2006. Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature 441: 1103-1108.

If I recall correctly, I think someone even stretched the rules of academic subscriptions and sent you a copy? I might be wrong about that, but it is certainly easy enough to find at any library.

Did you read it, Dave?

Because I just pulled it up again for another (more useful) task, and I notice it begins:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2. The average genetic divergence, t genome, is sometimes used to estimate the speciation time, tspecies. However, t(x), the genetic divergence at any position x, fluctuates across the genome and is everywhere larger3 than tspecies (Fig. 1a, and Supplementary Note 1). Thus, its average tgenome necessarily exceeds tspecies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds a little like what you're looking for (and what you claim we haven't provided), eh? Read on, and it gets nice and specific about the calculations (but still written for a general scientific audience).

Did you read it, Dave?

Coincidentally (not really), you might find something similar in the publications from my post quoted by Eric, and many others.

Did you read them, Dave?

So...Dave...you were saying?

Dave?
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 26 2006,08:42

Well I think some of you are being a bit hard on Dave.  I think he's right about taking the Bible as a record of actual events.  I would think most of us could agree that the Bible is as accurate, and should be treated as literally as we treat the Avesta, the I Ching, the Rigveda, or the Pali Canon.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,08:55

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want! The problems are these: 1) you won't read the links, and you won't go out and get the actual articles where they're not available online; 2) even if you did read them, you don't have the specialized training necessary to understand them; and 3) are not willing to spend the time, money, and effort to obtain the necessary specialized training necessary to understand them! How is this anyone's fault but yours, Dave?

As Incorygible explained to you in exhaustive detail about one post above yours Dave, he does have the necessary specialized training and expertise to understand this stuff, and that's why he believes it. You don't, which is why you don't believe it. That, and the fact that you "resent" the notion that humans could be in any way related to other apes.

So what all this means is that when you said, "No one has shown me how the 8 mya date was derived," you were lying. You most emphatically were shown, in detail, how that date was derived. That you don't understand the methodology well enough to make head or tail of it doesn't change the simple fact that you were shown exactly how that date was derived.

Dave, I can't design an electronic circuit. Does that give me the right to say that it's impossible to design one? Because that's what you're claiming. You're claiming that because you don't understand how these dates were derived, that no one's shown you how they were derived.

It's like you're under the misapprehension that all of science should be instantly comprehensible by anyone with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. That may have been true 500 years ago, but today, no one person has the training necessary to understand more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge. You don't have the training necessary to understand any of it.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,09:12

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 26 2006,14:55)
     
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ericmurphy,
AFDave only applies this method of argument to obfuscate matters.  When I try to engage him by explaining all the relevant facts needed to understand ONE aspect of crystal formation.... he ignores the facts and the questions posed.

incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
 
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,13:40)
Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, {snip}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,09:21

Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

**************************

When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.  A lot of Hebrew and Greek scholars have spent an enormous amount of time studying other texts and comparing them with the Biblical texts to see which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.  The RATE Book has a whole section proving why Genesis was intended to be taken as a literal, historical account.  But most of it is not rocket science.  Some is, to be sure, but most is not.  For the most part, we can look at the word for "day" in Genesis where it talks about the "evening and the morning were the fourth day" etc., and we can compare this with other instances of the usage of that same word, and we can pretty easily see that the author meant a literal 24 hr day ... not 1000 years or a million years, or what have you.

****************************

Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,09:40

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, he linked to this months ago, which you would have realized if you'd read it the first time. But even if you hadn't read it back then, wouldn't it have been a clue when Incorygible stated to you that he had posted it back in May, when it first came out? Or did you miss that part, too? How large and bold does the type have to be before you read it, Dave?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Dave, if you want to understand this, you need to develop the intellectual toolkit necessary to understand it. It can't be "distilled down" to where someone with a pea-brain can understand it. Don't complain that someone hasn't "shown" something to you, when the real issue is that you can't understand the explanation in the first place!

And Dave, the problem isn't that we don't "understand" your creationist drivel. We "understand" it just fine. We understand that it's undifferentiated bullshit, we've explained to you exactly why it's undifferentiated bullshit, and you ignore us.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, more to the point, how do you determine where the Bible is right, and where it isn't? Given that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant. So how do you know where it's right, and where it's wrong, Dave?
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 26 2006,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The first attempts to characterize the "relative" age of the landscape using fossil was done in the 1830s, almost 30 years before Darwin's work. Similar patterns of fossils were discovered in landscapes in different countries, and these were the first attempts of using the geological process of superposition. The actual pattern of fossils made sense in the light of the TOE, and then finally in the early 1900s the first absolute dating methods were discovered with  radioactive decay and radiometric dating. To say that the method requires knowledge of evolution is absurd. It requires you to assume that certain species lived at the same time together, and that the species should correlate in some way with the stratographic column. Eric, deadman, JonF and others showed you this many times before, and even offered you a testable method for carrying this out. The assumption of evolution becomes an independent verification when species complexity decreases with age.

This doesn't begin to address other dating methods either, which the thread has called you on many times.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's another quote I like ...        
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love how you can understand the deep innerworkings of an entire field of science from a few quotes. I wish I had that talent.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,09:45

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:21)
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?

Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,09:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
This is where you go wrong.  The point isn't concise, or containable in an executive summary.  I'm trying to lead you down the primrose path of knowledge here in bite size pieces.  Each bite size piece is an executive summary of a whole body of knowledge.  There are at numerous seperate professional disciplines involved just to understand radiometric dating.  You have to understand what olivine is (geology), how the crystals formed (material science, chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering), how isotopes and radioactivity work (nuclear physics), how radioisotope testing equipment works (mechanical engineering, physics, electronic engineering), and that's just off the top of my head.

When your argument is about "all Isochrons are mixing lines" then you are arguing DEEP into the basic knowledge base of the method (radiometric testing).  To support that argument you need to comprehend and understand ALL of the knowledge base listed above.
However, you don't have to be an expert in all the fields listed above.  You could purchase the radiometric testing machine and TRUST that the people that designed it and put it together knew what they were doing.  You could install the machine and calibrate it according to the instruction sheet that comes with the equipment.  You could then follow all the instructions (like proper sample selection) and test your materials.  The instructions probably have some checks and balances for your data to make sure the machine is working properly.  Voila, a valid data point.  Rinse and repeat.  That wasn't hard.

If you want an executive summary then talk to me about the economic viability of investing in an alternative fuels plant (ethanol or biodiesel).  I'm involved in the operation, modification, testing, and optimization of these things.  Landfill Gas?  No problem.  Wood Combustion?  Bring it on.  Executive summaries work in business, not always in science.

Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,09:48

And, you know, this is classic Dave: first he complains that you haven't shown him something, even after you've shown it again and again and again. Then he complains that you haven't really shown it to him; you've just sent him links to a bunch of articles that say something, without showing  how that conclusion was arrived at. Then, when you point out that those articles show exactly how that conclusion was arrived at, in excruciating detail, he complains that the explanation is too complicated, and could you please distill it all down to an executive summary he can actually understand.

And then, if you actually complied with that request, he'd accuse of you of just giving him a biased interpretation of the data, rather than the data itself.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,10:04

I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,10:11

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:04)
I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think about it, Dave.

If you think the Bible (especially Genesis 1 and 2, which are like 800 words long) is as complex and difficult to understand as, say, genomics, or the Theory of Evolution, or Quantum Chromodynamics, or superstring theory, or comparative anatomy, or nuclear chemistry, then you're even dumber than you appear (and you appear pretty dumb).

You can't just do an executive summary of topics like radiometric dating, Dave. Sorry; it just simply cannot be done. Why is this such a tough idea to get through your noggin?

Also, when are you going to address the glaring problem with your Biblical Literalism, which is that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant, and you have no way of knowing which parts are correct and which parts are not?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,10:41

OK Dave,  Here's an executive summary for you.

Bible - Goddidit.
Your arguments - Wrong
My arguments - Right.

Is that what you wanted?  Be concise in your requests.

I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 26 2006,11:17

Improvius...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."  However, it is interesting to note that many of the ancients who lived a very long time ago (like longer ago than 2000 BC) knew that the earth went around the sun and they knew the length of the period, the earth-sun distance, the number PI, and many other scientific facts.


Mike PSS--  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 26 2006,11:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sweet! Ghost of Paley has a new challenger for the most "more on XXXXXX which I will completely garble tomorrow!"
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,11:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Improvius...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage."  So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,11:49

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not a particularly reliable source.  It's too dumbed-down to be really accurate.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote does not support your claim. Yes, stratigraphy and index fossils are involved in dating.  No, the date is not determined from fossils, absolute dates are determined from radiometric dating and index fossils are used to correlate between locations.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rubidium&#8211;strontium (Rb&#8211;Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium&#8211;neodymium (Sm&#8211;Nd) parent&#8211;daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By cross-correlation with other methods, some not radiometric.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here's another quote I like ...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not implying any such thing.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not quite.  Now we can obtain the same precision on near 100% of geologic time, and verify the fossil dating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, yes, yes, Davie-doodles, your lack of reading comprehension is showing again.  They explicitly said that RM dating allows us to verify our fossil-based data. "Isotopic dating ... is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history."  "Virtually all of Earth history" ain't no stinkin' 88%, Davie-dip, it's 99.9% or so.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium&#8211;lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium&#8211;lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium&#8211;lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium&#8211;lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter&#8211;parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium&#8211;lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Now am I reading this right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  I don't know why you bother to ask that, the answer is always the same.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope.  He's not talking about isochrons. He's talking about a particular set of elements, one of which (lead) is fairly volatile as elements that are solid at STP go.  He's talking about metamorphic rocks, which are always tricky.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sometimes yes and mostly no.  That article's pretty seriously out of date.  Since then instrumentation advances and sample preparation advances have cut down the need to strip away the outer part of the grain.  Sometimes we still have to strip away the outer part of the mineral grain for the dating to be absolutely concordant (but not often) BUT you don't understand what "concordant" means in this context.  Here "concordant" means" "absolutely exact agreement", and "discordant" means that the two methods disagree. The air abrasion technique is used to get concordant samples when the discordance is very small and there's reason to suspect differential leaching of lead from different parts of the sample. Even with "discordant" results, it's clear approximately how old the rock is; the air-abrasion technique is used to take results that are already accurate to a few percent and get the accuracy down below 1%. With or without discarding the outer layer of metamorphosed zircons, the rocks are far older than you think.

One of the great things about U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is that it often returns a valid and accurate date when the sampels are discordant, sometimes even seriously discordant.  The reasons why are well understood.

And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. but you're an ignorant liar ; I make mistakes once in a while, but at least they're honest mistakes.  Are you going to post any pf the many questions you have been ducking and can't answer?  Or are you going to cherry-pick to try to give the impression that your claims stand up to casual inspection?  I know the answer ...
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,11:52

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,16:17)
Mike PSS--        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you've got it exactly backwards. The fact that you think it's even possible to do an "executive summary" of an entire field of scientific investigation shows just how abysmally ignorant you really are.

You think you've shown us "lot of how [radiometric dating] actually works"? Good grief, man! What you've really shown us is that you don't have a clue how it actually works! You've made mistake after mistake after mistake in your understanding of radiometric dating techniques, which JonF has, to his infinite credit, painstakingly corrected. So you think JonF and Mike are just "pretending" to understand radiometric dating? Then where does that leave you? You don't even pretend to understand it! You admit it doesn't make any sense to you.

Mike is trying to establish that you know anything whatsoever about radiometric dating, crystal formation, or indeed anything about any relevant field, in order to determine how he can do an executive summary you can understand without leaving out crucial information. I know, from my long experience of wading through your drivel, that it's an impossible task, because you don't want to understand; your entire worldview depends on your not understanding.

Mike will eventually come to the same conclusion, but hopefully not before he's done a lot of interesting and informative posts. Interesting and informative posts for the rest of us, at least; I doubt you'll get anything out of them.

And speaking of "defending" things—would you care to estimate what century it will be before you get around to defending your own hypothesis, which is ostensibly what this thread is all about?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,11:53

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial < counter argument > you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And < The Constancy of Constants, Part 2 >
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 26 2006,12:03

Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 26 2006,12:03

The first thread, with all images removed:

< AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) PDF.zip > 8.75 MB, 13.1 MB unzipped.

< AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) HTML.zip >, 3.8 MB, 27.5 MB unzipped.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,13:12

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,14:12)
incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More than one! :) I think it only comes naturally to cranks and other assorted crazies (such as the one to whom I was replying in kind). ;)
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 26 2006,13:25

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Mike PSS--        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ad Hominum Ad Nausium from AFDave.

Can I call "shenanigans" and get AFDave back on track?

Dave,
Nowhere in your quoted reply do you address the pertinent information regarding Olivine crystal formation.  Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Mike PSS
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,13:33

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The body of scientific understanding pertaining to evolution, or even just the evolution of humans and other great apes, is not concise. Period. The Google search was meant only to illustrate this. You can take the Coles Notes version you've been supplied. Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First: Dave, as Eric points out, you "got this out of me" as soon as you asked. Before you asked, actually -- I brought it up.  I cited this paper right around the time you were discovering (for the first time, apparently) that genetic research has conclusively demonstrated that humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps to gorillas. Remember that, Dave? Liar.

Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields. The data summarized in these executive summaries is found in the specialist journals and (in even more abundance) in the databases, drawers and minds of those actually doing the work. If you can't count yourself a member of the "scientific" audience, well, tough titty said the kitty. If you don't even understand the language, don't bother arguing fundamental science with those who do possess such a background because you simply don't meet the minimum requirements. There's nothing wrong with that (we all possess specialized knowledge), unless you are in the vain habit of arguing entire fields of science with specialists therein. And (before you pull out any analogy involving church history) practically ANYONE can learn the language, if they are so inclined, with enough time and effort. You haven't done this yet. Come back and argue science when you can comprehend it.

You may think think this is elitist (as much as any meritocracy is). Fine. You may point out that this elitism is the reason your brand of "evidence" is more popular among the lay public. You'd probably be right. Regardless, it is what it is. After trying very hard to encourage you to begin to understand some of this stuff at an appropriate level, I don't care care what you think. Science is indeed a tough titty and you, Dave, are just another displaced runt.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does that "evolution" Google Scholar search give you any reason to suspect your job is easier than mine? Or should I thrown in "or geology", "or radiomentric dating", "or cosmology"...
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 26 2006,14:01

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,19:33)
Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

Making up that imaginary data to refute real data was pretty close, though.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 26 2006,14:18

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For your viewing pleasure:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 26 2006,14:30

eric:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 26 2006,14:40

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2006,19:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For your viewing pleasure:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. Actually, not "speaking the language" is as apt an analogy as any.

I'm natively fluent in English, and will debate in English (or even debate its proper usage) with any native English speaker. I could get by pretty well with French in either France or Quebec (even know how to adjust accordingly), but would know to ask for clarification (in French) and would accept correction graciously from its native speakers. I might even be able to eek out an existence in (tee hee) Portugal, based on its Latin roots. Put me in China and I wouldn't know where to begin (but I probably wouldn't start by demanding they all speak English instead).

That's where Dave is. China. And he don't speak no Chinese. So he's busily demanding (in English, no less) that the entire country switch to the revealed truth of English because he can't find the fucking bathroom. The inevitable result is, of course, that Dave will shit his pants. Repeatedly. As he has.

Dave, you really stink by this point.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 26 2006,14:55

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,19:30)
eric:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bill, for all our disagreements, and my belief that you're mistaken about virtually all of science, most of history, and all of politics, you've never acted as absolutely bone-stupid as Dave is. And Dave is not, as far as I can tell, actually stupid. He's that way on purpose, i.e., he's deliberately obtuse. I've just never seen anyone behave so deliberately idiotically. (But I have to admit; it's strangely entertaining to watch, kind of like watching a slow-motion train-wreck.)

When Dave complains over and over about how no one has ever shown him something, and then three people demonstrate with actual links to their actual posts that they have indeed shown him, and he still insists that they never showed it to him, it gets exasperating. But Dave's not teasing; he actually thinks he's being honest.

And that's the scary part.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 27 2006,02:29

I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.

But I will answer this one ...

JonF...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....

Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

***********************************

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Mike PSS...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?

Me...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)

Skeptic...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have only known about the 2 references I gave you for 3 months or so, so I could use some time to inspect the whole thing closer myself.  But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.  I did not intend to reference any individuals in my post on my blog.  I will search that out when I have time and delete it.

Origin of the 6000 year chronology:  Not much time right now, but off the top of my head, I think there are several people groups who have historically kept track of years in a way closely resembling the 6000 year chronology.  If I recall, the Jews have something called "Anno Mundi"  ... I'll check into this and get back to you.  In any case, my chronology comes from Bishop Ussher.

***************************************************

Gone for 3 days to Silver Dollar City!  Don't know if I will have time to post or not.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 27 2006,02:46

Dave - presumably you believed this 6000 year old guff last year? In that case, is the earth now 6001 years old then? Or in your world, is gawd holding back the age of the earth and keeping it steady at 6000 years? Or taking off a year at the start instead?

So, what is the age of the earth then as you see it? 6000 years? 5999? 6001?
If it's 6000, presumably there must be a point where it tips over to 6001? Would that be new years day? If so, why? If not, what day does it flip over to 6001 years on? Simple  questions, but i dont expect a reasonable answer. Prove me wrong! Give me a date/time when the earth will be 6001 years old instead of 6000.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 27 2006,03:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory.
Posted by: notta_skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,03:13

I know this is off-topic, but I just found out this morning that I have the opportunity to go to a public lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller this afternoon at the National Institutes of Health. He's speaking to researchers, medical professionals, and interested parties on evolution. You can see the webcast at < NIH webcast > (I have no idea if this is available for all or just over NIH intranet, but I think it's freely viewable by anyone.) And tomorrow, I'm going to be participating in a national 'convocation' in DC on science eductation across the US and helping to develop national policy on strengthening science teaching K - 16. It's people like Dave who give me the impetus to stand up in these meetings and explain exactly why we need better educated science teachers. If Dave had ever had a good teacher, he/she might have been able to explain to him the difference between a "guess" and a "theory". Dave shows little evidence of knowing what either one means in a scientific context.
Posted by: notta_skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,03:17

Oops! Forgot the time for the Miller webcast: 3 - 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time. Sorry.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 27 2006,03:39

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*sigh* No, Dave. If you read that paper, you will have read that paper. If you understand that paper, you will have a better understanding of "my position" on why the molecules point to 4-6 my. If you understand the brief synopsis of the current state of the field provided by the authors, and if you follow up on the citations they provide for a more detailed examination of work in the field, you will have an even better understanding.

You were a CEO (or similar), right? You asked for an executive summary. Here it is, equivalent to an executive summary of earnings in one department in the last quarter. Read it, and you'll have a better understanding than the press releases and third-party speculations you're working from now. But, as CEO, would you assess your company's performance based purely on one executive summary for one quarter? It's a good place to start, but you might want a deeper understanding of trends, etc., right?

To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.

Until you do that (and do similar for the geologists, linguists, and anthropologists that you argue with here), you won't "understand" our positions in the slightest. We've given you the public, press-release version. We've pointed you to the executive summaries (and I am willing to email you the Nature paper and any others you might like to see, assuming my institutional subscription covers them -- PM me with an email address). But you simply CANNOT hope to develop the painstakingly earned depth of knowledge in these fields that the people publishing them actually have. That's okay, since you claim not to want it. However, you should realize that, when you go to toe-to-toe with them within their fields in an effort to discredit them, you are way out of your league. (Picture a dogfight between a trained military pilot and a biologist who read the "executive summary" on jet aircraft.)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,06:00

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Dave, that's what you said about the Theobald paper I sent you back in May. It's a 20,000 word paper with close to 200 references, and your response was, "it's weak." Could you find any holes in it? Did you even understand it? Doubtful. I'm still doubtful you even read it.

So when you say you think JonF's scathing rebuttals of your limp-wristed attempts to debunk the entire field of radiometric dating are "weak," we give that comment all the credibility it deserves.

And Dave, an EB entry could have been published yesterday and still be out of date, if it doesn't reflect current research on the topic. On fast-moving topics, e.g., genomics, EB entries are out of date before they even hit the printing press. That's why you don't reference EB articles if you want to be taken seriously by professionals practicing in the field. You come off as what you are: a dilettante.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But I will answer this one ...

JonF...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, no. Fossils never provide an absolute date, as has been pointed out to you a dozen times. JonF is talking about the concordances between different radiometric methods, genius. What possible connection do fossils have  with that? When two entirely different radiometric techniques provide the same age for a given sample, where do fossils fit into that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you've got to knock off this lying:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you were either lying when you typed this yesterday, or you're lying today. Which is it, Dave?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean, other than the hundreds of holes we've pointed out to you again and again and again, Dave? The questions and objections we've raised that have totally stymied you?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 27 2006,07:57

Time to up your dose AFD.

Your magical reality must require truck loads.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 27 2006,08:55

I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,09:16

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And get doctorates in biology while virtually never rejecting evolution. And get astrophysics PhD's while NOT understanding that all the light they're looking at aren't really from far off galaxies, but were miracled into place. And get MD's while NOT understanding that you can drink any poison and not be harmed as long as you believe in Jesus...

Clearly, the dumbest people in the world are all the experts.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,09:20

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,08:39)
 To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, Dave, you could recognize that you don't begin to have the necessary intellectual toolkit to understand this sort of highly-technical information, forget about your methodologically-dubious attempts to do end-runs around the hard parts, and accept the fact that the guys who have spent their careers studying this stuff (and the other guys who review their work to make sure it represents solid science) know it way, way, way better than you ever have a prayer of knowing it, and take their word for it.

When the entire scientific community (i.e., the relevant part of that community, not the engineers, the mathematicians, the astronomers, or the biblical scholars, for crying out loud) accepts that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas, maybe it's time for you to accept it as well. After all, guys who are way smarter than you are, e.g., Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Ed Witten, or Lisa Randall, accept the fact that they don't know nearly enough about primate evolution to critique the work of recognized experts in the field. What make you think you're qualified to do so?

If you were really interested in evidence supporting the (HC)G) phylogeny, you'd actually study that evidence (and not rely on the non-specialist critiques on AiG). You'd delve into the actual original research, and in order to do that, you'd need to have a pretty good understanding of the underlying science, which you most emphatically do not have.

Remember way back in May, on the very first day of this thread, when I < admonished > you about saying  you would "forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them"? You think you're going to find "errors" in Incorygible's, or JonF's, work, to say nothing of scientists of international reputation? This is exactly the kind of arrogance that drives people crazy around here, because God, Dave, no one I have ever seen in any Internet forum discussing science has less right than you do to be arrogant when it comes to science.

You're still laboring under the misapprehension that science is easy, Dave, and reading a few websites like AiG and ICR (which are not intended for even a scientifically-literate audience, let alone an audience of scientists) is enough to get you up to speed on topics like radiometric dating, primate genetics, stratigraphy, astrophysics, etc. But science isn't easy. It's extremely hard. Just getting knowledgeable about one tiny little subspecialty (< Lake Victoria cichlids >, and you'll note that the first paragraph of that abstract contradicts your young-earth "hypothesis," which should once more give you an idea of what you're up against in trying to disprove and old earth) can take an entire career. But you have the monumental arrogance to think you can take in all of science in one big year-long gulp from the muddy puddle of creationist websites, and get anywhere disproving all of science.

And you still can't come up with any actual support for your own hypothesis!
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 27 2006,09:26

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Mike PSS...              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So AFDave.  When you said something like this but only 15hours 12minutes before you said this...          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.  {my bolding in both blocks}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

what was your point?  Ad Hominums are easier than addressing the issues.  AND what does Eric have to do with this?  Those are totally your words and quotes?  

Moving on.... I'll work with you on your request.  I'll try and summarize the following statement.  BUT first we have to agree upon the statement.  Do you agree to address the issues behind my summary of:

How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
My summary will serve as my attempt to refute your claims of:
  • Whole rock Isochrons result in only single points from a sample (argued by Arndts and Overn also).
  • All whole rock Isochrons are better described as mixing lines.
After my summary you can review and respond to my summary as you see fit.  But first....

Do you agree to the above statement?
WARNING TO AFDAVE:  I am not indicating ages, time, or half-lives in my argument so any counter-arguments about time are not allowed.  I'm only trying to show the natural, physical processes for crystal formation as it relates to Rb/Sr testing and how these processes form the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graph.  My only contention is that Rb87 atoms decay to Sr87 atoms following published nuclear physical processes over some unspecified time (OR you can think of this numerically, some quantity of Rb decays to Sr after crystal formation but the quantity has no relation to the time involved if you want to bend your mind this way).  I can elaborate on this warning more if you don't understand ALL the implications related to this warning.

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave, remember you can accept ALL Isochron graphs right now.  Just admit your argument against the Isochron testing was wrong (you can even say MISTAKEN).  You can STILL argue about time scales while accepting that the METHOD of whole rock Isochron testing is valid (in other words the data and graphs are correct but those funky time stamps on the side are wrong).  I'll stop pummelling you with this boring crystal stuff if you move your arguments to half-lives and accellerated nuclear decay rates.  Don't say I didn't warn you though  
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,09:29

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)
I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2006,10:08

Re "and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,""

Wonder if the phrase "water cycle" would ring any bells here...
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 27 2006,10:17

After a 4 month dry spell, AFDumdum has a new post up at his blog.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Monday, September 25, 2006

THE BOOK OF GENESIS: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME

Today I will do a book review of a book entitled "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." What this book does is show clearly that Genesis is "Eyewitness History" re-establishing the pre-JEDP view of the Book of Genesis. The book was written by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman and edited and updated by his son, Professor of Assyriology Donald J. Wiseman. This material has been referred to by some Bible commentators including Henry Morris and R.K. Harrison, but I had never personally examined the book. I found a used copy (had to pay $85!;) and what a treat it has been. Absolutely fascinating book!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking.

< http://airdave.blogspot.com/ >
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 27 2006,10:30

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,11:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Dave. By far the dumbest thing I've ever heard said here is that 5,000 (or 50,000, of 500,000) feet of water could have laid down 5,000 feet of sediment, to say nothing of 17,000 feet of sediment. You simply refuse to address this bone-simple problem that completely blows your "global catastrophic flood hypothesis" away.

You simply don't have nearly enough water to accomplish what you need to accomplish. (In actual fact, you don't have any water, let alone enough water.) Do you think no one has noticed this glaring problem with your "hypothesis," Dave?

So what's your answer (for easily the twentieth time)? How do account for the 5,000—15,000 feet of sediment, when you yourself have only proposed 5,000 feet of water? What's your explanation for this glaringly obvious discrepancy between your "hypothesis" and reality?

And this is only one of many, many, many problems with just the "global catastrophic flood" part of your "hypothesis." The rest of the elements of your "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" are similarly at odds with observation. In other words, your whole "hypothesis" is bleeding not from a thousand cuts, but from a million sucking chest wounds, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,11:56

Wow. I just checked out Dave's blog for the first time, and what a feeling of déja vu that precipitated. After looking at it, I can pretty much guarantee he will never, ever turn on comments. Can you imagine what would happen over there to his "Creator God Hypothesis" if he ever did? It would look just like this thread.

I think it's a testament to Dave's believe in the strength of his own arguments that comments are disabled on his own blog. If he really thought he was obliterating our arguments left and right, why would he not want those same arguments on his own blog so he could show them to all his friends?

So it really is just braggadoccio, Dave. You don't even believe you're winning any arguments here; you just pretend you do.

[edit] I just noticed that in the picture of Dave's family on his blog, there are six individuals. Shouldn't there be seven? DAve + Wife + Five Kids = ? Or is this one of those "Portuguese" things? Or maybe someone just couldn't make it to the photo op?
Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 27 2006,12:09

Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 27 2006,13:54

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,15:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 27 2006,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't worry, it was a legally sanctioned fight. The sixth grader just has a bad promoter.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,14:13

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 27 2006,18:54)
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Dave thinks he's winning!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 27 2006,15:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I feel great about it all  :D Considering that Dave had the temerity to call my ancestors "devolved," I'm glad to kick him in the huevos when I get the hankerin'. Steve is just making fun of my lisp, the bastard...Signed, Drederick "deadman" Tatum.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 27 2006,16:29

AFDave got me thinking (note to self; check expiration date of my medication) and one of his primary arguments has one more hole {glaring inconsistency, logical gap, sucking chest wound, whatever}.

One of his primary (there's that word again) arguments against RM dating is:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



JonF, deadman, ericmurphy and others have said quite clearly that proper sample selection for testing counters this argument.  Another counter used is how does AFDave explain the date ranges that DO result from the proper samples.

But Dave's argument is ALSO against the METHOD of RM testing along with the results.  From his statement, he believes that ALL samples, no matter what their position or origin should give concordant results otherwise the technique of RM testing is somehow not worth anything.  I can hear AFDave saying right now; "Unless and until RM testing can atain this level of performance, I can't believe it."

I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 27 2006,17:49

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which will be a great idea, once he actually starts presenting it.

But Dave's whole premise that you can't trust any testing methodology unless it's 100% accurate is facially absurd. No testing methodology is 100% accurate, but that doesn't stop Dave from going to the doctor. If the doctor came to Dave and said to him, "I've got bad news: your test results come back, and it looks like there's a possibility you've got colorectal cancer" (no tasteless jokes, please), would Dave's response be, "I don't need any exploratory surgery, because your test isn't 100% accurate and therefore is worthless"? Doubtful.

But Dave's issues with radiometric dating are psychological, not methodological. Dave is well aware of the fact that radiometric dating (among zillions of other things) is the death knell for his worldview, and therefore he simply cannot accept that it is accurate. Therefore, it's imperative that he try to find some way to discredit in his own eyes, which initially I thought he was able to do, but given that he does not allow comments on his own blog, I'm starting to think otherwise. I think Dave realizes he's been defeated here (don't worry, Dave; I'm not expecting you to admit it), but he can't ever stop fighting, which means he'll be our favorite Creationist piñata for some time to come.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2006,17:52

Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry
Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Sep. 27 2006,20:03

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only evidence DDTTD has presented here is that he's a liar and a willfully ignorant moron (as well as a coward).

From his own blog;



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I actually enjoy getting comments from people who DISAGREE with me. The stronger your disagreement and the more intelligent you sound, the better!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He thinks he's being clever by making statements like this.

His sole purpose here is to be (symbolically crucified) banned.

He's too cowardly to die for what he believes (like the apostles supposedly did), he won't take a physical beating for what he believes. He won't even take an intellectual/psychological beating on HIS OWN BLOG! That's why comments are turned off on his blog and why I'm sure he hasn't shown any of his friends this website.

Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,03:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah I'll bet that's the one time when he doesn't make people pray when they are in his company...just before take off.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 28 2006,04:27

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2006,23:52)
Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But in AFDave's mind, he has produced at least two pieces of evidence.

1) MASSIVE amounts of water-laid sediment.
2) A book.

Everyone else on this board has ripped this evidence to shreds.  I'm just saying that if AFDave wants to present these (and other) items that he terms as evidence for his arguments that he hold it to the same standards he holds for RM dating.

I'm purposefully avoiding any direct attacks on Dave's character.  I know this leads to (what I think are) boring posts, and I could cut loose any minute, but it doesn't serve MY purpose here. ;)   His last bit of theater, accusing me of "pretending to know this stuff" caused me to walk away from the keyboard and think before I typed.  I don't want AFDave to have any "outs" in my present discussion about crystal formation and Isochrons.  The evidence is rock solid  :p and everyone knows that AFDave has only one option, to argue against the actual age results.  If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,04:37

Mike PSS


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

You can lead an loony to a psychiatrist but you can't make him listen, as long as he holds his fingers in his ears and jumps up and down and screams lalalalalalalala.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,05:48

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 28 2006,06:17

ericmurphy said.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I certainly don't want to discourage Mike PSS from further posts..,EXCEPT for AutisticFartDave the rest of the posts have been very enlightening.

But to give AFD his due.... without him we wouldn't be treated to a full scale pathological cognitive dissonance of biblical proportions, he's like a huge fridge to which little magnetic snippets of real science have been attached, except the light doesn't go on when you open the door...we just get the dank smell of rotting jesus fish. NPD? we should donate this thread to the American Psychiatrists Association as an example and AFD you should respond in kind by donating your body to science, I'm truly interested to see if there is *ANYTHING* inside your skull.
Now don't forget, in your will don't say “Donate my body to pseudoscience!”
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 28 2006,07:33

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 28 2006,11:48)
   
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wriggle around.   AFDave tried both barrels of a shotgun approach.  But thanks to stevestory's disarming reply that turned into a slapstick comedy moment.  Cue clown car and circus music.


Ahhhhhh....   Good times....
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 28 2006,08:42

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
[massive snippage]
Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)
[snip]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me, this pretty much sums up the entire debate.  Dave is of the belief that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, in Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and Biology, from different countries, different backgrounds, and different religions, all to a man are either liars or idiots.  

Furthmore he is of the belief that a laymen armed with a Bible in one hand and the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the other can easily with a single picture, or a quick phrase destroy the founding principles of a branch of science, even when competing against experts in the individual fields who have dedicated their lives to understanding the field, and can do so for all the branches of science.  The fact that he often asks for help understanding a principle before he rhetorically rapes that principle is not a problem apparently.

Everyone else that posts on this thread appears to disagree with Dave.  Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,08:50

Quote (Diogenes @ Sep. 28 2006,13:42)
Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Sep. 28 2006,14:30

Eric:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
Posted by: G. cuvier on Sep. 28 2006,14:41

Having read this thread from it's inception, let me just say that it has been hysterical. Everyone's responses to AFDave reminded me of this...
< Robot Chicken - One-sided Fistfights >
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 28 2006,14:52

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep. He's much worse. The list of questions Dave's never answered gets longer every week.

I'm talking about questions that Dave's never even acknowledged, let alone answered.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 28 2006,18:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like eric said, yeah, he's much worse. In fact, I and others have told him explicitly that he would be answered if he asks a direct question...and he has been answered each time he has asked one. Whether he ACCEPTS the answers is irrelevant, what counts is the QUALITY of the responses, which have been very high in each and every case.
The same can't be said at all about DumbAssDave's responses, nor has he even addressed dozens of questions that have been posed to him. So, yeah, he's  inferior in that regard. He has a LITTLE "skill" in avoidance, denial, unresponsive reversals, etc., but he's not nearly as accomplished in the art of weaseling as you , GoP -- perhaps because he's just a tad more stupid, but with a touch more moral fiber, low as it is. Now, shoo, and go play with your silly little geocentric model that you got slapped around with, stupid.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 29 2006,03:09

MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

I see someone was surprised that I said that if you have to be selective to get "datable" rocks, then this throws ALL rocks into question.  The reason for this is simple.  What is the criteria for "correct" dates?  I have said it is fossils which is actually not specific enough.  It is actually Fossils plus the whole Fairy Tale of Evolution.  This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.

I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."  This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.  And it is a fascinating search.

Every once in a while you all give me a glimpse into your minds and how you determine truth for yourselves.  I get these opportunities every time you speculate about some aspect of my life.  It is interesting because I know the truth about my own life far better than Origins issues, so it is quite obvious and funny when I see some of you making some wild speculation about some aspect of my life.  I've had people think I claimed to be a fighter pilot, had people say I washed out of pilot training in the Air Force, people that said I couldn't make rank, and got helicopters forced on me because I couldn't fly anything else and on and on.  I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.

The latest fun has been Steve Story speculating about my blog site ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking. < http://airdave.blogspot.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.  As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.  But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Another good one is Eric counting my family members ... he has heard me say there are seven people in my family, but he only counts 6 in my family picture.  Hmmmm ... he says, "a Portuguese moment for poor Dave?" (betraying that he still thinks I was wrong about Portuguese)  I'll leave this one hanging and see if there are any rocket scientists here who can figure this one out.

I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.  And of course, there is the persistent notion that since "95% of the scientists in the world believe something, it must be true."  (**cough cough** forget about Galileo and Copernicus) And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.

I see that Aftershave finally got slapped down for his foul mouth (er ... keyboard) ... I remember admonishing him and others in this regard months ago.  I said that all he was really accomplishing was making Evos look bad.  Steve Story apparently agrees now.  I guess I should have kept my mouth shut since it is to the advantage of my cause for Evos to look bad.  But I do feel sorry for the underdog and I can't help but wish for him to have a sporting chance.  Seriously, my true goal for ALL is that you would come to the knowledge of the truth.  I have no interest in "winning" a personal war.  I only want others to benefit from the knowledge of the Truth in their lives as I have benefitted.  I do realize that the odds of hardened skeptics coming to a knowledge of the truth are slim, which is why I take my message to kids, but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.

No time right now to give you any more info on RM Dating.  If anyone wants to try to convince me why Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time, I'm all ears.  Hopefully, I will have time next week to dive into this topic a little more.

I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

***********************************************

Mike PSS...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,03:47

AFD projects:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is that right AFD? ..terrific..get them to logon and say hello..I say you're lying.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? ...another bald faced lie. You're too chickensh*t to turn on comments. Spin away AFD you're not convincing anyone.

And now the money shot .....all creos do it ....as sure as the Pope is a Catholic.. they can't help themselves.
Let me help you fix your next comment for you AFD.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But your MYcomment provides an interesting parallel to the EvolutionistCreationist Approach to Truth.  What you I WANT to believe seriously clouds your MY thinking and causes you ME  to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Say whatever you like AFD, what you do not realize is that every single loony creo that has popped up here and on PT has EXACTLY the same Modus Operandi.

They each naively without the slightest hint of self awareness make the same mistake...you are just a parody..and no university in the world teaches a parody as science.

Go for it AFD...project your faults for all to see.... you are just a total loser.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,03:53

AFD makes another hollow boast:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why bother?

All you have done is C&P'ed creationist claptrap and hogwash.

If you were honest you would just provide the links to this thread......coward.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 29 2006,03:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis.  But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it.  In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying.  I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists.  As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians.

I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point.  Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic.  But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias.

YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,04:45

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,08:09)
a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Schrodinger's Cat just rolled over in its box.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,05:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's fine if your version of "Truth" does not require being able to answer questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And it is a fascinating search.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll bet it is! A limitless flight of fancy unconstrained by buzzkills like reality? Pass some this way.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's fine if you don't feel particularly compelled to actually understand that which you are refuting.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Technically true, perhaps, and generally true if you are referring to the informative posts of others. But when it comes to yourself, Dave, I think you seriously misunderstand what we are learning from you. Plato you ain't, big guy.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,05:55

Interesting that Dave has time to post a 1,000-word essay on why he's not losing here, but no time to post his objections to isochrons.

And Dave? You need a lot more than advanced degrees in 10 different fields to be able to "refute" evolution. Evolution is a fact, and no one who has actually studied the subject in any depth at all doubts it. In fact, you don't even doubt it. In fact, your "hypothesis" requires evolution rates far beyond anything contemplated by any theory of evolution, if you think the several thousand "kinds" on the ark have diversified into the tens of millions of species currently in existence in less than five thousand years. (Strange how silent you've been on this issue, like so many other issues, such as the depth of sediment your "flood" needs to account for.)

And that's why we know you're "losing," Dave. Your "hypothesis" has a number of absolutely fatal flaws to it (the above-mentioned two are representative of dozens), and your inability to address these critical problems with your theory means you are, indeed, "losing." As I pointed out to Bill, not only do you not answer these questions, you don't even acknowledge them.

Oh, so you want to refute the theory of evolution? Is that what you meant to say? Well, you're still going to need advanced degrees in ten subjects or more, because contrary to your bone-headed misapprehensions about how science works, the evidence in favor of the theory is mountainous.

And one more thing, Dave: "evolutionists" don't require the earth to billions of years old. The vast majority of complex multicellular life has arisen in less than the last billion years. For the first three billion years, life basically amounted to bacteria. So why do "evolutionists" "need" the earth to be 4.55 billion years old? They don't. They think the earth is 4.55 billion years old because the evidence supports that date. You're the one with an emotional attachment to a world six orders of magnitude younger than that, because otherwise your whole life becomes based on a lie. So don't go around accusing scientists of having an agenda. Your agenda couldn't be any clearer if you came out and admitted it (which, in some cases, such as the phylogeny of great apes, you already have).
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 29 2006,06:03

Yeah ShitForBrains Dave, I sure got 'slapped down' alright!  :D  :D  :D

I bet the readers and lurkers here will accept my honest statements with vulgarities over your sugar-coated and flowery set of outright lies any day of the week.  Want to start a poll and bet on it?

When are you going to discuss the C14 calibration like you promised Davie?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form limestone?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form 1000 ft. of limestone, erode a canyon in it, then cover it with 17,000 ft. of sediment?
When are you going to discuss the two dozen sequentially buried mature forests in Yellowstone?

See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2006,06:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, THEY said it. YOU parroted it, without knowing what the #### you were talking about. So much so that you felt compelled to invent fantasies out of whole cloth.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually, no it doesn't answer my objections. As I previously posted, in the lunar and meteorite and prebiotic rock samples...all the radiometric methods used ...agreed. That is what you failed to address..the actual data. You have given what you think is a psychological reason for all scientists everywhere to FAKE dates...but you have not shown that they ARE fake. The term you are searching for here in psychology is "projection," little ProvenLiarDave.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have a hypothesis that you are attempting to support, yet you cannot support it by answering questions, thus your "hypothesis that is better than any other" fails at several levels of requirements. This eliminates your hypothesis as valid or viable until corrected.  If you believe this is "fallacious" to think so, please explain your reasoning and cite the fallacy -- because this is a basic tenet of science, Stupid, a thing you again, fail miserably at grasping.

Your intellectual dishonesty forces you to avoid or otherwise lie, Stupid--you have no choice. This sort of thing is admirably illustrated by the fact that you have not directly responded to Jon or Mike's explanations/queries on the subject of whole-rock dating, again.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 29 2006,06:13

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,06:17

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 29 2006,11:13)
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 29 2006,06:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2006,06:54

Dave,
When will the earth be 6001 years old? Is there a specific day? Is it new years day?
Or is gawd keeping it at 6000 for ever?
It's a simple question but i dont expect an answer.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,07:07

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,11:17)
Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, more generally, "evolution" = "any scientific fact or theory that conflicts with my worldview." This may come as a surprise, but theories of cosmology or, e.g., stellar evolution are actually parts of the Theory of Evolution, to the extent that they require the universe to be more than 6,000 years old. It's a little-known fact that there is a conspiracy among cosmologists, astrophysicists, high-energy physicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists, and others to defraud the public into thinking the Bible is false.
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 29 2006,07:27

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,11:21)
I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you serious?

Snake oil peddlers the world around use YEC models to make money. Dr. Dino? Tent revivals?

Hmm. Interesting that they are all making money by asking for donations from those who believe them isn't it?

Dave, Core samples? Let me know.

PS:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
afdave  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted: May 18 2006,22:21    

...Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


afdave  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




afdave    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posted: May 19 2006,08:37  
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWE    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Posted: May 19 2006,14:22  
Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< link here >

So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 29 2006,07:29

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,12:03)
See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I entertained this idea w/r/t Ghost of Paley--not allow any new posts from him which didn't provide the models and evidence he's claimed for a year to have. I discarded the idea after about 1 second when I realized it would effectively end Paley's participation on this board, forever.
Posted by: Shirley Knott on Sep. 29 2006,07:49

And the down side to that would be what, precisely?

Sheesh, with the ghast of Paley around, who needs dogs pooping on the lawn?   At least some owners clean up after their dogs...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 29 2006,07:53

Shirley said:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the down side to that would be what, precisely?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Touché...

Ah well ......there's no party without punch.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,07:54

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 29 2006,12:27)
So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, not only did you lose the Portuguese thing, you never even argued your position. If this were a court case, I'd say you lost by having your default taken.

Your claim was a linguistic claim, Dave, requiring linguistic evidence to support it. You never provided any liguistic evidence at all, instead providing a pastiche of irrelevant historical trivia.

So you not only lost, Dave; you didn't even put up a fight.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 29 2006,08:04

AFDave,
I see you restate your case about mixing lines about Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graphs.          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And at the end of your post.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mike PSS...            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,
I'm not talking about time or ages or "millionofyearsism", only the Isochron sample data in a linear relationship.  I even posted a warning to you but you ignored it.  Please review this  < again >.  Especially the WARNING.

Since you agree to the statement then I can begin my "executive summary" in another post.

ALSO, since you said one of my claims was almost right but the other was wrong, please reply and correct my claims to correctly reflect your stance on this issue.  Fill in the claims that reflect YOUR stance on the Rb/Sr Isochron method.  It won't change my stance but may change some of the examples I use.
1) Dave and mixing (please elaborate)
2) Dave and whole rock data linearity (please elaborate)

Thanks,
Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,08:43

Not that it isn't vastly entertaining watching Dave stagger around trying to discuss isochrons with his head wedged into a milk-bucket, but I wonder if he thinks he's getting away with anything here. His own "hypothesis" has multiple, absolutely fatal flaws, most of which are based on bone-simple conflicts with observations a bright nine-year-old could make, which he has not dealt with and cannot deal with. Yet here he is, trying to wedge a little doubt into an extremely technical, and yet extremely well-supported, methodology that happens to be just one of millions of nails in the coffin of his "hypothesis."

So why don't you start with the simple problems with your "hypothesis," Dave, like the fact that you don't have a source of water for your "flood," nor do you have an explanation for why we can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 lightyears away?

But if you would prefer to keep having your head bashed in by the likes of Mike PSS and JonF, go right ahead; I'll go make some more popcorn.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 29 2006,09:28

DumbAssDaveTheHabitualLiar says;


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll handle the last part of that statement first: I said that you were making money off your propaganda. Where it goes is irrelevant. I also said if --IF--you are not getting paid anything as "treasurer', great.

As to the first part of your statement: The fact is that this entire exchange about "contacting WaiWai indians in Brazil" is on pages 88-93 of the previous "AirHead Dave's Wild-Ass Guess " thread part1. Here is how it went. First, Dave makes a stupid claim:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is not a single Wai-wai village that my dad has not had contact with. What in the world are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said that I doubted that, for specific reasons:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p. 91) What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe" you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers, you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century." Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p 93): The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.
The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.
I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic. Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason I said I knew Dave's father had not contacted EVERY Brazilian WaiWai group was precisely because the Human Resource Area Files (HRAF) relied on by every anthropologist in the field...stated clearly that specific villages of WaiWai had NOT been contacted by any whites after moving to the Brazilian Highlands regions. They moved before Davey's daddy got there. He did not contact them.

Did Davey's daddy lie to little Davey? Is this where little Davey LEARNED to lie?
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 29 2006,09:44

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
Eric:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical Paley...wrong,  wrong, wrong!

People in the is thread have answered ALL of AFDave's questions and more...in detail...backup with links and documents.

Why is it you feel the need to make an incorrect statement?
Posted by: Diogenes on Sep. 29 2006,10:46

Bob the Biologist: Hey Rob, could I get you to do a favor for me?
Rob the Geologist: Sure Bob, what do you need?
Bob the Biologist: Well you know that stupid make belief  evolution story that we invented back 150 years ago?
Rob the Geologist: Sure do.
Bob the Biologist: Well, at this point we're pretty much stuck with it, I mean who wants to admit we've been full of crap for the last 150 years.  We've got alot of holes to patch and I was hoping you could help with this one.  We need the earth to be old, very old in fact, for evolution to even have a prayer.  Anything you could do to date rock formations back a few billion years?
Rob the Geologist: Well sounds good to me, even though it's obvious to all of us that the God of the Bible created the world we hate him and want to trick his followers.  Previously we've just been making numbers up at random for different layers, but I guess some sort of consistency would be good.
Bob the Biologist: Excellent.  So just talk to the archeologists any time you are going to date a sample to make sure which bones they want to use in a layer and which they are throwing away.  Don't worry I already talked to the Guild of Archeologists and they are fine with using our timeline.  We're going to use 6 MYA for the split with chimpanzees *laugh*.  Sorry, I always chuckle when I think about how stupid that idea is, anyone that knows anatomy can easily see why chimpanzees and humans are not related at all.
Rob the Geologist: Well, we still have a problem.  As I told you we just make the dates up right now.  Pretty soon those hyper-intelligent religious people are going to catch on.  Don't worry though, I have a plan.  Hey Todd, could you come over here!
Todd the Physicist: Hey Rob, what's up?
Rob the Geologist: Congratulations on getting funding for that radiometric dating scam you've been running.
Todd the Physicist: Thanks, but it's not hard when all scientists are in collusion to defraud the government.
Rob the Geologist: I've been talking with Bob and we want to use your dating method *laugh* to prove *laugh* that the earth is older than 6000 years.
Todd the Physicist: Well good, because I've got some Big Bang buddies that need an old universe, so they'd love to start with an old earth.
Bob the Biologist: Todd, make sure that the numbers aren't exact, add some randomness and make sure you add those little error bars so it doesn't look like we're just making this stuff up.
Todd the Physicist: I'm a scientist Bob, of course I know how to fake data.  I mean that's all we really do all day.  I'm sure we'll get those Christians this time.  Praise Satan!
All Together: Praise Satan!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,11:25

Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of it?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 29 2006,11:33

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:25)
Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got a lot going on. If you want to do Post of the Week, you're more than welcome.

Here's a contender:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=33183 >
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 29 2006,11:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bob the Biologist...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFLMAO! Priceless!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 29 2006,12:11

Here's a good post by PT's PZ Meyers at < Pharyngula > about a Jonathan Wells piece that illustrates what drives me crazy about creationists like our own AF Dave: every time scientists talk about not knowing something, these cretins leap all over them because they don't know everything.

You've got someone like Wells, or Dave, who essentially doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, be it brain development in humans or Rb/Sr isochrons, criticizing scientists because they don't know everything about the subject.

The tiniest little uncertainty that scientists present (how many scientific papers don't contain a sentence roughly similar to "…but the cause of this particular phenomenon remains a mystery"?) is taken by Dave and his ilk as proof that science in general is bogus. By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.
Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Sep. 29 2006,21:59

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:11)
By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute! DDTTD always has an answer for those tough questions, it's his Mantra.

Say it with me, I know you can.

MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH

Amen.

I keep pointing out to DDTTD that there are plenty of places close to his home where he can explore his issues with fossils in more depth, but he keeps flying off to other locales.

Avoiding the issues?

Silver Dollar City is a bastion of scientific theory!

Granny, whomp us up a load o' possum and grits while we search for some black gold, Texas Tea, yada yada yada.

Try DRIVING out to Elmo Kansas and finding some of the absolutely amazing Permian insect fossils at that site.

WHAT catastrophe preserved the delicate features of those fossils?

It weren't a dang MASSIVE flood did that me bucko.

Enjoy your vacation in Redneck City and try again, Jethro.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,02:25

EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE



I love this chart from Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other. (I suppose you guys don't say that anymore since molecular biology has proved you wrong, though.  You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)

We have been spending a long time on Radiometric "Dating" and I have shown you much support for my contention that ...

a) While radioactive decay has indeed occurred, it is not a reliable indicator of the age of rocks
b) Rocks are selected carefully so the "correct" dates are obtained.

Correct by what standard?  Well, of course, by the all powerful standard of the Evolution Fairy Tale.  And that is where the nice little chart from Dayhoff comes in handy.

Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.

Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hacia. (2001). Genome of the apes. Trends In Genetics 17(11): 637-645. I've gone to the effort of adapting Table 1 into % similarity (as opposed to % difference) to make it exactly what you requested (feel free to check out the original reference). What follows then is the type of genetic sequence analyzed, % similarity between humans and chimps (HC), % similarity between humans and gorillas (HG), then % similarity between chimps and gorillas (CG), in that order.

Noncoding intergenic: HC=98.76%, HG=98.38%, CG=97.37%
Intronic: HC=99.07%, HG=98.77%, CG=98.79%
Pseudogenes: HC=98.36%, HG=98.13%, CG=97.86%
X chromosome noncoding: HC=98.84%, HG=98.53%, CG=98.5%
Y chromosome: HC=98.32%, HG=97.67%, CG=97.22%

Coding sequences:
Synonymous (Ks): HC=98.89%, HG=98.52%, CG=98.36%
Nonsynonymous (Ka): HC=99.2%, HG=99.07%, CG=99.1%
Amino acid divergence: HC=98.66%, HG=98.42%, CG=98.35%
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember that H=Human, G=Gorilla and C=Chimp, OK?  Now if the divergence date was 5 million years ago and the genetic sequence difference is 1.5%--remember, we are talking about organisms with very similar morphologies here--how many millions of years are needed to evolve from a bacteria to a human?  Or from pond scum to the bacteria?

Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.

Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.

This, in my opinion, is the overiding rule which guides the Selection of Rocks for dating, the rejection of "incorrect" dates, and the acceptance of "correct" dates.  Can I prove this happens?  I have shown a very public example of how it happened at Koobi Fora.  What do you want me to do?  Go spend a year with a professional geologist and watch him date rocks?  Sorry ... haven't got time.  Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"


*************************************************

Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,03:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where does he show that? Last time I checked, my fahter was transitional between my grandfather and myself.
"Organisms on a molecular level" what does that mean?

Evolution needs some time to take place. Sure, huh... what's your point?

As Lenny says: you're, huh, blithering again.  ???
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,04:26

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,08:25)
Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.  Or do you have an objection to Diogenes' scenario as an accurate representation of your reality?

The only one who needs x number of years is you, Dave.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,04:50

AFD ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
any organism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.

Improv...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,05:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, what's wrong with a two-billion-year-old earth, according to your argument? 215 million years is about 5% of the true age of the earth. Two billion years would be plenty of time for bacteria to have evolved into humans (and in fact that's roughly how long it takes). You yourself admitted you think a billion years is plenty of time! So why does everyone—geologists, paleontologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers—insist the actual figure is 4.55 billion years?

Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years. So explain, if you can, if you have the slightest clue, why all the evidence from a dozen different directions converges on that one value? Half that time would be plenty. A quarter of that time would be plenty. For all you know, a tenth of that time would be plenty. Did "evolutionists" just want to make sure they had a margin of error?

You need exactly 6,000 years, Dave, within a century or two. But you can't find any evidence that converges on 6,000 years. Your figures (to the extent you even have any figures) are all over the place!
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,05:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,06:24

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,11:46)
Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.

Now, given all that, how exactly can 4.5 billion years be a required period of time?  If that number is neither based on evidence nor arrived at arbitrarily, then how do you think it is calculated?  How would you begin to accurately calculate the "minimum time required for all of this?"  If "all of this" is completely fictional and nonsensical to begin with, how could you possibly come up with a real time frame?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,08:03

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
AFD ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
any organism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would a modern species be transitional to another one?

You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey? That wouldn't be surprising after all, given your level of educaction in biology.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,08:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, this is basically what Darwin said, and what modern "evolutionists" have always said. Every living thing on this planet is equally "evolved", as all have been evolving for an equal amount of time. Jeannot notes the same thing -- you're stuck in some uneducated "ladder" interpretation of evolution. Once you understand why this is wrong, you might understand my answers to your other questions.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong. Both you and Denton are wrong here. This is a vindicating find to "Darwinists". The eukaryotic ancestor of all of the above (e.g., humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast) diverged away from the prokaryotes (bacteria) probably over a billion years ago. After that initial divergence, the eukaryotic line itself then split (at vastly different times) to form all the groups you list, each of which has been evolving independently of bacteria for the same amount of time (once again, probably over a billion years). This is standard evolutionary theory. If you (or Denton) understood it, you wouldn't expect any of a horse or a human or a silkworm or yeast to be "more" genetically diverged from bacteria. You would expect them to be equally (but differently) diverged. They are. This is only an astonishing find of modern science if you've never heard of (or never understood) evolutionary theory.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Faster mutation rates would work just as well (for example, the ones you inevitably require when you propose all primate species diverged since the Flood). Plus, even if we did need Deep Time, we have it, and we had it well before Darwin.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not in the slightest. Most of those numbers look like exactly what I would expect from established phylogenies, and all are within the margin of error and uncertainty found within any particular selected region of DNA. Trace the horse (or any other) row along the matrix and you will see increasing genetic divergence with increasing estimated time since evolutionary divergence. The fact that you focus on the bottom row (which is evolutionarily equidistant from all other groups, and is therefore genetically equi-divergent), where you instead expect decreasing numbers from left to right, tells me you don't understand this. So does the fact that you expect very small numbers in the lower right hand corner, presumably meaning you think yeast (for example) is very similar to bacteria. Dave, whether you believe in or understand evolution or not, that is a grave error in basic biology. Fundamentally, yeast is no more similar to bacteria than humans.

The fact that I don't see a challenge to evolutionary theory here is not "incredible" at all. What is incredible is that you (and Denton) don't see how the table you have just presented is excellent evidence FOR evolutionary theory.

EDIT: Dave, just to be perfectly clear, IF you presented the data that YOU (erroneously) think that evolution predicts (i.e., decreasing genetic divergence from bacteria when moving from mammals to yeast), THEN you would have given me cause to doubt something about evolutionary theory. You've got this bass ackwards (yet again).
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,08:50

Improvius...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




1)   No no no no.  You have projected this idea onto me.  I DO NOT believe that the theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2)  Wow.  No again.  Most of the modern sciences were founded by creationists.

First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!

Secondly, evolutionary geologists and biologists seem to be the ones who are so concerned about the age of the earth (here are all of you Thumbsters getting irate at me for being a creationist ... so it is apparently very important to you).  And you guys are very adamant that it is old.  Admittedly, we creationists are also adamant that it is young.

Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

Let me say that again ... louder.

I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.  In other words, we do what comes natural.  What comes natural?  Well, you eat, sleep, work, play, you go to school, get married, have kids, get old and die.  And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.  "Bonhoeffer, you're an alarmist!  Hitler's a decent president.[oops!  I violated that rule what's it called? ... oh well] What are you guys getting all worked up about?  Hitler's a peach!"

Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.
Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 30 2006,09:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,09:01

Dave, good, you're still here.

As requested, I am going to send you that Nature paper (the "executive summary" of ape phylogenetics) on Monday. However, this recent post of yours gives me good cause to believe you cannot yet understand it, seeing as how you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of phylogenies. (Indeed, you get this so wrong that you're calling black white.)

So here is an exercise for you.

Take that table you have just posted. Pick any row (horses  for example). Draw a "tree" based on the % divergence (e.g., a 5% divergence between your chosen animal and another in the table would have a "branch" near the top of the tree and a 65% divergence would have a branch near the bottom). Look at your finished tree as representing time since evolutionary divergence. Compare it against a similar tree in any basic evolution text (e.g., Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale has exactly what you're looking for at the beginning of each chapter). Are they the same? Different? How should they compare if this incredible "finding" of yours (and Denton's) were, as you suggest, a revolutionary discovery that evolutionists suppress because it is disappointing?

If you're still unconvinced, do another tree for a different species. Make the branches as parsimonious as possible. For example, you might notice that all of the animals within the boxes in the table tend to have similar values. Does this give you any clue for how your tree might look? Why might this be? Do you perhaps have cause to group some o them together in a single branch? What does this tell you?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 30 2006,09:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,09:15

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How delightfully patronizing.  Scientists don't think about any deep questions, eh?  Just concerned with widgets?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I could match you verse for verse, Dave. I've read it (and when I read something, I inevitably "consider" it, unlike some) cover to cover many times over. I was baptized United, went to a Catholic shool, and was a Baptist youth counsellor for many years. I've also considered the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, and many others. Can you say the same?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might want to read up on some more educated opinions about exactly how "naturalistic" all of us are born, Dave. I might suggest Dennet or Pinker or...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
COMFORTABLE OBLIVION
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All this new touchstone phrase of yours conveys to me is that I would be better served playing a cool computer game right now than interacting with you.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,09:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
Stupid's current conspiracy theory is even more amusing than his previous blitherings. (1) He pulls up a chart of cytochrome distances and proclaims that it shows how (a)transitionals are impossible and that (b)evolution "needs" deep time, proudly pulling a figure from his well-reamed spincter and saying: "it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so." Evidence? Well, the CHART!! That chart alone gives his cunning mind the key to the vast global conspiracy that was begun back in the 1800's by all those theistic scientists that he's fond of mentioning.        
He moves from that to (2)
Geologists have all been secretly brainwashed into the conspiracy, so they only select rocks that fit the "secret" time frame. But he says THEY don't view it as a conspiracy.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course, as with many "conspiracy" theories, there's huge gaping holes in this, but Dave presses on, undeterred by reality. He cites Koobi Fora again, convinced that here is PUBLIC evidence of the vast cabal at work. But the Koobi Fora KBS Tuff is only about 2 million years old. He ignores that the dating method was relatively new at the time. He ignores the statements of the lead geologists on the matter, because Dave knows their dark secret: they are all mindless drones, zombies working for the Great Atheist Conspiracy. THEY MUST HAVE DELIBERATELY altered the dates to FIT their theory...but would it have made a difference in science if the remains were 2.6 million years old instead of 1.87? No, not really. Pushing Homo habilis back to 2.6 might be surprising, but not any more so than a 4 MYA date for australopiths. Again, the lead geologists and paleontologists are all alive and have all described their experiences at this time, in various media outlets. While it shows how messy science can be, it certainly doesn't show a conspiracy. But Dave, and AIG says it does, because they were all under the evil spell of Evilushuns, unknown even to them. But Jack Miller, Ian McDougall, and Jim Aaronson, even Kay Behrensmeyer have all written about or given interviews on the subject. As have the lead paloeanthropologists, and the lead paleontologists. Even though they were all secretly fighting for an older date (so evolution could be accomodated) they all secretly agreed on a younger date to throw the noble God-loving creationists off the track and hide the vast atheist conspiracy. It all makes sense if you just look at it with a "10,000-foot view" that starves your brain of oxygen.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,09:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet I know the bible at least as well as you do, Stupid. In fact, you've been tested ON the Bible in this very forum and found less informed than your rivals. Ironic, eh?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,09:57

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,14:50)
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that somehow, Dave, you've come around to agreeing with nearly everyone here.  You've done a complete about-face and are now acknowledging that evolution and deep time make perfect sense and fit observed data perfectly well.  And the only thing getting in the way of all of that is a belief in magic and/or miracles.

All right then.  So I guess we're done?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,10:03

OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this < advertisement > for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,10:16

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 30 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a copy from The Church of Jebus Chrizt of Latter Day Saints.

Is this the one I should consider?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,11:12

I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.  

Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.

Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?  Let's just consider the book of Genesis now (we introduce too much controversy to even discuss the other books now).  Compare the Book of Genesis (a history book) to any other historical text.  What rules do you apply to the OTHER texts?  Why not apply the same rules to Genesis?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,11:29

Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,11:36

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad to hear that. Personally, I don't really care what "form" of evolution Denton "believes". Doesn't matter in the slightest. Because by "mainstream", you don't want to be arguing against any misconceived public or individual perception of evolution here (evolution as a ladder of increasing complexity or perfection, for example, or "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"). You have your sights trained on the mainstream SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution. And (as Denton should be aware, unless he's aiming at a different target) that's the one that postulates a single divergence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes (and therefore roughly equal % genetic divergence between bacteria and all eukaryotic forms, as in your table). It postulates similar divergences among many of the groups identified by boxes in your table (hence the similar values within boxes). If you want to really understand the "mainstream" interpretation of evolutionary descent  (and how we have determined it), I'd recommend Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale as a good introductory, 700-page introductory "exectuive summary".



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fair enough. I know scientists for whom the Bible would be mostly Greek. I know vociferous Christians with no better understanding. I know plenty of other scientists who could also go verse-for-verse (for or against). In terms of "consideration" of the Bible, they are in no lesser or greater number than the population at large, as far as I can tell (though the number of disbelievers in a personal god certainly tends to be greater).
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,11:44

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like it.  It shows just how far you've come from some of your earlier posts:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gee, then how come there are so few molecular biologists  who know about that? They're all still talking about molecular evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Blinded by what they want to believe. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 30 2006,11:48

As usual, SFBDave can't type two consecutive sentences without lying

         
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that we had a whole separate thread about Glenn's conversion from YEC and AFDave here, which I know Davie-dufus read because it named him.  Davie and I have also discussed Morton many times (although usually it was me telling, and Davie pretending to ignore).

< Topic: AFDave’s Psychosis and Glenn Morton’s 'Demon' >

     
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And we've already been through this before Davie, about a hundred pages ago.  Everyone else on the planet determines the literalness of a book account by looking for independent evidence that either confirms or rebuts the story.  Having *part* of a book be literal or historical (like the Bible) does not mean the WHOLE FRIGGIN' THING is literal.

Is King Kong really real Davie?  NYC is a real place, and the Empire State building is a real structure.  However, there is no historical record of a tower climbing giant ape in NYC taking place besides in that book,  More importantly, the laws of physics and biomechanics make it impossible to scale up a 6' creature into 100' size with the same relative dimensions.

You're getting boring with your repetitiveness Davie.  Why don't you move on to a new topic, like C14 calibration, or limestone formation, or sequentially buried forests?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2006,11:51

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Morton didn't encounter a bunch of AFDaves, he was an AFDave. Except that he became an expert in geology and was a smart guy. So eventually he could no longer sustain the kind of hairbrained fantasies that AFDave can easily believe.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,12:04

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,10:46)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, actually it doesn't, Dave. The oldest known fossils (bacterial mats called stromatolites) are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Let's say the first life on the planet is 200 million years older than that. Some evolutionary biologists believe life could have arisen as little as a few hundred million years after the earth formed. And there was essentially no other life on the planet for almost another three billion years after that.

But none of this helps your young-earth hypothesis, Dave, and all of it hurts it. We already know it would take almost a hundred million years for the earth to cooled from a completely molten state to a point where liquid water could exist at the surface. How does your "hypothesis" explain the earth cooling to the point where Adam could walk around on it in less than a week?

Yet another question you've never even acknowledged, Dave, let alone answered, which brings us to…
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,12:07

Well, it’s coming up on the five-month anniversary of Absolutely Fraudulent Dave’s UPDATED Creator God “Hypothesis,” and now seems like a good time to take stock of Dave’s progress in supporting his “hypothesis.” Naturally, Dave thinks he’s won every debate he’s engaged in here, but anyone who troubles to read this thread can judge for themselves how true that claim is. And naturally Dave, being a creationist, has spent virtually no time supporting his own “hypothesis,” but rather has attempted, in a floundering and ineffectual fashion, to discredit thoroughly supported and solidly-verified science, everywhere from biology and genetics to paleontology to chemistry to geology to quantum physics to astronomy and cosmology. And he's attempted this feat without making the tiniest effort to actually educate himself on any of these topics, but instead seems to believe that any layman can pick this stuff up in an afternoon on the AiG website.

In the meantime, Dave has left a not-inconsiderable number of questions about and objections to his “hypothesis” unanswered and un-responded to—many of them never even acknoweldged. Now, on the five-month anniversary (more or less) of Dave’s circus act, I thought it would be good to reprise the list of them. This is far from an exhaustive list, so feel free to add as necessary, and of course thanks to Deadman_932 for compiling the original list, which has grown significantly since he last posted it.

So, without further ado:

Dave’s Unanswered Questions, Sorted by Category

Problems with the Creator God “Hypothesis” Generally

  • Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
  • Why are you bothering? Most people here don't deny that God may exist.


Problems With Biblical Inerrancy

  • You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124

  • I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124

  • You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?

  • You claim that humans have been literate since Adam. If Adam and the origin of the universe are coeval, i.e., 6,000 years ago, then why don’t we have written records dating back to 6,000 years ago? You claim Adam’s “secretaries” followed him around with stone tablets taking dictation. Whatever became of those stone tablets, and why is it that the oldest written records are less than 5,000 years old?

Problems With a Young Earth

  • Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?

  • Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?

  • What evidence do you have independent of the Bible that converges on an age of 6,000 years for the age of the earth?

  • If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no visible stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, that are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away. How do you explain the observation of these objects?

  • 6,000 years is not nearly enough time for a solar system to form, to say nothing of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or a galactic supercluster. How does your “hypothesis” explain the existence of these objects?

  • It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion. How do you explain this happening in only 6,000 years?

  • It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion. How did this happen in only 6,000 years?

  • Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere. Why don’t we see the sun’s power output increasing noticeably from one year to the next if it is only 6,000 years old?

  • Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.

  • The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?

  • Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor.

  • How do you cool an iron sphere massing over 10^24 Kg in less than 6,000 years?

  • Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.

  • For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?


Problems with Noah’s Ark

  • How did 35,000 or fewer "kinds" on the ark end up proliferating into over ten million species in less than 5,000 years? How is this not ultra-mega-supendo-fantastico-enormo-macroevolution?

  • Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?

  • If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??

  • Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?

Problems with the “Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis”

  • Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.

  • How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?

  • Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains.)

  • Where did all that water in your “global flood run-off”---run off to?

  • Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 2,600 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 2,600 meters of sediment?

  • Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?

  • Since the Bible makes no mention of the Grand Canyon, nor any other canyon, nor North America for that matter, what is your justification for assuming the Grand Canyon was carved by the Noachian flood? You’ve admitted you know of no way to date the Grand Canyon; therefore how do you know if the Grand Canyon was formed before, during, or after the “flood”?

  • Which sediment layers were laid before the “flood,” Dave? Which were laid during the “flood”? Which were laid after the “flood”? Or do you still maintain that all sedimentary layers worldwide (all several kilometers of them) were laid during the flood?

  • How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

  • Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.

  • Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?

  • How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?

  • I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?

  • Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase

  • Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them.

  • Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft ")

  • If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?

  • The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.

  • How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?

  • Why don't we see disruption of the varves?

  • How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?

  • Explain why it's more likely that all the hundreds of billions of fossils worldwide were laid down by a single gigantic flood (even the ones in sediments that were not laid down by water), rather than in innumerable smaller events over the last few billion years.

  • Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.

  • Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?

  • Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

  • If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

  • You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

  • Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.

  • JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.

  • Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "hypothesis?"

  • Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?

  • Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer (p.125)

  • Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?

  • Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave?

  • Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.


Problems with Attempts to Refute Standard Dating Techniques

  • How do you plan to refute every single age ever given by any dating method (and there are least 40 radiometric dating methods, and multiple other non-radiometric methods) that is in excess of 6,000 years? How will you explain even one date in excess of 6,000 years?

  • Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?
    How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

  • Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

  • Is Snelling's inclusion of xenoliths in his Ngauruhoe dating study fraud?  If not, would it have been fraud to inject argon into the samples?  Is there any difference between the two scenarios?

  • There are hundreds of thousands to millions of dates derived from both radiometric and non-radiometric techniques that range from more than 6,000 years to ~4.55 billion years. Note that no object that is known to have originated on the earth has ever been dated beyond ~4.55 billion years. I.e., nothing has ever been found that dates to 10 billion years, or a hundred billion years, or a trillion years. Why do you think this is? “Evolutionists” have no reason to believe it takes 4.55 billion years for life to evolve.

  • You believe that isochrons are meaningless—invalid. Would you care to compute the probabilities that isochrons [I]ever converge on any particular values? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Precambrian provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it—the Precambrian? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Triassic provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it again—the Triassic?

  • There is no reason to believe that life would have taken more than several hundred million years to evolve. Why don’t scientists claim that the earth is 700 million years old (20% of its currently-accepted age)?


  • How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?

  • Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked:

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    And:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Cowardly Dave refused to answer.


Theological Problems with a Creator God “Hypothesis”

  • Dave, do you understand the difference between these two statements?
    A) I believe that there is a Creator who takes an interest in the welfare of human beings;

    B) I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior.

    [ ] Yes

    [ ] N
  • Why did God need a "global catastrophic flood" just to murder all the bad people in the world? Couldn't he come up with a more elegant solution that didn't involve wiping out 99.99999999999% of the life on the planet, the vast majority of which was completely innocent?

  • Why does God lie by making the earth look like it's 4.55 billion years old, and why does He lie by making the universe look like it's 1.37 billion years old? Is it to set an example for you, Dave?
  • What did God think he was accomplishing by nailing his own son to a tree?

Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:08

Wesley R. Elsberry, whoever he is (I think he might work in biology or something) once wrote a critique of Denton's claims on cytochrome data, by the way:
< http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html > . I wonder if he knows Glenn Morton. I bet they're both raving foaming ATHEISTS, though. Or maybe not, eh, AirHeadDave?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,12:18

Deadman ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see!



fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 >

Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.

Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be?

Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?

Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)

And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,12:28

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18)
Deadman ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I beg your pardon ... that's Deadman at the top ... look closely and you'll see!



fossil record: geologic time scale with major evolutionary events. [Art]. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-1650 >

Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.

Notice the timescale doesn't go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, but if it did, how many years more would that be?

Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?

Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)

And I can't keep straight what I'm supposed to read to get the REAL story on Evolution.  Some say Dawkins.  Some say others.  I say EB because I subscribe and someone here said they are reliable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gimme a break, Dave. Where does that pretty picture show ANY patterns of descent? Does it imply mammals disappeared 1.8 million years ago (just as dinosaurs disappeared 65 mya)?  That we don't have any vascular plants (after all, they're just a 400+ my old stepping stone on the way to humans). When were your ancestors plants, Dave? Go ahead and use that diagram to draw what you predict for cytochrome data. Show us how ludicrous a strawman you are actually building here.

Honestly, Dave. Really? This is the scope of your understanding and your "argument"? And you expect us to take you seriously? You expect me to believe that you will be able to understand the Nature paper I'm going to send you on Monday?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,12:29

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.

You know, if you'd agreed to that early on, it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2006,12:33

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Hmmmm ... this is my trusty old Encyclopedia Britannica ... 2006 version.  Not sure how you get more mainstream than that.  Looks pretty "ladderish" to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The "evolutionary ladder" is a common misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. In its most common incarnation the ladder shows the evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors, but the idea may go as far as a great chain of being, from bacteria at the bottom up to humans, the "peak" of evolution.

The ladder is based upon the pre-Darwinian scala naturae, founded by Aristotle in a time when species were thought to be static essences created individually by God. The scala naturae organised both living and inanimate objects on a ladder, with Humans, or sometimes supernatural beings at the top.

The idea of the scala naturae was difficult to dispose of, and so was a stumbling block to those trying to understand Darwin's theory, causing misunderstandings such as a belief in teleological evolution. The belief that one existing, essential God-created species, purposefully evolves into another existing species, while special creation adds new simple micro-organisms at the bottom, to start their journey up to the top - humans, of course - was common initially.

There are a number of things which prop up the ladder:


*A belief that intelligence is the "peak" of evolution, and therefore all species can be organised on a ladder of intelligence (the legacy of hundreds of years of the scala naturae).
*Ambiguous phrases like "humans are evolved from apes". Humans are evolved from apes - or at least extinct animals that modern zoologists would classify as apes - just not contemporary apes like Chimpanzees (see Common descent). It would be just as inaccurate to say that Chimpanzees evolved from humans.
*The fact that some ancestral groups of animals are often anatomically very similar to some of their modern descendents, but not others (and we therefore assign them to modern groups), for example, the common ancestor of fish and amphibians is anatomically far more similar to modern fish species than modern amphibians, so it's convenient to say that "amphibians evolved from fish". Attenborough (1979) made a ground breaking television series by using modern groups to represent human ancestors, which led some viewers to believe not just in the ladder, but in a ladder whose purpose was to produce humanity.
*The use of the words "higher" and "lower" to describe different species.

The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named [[Touma&#65533;]], was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it.

[edit]References
Attenborough, D., 1978. Life On Earth, London: BBC/Collins books.
Whitfield, J., 2002. Oldest member of human family found, in Nature 2002/Jul/11 [1]
Yahya, H., 2002. New Fossil Doscovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories, Islam Online [2].
[edit]Further Reading
Colby, C., 1996. Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Talkorigins.org, [3].
Dennett, D., 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Simon & Schuster. Discusses pre-Darwinian essentialist ideas about kinds.
Mayr, M., 2001. What Evolution Is, BasicBooks. Ch 1 debunks the scala naturae and teleological evolution.
Gould, S.J., 1990. Wonderful Life, Hutchinson. Begins by describing the ladder and teleological evolution, and then shows that evolution is blind and purposeless.
 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolutionary_ladder >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:35

And by the way, DaveStupid, if you're going to use Denton, i think you should know he's rejected your creationist view entirely, while accepting evolution as it is. Let me quote his last book:
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school...CONTRARY to the creationist position, THE WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESENTED HERE [in his book, Dave] is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on THE REALITY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. ". Nature's Destiny, pp. xvii-xviii
Wow, huh?
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,12:47

Improv...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...

I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

... you do not.

So, no, we're not on the same page.

Deadman, calm down.  I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you?  He's a man in torment.  He's like "skeptic."  He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative.  Poor guy!  If only he'd believe Genesis.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,12:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except you can't show it and answer questions about it, or use anything but fallacies and rhetorical games to defend it. You're not different from any other nutty little conspiracy theorist. At least Denton is honest enough to be a deist and not a literalist like yourself, forced to lie and use the tactics above ...

Added:
I posted a quote from Denton, in which he both accepts evolution and rejects creationism. StupidAssDave replies:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Deadman, calm down. I already said Denton believes in Evolution a page or two ago ... read my posts, will you? He's a man in torment. He's like "skeptic." He can't swallow Darwinism, but he has no alternative. Poor guy! If only he'd believe Genesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, wrong. What Stupid actually said was:  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution. I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream. I will look into this. Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I looked into it for you, Stupid.
Posted by: incorygible on Sep. 30 2006,13:01

Pop quiz, Dave.

"Mainstream" evolutionary theory predicts your ancestors once resembled (choose all that apply; all but bacteria are from your EB picture):

(a) bacteria
(b) fish
© squid
(d) vascular plants
(e) dinosaurs
(f) birds
(g) predatory cats
(h) all of the above

What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,13:16

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:18)
Yes.  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  At least a billion years.  Probably more.  How am I wrong about this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, your hypothesis needs "deep time." At least hundreds of millions of years. How else to explain the solid surface of the globe, Dave? It wouldn't be solid after 6,000 years, and it certainly wouldn't be room temperature.

An earth nine hundred million years old would be surprising, and would undoubtedly present some problems for evolutionary biology. But it wouldn't kill the theory. It would obliterate your "hypothesis," which predicts an age more than five orders of magnitude smaller!

But is that your argument, Dave? That because evolution "needs" billions of years, therefore the earth can't be billions of years old? What kind of nonsensical argument is that? You're spending all your time impugning the motives of scientists, presumably because you can't refute any of their evidence.

The craziness of your argument is that you believe concordances of dates from widely different independent lines of evidence is a weakness! You seem to think it's a strength for your argument that you don't have any "evidence" that converges on any particular date!

But how are scientists any worse off than creationists, Dave? You need an earth 6,000 years old. Should we infer from that need that your "hypothesis" is wrong? A more persuasive reason why your "hypothesis" is wrong is that it's contradicted by simple, straightforward observations about the world, observations a bright elementary school child could come up with.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,13:30

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:47)
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...

I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

... you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent.  So now that you've finally acknowledged the logic and science behind evolution, deep time, and whatever, we can dispense with further discussion along those lines.  At long last, we can return to the stated topic of the thread.

Please, by all menas, get on with presenting your overwhelming supernatural evidence.
Posted by: afdave on Sep. 30 2006,13:40

Incorygible ...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.

Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2006,13:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet another example of illogical, fallacious thinking. I see...false dichotomy and begging the question (Stupid is assuming supernaturalism true while offering no means of showing it). Then there is the straw man of "evolving from pond scum" while engaging in the equally stupid "appeal from ridicule" (those crazy evilushunists think we came from pond scum, har, har! )
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 30 2006,13:55

Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)

I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No Dave, you have not "explained this already".  We're waiting for you to tell us how you determine which parts are literal, and which parts are figurative of ANY text.

It was your thought question to the board Dave, let's hear your answer.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 30 2006,14:25

Dave, I was just commenting on Denton on another thread and after reading the introduction to his book I believe that he actually accepts a form of intelligent design but refuses to admit it, maybe even to himself.  The idea that anything can be fully comprehended by human reason is just plain foolish and he goes a long way implying that all the necessary variables in the universe to support life signify order or design by their existence.  

Dave, I'm going to recommend "Who was Adam" by Rana because I think it introduces you to some sound scientific concepts that you might be able to accept and get you to drop this YEC idea.  It would at least getting on the same page with some of these guys so you could have a real discussion.  You just have to ignore Rana's claim that Creationism is testable under his model.  Outside of that madness it should be a useful book for you.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 30 2006,15:16

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,19:40)
Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are quite clearly stating here that evolution and "billionsofyearsism" is the logical conclusion based on material evidence:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,15:44

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40)
Incorygible ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Dave, plants and humans have a common ancestor; there can be no doubt of that. Do you deny that plants and humans have a common ancestor?

And again, can you explain how it is that a need for "deep time," all by itself, is a problem for evolutionary theory? If there were no evidence that the earth were billions of years old, there would be a problem. But, in fact, there is a mountain of evidence that the earth is billions of years old; therefore, no problem.

Moreover, Dave, your "hypothesis" needs deep time as much as evolutionary theory does. You still haven't come up with a way for tens of millions of species can have arisen from the few thousand on the ark less than ten thousand years ago. More miracles?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really, Dave? What's illogical about it? If RM dating is accurate, and it is, then Deep Time is proven. Q.E.D. Can you show me the error in the logic? Under no circumstances (even if RM dating is completely wrong) would believing RM dating has proven Deep Time be "illogical." I'm not sure you're using the word "illogical" correctly here.

Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

In fact, other than radioisotopes that are created continuously as a result of natural processes, such as C14, we don't see any radioisotopes with half-lives less than a few million years. What's your explanation for that, Dave? More miracles?

And, why are there any daughter products to U-238? In 6,000 years, essentially none of the U-238 should have decayed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aside from the fact that humans did not evolve from "pond scum," which is mostly plants, Dave, there's nothing illogical about such a belief. It might be (and is) wrong to have such a belief, but there's nothing illogical about it. It's becoming clear you don't have a firm grasp of logic, among all your other deficiencies.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. The Joseph Smith "fairytale" is no more supported by evidence than your young-earth creationism "fairytale" is. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is supported by entire libraries full of evidence.

Why you think evolutionary theory and creationist "theory" are on an equal footing from an evidentiary standpoint baffles me, Dave.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,16:47

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One other thing. There's one critter on this charter that's missing, Dave: the chimpanzee. Humans and chimps have < exactly the same cytochrome c protein sequence. > (theoretically, you should already have known this; did you?) The chances of this happening by chance, given the functional redundancy of the cytochrome c protein, are conservatively estimated at less than one out of 10^93.

Any explanation for this, Dave? Another "miracle?

More generally, this chart confirms the standard evolutionary prediction that all currently-living eukaryote cytochrome proteins should be approximately equally distant from bacterial cytochrome, and contradicts your "ladder of life" misapprehension of evolutionary theory.

Your criticizing your own personal, wrong, version of evolutionary theory, not the actual theory.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,17:14

YEAH!!  AFDAVE WILL NO LONGER ARGUE THAT RB/SR WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES.  BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH MY < SUMMARY. >    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



O.K. Dave.  We can move on to what is really botherring you which is proving the actual TIME portion of the Isochron.  Now that you accept the METHOD of Isochron construction and sampling, and the resultant linearity of the data we can move on to the actual reason that anyone spends time and effort on these graphs which is to determine the AGE of the samples involved.

I'll assume you need another summary for this subject so I'll think about it for a little.  Off the top of my head I can come up with the following items to show you but I'll probably refine this list over time:
1)  The description of half-lives and how they affect the Isotopes in question.
2)  Measured values of half-lives of Isotopes.
3)  Significance of Rb87 decay to Sr87 decay reflected on the Isochron graph.
4)  Original melt daughter ratio Sr87 determination from the Isochron graph.

AFDave, you can help me out here.  I have one question that will reduce this list.

Here it comes....

Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.

Mike PSS
**************************

ericmurphy,
For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth?
I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Sep. 30 2006,17:22

I'm no biologist, but I use these ladders to look at the evolutionary tree.  And it also has chutes to accomodate devolution.  This meets all the requirements for the evo/devo discipline.

Posted by: ericmurphy on Sep. 30 2006,18:27

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 30 2006,22:14)
ericmurphy,
For a "real" science question regarding the past.  You stated        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we don't even need rm dating to prove "deep time." If there were no "deep time," then where's all the Pu 239? With a half-life of 20,000 years or so, there should be plenty of it.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If most of the elemental isotopes (stable and radioactive) were formed in the quark furnace of the supernovae in this region of space, How much time passed by between the supernovae and the measured formation of the earth?
I've never seen discussion of this subject.  However, if you want to trace back elemental origins of most of the elements of the earth you have to trace back to the actual supernovae event, not solar systems formation from the nebulae soup.  Earth's formation would reset the radionucleide clock of all elements occurring on the earth (just like the clock is reset slightly earlier with chondrite metorites).  But there may have been zero Pu-239 present in the nebulae when the earth formed since the supernovae happened earlier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good point. When it comes to parent/daughter ratios, obviously we're looking at the time since whatever system we're talking about became "closed." But when we're talking about the existence of radioisotopes, the relevant time is the time since the creation of that particular isotope. Unlike, say, C14, Pu239 is not created by any natural process on earth. Most likely, it's not formed in significant quantities anywhere except during a supernova event. Same thing with U238, U235, etc.

The problem is (correct me if I'm wrong here), that without a closed system by which we can determine parent/daughter ratios, there's no way to determine exactly how much, e.g., uranium-238 remains from the quantity originally formed in the supernova (or, supernovae) event(s). Hence, I don't think there is any way to date the time of that event using radiometric dating techniques. However, we can set a lower bound on that time by looking at progressively longer- and longer-lived radioisotopes. If the shortest-lived radioisotope still found in significant quantities has a half-life of, say, 400 million years, that sets a lower bound of how old the earth can be, given that ten half-lives would be four billion years ago (I'm not sure how many half-lives would have to go by to render a particular radioisotope undetectable; anyone know?).

In any event, it's extremely unlikely that supernova debris could have recollapsed into an accretion disk and formed a solar system in less than 10,000 half-lives of Pu-239. Therefore, the complete lack of natural Pu-239 is evidence that current theories of, among other things, nucleosynthesis, stellar evolution, and planetary system formation are correct. Not conclusive proof, of course, but it's certainly one observational test that all of those theories have passed. The lack of naturally-occurring Pu-239 is, of course, one of the many, many observational tests that Dave's "hypothesis" has not passed.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2006,18:54

Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.)

Ah, I see Eric already answered the question.

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 30 2006,22:38

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2006,23:54)
Is pond scum (or something like it) thought to be a precursor to animals? (I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a biologist.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 30 2006,23:11

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:40)
Incorygible ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you think? And if your answer is not (h), what are they doing on our "ladder"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I get it.  You think that I have this funny idea of plants and such being in the human ancestry?  No.  I just like the "ladder" because it portrays the real need for Deep Time.  I'll read the links though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet you implicitly used this argument to prove that no species is "transitional to another" (whatever that means).

A little bit more dishonesty, AFDave, please.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,00:00



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If humans are descended from pond scum, why do we still have pond scum?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent question, good Sir. From my own unpublished research (thwarted by the modern scientific establishment), I have determined that many creationists, evangelists, lawyers and politicians are in fact recently descended from pond scum or are in fact, ambulating pond scum themselves. You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006 , but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,05:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00)
You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you're utterly unembarrassable. Don't you realize that what you posted yesterday, or a week ago, or a year ago, is still available to be read? Makes denying you said stuff a lot harder.
Posted by: Bing on Oct. 01 2006,07:48

deleted because I didn't read far enough down the thread.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,08:02

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00)

You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at < http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design > where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great catch Deadman.  So not only did Davie-doo know about Glenn Morton, Davie admits to having read and researched quite a bit of Glenn's work.   All that, yet Davie still wonders why everyone here considers him a lying dog turd.

I wonder how Dave Hawkins will respond to this latest case where he was caught in another bare-faced lie?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,12:03

Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!!
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,12:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)
Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's not drag the witches down to your level Dave.  The witches I know have my respect, mainly because their belief system isn't nearly as toxic as yours and they don't continually lie, obfuscate, and distort reality in an attempt to force their beliefs on others.  

No Davie-poo, this is going to be the "AFDave Liar Liar Pants on Fire Hunt".  Let the laughing begin.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,13:01

Dave, here's the thing. You claim that you're here in pursuit of the "truth," and that you want to show us "evolutionists" the "truth," and the error of our ways. You claim that we're blind to the "truth," and if we would only open our eyes to the "truth" you're revealing to us, we'll be, oh, I don't know, "saved," I guess.

But then you get caught in clumsy, obvious lies, over and over again. What do you suppose that does to your credibility as a "bringer of truth"? What do you think that does for your credibility as someone who claims to be able to distinguish between "truth" and "falsity"?

You've been caught over and over in outright lies, misrepresentations, lies by omission, overstatements of your case, and denials of having said something when it's easy enough for someone to go back and demonstrate that you actually did say it. At this point, anyone would have to be an idiot to think that you're any sort of source of "truth" on any subject.

It's not a witch hunt, Dave. It's a credibility assessment. And by now, you ain't got any. Credibility, that is.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 01 2006,13:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,17:03)
Oh wow.  Here we go again on a "AFDave Witch Hunt".  I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.  Except this one's about Glenn Morton.  I guess Aftershave and Deadman are bored again.  How many miles will they get out of this one?  We'll see!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you could cut the whole thing off at the pass by openly discussing your readings of Morton's work and how you respond to the very detailed explanations he gives as to why he renounced his YEC. Or, I suppose, you could continue to claim that you don't know much about him or his work, even though we all now have seen the proof that you have indeed studied Morton's work.

WWJD?
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 01 2006,13:26

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 01 2006,19:04)
WWJD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...for a Klondike bar?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 01 2006,14:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
WWJD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave Lies For Jesus routinely, but I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus lied for himself (or Dave).

Dave's not the greatest advertisement for his faith.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,14:03

[quote=ScaryFacts,Oct. 01 2006,18:26][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...for a Klondike bar?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No... for another one of AFDavie's sweet pungent meadow muffins.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,14:12

Quote (Dave Hawkins at SoundingTheTrumpet @ April 19th, 2006 at 11:29)

Answers for Ivy Privy …

GLENN MORTON
I read Glenn Morton’s story … does his 30,000 ft sedimentary layer have a name or an exact location that you could give me for investigation? It appears to me that his main problem with Flood Geology is that he thinks much more time would be required than is available in the Biblical account. At first glance, it appears that he may not realize that the Creationist view of the Flood involves HUGE upheavals including precipitation of some massive quantity of atmospheric water not present today–possibly a vapor canopy, volcanism and seismic upheaval, collapse of massive underground water reservoirs, massive tectonic activity, massive, global sedimentation and fossilization, and uplift of mountains.

I followed his link and got almost there, but to read the article required a subscription.
3-D seismic reflection tomography on top of the GOCAD depth modeler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 
Quote (Dave Hawkins @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
   
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?

Does your ministry teach it's OK to lie like you continually do Dave?

Is lying a sin Dave?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,14:40

Okay, let me point out some things, LiarDave. First, it was purely by accident that I found your comments on that thread -- the fact of the matter is that I was going to merely post your photo as an illustration of humanoid pond scum, so I was looking for your website and found that. It amused me to post it.
So what's your response? it's to claim martyrdom and persecution, in a typically feeble AirHeadDave ploy:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I guess this will be like those other ones about my career and the Wai wai Indians.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now that you're implying that you were somehow persecuted about the WaiWai,  let's review what I just posted a few pages ago in this thread:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2006,14:28)
DumbAssDaveTheHabitualLiar says;
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fact is that this entire exchange about "contacting WaiWai indians in Brazil" is on pages 88-93 of the previous "AirHead Dave's Wild-Ass Guess " thread part1. Here is how it went. First, Dave makes a stupid claim:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There is not a single Wai-wai village that my dad has not had contact with. What in the world are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I said that I doubted that, for specific reasons:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p. 91) What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe" you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers, you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century." Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(p 93): The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.
The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.
I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic. Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason I said I knew Dave's father had not contacted EVERY Brazilian WaiWai group was precisely because the Human Resource Area Files (HRAF) relied on by every anthropologist in the field...stated clearly that specific villages of WaiWai had NOT been contacted by any whites after moving to the Brazilian Highlands regions. They moved before Davey's daddy got there. He did not contact them.

Did Davey's daddy lie to little Davey? Is this where little Davey LEARNED to lie?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You lied about ME long before you brought up the WaiWai. You lied about knowing my religious views, my work experience, you claimed to know I "didn't care about kids" etc., a whole host of things about me on the pages cited. Then you lied about your father's accomplishments. Multiple times. Now you are caught lying again, blatantly. What do you do? YOU IMPLY PERSECUTION????? How low are you, scumboy? Like others have pointed out, this thread is really about your ego, Dave. It's NOT about honesty, science, your religion, really -- It's about YOU and YOUR self-image. and the image it shows under scrutiny is one of fanatical, lying sickness. Congratulations!!

P.S. How ya like me now, Dave? Bend over and talk to me, baby boy.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,14:50

Argystokes...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aftershave...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er ... what lie?  Aftershave you're seeing things again. Where did I say I don't know Glenn Morton's story?  I said I don't know much about Glenn Morton.  I have read his online piece and I have heard your propaganda about him.  I am telling the truth ... I DON'T know much about Glenn Morton.  I know he's a geologist and he used to be a YEC.  Poor confused guy!  Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.  Do you have any idea how much I care about what Glenn Morton says?  Zero.

Hey Deadman, give it up ... your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth.  And then you tried to play mind games with me to make think you were physically threatening me if I came to meet you at the Grand Canyon.  Then you started talking about legal action.  

Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,15:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posted precisely what I DID say. I can repost every bit of it if you wish. It's no big deal to me. And I didn't say "rich," ever. I said you were making money off kids and gullible parents. This happens to be factually true, regardless of how you frame it. It is also a fact that your father could not have contacted every WaiWai group, unless both the WaiWai and every outside researcher is lying, including evangelicals who assist in HRAF reports. Are you going to call your fellow religionists liars now, too, because they disagree with you? Face, it, Stupid, you got caught lying far too many times for me to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,15:28

Dave, you forgot a quote. This is what your post should look like:

 
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)
Argystokes...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what's your take on Glenn Morton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Aftershave...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GLENN MORTON
I read Glenn Morton’s story … does his 30,000 ft sedimentary layer have a name or an exact location that you could give me for investigation? It appears to me that his main problem with Flood Geology is that he thinks much more time would be required than is available in the Biblical account. At first glance, it appears that he may not realize that the Creationist view of the Flood involves HUGE upheavals including precipitation of some massive quantity of atmospheric water not present today–possibly a vapor canopy, volcanism and seismic upheaval, collapse of massive underground water reservoirs, massive tectonic activity, massive, global sedimentation and fossilization, and uplift of mountains.

I followed his link and got almost there, but to read the article required a subscription.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er ... what lie?  Aftershave you're seeing things again. Where did I say I don't know Glenn Morton's story?  I said I don't know much about Glenn Morton.  I have read his online piece and I have heard your propaganda about him.  I am telling the truth ... I DON'T know much about Glenn Morton.  I know he's a geologist and he used to be a YEC.  Poor confused guy!  Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.  Do you have any idea how much I care about what Glenn Morton says?  Zero.

Hey Deadman, give it up ... your speculations about my father and the Wai wais were crazy ... then you tried to say I was getting rich off Kids4truth.  And then you tried to play mind games with me to make think you were physically threatening me if I came to meet you at the Grand Canyon.  Then you started talking about legal action.  

Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you see why you have no credibility around here? You even quote-mine yourself. And don't start splitting hairs about not knowing Glenn Morton's story; you do too know what his < story is. >

Quote (Seven Popes @ Jun. 2, 2006,13:36)
While reading about the sad state of "research" conducted by RATE, I found THIS ARTICLE.
It suggests that a few years in the petroleum industry shook Glenn Morton's (a former YEC) belief system rather badly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Or are you admitting you never read any of the links provided to you?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,15:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Besides all that, your a really nice guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is amusing on two levels,AirHead. (1) It's an obvious and patently sickening attempt at manipulation, because (2) You don't KNOW me in the least, other than what I have said here in the forum, or what little you may be able to glean from online posts. Just as you could NOT "know" my emotions, my charity work, my feelings about kids, my religious views, my work with the Maya, or anything else you lyingly claimed to "know." For all you "know," I could be a nice guy, a mean guy, a psychotic guy, or virtually any kind of guy. You have no idea about who I am, and frankly, I prefer to keep it that way, since I personally *don't* view you as a "nice" guy, and I certainly mean each and every insult I give you. There remains the slim possibility that you MIGHT change, but I doubt that, so I also foresee no need to change my view of you as a hypocritical willful liar who thinks he speaks for God.
Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 01 2006,16:06

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)
Why on earth would I lie about my knowledge of Glenn Morton.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you won't have to deal with the facts of why he is no longer a YEC, of course.  You seem to be much more interested in brown-nosing that dear sweet loving bigoted dictator you worship than dealing with facts.  Poor lying Davie-Delta-Alpha on the run again....
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 01 2006,16:31

Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)

Er ... what lie?   I am telling the truth ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:02

AFDave,
Don't be distracted by those mean and nasty people calling you a liar.  Let's talk about real data and evidence.

I'm putting my summary together about the Isochron graph but first, just like a lawyer would do at a trial, I'll show you all my evidence up front.

I'll be refrencing < this site >for my arguments about time interpretation of the Isochron graph.  Pretty good site, found it on a Google search while looking for "abundance of elements on the earth".  It's written for high-school or freshman college level so I think it's in our ballpark for discussion.

But first, with all the other noise about lying going on I think you missed my question earlier.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you agree that measured half-live values of Isotopes are acurate?

This means that scientists have acurately measured the decay rate of Isotopes and that, for example, in 48.8billion years from today (or tomorrow, I'll give you that one) then half of the Rb87 found on earth will undergo decay.  I'm not saying anything (yet) about looking backward in time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks,
Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 01 2006,17:09

Yes, all that nonsense makes the thread long to wade through to get to the substance.  Oh well.  Can a leopard change his spots?

Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,23:09)
Yes, all that nonsense makes the thread long to wade through to get to the substance.  Oh well.  Can a leopard change his spots?

Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WAIT AFDAVE.  YOU < AGREED >TO < MY SUMMARY. >    
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Mike PSS ... you are arguing something I don't even have any disagreement with.  Why are you wasting your keystrokes?  Do something productive ... like convince me that the Mineral Isochron method proves Deep Time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

YOU DON'T GET TO ARGUE ABOUT MIXING LINES IF YOU AGREE TO MY SUMMARY.  THAT'S WHAT THE SUMMARY IS ADDRESSING.  IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY SUMMARY THEN PLEASE REREAD IT AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS.

Even Deadman liked my summary.  
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2006,17:29)
Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thank you Deadman.

AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my summary about whole rock Isochrons?
I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 01 2006,17:34

careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 01 2006,17:42

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 01 2006,23:34)
careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that what I was doing?  :O
{faux innocence}
I thought I was pointing out to AFDave the inconsistant nature of his most recent statement when held next to a statement he made a day ago that totally contradicts his recent statement.
{/faux innocence}
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 01 2006,17:44

*snicker*

I swear, this whole thread feels like throwing balls to dunk the clown.

...and it's gotten to the point where everyone has gotten so practiced at it that it only takes one ball.

everybody gets a prize!

and Dave just gets wetter.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,18:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everybody gets a prize!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I want a pony. Or one of those flying butt monkeys everyone was talking about WAYYYY in the beginning of this thread (Pt.1). Speaking of butt monkeys, how's that sphincter, Dave? Still tender and throbbing?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,18:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2006,22:09)
Yes, I think the measured half-lives are accurate.  And remember, my only claim is that whole rock isochrons have the possibility (or likelihood) of being mixing diagrams.  I contend that Deep Timers cannot prove that they are not.

And I am hoping you are going to attempt to show me how mineral isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But Dave, as I pointed out, you don't need isochrons to prove deep time. Isochrons can tell you how old a particular rock is, but even if they couldn't, your young-earth "hypothesis" still fails observational tests, because if the earth were only 6,000 years old, we would expect to find detectable levels of short-lived radioisotopes such as Pu239.

So even if isochrons were merely "mixing diagrams," a young earth would still be falsified. You've already admitted that measured half-lives are accurate, so where's your escape hatch this time?

What's your explanation for this lack of short-lived radioisotopes? More "miracles"? Or this going to remain one of the very large number of critical objections to your "hypothesis" you're going to continue to ignore?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,18:40

After intensive research and clandestine x-rays taken at a distance -- I believe we have evidence of AirHeadDave's primary problem.
If that's not proof, I just don't know what IS.
Oh, and thank you, Mike, you do excellent work. Dave's tiny brain is currently racing about the cavernous expanses of his skull, gnawing itself to death.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 01 2006,18:41

Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.

Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.

I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2006,19:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bah, you're too modest, eric. I'm only good at C14; I took some classes with Rainer Berger way back when and did some work with mass spectrometry. Jon and Mike have been handling the load on RM dating, and I'm confident you've got a good handle on it. I'm just enjoying the show. More wine! Bring on the pole dancers! Or Dave in those sweEEeet tidy-whities with the yellow front.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,03:17

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,00:41)
Mike, I noticed that in your summary which Dave claims he doesn't disagree with, you told him that since he doesn't disagree with your summary, he should instead argue radioactive decay rates. But now he's conceded that radioactive decay rates are accurate as well.

Seems like Dave's sealed off all his own escape routes. No doubt he'll try to unlock those doors, so I suggest you don't let him try the radioactive-decay-rates door unless and until he explains why he was wrong when he said he didn't have a problem with your isochron summary.

I can't compete with you, deadman, and JonF when it comes to radiometric dating methodologies, but at least I can try to keep Dave honest (or at least point out where he's being dishonest, which is most of the time).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to give AFDave a little slack (enough rope to.... well... you get the picture).  He's not in a corner with his argument yet.  I see his "mixing lines/Deep Time" position this way,

Arguing about how "all Isochrons are (insert favorite non-commital phrase here) mixing lines..." doesn't say anything about time or ages or "millionofyearsism".  It only argues against the physical process of sampling and testing rocks.  All you have to show is that a properly identified sample (whole rock or mineral) can result in a linear data set.  I read the tripe from Arndts and Overn and saw through the logical flaws immediately without referencing talkorigins.  Reading other < smackdowns >of this argument just reinforces how banal is the "mixing" argument.
(Deadman, read through that smackdown, if you haven't already, since it also addresses Humphry's excess Helium halucinations).
Just a reminder, I'm not skilled or detailed with the geology, but the base science that the Isochron method is built upon are used in other areas I am familiar with.

For decay rates, he only agreed that the measured values of decay are accurate.  He didn't say or agree to anything about how to roll these values back in time so this isn't a Catch-22 statement yet.  In fact I don't want to argue that point yet because I need a clear understanding about the present physics before I can show the past.  I don't think Dave understands WHAT arguments are necessary to disprove how physics takes the present measured values of half-lives to validate past time measurements.  His present earth changing events, from initial creation through to the flud, are not the correct arguments against the data.  I don't think AIG or ICR are going to help him on this one with an easy C/P answer.  AFDave will have to fly solo, and we know how skilled he is when that happens. :p

Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,04:47

EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME FOR THEIR THEORY TO WORK



This is a great chart from Michael Denton ... in spite of what the Thumbsters here may say.  Let's look at what they say a little more closely.  

First, Incorygible says Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory because he says that this chart and what it represents should have been considered one of the most astonishing finds of modern science (p. 281 of his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" book).  Now this is amazing that Michael Denton, a professional molecular biologist, who still claims to be an evolutionist in spite of his doubts, by the way, would not understand the Theory of Evolution!

In any case, whether Michael Denton understands evolution or not, I would like to understand it ... Soooo ... let's make a nice numbered list which represents the probable steps from Pond Scum to Deadman :-)  We'll disregard all the parts of the "Great Tree of Life" EXCEPT for the line directly from Pond Scum to Humans.  I don't care about plants right now, or anything else that is not in the ancestry of modern humans ...

1) Pond Scum
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)


OK.  Now I am quite sure I DO NOT have this right except for (1), (10), (11) and (12), so that's where YOU come in ...

Help me out, guys.  Help me get this little chart right so I can understand your theory.

Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time

************************************

Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.

************************************************

For those of you that have not seen my "Watchmaker Dynamation" hop on over to < http://airdave.blogspot.com > for my latest post (this morning) which gives my first piece of evidence for the God of the Bible.  And thanks to all of you that helped me "skeptic proof" my argument.

**********************************

Mike PSS (Alias "Current Torch Bearer for Team Evo")--

I am waiting for you to show me how Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,04:56

Glad to see you're trying hard to strike back with your tiny fists of rage, AirHeadLiar. By the way, Stupid -- "pond scum" = algae, for most thinking humans. Therefore amino acids precede them.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart...His article doesn't make any sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That should be a familiar situation for you, Stupid.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,05:09

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution.  Right now you have failed to provide evidence of any bias towards evolution.  If there is no "need" for evolution as opposed to any other explanatory theory regarding origins of species, then you still don't have a point.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,05:17

MOLECULES TO MAN EVOLUTION, REV. 1

1) Little pool of chemicals (forget the pond scum)
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)

More revisions, please ... far be it from me to misrepresent ToE.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,05:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Excellent point. Neither I nor anyone else I know popped out of the womb "needing" evolution. My personal preference for NeoDarwinian theory was simply the result of long hours studying multiple aspects of competing arguments -- religion,philosophy, genetics, fossils, Lamarckism, etc., etc. If creationism actually had greater explanatory value and theoretical/methodological/philosophical substance...I conceivably would have accepted it. Unfortunately for AirHead Dave's stupid-ass hypothesis...it just ain't so. But Dave needs a villain in his little fantasy world, so it's "darwinism,"  just as for Dimsky, it's " philosophical materialism" I honestly think the term "wanker" suits them both perfectly.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,05:34

Dave, why did you bail out on your "literalness vs. figurativeness in ANY text" question?

I bumped the Glenn Morton thread to the top just for you.  When will you discuss Glenn's reasons for abandoning YEC?

When will you discuss the C14 calibration evidence like you promised?

When will you discuss the formation and erosion rates for limestone like you promised?

When will you discuss the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone that you brought up?

Is lying a sin Dave?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,05:49

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,09:47)
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, has it ever occurred to you that this might actually be the problem? Do you think it's possible that the reason you don't think the theory of evolution is true is because you don't have even a layman's understanding of it?

How many times do I need to tell you that science is hard, Dave? You simply cannot swagger in with no knowledge of it, or even how it works, stagger around, and think you're going to refute whole swaths of it with a few visits to the AiG freakshow.

But let me try this one more time (others have said this before, with little effect, but maybe endless repetition will help):

Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion years ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.

Let's take a real-world example: are you more, less, or equally different from your great-to-the-eighth maternal grandfather as your fifth cousin on your mother's side?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let's take a real-world example: are you more, less, or equally different from your great-to-the-eighth maternal grandfather as your fifth cousin on your mother's side?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha...I got the mental image of Stupid frowning at that question , then taking off his shoes and socks to try to "calculate" it on his toes.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,05:56

I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.

What I said was Evolutionist NEED Deep Time.

Genetic sequences prove this.  Why?

Because if it takes 5-8 my to go from the Ape/human LCA to modern humans, then, by extrapolation, knowing that chimps and humans differ by only 1.5%, we know that it must take about 43 times this long to go from bacteria to modern humans.  43 x 5 = 215 my.  43 x 8 = 344 my.  So you need at least 200 MY to get from a bacteria to a modern human.  Eric says that very little evolved in the first 2 billion years or so ... not sure why.  Did it take that long for the bacteria to "get lonely" and wish they had some higher life forms to share the planet with?  Hmmmm...

Anyway, the chart is great because it shouldn't be as it is if evolution were true.  Some of the organisms on that chart should be genetically closer to or farther from bacteria than they are simply because they are supposedly in the line of ancestry leading up to modern humans.

How does this all fit together?

Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE.

So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:02

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,09:47)
This is a great chart from Michael Denton ... in spite of what the Thumbsters here may say.  Let's look at what they say a little more closely.  

First, Incorygible says Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory because he says that this chart and what it represents should have been considered one of the most astonishing finds of modern science (p. 281 of his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" book).  Now this is amazing that Michael Denton, a professional molecular biologist, who still claims to be an evolutionist in spite of his doubts, by the way, would not understand the Theory of Evolution!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's be clear, Dave. I have already told you that I have not read Denton's book. The table you present comes from that book. I am evaluating YOUR claim (which you represent as Denton's) that the bottom row of that chart (nearly equal genetic divergence of all considered eukaryotes from prokaryotes) is an astonishing find because YOU believe we should expect increasing divergence with...what exactly? Anyhow, YOU claim we should expect increasing divergence as we move to the left of the chart. ANYONE who makes such a claim (as YOU have stated it) does NOT understand evolutionary descent. I already know YOU do not understand evolutionary descent.  IF Denton made this claim, that goes for him as well.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In any case, whether Michael Denton understands evolution or not, I would like to understand it ... Soooo ... let's make a nice numbered list which represents the probable steps from Pond Scum to Deadman :-)  We'll disregard all the parts of the "Great Tree of Life" EXCEPT for the line directly from Pond Scum to Humans.  I don't care about plants right now, or anything else that is not in the ancestry of modern humans ...

1) Pond Scum
2) Amino acids
3) Bacterium
4) First Multi-celled organism [example?]
5) Sponges
6) Worms
7) Squids
8) Fish
9) Amphibians
10) Mammals
11) Apes (Deadman)
12) Humans (AFDave)


OK.  Now I am quite sure I DO NOT have this right except for (1), (10), (11) and (12), so that's where YOU come in ...

Help me out, guys.  Help me get this little chart right so I can understand your theory.

Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As has been linked for you before:

< the Tree of Life. >

And once again, no need to show us why we NEED deep time. We have Deep Time. We had Deep Time well before Darwin. Life (on this planet, at least) has been around for much of Deep Time. End of story.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,06:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE. So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale. Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. You're using a fallacy...actually, I could say your claim utilizes several fallacies. This alone negates it.
2. I took lots of geology, because I liked it. Your claim of geologists conforming to a theory in biology is pretty stupid. Remember, dummy, geologists like Lyell and Hutton and many others were citing deep time BEFORE Darwin.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:15

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion yealrs ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?

Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!

Before I go too hog wild with this one, I'd better get some confirmation from Cory and maybe Jeannot.  Do you also agree with this that Eric  is saying?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,06:25

Quote (ShitForBrainsDave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)
Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE.

So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No one selected the dates for deep time you moron.  The empirical evidence shows the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and that life has existed here for 3+ billion of those years.

Your lame-brained claim is like saying pilots selected the ambient density of air to be 1.168 kg/m3 because they NEED that value to make their “heavier than air theory of flight” work.

Every day I don’t see how you can possibly be more stupid Davie, yet every day you give us this


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, I read Wesley's article which supposedly refutes Denton's conclusions from the above chart.  Now I can see why Evos are losing ground.  His article doesn't make any sense to me.  Best I can tell, he simply asserts that Tetrahymena should have the same amount of sequence difference from modern humans as any other modern organism, then produces a chart which shows that this is so.  Hello?  McFly?  How did you come up with this assertion, Wes?  Maybe one of you can explain this to me in terms my "macaque brain" can handle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, Macaque brain, here we go:

Your children all share (on average) 50% (1/2) of their genetic information (in this case, we’re talking exact, inherited genetic material, not identical or similar genetic information, which will, of course, be much higher) with each other (based on chromosomal division in your sperm and your wife’s egg). Your children share (on average) 1/8 of their genetic information with their cousins (e.g., your brother’s children). Your children share about 1/32 with their relatives who are your father’s brother’s grandchildren. Their cousins ALSO share about 1/32 of their genetic information with your father’s brother’s grandchildren. And so on.

Now, replace your children with the different mammal species in that table (nicely surrounded by a box). Replace their cousins with the yeast (or any other box). Replace their more distant relatives (e.g., your father’s brother’s grandchildren) with the bacteria. See how this works? It's pretty simple, Dave.  If not, add as many familial linkages as you need until you figure it out, dunce. You’ll know you’ve figured it out when you understand the boxes on that table and why the values within them are so similar.  And stop insulting the macaques.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:33

Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.

What I am focusing on is that SOME of the organisms listed on the chart ARE in the "human ancestry" (I think ... worms and fish at least, right?).  And since they are in the "human lineage" I (and Denton) would expect the worm to be closer genetically to the bacterium, and the fish to be farther, and the human to be farther still (he lists humans on the next page of his book and it's the same 65%).  So the chart entry for a worm should be, say, 20%, and the fish entry should be maybe 40%.

Do you see my (and Denton's) point?  If worms and fish really are ancestral to humans, then the DNA should have shown this when it was elucidated.

But it clearly does not!

*******************************

Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:15)
Eric...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Every organism alive today is equally "evolved," Dave. Every organism still in existence has been evolving, at one rate or another, for the last almost-four billion years. When you look at your chart, the common ancestor of every organism on it, except for the bacterium at the bottom (you'll note that every single organism on Denton's chart other than the bacterium at the bottom is a Eukaryote, Dave), diverged from bacteria at the same time, probably somewhere around a billion yealrs ago (in very rough terms). Therefore, they're all equally distant from bacteria. Therefore, they all should show roughly the same sequence difference amount (just in different places), which is exactly what Denton's chart shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?

Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!

Before I go too hog wild with this one, I'd better get some confirmation from Cory and maybe Jeannot.  Do you also agree with this that Eric  is saying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see I didn't read carefully enough and Eric beat me to this.

Dave, 200+ pages later, welcome to the theory of evolution. What a revolutionary discovery you just made. What a joke.

Once again, THIS IS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. It is not Eric's invention. It can be confirmed from any BASIC textbook.

Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.

Now, in all the learning you are doing in your "Truth Search", why have you not learned this most basic fact of evolutionary theory? Hmmm?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:43

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:56)
I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So then you agree that there is no bias towards favoring evolution over any other theory in the scientific community?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,06:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:33)
Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.

What I am focusing on is that SOME of the organisms listed on the chart ARE in the "human ancestry" (I think ... worms and fish at least, right?).  And since they are in the "human lineage" I (and Denton) would expect the worm to be closer genetically to the bacterium, and the fish to be farther, and the human to be farther still (he lists humans on the next page of his book and it's the same 65%).  So the chart entry for a worm should be, say, 20%, and the fish entry should be maybe 40%.

Do you see my (and Denton's) point?  If worms and fish really are ancestral to humans, then the DNA should have shown this when it was elucidated.

But it clearly does not!

*******************************

Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, NO MODERN ANIMAL (be it worm or fish or ape) is ancestral to humans. If you read through Eric's and my explanations above (especially what a molecular clock actually is), you'll see why we DO NOT expect the relationships with bacteria that you propose. To see what you (or Denton) propose, we would need (very) historic DNA, not modern DNA. In other words, we would need DNA from the point when worms became worms, amphibians became amphibians, mammals became mammals, etc. If you actually had the DNA from, not only the organism, but the organism and TIME that lineages ancestral to humans branched, then you would see what you expect to see.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:48

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:33)
Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your chart represents present-day worms and fish.  No present-day organisms are ancestral to humans.  Everyone keeps telling you this, but you just don't seem to get it.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,06:51

OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,06:54

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:51)
OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


None of which are represented on your chart.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 02 2006,06:58



DAVE, READ THE FRIGGIN LINKS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING, YOU MORON
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,07:03

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:51)
OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right. Let's work with the fish.

Say we actually had the DNA of the LCA of humans and fish. A very, very old fish-like thing, whose descendants are about to go in two different directions: one that will lead to all mammals (including humans) and one that will lead to all modern fish. (EDIT: thanks to OA, we're talking about point 11 in the figure above. Look at that chart, Dave. The SUM of the VERTICAL line lengths connecting one thing to another is related to the expected genetic divergence. What does that tell you about humans and fish, humans and worms, all animals and bacteria, etc?)

THAT ancestral organism would have had cytochrome much more similar to bacteria (both to ancestral bacteria, and even, to a lesser extent, to modern bacteria) than anything living today. (As a bonus question, see if you can estimate how much more similar it would have been from the information in the table -- this is possible.)

If we compared human DNA and modern fish DNA to that ancestral fish-like-thing's DNA, both would be more similar to it than they are to each other NOW (the human-fish difference in the matrix -- again, see if you can guess how much more similar). Furthermore, the modern fish and humans would be genetically diverged from that old fish-like thing by the SAME amount.

Are you starting to get this yet? Can I hope that it might actually click?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:05

"For Denton a demonstration of evolution in proteins is a demonstration that protein-sequences can be arranged in a series of intermediates. He found a dramatic absence of intermediates when comparing the cytochrome C2 of all eucaryotc organisms with bacteria. They all differ 64%-72% with bacteria. He concludes: no eucaryotic cytochrome is closer to bacterial cytochrome than any other. No intermediates. No primitive or advanced. However he fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described. And because they are living now, their proteins are copied from generation to generation and mutations accumulated. Cytochromes of living organisms, however morphologically primitive they may be, are not intermediary, because now-living organisms do not have ancestor-descendant relationships. All are descendants.
All vertebrates have the same molecular distance to all invertebrates, because their ancestors separated only once. Equally, all eucaryotes have in common that their ancestor split at the same time from bacteria. The molecular distance of any group to any other group is of course a measure of time elapsed since their separation. Denton knows that no evolutionist has ever claimed that any of the living representatives of any vertebrate class is directly ancestral with respect to another vertebrate group (p293). So: who is Denton attacking ?"
< http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm#cytochrome-c >
Matthew J. Brauer and Daniel R. Brumbaugh: 'Biology Remystified: The Scientific Claims of the New Creationists', p308-314 of Pennock(2002) 'Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics'
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:07

Bah ....ericmurphy Occam's Aftershave.....that diagram doesn't show AFD's ancestors .....he has a direct link to the weasle.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,07:11

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK great.  Now I have at least nailed you down.  I am going to really enjoy hearing the answer to this next question.  Ready?

You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:15

What's amusing is that this is analogous to a guy arguing against ...oh, say algebra...while not knowing the commutative, distributive and associative properties of multiplication. It's surreal.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)
I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.

What I said was Evolutionist NEED Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, when are you going to address the fact that you need deep time, too? How does your "hypothesis" account for the supposed ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution implied by the explosion (which, by the way, dwarfs the "Cambrian Explosion") of diversity from several tens of thousands of species to tens of millions of species in less than five thousand years? Another "miracle"?


And frankly, Dave, I'm not sure where you think you're going with this obsession with evolution "needing" deep time? So what? The time is available; in fact, more time than necessary is available.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Genetic sequences prove this.  Why?

Because if it takes 5-8 my to go from the Ape/human LCA to modern humans, then, by extrapolation, knowing that chimps and humans differ by only 1.5%, we know that it must take about 43 times this long to go from bacteria to modern humans.  43 x 5 = 215 my.  43 x 8 = 344 my.  So you need at least 200 MY to get from a bacteria to a modern human.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you might want to stop posting arguments that refute your other arguments. You claim that you can get from bacteria to humans in 344 my (a number, by the way, that no evolutionary biologist would agree with, because it's way too small). So if you can get from bacteria to humans in less than 500 million years, why do geologists claim the earth is 4.55 billion years old, which nine times older? Just to be on the safe side? If you think geologists conspire with evolutionary biologists in order to make the numbers come out right, why don't they just say the earth is only a billion years old? According to your reasoning, that's way more time than necessary to get from bacteria to humans, right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric says that very little evolved in the first 2 billion years or so ... not sure why.  Did it take that long for the bacteria to "get lonely" and wish they had some higher life forms to share the planet with?  Hmmmm...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The honest answer here is that no one knows for sure (which I'm sure you see as a huge, gaping hole in the theory, but that's just because you know fuck-all about how science works). But given the simplicity of bacteria, it's not hard to understand how it could take a long time for them to evolve into anything more complicated. Think of it as a learning curve, Dave. Humans developed the wheel when? Several thousand years ago? There were nothing but livestock-powered wheeled vehicles for thousands of years; then, suddenly, in less than a hundred years, we went from horse-and-buggy to 1,000-horsepower Bugatis than can do 250 mph.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Anyway, the chart is great because it shouldn't be as it is if evolution were true.  Some of the organisms on that chart should be genetically closer to or farther from bacteria than they are simply because they are supposedly in the line of ancestry leading up to modern humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you dolt, the chart confims evolutionary theory. What it disconfirms is your bad, wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Yeast and humans diverged not long after all eukaryotes diverged from bacteria. As I just said this morning, every single organism on your chart is equally distant from bacteria! Mushrooms are no more closely related to bacteria than humans are. Is that so hard to understand? Or are you deliberately failing to understand it?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why, Dave? Because they want to support their buddies? If the geochronologists back in the 30s said, gee guys, all the dates we come up all converge on 75 million years, what do you suppose would have happened? Do you think the evolutionary biologists bribed them to change their story?

And are you still under the misapprehension that geologists—any kind of geologists—are "evolutionists"?

And you still haven't explained why all the available dates converge on a value that by your own reasoning is almost an order of magnitude larger than it needs to be.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD are you truly that simple minded?

Every living thing has a parent is that so hard to grasp?

Even a 4 year old knows that.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,07:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Dave, how similar or different do you think modern bacteria are?  And how what percentage of living bacterial species do you think we have discovered (putting aside the difficulties in defining bacterial species)?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,07:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:11)
Incorygible...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, if we had bacterial DNA from 500 million years ago (we don't), and we looked at a true molecular clock (i.e., a NEUTRAL marker free to mutate at a relatively consistent rate in all lineages, as opposed to a region of DNA visible to natural selection, and therefore likely to be maintained (or changed) in very un-clock-like fashion), then we would expect to see the same sequence divergence in modern bacteria as in modern yeast or modern humans. I would put money on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK great.  Now I have at least nailed you down.  I am going to really enjoy hearing the answer to this next question.  Ready?

You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Idiot Dave, try to figure out why I have kept correcting you on NEUTRAL genetic information vs. SELECTED genetic information (hint: one works as a clock, one doesn't). Read the above quote (e.g., the distinction between "morphologically primitive" and cytochrome in Deadman's quote above).

Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION.If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).

You just don't get it Dave, and it's pretty clear you never will. You keep inventing ill-conceived, misunderstood, no-clue-in-#### strawmen that have nothing to do with evolutionary theory or with what we are telling you.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,07:31

Incorygible...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know this?  Are you just guessing?  How about in the Cytochrome C?  Do you say the same?

To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.  And I would also guess that there is very little difference between modern and "ancient" bacteria.  ("ancient" in quotes b/c I of course believe that ALL bacteria are only about 6000 years old.)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:15)
Ah, OK.  We're getting somewhere.  I'm finally getting an insight into your brains.

So you mean to tell me that you think modern bacteria are just as "evolved" as modern humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you're not using the term "evolved" in the proper sense. You're using it in the layman's sense (imagine my surprise) that's way too teleological for the way it's used in evolutionary biology. You're making the same mistake that even a lot of biologists make; that life is evolving in some particular direction, with some sort of goal in mind (in your mind, that goal is, of course, yourself).

Bacteria have been "evolving" just as long as everything else on the planet. Every organism alive today is at the end of a long line of organisms that has been evolving for something like four billion years.

Not all organisms evolve at the same rate, or in the same directions. Ants and humans are both descended from a common ancestor that diverged from bacteria something like a billion years ago. They both evolved in different directions, at different rates, but they've both been evolving away from bacteria for the same length of time

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow!  This has many implications.  This means that if we were able to compare the earliest bacterial DNA to modern bacterial DNA, we would find the same 65% sequence difference that we see in the chart for all the other organisms, right?   Are we able to do this?  Anyone wanna bet money on the results?  Hmmm... wow...my mind is spinning with all the implications of what you are saying.  This is gonna be great!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No. Different organisms evolve at different rates. Bacteria have not evolved nearly as rapidly as eukaryotes, for a host of reasons. However, if you could go back in time to the earliest eukaryotes, say a few tens of millions of years after the prokaryote-eukaryote split, you would find that all the eukaryotes of the time were approximately equally diverged from bacteria, but the sequence difference would be much smaller than it is today. As you move ahead in time, and keep sampling different eukaryotes, you would discover that even though the distance from their genotypes to bacterial genotyes was increasing, the distance for all eukaryotes would remain roughly the same. This is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, and it's exactly what Denton's chart demonstrates. (You did notice, didn't you, that there's a great deal of variation within eukaryotes, but little difference from all eukaryotes to bacteria, didn't you?) If you could come back in another 500 million years (assuming there's still life here on earth) you would discover that the sequence difference was increasing, but it would still be roughly the same over all eukaryotes.

But here's the take-home lesson, Dave: horses are just as distantly-related from bacteria as digger wasps are. Both are just as far from bacteria as bamboo is. All three are as distant from bacteria as baboons are.

There is no "ladder of life," Dave. There's a tree of life. Take two leaves at opposite sides of the tree. Which one is further from the roots?
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. Exactly as much as a human is. If you want to talk about non-neutral, CODING regions (does that remind you of the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
("ancient" in quotes b/c I of course believe that ALL bacteria are only about 6000 years old.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't BS us AFD you don't believe that.

You think it is true because you think a circular arguement is true. Observe

AFD:The world is 6000 years old.
Why?
AFD: Because the Bible (or more correctly some 19th Century theological nutter) says so.
How do you know that is true:
AFD: Because the Bible (or more correctly some 19th Century theological nutter) says its true.

However, the circular arguement is a logical fallacy and by definition false.

You 'believe' something that is false pure and simple, truly a credit to 'stupidanity' there AFD

You know it is wrong, you may not 'believe' that  bacteria have been in existance for billions of years although you know that the evidence supports it, and it must be true, the real test for you AFD is .....does it pass the 'stupidanity' test.... of course it does ...so the earth being 6000 years old MUST BE FALSE.

Stoke that demon AFD.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,07:51

Let me try to give you an analogy that even you might be able to see, AirHead.

Suppose some guy comes up to you and wants to argue that the Gospels were all faked, and  he "knows" this.

You listen to his claim and he starts ranting about things that have nothing to do with the gospels, they sound bizarre and twisted, like some weird version of the book of Mormon combined with Wicca.

You question the guy and discover he doesn't KNOW the Gospels and has in fact only looked them over superficially once or twice, flipping through them and not really reading them.

How would you feel about the guy's arguments that the gospels were all fraudulent, given his level of "knowledge?"

This is how most of your arguments sound to me, and I suspect that others here feel pretty much the same.

Your claims about relatedness above...your ignorance about chimp-human relatedness, your claims that fruitflies should "mutate into superfruitflies" or FISH, for Chrissakes...it just screams "stupid." It's a bizarre parody of what evolutionary theory IS, just as you caricatured geology, and #### near everything you've ever tried to pervert in science. Like I said...it's surreal.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:52

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:11)
You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right?  And you are correct.  Similar homologies yield similar genetics.  I agree with you there.

But now you are telling a new whopper!

You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?  Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."

Come on, guys!  This is ridiculous!  You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.

What in the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, Dave, Dave. Where are you getting this "looks similar means they have similar genotypes"? What does that have to do with evolutionary theory? No one has said anything at all about similar morphologies here. It's a complete non-sequitor.

What people have been saying is that all eukaryotes living today are equally distantly-related to all bacteria living today. What does that have to do with morphology? Do insects and jellyfish look anything alike? Do either one of them look anything like a redwood? What does appearance have to do with it? The point is, all are descended from a common ancestor that diverged once from bacteria, and therefore all three are equally distant genetically from bacteria.

No wonder everyone here thinks they're talking to, well, not a macaque; that would be insulting to a macaque.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 02 2006,07:52

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,12:36)
There is no "ladder of life," Dave. There's a tree of life. Take two leaves at opposite sides of the tree. Which one is further from the roots?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forgive me, but I am a simple engineer, but do I understand that it is a matter of distance rather than complexity/similarity?  Would a fair metaphor be:

Dave lives in Kansas City. If he hops on I-70W and drives 600 miles he will be pretty close to Denver..  If he drives the same distance on I-70E he will be in Richmond, IN.  The same distance on I-35N takes him to Duluth, MN.  Lastly, 600 miles on I-35S would land him about half way between Dallas-FortWorth and Waco.  Now, no one would confuse Denver for Duluth or rural Indiana for rural Texas, but all are equidistant from Kansas City?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,07:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 02 2006,12:52)
Forgive me, but I am a simple engineer, but do I understand that it is a matter of distance rather than complexity/similarity?  Would a fair metaphor be:

Dave lives in Kansas City. If he hops on I-70W and drives 600 miles he will be pretty close to Denver..  If he drives the same distance on I-70E he will be in Richmond, IN.  The same distance on I-35N takes him to Duluth, MN.  Lastly, 600 miles on I-35S would land him about half way between Dallas-FortWorth and Waco.  Now, no one would confuse Denver for Duluth or rural Indiana for rural Texas, but all are equidistant from Kansas City?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!

Get it now, Dave?

No? Well, color me surprised.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,07:58

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,13:15)
What's amusing is that this is analogous to a guy arguing against ...oh, say algebra...while not knowing the commutative, distributive and associative properties of multiplication. It's surreal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it though? This thread could be renamed "A Stubborn Idiot Confronts Freshman Science"

(Somewhere in cyberspace, on a math discussion board...)

ArmyDave: "G A L O I S  W A S  W R O N G"
Occam'sQ-Tip: "Do you know what a group is?"
ArmyDave: "N O  B U T  A S  S O O N  A S  Y O U  T E L L  M E  I ' L L  T E L L  Y O U  W H Y  Y O U ' R E  W R O N G"
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 02 2006,07:59

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,13:51)
Let me try to give you an analogy that even you might be able to see, AirHead.

Suppose some guy comes up to you and wants to argue that the Gospels were all faked, and  he "knows" this.

You listen to his claim and he starts ranting about things that have nothing to do with the gospels, they sound bizarre and twisted, like some weird version of the book of Mormon combined with Wicca.

You question the guy and discover he doesn't KNOW the Gospels and has in fact only looked them over superficially once or twice, flipping through them and not really reading them.

How would you feel about the guy's arguments that the gospels were all fraudulent, given his level of "knowledge?"

This is how most of your arguments sound to me, and I suspect that others here feel pretty much the same.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you mind if I posted a link to this quote (or used this quote with a reference) elsewhere?

This is a huge problem as I try to talk to Christians who seem to think they can easily refute evolution without having the slightest idea what they are talking about.  This analogy is perfect for them.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,08:04

Scary : Oh, heck no, feel free to use anything I post.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,08:22

Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.

Outta time!  See you tomorrow!

This will be fun!

******************************

Eric and Carlson ... you're out in left field.  I suggest re-reading carefully.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 02 2006,08:23

Thanks Dead_Man.

Just one more thing...I want to encourage you guys and gals to keep this up.  I know many of you are likely frustrated but the lurkers (and pseudo lurkers like me) are learning tons.   With each new volley we get another piece of the puzzle.

And since you are trying to make it understandable to Dave, it's understandable to the rest of us.  Which is pretty cool.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:34

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:31)
Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know this?  Are you just guessing?  How about in the Cytochrome C?  Do you say the same?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about you read the definition of a molecular clock in that Nature paper I sent you before accusing me of "guessing" regarding something that is a defining characteristic of the term in question.

But seeing as how you don't even have a rudimentary understanding (less than high school biology) of what you're talking about, that's probably as far as you'll be able to get in that paper.

As to how we know that molecular clocks work, that's old ground that I'm not interested in covering again (especially since you don't even know the basics of common descent well enough to understand it). Please pick up a textbook.

As for the specifics of cytochrome C versus a truly neutral clock, I have my reservations (even though the data seem to match up well with everything else we know, including other clocks). As a coding region, cytochrome CANNOT be truly neutral in selection, but because it is a highly conserved protein it seems to work well enough as one of the first clocks (we have more and better clocks now). In any case, the data it provides are consistent with our theoretical expectations.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,08:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me this guy doesn't have some kind of learning disability.

Scary: You're much too kind, but...it makes it all worthwhile. That's what many of us hoped -- that it would allow for people to get a sense of the topics and make better debaters out of everyone. I've learned stuff from just about everyone here, I can't think of an exception other than Dave, since he's really just parroting arguments from others.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,08:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,13:22)
I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.

Outta time!  See you tomorrow!

This will be fun!

******************************

Eric and Carlson ... you're out in left field.  I suggest re-reading carefully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, so what if it's a total guess? So what if it's totally wrong (especially since no one will ever know for sure)? What does it have to do with your point? You expect some living eukaryotes to be more closely related to living bacteria than others are. Therefore, you think that Denton's chart, which shows no such thing, proves that evolutionary theory is wrong.

But you're wrong, Dave, because all living eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to living bacteria. They're also all equally distantly-related to the bacteria of a billion years ago. So even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria, that helps your case not one iota. So why are you crowing about this statement? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, whether it's right or wrong.

Dave, everyone on this thread understands that this is a non-issue, except for one person: you.

And Dave, I'm no evolutionary biologist (to put it mildly), but I've forgotten more about evolutionary theory than you'll ever know. You're not just out in left field; you're out of the ballpark, out of the county, shit, you're completely out of the state! (to rougly paraphrase Janice Joplin).

And as I suspected, Carlson's analogy went right over your head, despite the fact that it should have been clear to a bright seven-year-old.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,08:38

AFD is like the little kid waiting for something to fall off a truck.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Wrong order there AFD lets see how that should go.





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've hit on something here with this crazy couple of pages of rhetoric, A TOTAL GUESS

"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.

As far as I can ... spin this crazy idea that ...
has gone to my head

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,08:39

Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 27 2006,17:09)
Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a problem?

Ice cores?

Portuguese?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,13:22)
Go ahead ... spin a couple of pages of rhetoric to your heart's content.

I've hit on something here with this crazy (new to me) idea that ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, with the "Eureka" of a veritable Sherlock Holmes, uncovers (nay, "hits upon" or "nails us down on") the most basic element of what we have been trying to drill into his skull for months now.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Ancient" bacterial DNA is just as different from modern bacterial DNA as modern bacterial DNA is from human DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Paging Dave, once again:

Please add the words "selectively neutral" to the appropriate locations in this "little gem". You wouldn't want to misrepresent me, would you? Not when I can easily link to the relevant clarifiers in my statements.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As far as I can tell ... A TOTAL GUESS!

Wow!  That was worth all the effort today to discover that little gem!  I will look forward to finding out how different strains of modern bacteria compare genetically.  And hearing what justification you have for believing this little bolded statement above.

I think very few people on this thread really understand what a big deal this is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can name one in particular who hasn't figured it out yet...
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,08:53

It's just occured to me that AFD has never had an original thought.

Note how gleeful he gets when he manages to find something he can twist into his warped reality.

He must have stars in his eyes dreaming of making it big in Demon City.

He knows he's on a hiding to nothing, but like some bottom feeding planton feeder he thinks that by hanging around long enough he will gobble up enough dertritus falling into his dim dark high pressure world he will be able to re-surface like some heroic Greek sea god and claim victory over the surface inhabitants.

AFD I hope your gills clog up.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,08:55

Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 02 2006,12:36)
Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most definitely. A host of other practical problems would also present itself in calibrating an "ideal" clock, were we to find it.

This is where we run into problems. It would be easy if we merely had to SIMPLIFY things for Dave. But no, we have to SIMPLETON-IFY things, and even then they don't catch.

Hopefully others will note (even if Dave doesn't) that I have tried to include the appropriate caveats (which are certainly neccessary to someone who understands this at a level higher than the EB) when making inevitable gross over-simplifications in the hopes of getting something to stick in Davey's brain.

But yes, in trying to reduce this to terms a 6-year-old could understand, the subtleties of reality get lost.

Dave will no doubt "nail us down" on other (perceived) incongruities (like my use of "evolved" vs. Eric's, for example). I'll just continue to laugh (as I have been all morning), not only at the posts, but at the idea of Dave reading the Nature chimp paper I sent him.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,09:07

Someone here will know this, but don't some bacteria have 'more' DNA than humans?

Also what is the rough count of unique bacteria?

Watch this AFD

My guess is that the tree diagram that OA posted above even if it had every unique fish, animal etc, both alive and extinct individually listed would pale into insignificance compared to a tree with just  bacteria.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,09:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:33)
Ah yes.  I see I may be confusing you by talking about "moving left on the chart."  

I do understand that sunflowers and penguins, for example, are NOT in the "human branch" or "trunk" or whatever you call it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I know I'm wasting my time on you, but let me see if I can at least clear up some confusion for the lurkers, who seem to be getting a lot more out of this than you are.

None of the organisms that you are talking about are on the "'human branch' or 'trunk' or whatever you call it." Do you have brothers or sisters, Dave? Or cousins? Are any of those people on the "Dave branch" or "trunk" or whatever you want to call it? No. You're not descended from any of those people. In the same way, humans are no more decended from "worms or fish" than they are sunflowers or penguins. You're totally looking at this the wrong way, Dave, and until you can get clear what the phylogenetic tree looks like, it's impossible for you to get anywhere with this discussion.

What you need to understand is this. The only difference between sunflowers, penguins, worms, and fish is how far back in time you need to go to find the common ancestor of each of them and humans. None of them is an "ancestor" of humans (or of anything else alive today).

If you go back in time, you'll find that penguins and humans diverged from a common ancestor at some point. So we don't get into quibbles about "deep time," let's just call that x years ago. Now, if you go further back in time, you'll find that humans and fish diverged from a common ancestor at an earlier time, say, x + y years ago. At that point in time, there were no humans or penguins, or anything that looked like either one. There were fish, and that was it for that particular branch on the phylogenetic tree.

Now, if you go back further, you'll find the common ancestor of humans and worms, at a time = x + z years ago, where z > y. You'd have to go back further to find the common ancestor of humans and sunflowers.

But none of these organisms—sunflowers, penguins, worms or fish—is directly ancestral to humans. How could they be? They're no more ancestral to humans than your brothers or sisters or cousins are ancestral to you. And that's the part where your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory really trips you up. You seem to believe that evolutionary theory proposes that at some point, fish stopped evolving, except for those certain fish that continued to evolve towards humans. It doesn't work that way, Dave, and that's a fatal flaw in your understanding of evolutionary theory, and will prevent you from ever constructing an argument against it that won't be immediately shredded and, more to the point, wrong.

You need to get this clear in your head RIGHT NOW, Dave, if you have a prayer of arguing the topic: no organism alive today is in any sense "ancestral" to humans. Or to any other organism, for that matter.

And the sad fact is, Dave, if you'd read the < Theobald article > I sent you five months ago, you'd already understand all of this, and you could be discussing evolutionary theory with some hope of making any sense. Right now, you're not criticizing evolutionary theory at all: you're criticizing your own misapprehended version of it that has essentially nothing to do with the real theory.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,09:35

What the he** happened?  I go away to the dentist this morning and all Evo he** breaks loose.  We went from Isochrons to Eukaryotes pretty quick.
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME FOR THEIR THEORY TO WORK

**********************************

Mike PSS (Alias "Current Torch Bearer for Team Evo")--

I am waiting for you to show me how Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
Well I'm surprised at your attitude here.  I thought I was engaging you.  Instead I'm dealing with a someone that yells "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!" at people.

First Dave, you haven't indicated any comprehension about Isochrons, radionucleide decay, or anything else for that matter.  Now I'm the torch bearer for a team I never knew existed?  Nowhere in my statements do you find biology, evolution, or genotype arguments.  Just chemistry, physics, geology, mechanics, math, etc.  

So, One last chance to continue engaging in a debate style manner (which you have accused me of not wanting to participate.  i can get that quote if you want).  At present my summary is challanging your "...all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..." assertion.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
AFDAVE,
What do you find wrong with my < summary > about whole rock Isochrons?

I can't begin to mention time until you address this issue.  Your assertions about mixing lines doesn't even need time or half-lives mentioned.  Only that the method of testing whole rock samples to create Isochron graphs is valid.

Please review and respond to the summary.  If you have any questions about it then ask.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want people on this board to believe all the nasty things they're saying about you.

I'm engaging you intellectually and your ignoring this chance to raise your game.  I'm not name calling or impugning your character (SHAME k.e, SHAME).  I do use sarcasm and inuendo all the time, but it's not Ad Hominum.  In fact, my last < post > this morning I showed all my cards in how I would challange your assertions.  Pretty fair on my part wouldn't you say?

Mike PSS
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,10:03

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,13:37)
Dave, so what if it's a total guess? So what if it's totally wrong (especially since no one will ever know for sure)? What does it have to do with your point? You expect some living eukaryotes to be more closely related to living bacteria than others are. Therefore, you think that Denton's chart, which shows no such thing, proves that evolutionary theory is wrong.

But you're wrong, Dave, because all living eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to living bacteria. They're also all equally distantly-related to the bacteria of a billion years ago. So even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria, that helps your case not one iota. So why are you crowing about this statement? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, whether it's right or wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's clear up any confusion here (e.g., Re: "even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria").

What I said was:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION. If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The differences I am speaking of in the second sentence are in the TIMES (they are "clocks", after all) read from the respective molecular clocks (Dave will see something similar -- tau-species and tau-genome -- in the Nature paper I sent him). The amount of genetic divergence would, necessarily, be great enough (and resolved enough) to read these times. Furthermore, there would have to be cause to believe that the region of DNA in question was truly selectively neutral and had remained such since divergence. Finally, there would have to be cause to believe that mutation rates were regular and conserved across comparisons. In other words, I tried to simplify to Dave's grade-school level by omitting any talk about mutation rates (why they would be different for prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes), what would comprise truly neutral DNA, whether it exists in prokaryotes, generation-times, and other considerations. But I was very clear that I was talking about a region of DNA that would constitute a molecular clock -- NOT any region of DNA, and certainly not ALL the DNA.

I did not say that any particular sequence difference (especially across the entire genome!;) between ancient bacteria and modern bacteria vs. human and ancient bacteria would be the same. I did not say that we have such a "true" molecular clock up to the task.

I was illustrating that a molecular clock, in principle, would (practically by definition) reveal the same time since divergence from ancient bacteria for both modern bacteria and humans. This is not a guess.  It is, in fact, a bit of a truism if you understand phylogeny. For Dave, it's a momentous discovery (especially when you misrepresent it!;).

I say this right now, so I can link to it when Dave inevitably claims (AGAIN) that I said something along the lines of "the modern bacterial genome is as different from the ancestral bacterial genome as the human genome is".

I did not say this.  This is detailed clarification that I did not say this.

I accept any responsibility for forgetting that one can have no more subtlety than the average sledghammer when trying to teach Dave anything.

However, following this post, any further claim by AFDave suggesting that I said anything remotely similar to "modern bacteria are as genetically different from ancient bacteria as humans are" will be a deliberate misrepresentation (read: a lie).
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,10:07

Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 02 2006,14:35)
What the he** happened?  I go away to the dentist this morning and all Evo he** breaks loose.  We went from Isochrons to Eukaryotes pretty quick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All part of the creationist strategy, Mike. It's like a game of whack-a-mole. You keep knocking Dave's arguments down, one by one, and then he circles around to one you previously knocked down three months ago, hoping you'll have forgotten you already knocked it down once.

It can't have escaped Dave's notice that he's boxed in on the Isochron topic (and he hasn't even addressed about three dozen other radiometric techniques), and he's probably getting weary of banging his head against the wall. So now he's switching to another topic he's so ignorant of it's almost physically painful to watch him blundering around in the weeds of his own misunderstandings. He'll trip and tumble, stagger and stumble around in the phylogenetic undergrowth for a few days, and then circle around to another topic that's already been covered: maybe human/chimp phylogeny, maybe biblical prophesies, maybe Grand Canyon stratigraphy. Or maybe he'll try something brand new, like c decay or something.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm engaging you intellectually and your ignoring this chance to raise your game.  I'm not name calling or impugning your character (SHAME k.e, SHAME).  I do use sarcasm and inuendo all the time, but it's not Ad Hominum.  In fact, my last < post > this morning I showed all my cards in how I would challange your assertions.  Pretty fair on my part wouldn't you say?

Mike PSS
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have my admiration for your restraint in dealing with Dave, Mike. But in others' (and, occasionally, my) defense, keep in mind that we've been listening to Dave's exasperating drivel for five months now, and endured his incredible, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty that whole time. Occasionally, tempers flare. Unless you're a person of preternatural patience, I predict that if you continue to engage Dave, you'll eventually reach the same state of ennervated impatience. Think of that the next time you find yourself asking Dave the same exact question twenty times in a row, and having him ignore it every single time, and then finally saying, "Mike, you're such a broken record. Why don't you ask me something new?"
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,10:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone here will know this, but don't some bacteria have 'more' DNA than humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't think so. DaveIQ153Scot made this claim in a comment on Panda's Thumb, thinking it supported his ridiculous "frontloading" version of ID. It turns out he failed to recognize a misplaced decimal point in a table he found on "the internets". I had a lot of fun rubbing his nose in that.
Posted by: edmund on Oct. 02 2006,10:31

afdave wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.  And I would also guess that there is very little difference between modern and "ancient" bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since we can't know what ancient bacteria were like genetically, we can't test that second guess. But we can certainly test the first one.

My guess, afdave, based on evolutionary theory and what I know about the history of life on Earth, is that there is an immense amount of sequence difference among bacteria-- as much, or more than, the variation among all other living organisms put together.

I did a little Googling and found this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the animal cytochromes are all very similar to one another and so are the plant sequences (0-30% difference), but cross-comparison of plant and animal sequences results in an average 46% difference....It is seen that few of the bacterial proteins are very similar to one another and that most comparisons show 60% difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(courtesy of T. E. MEYER*, M. A. CUSANOVICH*, AND M. D. KAMEN. 1986. Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence data for construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees. Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 83, pp. 217-220.)

It's an older reference-- I'd prefer something more recent-- but it makes its point: there's a bigger difference between some modern bacteria species than there is between an animal and a plant.

So how did I know that, Dave? Am I psychic? Am I just lucky? Or does evolutionary theory make accurate predictions?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,10:41

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 02 2006,15:03)
Let's clear up any confusion here (e.g., Re: "even if Incorygible is completely wrong about the sequence difference between ancient and modern bacteria").

What I said was:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterilum is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. The difference between old bacterium and new bacterium would be very similar to the difference between human and old bacterium IN THIS NEUTRAL REGION. If you want to talk about non-neutral (e.g., coding) regions (does that remind you of a heading in the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good explanation, Incorygible, for why you and I gave Dave different answers as to whether modern bacterial genomes would be as different from ancient bacterial genomes as modern eukaryotic genomes would be.

I should also clarify that I had, and have, no reason to suspect that you are in any way wrong about your assertion—your actual assertion, not Dave's caricatured misunderstanding of it. My point was that, even if you were wrong, and that even in neutral regions modern bacteria are much more similar to ancient bacteria than eukaryotes are, that would help Dave's argument not even a tiny bit.

What Dave will never grasp, no matter how many times we spell it out to him, is that the reason all eukaryotes are approximately equally distant genetically from bacteria is because they all diverged from bacteria at the same time. One more time for the learning-impaired, Dave: worms and fish are no more closely related to bacteria than humans are. Would it help if I also put it in all caps and expanded the spacing, or are we clear now?

In other words, Dave, and to quote Wolfgang Pauli, your argument isn't even wrong.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,10:41

Quote (ericmurphy Posted on Oct. 02 2006 @ 16:07)
You have my admiration for your restraint in dealing with Dave, Mike. But in others' (and, occasionally, my) defense, keep in mind that we've been listening to Dave's exasperating drivel for five months now, and endured his incredible, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty that whole time. Occasionally, tempers flare. Unless you're a person of preternatural patience, I predict that if you continue to engage Dave, you'll eventually reach the same state of ennervated impatience. Think of that the next time you find yourself asking Dave the same exact question twenty times in a row, and having him ignore it every single time, and then finally saying, "Mike, you're such a broken record. Why don't you ask me something new?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Eric.  I learned some classic restraint a long time ago.  I was in Air Force maintenance overseas for 6 years before I got my chemEng degree.  The flightline was staffed at half levels so everyone chipped in to get all the jobs done to get to the bar sooner.  All work done on the planes needed documentation that was read and reviewed by all the base staff.  If a pilot consistently wrote up garbage problems on an aircraft you still had to carry out a full operational check which would take time and effort.  We didn't want to waste time with the garbage so for corrective actions we never attacked the idiot pilots name or character, just his intellectual capacity.  Honestly, I've written up a corrective action that says "Switched mode to O-N position, ops ck good."  Sooner, rather than later, the idiot pilot gets ridiculed by HIS peers and stops the garbage write-ups.  And the world regains is ethereal balance.

I've been viewing this thread since its inception.  And PT since before Dover.  I'm not an "evolutionist" or a scientist, but have a well educated family and have been around universities since I was young (stealing laughing gas in lung bags from my grandfathers lab at UW-Madison Hospital for instance).  I've learned a lot from being a lurker.  The one area I find woefully lacking in any ID/C argument is the lack of actual math or data.  Even for the stuff they claim supports their notions.  If AFDave cannot even address and defend basic rebuttals to his arguments then I get to declare victory and move on to counter his next point.  I'm fair and will give him a few chances in front of this forum (even though he doesn't do the same thing back).

At the end of the day, it's all about the beer.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,10:46

Start your own AFDave TRUTH Search!

Now, you too can convert truth into TRUTH in your spare time from the comfort of your own home. Here's how!

Step 1. Misrepresent a scientific fact or theory. Present this new TRUTH in a bold-capped slogan. Ensure that it contains at least one egregious error in comprehension that no one with a 10th-grade education would make. For extra TRUTH, find a "credentialed" creationist who has made the same error.

Step 2. Get roundly corrected and ridiculed by people who know better.

Step 3. Play dumb. Demand simplification. Repeat your slogan. Ignore any detailed text, references, etc. Instead, demand answers contained within a few simple sentences. Deny the existence of any other replies.

Step 4. Repeat Step 3 as many times as is necessary to ensure that the replies you receive: (1) have reduced all knowledge to simplistic analogies a 6-year-old could understand; (2) have largely removed all qualifiers, footnotes, complications, matters of interest, or suggestions of the larger body of knowledge involved; (3) are dripping with the frustration experienced by teachers of dull pupils.

Step 5. From these latter replies, pick one presented concept you can distort by either: (a) reducing it to your slogan from Step 1; or (b) presenting it as a new misrepresentative slogan with an equal or greater magnitude of error. Note: To do this, you will need to remove any remaining qualifiers and equivocate non-equivocal concepts. You may even have to lie. (For example, if someone writes a simple sentence referring to a selectively neutral region of DNA that can function as a molecular clock, substitute "DNA".) If you choose (a), present your TRUTH as something a vast cabal of misled scientists is trying to hide from prying eyes. If you choose (b), present your new slogan as though this is a "discovery" that you have uncovered against the will of that same cabal. In either case, return to Step 1.

Congratulations! You have brought your very own TRUTH into the world!
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,10:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why guess? There's tons of sequence data freely available. And - as Edmund pointed out -  the differences between fruitflies' and human's DNAs are minor, compared with the differences between two divergent bacteria.

So, Dave, how come your Ultimate Science Textbook didn't prevent you from making that gaffe?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,11:00

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 02 2006,15:41)
Good explanation, Incorygible, for why you and I gave Dave different answers as to whether modern bacterial genomes would be as different from ancient bacterial genomes as modern eukaryotic genomes would be.

I should also clarify that I had, and have, no reason to suspect that you are in any way wrong about your assertion—your actual assertion, not Dave's caricatured misunderstanding of it. My point was that, even if you were wrong, and that even in neutral regions modern bacteria are much more similar to ancient bacteria than eukaryotes are, that would help Dave's argument not even a tiny bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No worries -- I figured as much. And your actual point is a valid one. I just wanted to get everyone (except the ever-absent Dave) on the same page regarding what was actually said in advance of the inevitable lying distortions.
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 02 2006,11:30



Because a sense of scale may help.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,11:38

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 02 2006,16:30)
Because a sense of scale may help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed it does. Too bad Davey doesn't have one of those. Thanks anyway. I wonder if that picture will look, to Dave, like a tree as much as the EB one looked like a ladder? Because Dave's Rorschach-like inklings regarding evidence seem to be all we have to work with here.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:09

Points of agreement.

I'd still like to acknowledge and explore what I think was a huge leap for Dave just a couple of days ago:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I stated previously, I see this as tremendous progress from his previous position that biologists, geologsts, anthropologists, etc. were "blinded by what they want to believe."

Dave then follows up by affirming the evidence and logic behind evolution and radiometric dating:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, aside from the bizzarely inexplicable Holocaust reference, I think we can all agree with Dave on this point.  Indeed, without the influence of religious belief, what else would Joe and Bob do other than follow the physical evidence at hand?  Without something like the Bible to contradict the evidence, they have no reason whatsoever to doubt or disregard whatever conclusions they may arrive at by way of methodological naturalism.  Again, unless I am very much mistaken, we can all safely go along with this assesment.

At this point, it seems that we only disagree when it comes to methodology:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...
I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...
... you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, I think we can all agree that this is a major point (if not the point) of disagreement between Dave and, well, the world of science.

What I am proposing now is that we begin from this common ground.  We should accept Dave's implicit concession to the "materialistic" science behind evolution and "deep time", and allow him to get on with presenting his Supernatural evidence.  Now, Dave has previously defined "supernatural" as "simply natural things which we don't presently understand," so I'm not entirely sure on where and how he is trying to break from methodoligcal naturalism.  But that's Dave's problem, not mine.

I am proposing a shortcut.  We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up.  As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories.  So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand.  Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to.  It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,12:21

Here's some subject areas.

Materialistic -
"String theory."

Ponderable -
"If a bear sh*ts in the woods, does it smell?"
(of course with this we could enter the linguistic ground just like "eats shoots and leaves")

Zen -
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Theological -
"Angels, Pin, you get it."
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AfDave's Imagination: 0
Biology: 827,485,712
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,12:37

Mmmm ... not so fast.  I'm not done with Denton and his (and my) belief that sequence comparisons were a surprise to ToE.  More tomorrow on this.

Isochrons ... any time, Mike.  Convince me.

I think the "blinded by what they want to believe" applies to, er ... let's see ... what can we call them?  "anti-Biblicists" ? "skeptics" ?  ... you know ... folks like Russell who are going to school board meetings fighting people like me.  So I have not really made any leaps that I am aware of.  Just describing different groups.

Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?

******************

Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.

Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:38

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your God is like Hitler?  WTF.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:39

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God is like Hitler.

Got that? Write that down.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,12:42

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, obviously I know you don't think it's "true", but you agreed that evolution and "deep time" were the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.  That was really my point.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,12:51

AFDave,
Are you dropping your argument about ". .all Isochrons are best described as mixing lines..."?

If you cede this point then Ipso facto, you agree with my summary that countered that claim.  I can then show you aging arguments.

Mike PSS
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,12:54

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 02 2006,17:09)
Points of agreement.
I am proposing a shortcut.  We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up.  As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories.  So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand.  Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to.  It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wholeheartedly agree, Improv, and in fact that's exactly what I've been trying to get Dave to do for the past five months. I've repeatedly admonished him to stop trying to find holes in the evidence supporting evolution, an old age for the earth, etc., and get on with providing "positive evidence" in support of his "hypothesis."

If you can think of a way to get him to do this, please, for the love of god, do so. I've been trying to get him to do it for months. The rest of this thread is just one giant detour around the issue.

And another point about "supernatural" causes, by which Dave appears to mean "causes the nature of which we don't yet have an understanding." Obviously, this is not what most people mean by the term, but I can work with it.

If that's what you mean by "supernatural," Dave, no scientist is going to dispute that various things could have "supernatural" causes.  What gives an electron its mass? Well, probably the Higgs boson, but no one knows for sure, so maybe the source of mass is "supernatural." Scientists don't rule out "supernatural" (in this sense of the term) causes because they're supernatural, but because there's no evidence (yet) for them.

But they are going to have a problem with "hypotheses" which can be ruled out right out of the gate because they conflict with simple, basic observation. Your young-earth "hypothesis" falls into this category. A 6,000-year-old cosmos "hypothesis" falls afoul of so many observational tests I could fill up an entire page with just a list of them.

Scientists don't fail to consider the Bible (specifically, Genesis) because they don't know any better, Dave. They don't consider it because it is clearly (and I do mean clearly, like any bright nine year old can see the problems with it) erroneous.

Now, if you want to propose some "supernatural" mechanism by which we can see a galaxy that's 2 million lightyears away in a cosmos that's only 6,000 years old, go right ahead. We'd be happy (no, fascinated) to hear your proposal. But unless you come up with some actual, affirmative evidence to support the existence of such a mechanism, we're going to laugh at you just the way we've been laughing at you all along. Some statement like, "Relativity theory makes it reasonable to suppose that God can exist outside of time and space and therefore he could make the galaxies only look like they're that far away" simply isn't going to cut it.

But again, Improv, if you can get Dave to actually focus on providing actual, affirmative evidence supporting the existence of these various "supernatural" mechanisms, I'll buy you a fifth of single-malt (if that's your thing).
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 02 2006,12:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

Let me say that again ... louder.

I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.  In other words, we do what comes natural.  What comes natural?  Well, you eat, sleep, work, play, you go to school, get married, have kids, get old and die.  And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I need to look for an image of Elmer Fudd accidently blasting himself.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Mmmm ... not so fast.  I'm not done with Denton and his (and my) belief that sequence comparisons were a surprise to ToE.  More tomorrow on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How's this going to work, Dave? We've already explained ad nasueum that Denton's chart of sequence comparisons confirms evolutionary theory, disconfirms your mangled misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and why. What more is there to discuss? It's clear that you have completely ignored every single post on the topic, and there have been dozens. It seems to me that your only way out of this quagmire is to come up with convincing evidence that eukaryotes are not all equally distantly related to prokaryotes, i.e., that they did not diverge from prokaryotes at the same time. Would you care to lay out your proposed method for even showing this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Isochrons ... any time, Mike.  Convince me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now. Mike has asked you several times why you disagree with his summary re isochrons, after you already stated quite plainly that you do not disagree with it. First of all: which is it? Even you seem confused as to whether you agree with his summary or not.

If you do not agree with his summary, then why do you disagree with it? Please be specific. You're not fooling anyone with your "prove it to me" arms-folded pretense. You either have a specific disagreement with his summary or you don't. If you do, please let us know what it is. If you don't, then you can no longer claim that you disagree with it. You have to have a reason to disagree with it. You can't merely disagree with it without reason.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paging Strawman Dave? Is there a Strawman Dave in the house?

Of course there is. Are you going to ignore the multiple posts pointing out to you that no one, not one evolutionary biologist out there, believes that humans evolved from plants?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you personally don't think RM dating has anything to do with the age of rocks, but you've given no one here the tiniest reason to believe that. It's nice that you've managed to persuade yourself that you're right, since clearly thinking otherwise would cause your head to explode, but you haven't exactly supported your position with reference to actual facts.

And in the meantime, your belief in god is way more a fairy tale than a belief in an old earth or the theory of evolution, because you simply don't have any evidence for it. I'm not saying god does not exist for a fact—there certainly could be a god. But you don't have any evidence for its existence. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence for an old earth and for the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter whether you believe that evidence or not; it still exists. But where's your evidence for the existence of God? No need to re-post your UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis"; I've already read it.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,13:31

Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:34

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, we don't need to "pretend" you agree that RM Dating and Deep Time "are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence." You've already admitted that they are:

 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:47)
Improv...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In other words, Dave, for evolution and deep time not to be the best explanations for what we observe, you need yet more "miracles."

Okay, you say you see evidence for all these supernatural causes. Where is that evidence?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,13:40

Dave said:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bacteria are spectacularly diverse genetically --Just as an example --
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes are being sequenced at an increasing pace, and we are rapidly building a detailed molecular picture of the microbial world that is yielding new biological paradigms on a weekly basis. With over 140 finished bacterial genomes now publicly available, and a larger number in progress, these data are scientific touchstones for their respective communities, in addition to establishing the molecular basis for microbial diversity studies. Improvements to sequencing technologies have reduced the cost of whole-genome sequencing, bestowing less-well-studied microbes with sequence data sets and the modern analysis approaches they engender. Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(My Emphasis)...see: < http://jb.asm.org/cgi....9733676 >
< http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/186/22/7773 >
The differences INTERspecifically are great as well:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The typical interdivisional rRNA sequence difference is 20 to 25%. For comparison, the 16S rRNAs of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, both representatives of the  group of Proteobacteria, differ overall by about 15%; the 16S rRNAs of E. coli and Bacillus subtilis ("low-G+C gram-positive bacterial" division) differ by about 23%.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
more than 78,000 16S rRNA gene sequences have been deposited in GenBank and the Ribosomal Database Project, making the 16S rRNA gene the most widely studied gene for reconstructing bacterial phylogeny
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/4/686 >
rRNA = ribosomalRNA, DippyDave, just as an example of interspecific diversity.The metabolisms of bacteria are often SO radically different that "universal" probes couldn't detect them (as with hydrothermal vent bacteria)

K.E :The following page has the best "guesstimates" and information I've seen so far in my limited browsing on bacterial diversity and numbers of species. Basically, they say this: "the smallest drop of temperate seawater or a grain of agricultural soil will also yield myriad 16S rRNA sequences that are new to science"
< http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10234 >
THAT paper basically says we have no models to determine the actual diversity and it cites an older paper that says " the entire bacterial diversity of the sea may be unlikely to exceed 2 x 10^6, while a ton of soil could contain 4 x 10^6 different taxa. These are preliminary estimates that may change as we gain a greater understanding of the nature of prokaryotic species abundance curves." < http://www.pnas.org/cgi....psecsha >
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,13:41

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:31)
Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, read my < post. > It's your turn. You are now saying you disagree with Mike's summary re isochrons. Well, what about it do you disagree with? Unless and until you explain exactly what you disagree with, what do you think Mike can do with your "whaddya got" question? Just repost his summary?

What's your problem with his summary, Dave? Do you know? Or do you just disagree for the sake of being disagreeable?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,14:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I really despise about jerkoffs like StupidDave. He is implying "you're going to die and MY  god is going to burn you for eternity for disbelief or even mere doubt "... it makes your god  look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty, DaveTard2.

Apparently you think you're going to convince people by "threats." You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as YOU. This alone makes you a wanker, Dave. This explains why you accept a God that kills innocent children, then claimed it was because "God knew they were going to do evil in the future." You're truly laughable.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,14:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,19:31)
Mike-- That wasn't what I said exactly, but no, I'm not dropping anything.  Whaddya got?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
I got my summary (you can find it I'm sure) that addresses your "mixing" argument.  Nothing about time yet, just mixing.

What part of my summary do you disagree with?
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 02 2006,14:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the "blinded by what they want to believe" applies to, er ... let's see ... what can we call them?  "anti-Biblicists" ? "skeptics" ?  ... you know ... folks like Russell who are going to school board meetings fighting people like me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, I can hardly wait to find out... what do I want to believe?

And, tell me, why do I drag myself to school board meetings? Is it because I don't want kids to learn "the truth"? Is it because I hate Jesus?

I wonder if dave's psychological insights come with the same level of certainty as his biological, geological, chemical and physical insights.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 02 2006,15:00

AFDave,
When I started explaining to you how your "Isochron's are mixing lines" argument was wrong you asked for an "executive summary" for you to review (I can find that quote if you want).  I complied with your request and formed an executive summary rebutting your mixing claim on page 6 of this thread.

Please read, comprehend, and comment on this summary.  If you have any questions please ask.  It doesn't bother me at all that you could disagree with the summary.  I need to know what part(s) you disagree with so we can discover further where you (or I) are wrong.

This is how a debate works in a civil environment.  Point, counter-point with supporting evidence.  Claim, counter-claim with supporting reasoning.  Or do you not want to debate this topic.  Your the one who said to me that you doubted I wanted to debate you (I can find that quote too).
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,15:25

Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.

Russell-- Just a guess, but my guess is that you want to believe that Evolution is true and that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely nice, religious myths.  How close did I get?

Deadman-- Not only does the Bible speak of God as a loving  heavenly father, but it also says He is a "consuming fire."  Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,15:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who?  Hitler?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 02 2006,15:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only does the Bible speak of God as a loving  heavenly father, but it also says He is a "consuming fire."  Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.

And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing. Of course, you didn't bother to look that up, despite me giving you references. Again...typical of your dishonesty.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,15:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Read the Bible for yourself.  Maybe you'll get a different picture than I have painted.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I already did.  I went out and bought a book ... just like you always tell me to.  Problem for you is that it was written by a top notch molecular biologist who happens to disagree with you.  He's made his case very clearly.  You are trying to refute him so the burden is on you.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 02 2006,15:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hoo, boy, are you in for a surprise!
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 02 2006,15:59

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Dave is implicitly conceding that, based on scientific evidence, they are not results of mixing.  Most likely he is referring to the possibility of unkown "supernatural" forces that could have somehow caused mixing.  In other words, Mike, you can't rule out that your crystals were not formed by miracles.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,16:27

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read more carefully, Dave.  Phrases such as “WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES” are important here. (Or do you think there is only one species of bacteria?) That beautiful phylogenetic tree Diogenes presented will give you an idea of how genetically different bacteria are at levels above the "species". Compare the lengths of the lines connecting different groups of bacteria with, say, the length of the lines connecting animals and plants.

Anyhow, since Dave is merely going to spurt and sputter about how “ridiculous” our “whoppers” are (no matter what the evidence, and no matter how that evidence casts our whoppers relative to Dave's big, all-consuming God), I humbly suggest we just blow his mind with random biological (or other scientific) facts he hasn’t bothered to learn yet.

I’ll start.

Dave, you know those mushrooms you put in your salad tonight? Did you know that you are more closely related to them than the lettuce you mixed them with is? Didn’t think so.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,16:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, is it physically impossible for you to answer Mike's question? He asked you, what is it specifically about his < summary > that you disagree with?

Mike asked you a very simple question. It's got nothing to do with deep time, and nothing, particularly, to do with whether isochrons are mixing diagrams or not. It has to do with what it is about his "executive summary"—you know, the one you asked for?—that you disagree with. What about Mike's summary in particular is wrong, which allows you to claim that all whole-rock isochrons could be just mixing diagrams?

Until you answer this simple, basic question, there's no way your debate with Mike can proceed. So what's the hold-up?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,16:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the "Judge of Mankind" is anything worth following, it is not insane, petty and vicious. Your version of God is evil, as you described it. Keep your God. I prefer to avoid such concepts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Read the Bible for yourself.  Maybe you'll get a different picture than I have painted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recommend Judges, Deadman. After that, it's hard to cast God in such a flattering light as you have.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And on your view of genetic distances..I suggest you get off your lazy ass and quit begging others to spoonfeed you data. You're as wrong in this as you were in virtually all your claims.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I already did.  I went out and bought a book ... just like you always tell me to.  Problem for you is that it was written by a top notch molecular biologist who happens to disagree with you.  He's made his case very clearly.  You are trying to refute him so the burden is on you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Interesting concept of burden of proof, Dave. If only we could reference the work of thousands upon thousands of top-notch scientists who knew what they were talking about when it came to evolution... Maybe the very same papers Denton ripped his cyctochrome C data from, for example? Ah, fie, to be crushed by a popular book and the massive weight of the Encyclopedia Britannica!

I know with that purchase you're probably over your book quota for the decade, Dave, but maybe you could borrow an elementary text on evolution. Check the index for an entry on cytochrome C. Read what it has to say. See if it confirms that, as we are trying to tell you, Denton made a boneheaded mistake here in his interpretation of evolutionary descent. (Again, I am taking you at face value that he -- not you -- made these claims as you portray them.) Even if the burden of proof was on us, Davey, it's been hoisted easily. As it turns out, the categorically wrong (stupendously so!;) claims of our opponent are as light as a feather. In fact, they make our point for us so well, we don't even need to be here -- your "burden of proof" carries itself, Dave.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 02 2006,16:54

You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,17:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, read the quote. Did you notice where it says "intraspecific." You do know what "intraspecific" means, don't you? Given the "half a lousy percent" you derided about the difference between humans and chimps, which aren't even in the same genus, you'd think that 20% figure would give you pause.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 02 2006,17:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it is that easy, Dave. Denton (and you) both seem to believe that conventional evolutionary theory posits that different eukaryotes should be more or less closely related to prokaryotes depending on how long ago they diverged from prokaryotes. This is, in fact, a boneheaded mistake, because all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time. Therefore, conventional evolutionary theory posits that all eukaryotes should be equally distantly related to prokaryotes. This is what your chart (within the margins of error inherent in using a coding DNA sequence like that for cytochrome) actually shows.

You'll note that when you're talking about eukaryotes, all organisms are not equally related to each other. If your "hypothesis" about special creation were true, we would have no reason to expect any pattern at all in cytochrome c (they should either all be the same, or they should all be different), because the protein is highly conserved. The Theobald < paper > I cited to you five months ago discusses all this in great detail, but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it, because there's no way you ever read that paper.

This pattern of differing distances among various eukaryotes, but all the same distances between all eukaryotes and all prokaryotes, is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts, and you still haven't shown otherwise. This pattern is definitely not remotely surprising to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory. Which is why you find it surprising, Dave.

So—yet another question Dave can't answer: how are you going to go about showing that it's not true that all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time?

One other point, Dave: by comparison to the prokaryotic world, eukaryotes are a minor offshoot. So saying you're talking about only bacteria is like saying you're talking about only the irrational numbers.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 02 2006,17:32

Mike PSS


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
SHAME k.e SHAME
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK one of rare ad hominems.....snicker

alright then AFD's ancestors weren't weasles...

....ack ack cognitive disonance...mind imploding

nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 02 2006,17:52

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Way back when, you had a "hard time believing" Wieland (a medical doctor, no less!;) could make a "bone-headed mistake" regarding chromosomal fusion. But back then, you at least checked the claim and accepted the weight of evidence that a credentialed writer just simply got it wrong. (By the way, I see that artcle is still posted in its entirety, glaring mistakes and all. Didn't have any luck pointing that out to AIG, eh?) Anyhow, Deadman referenced one example of the resounding "what the fuck?!" from the scientific community regarding Denton's gaffe.

So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.

What were you saying about comfortable oblivion, Dave?

(Cue the references to Copernicus and Galileo from someone with a scientific background that would be considered poor among grade-schoolers.)
Posted by: edmund on Oct. 02 2006,18:40

from incorygible:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For that matter, Denton himself no longer seems to believe that he was on the mark. At least as I understand it, he's embraced mainstream evolutionary theory.

As for the statement that we're "only discussing bacteria", you'll find the same nested hierarchical pattern no matter which organisms you look at, and (within limits) no matter which gene you examine. That nested pattern is the signature of descent from a common ancestor, and the same pattern seems to appear no matter which critters you choose.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,21:35

Wow, you miss a few days and the little monkey boy gets even weirder.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So precious.

Dave, I didn't believe in christians until I went to college. That's a fact. I was shocked. I thought of like, the middle ages and such when I thought of christians. I figured that people just wanted the company of the church.

So... This is getting good. Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. Um, I might point out some obvious stuff but it will be better when Dave figures it out for himself.

Dave- you lost the portuguese thing.


Man, I just gotta do it again...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go get 'em jEsus boy. Give 'em he!!.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 02 2006,21:40

Hey Dave, what do ya guess the genomic difference between, say, Influenza and Strep might be?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 02 2006,21:58

so why is it that Denton is right and everybody else is wrong? Is it because you *agree* with his claims?
After all, he claims to be a scientist, as do ALL the other people who do research, who happen to contradict you/him.

So, what's different about Denton to all the others? To me, it appears as if you are doing exactly what you claim everybody else is doing - closing your eyes to the actual evidence because of what you *believe*. Is that not the case? You claim that rocks are *chosen* before they are dated and this makes dating invalid. Are you not doing the same by picking and choosing who you believe because of their conclusion?
If I only ever dated rocks under 6000 years old then of course they'd say earth<6000 years old! So what?!

When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
Posted by: Ross_UK on Oct. 02 2006,23:28

Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

Ah, the old Goon Show joke:

How old is that dinosaur skeleton?
200 million and two years old.
How do you know?
Well, it was 200 million years old when I started working here two years ago...

Of course this leads to my new hypothesis that AFDave is Eccles (a spectacularly stupid character from the Goon Show - a British Radio Comedy of the 50s) and as my first piece of 'evidence' I offer the following exchange from "The Mysterious Punch Up the Conker":

Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,02:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
This was your ORIGINAL claim BEFORE I posted my summary that REFUTED this claim.  Therefore you have to READ AND REVIEW my summary and address the points made in the summary.  Otherwise, my refutation of your claim is valid and you admit that your "mixing" argument is wrong.  That's how it works.

Now, I have a choice.  
EITHER I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post pointing to your past messages with proper time stamps that show the following chronological sequence
  • AFDave makes the above claim.
  • JonF and Mike PSS point out the inconsistencies of that claim and reference numerous sources.
  • AFDave holds his head in his hands and says "too much information" and asks for an "executive summary".
  • Mike PSS agrees to that under the condition that we start with the mixing claim first before we even talk about time.
  • Mike PSS posts his summary that refutes the "mixing" claim mentioned above.
  • AFDave repeats his original claim over and over and over.
  • Many people point out that AFDave has not addressed the information in the summary.


OR, I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post that shows AFDave arguing with many other posters about the following point:
Dalrymple rebutted Arndts and Overns paper about Isochrons with five points.  Arndts and Overn replied to Dalrymples rebuttal point for point.  Since Dalrymple didn't respond to the counter-points then Arndts and Overn (and AFDave) claimed victory about the point.
Does that situation seem eerily similar to what is going on above, but just in reverse?

AFDave, just read my summary that refutes your ORIGINAL claim you so graciously repeated above and respond to it.

Mike PSS
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,02:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
You have yet to post a proper rebuttal to the meteorite graph.  The only """"data"""" (extra scare quotes around that word in this context) you posted is below.  And we all know how that turned out.

Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 03 2006,02:31

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't ya just love it when the loonies play the violence/fear card?  Yeah, I get it Davey-dumbell.  You will note that his petty little impotent wanker god never does anything NOW.  The threats of violence and retribution are always after death, which is, very conveniently, not verifyable.  However, this tactic is very good at generating fear and uncertainty in susceptible people.  And, of course, people who are in a perpetual state of fear and uncertainty tend to be more compliant and easier to control.... and fleece.  It's a very common tactic used to control behavior throughout history.  The xtian implementation has got to be one of the best hooks ever invented, but it's also a truly psychotic demonstration of love.  Try pulling it on your significant other, "I love you dearly my darling, but if you fail to return my love I'll arrange for you to burn in ####."  That kind of 'loving' sentiment can land you in jail.

I would rather not exist in a universe controlled the petty narcissistic and dictatorial bastard that you happen to call god, Davey-poo.  So please, do me a favor and get your beloved impotent sky-daddy SOB to take action NOW!!!  Thanks.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2006,02:42

dont forget the financial scandal rocking Dave's church at the moment, boy do they love their $$$. big part of the old religion it seems - no money, no entrance into heaven.

And darker things have been hinted at too......

You know, i'd pay for somebody to stand outside Davie's church and hand out flyers to people with a tinyurl to this discussion. Or radio ads in his town or whatever. Davie's told us that everybody he knows already is aware of his great victory's so there's no big deal in making sure. Paypal ok? :) I'm sure somebody on craiglist would help out for $$!

The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems. Where's all your support Davie? It does not exist, much like your Evil Jebus who's going to make us all bow down to him.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,04:31

Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,04:51

Dave,
Don't get distracted by the culture warriors.  I'm offerring you real science.  Objective science.  Hard science.  Nothing political.  Just the facts type of science.

But the science I'm offerring has nothing to do with Darwinism or Darwinist Truth Searching.  Just physics and chemistry and math and geology and geography and cosmology.  You know, those areas of science that came before Darwin.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,04:54

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,10:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know you didn't really mean that, Dave.  I mean, you wouldn't want to conflate "darwinists" with "thumbers" now, would you?
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,05:18

Ross_UK : With that classic illustration  of circular reasoning...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?....
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you know Spike Milligan understood evolution?

"Legs are hereditary and run in most families."
Spike Milligan




Thanks Deadman_932 for the following info


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
K.E :The following page has the best "guesstimates" and information I've seen so far in my limited browsing on bacterial diversity and numbers of species. Basically, they say this: "the smallest drop of temperate seawater or a grain of agricultural soil will also yield myriad 16S rRNA sequences that are new to science"
< http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10234 >
THAT paper basically says we have no models to determine the actual diversity and it cites an older paper that says " the entire bacterial diversity of the sea may be unlikely to exceed 2 x 10^6, while a ton of soil could contain 4 x 10^6 different taxa. These are preliminary estimates that may change as we gain a greater understanding of the nature of prokaryotic species abundance curves." < http://www.pnas.org/cgi....psecsha >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





So AFD since you accept that science says that all life on earth started as simple cellular life can your creation science explain why there is such abundant diversity of bacteria without using the Theory of Evolution ?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2006,05:20

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, whatever. Show us your science then Davey.

When will the earth be 6001 years old?

And as far as "Darwinist truth search methods go"

1: Dave says all his buddies know about this particular thread
2: nobody has ever come into this thread to give Davie their support.
3: We know fundies love to say " you are all going to ####" unless you believe *a really quite specific set of beliefs*
4: Nobody has ever done this, to my knowledge

Therefore, Davie has never told any of his fundie buddies about this thread. A reasonable conclusion from the available evidence if you ask me. It's not science, but i bet i'm right!

Davie, it's quite obvous that you want to talk about anything other then the facts, so i'll bow out now and leave you to discuss the actual *science* behind your claims with the others.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,05:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you figured it out .....you clever boy...when I said



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
....nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes AFD that weasle had two legs.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,05:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypothesis: Dave has advertised the intellectual whupping he's laying on us Darwinists in this forum among his family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Prediction from Hypothesis: His family, friends and fellow church-goers would have a detectable presence on this board.

Method: Examine all posts in Dave's threads for supportive comments made by Dave's family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Results: No such supportive comments exist.

Conclusion: The prediction of a detectable presence of Dave's cheerleaders fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Dave is lying.

Now, one could argue how appropriate the prediction, method, results and conclusion are. But Dave's talking about methods. Dave, there's a name for the above method, and it ain't the "Darwinist Truth Search" method. In fact, it's the defining method of a certain body of knowledge from which you claim to accept "90%" of findings, and further claim to be a largely Christian/Creationist innovation.

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet. Here are a few more examples of it in action in relation to your Creator God Hypothesis. (Most interestingly, NONE of these examples -- nor anything remotely similar in methodology -- were provided by you.)

Hypothesis: Humans and apes (the latter including modern chimpanzees and gorillas) were created as separate "kinds".

Predictions from Hypothesis: (1) Humans will form a phylogenetic out-group to an in-group containing chimpanzees and gorillas. (2) The genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees or humans and gorillas will exceed the genetic distance between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Methods: (1) Examine sequence data for hundreds of loci and develop the relevant phylogenetic dendrograms. (2) Examine sequence data across the genomes of each species and measure overall genetic distance.

Results (see the first few pages of this thread for a recap): (1) The ((CH)G) phylogeny is by far the most prevalent and parsimonious, and matches very well with hypothesized times of divergence obtained through other methods. (2) The genetic distance between humans and gorillas and between chimpanzees and gorillas is far greater than (nearly double) that between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Conclusion: Both indpendent predictions fail, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Humans are an in-group to the African apes, descended from a common ancestor.



Prediction: The geographic region known as Tyre has been barren and uninhabitable for at least two thousand years in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

Prediction from Hypothesis: There will be no evidence of human habitation in the region of Tyre at any time during the past two milennia.

Methods: Examine current and historical data on human habitation in the region of Tyre. First and easiest, take a quick peak at Google Earth.

Results: Tyre is currently inhabited by many thousands of of humans.

Conclusion: The prediction fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypotheses for Future Research: Biblical prophecies are not always fulfilled as stated, ergo the Bible is not inerrant.


Dave, do you really want us to relabel this method (nameless here for ever more) the "Darwinist Truth Search" Method? Would that make you happy? Would it change its history of effectiveness?

Do you deny the method, Dave? If not, could you please present an example, outlined in simple fashion like above, where you have applied it appropriately and effectively anywhere in your five months of inane rambling on this board?
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,05:38

I have a "feeling" that Dave is full of crap.  Does that count as positive supernatural evidence?
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,05:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2006,05:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um, no.

Glenn Morton is a devout Christian but he doesn't believe in a Young Earth anymore. Is he going to he11?

Also, please tell me where in the Bible Jesus said one goes to he11 for believing in evolution or failing to think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Is it, as Homer Simpson once said, "somewhere in the back"?

Moreover, remember that you are quite incapable of showing us why your Christian beliefs are any more true than any other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs. Except for GoP and RO'B, everyone else here understands that, so the 'you're all going to he11' arguments aren't really going to work here.

If all you're here to do is to convert people, don't pretend to do science. Not that it really matters to ME, but it makes Christians look very stupid, and I know some very nice, intelligent moderate Christians who are extremely irritated by your kind of behavior.

Get it now?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 03 2006,05:56

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,06:11

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They've got their heads in other places and on other matters.

(Where's that illustration of this that Steve posted way back when?)
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,06:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Russell-- Just a guess, but my guess is that you want to believe that Evolution is true and that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely nice, religious myths.  How close did I get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not very.

Do I believe that massive objects attract other massive objects - a phenomenon known as "gravity" - because I want to believe it? Or because I find the evidence pretty persuasive?

Do I believe "Evolution is true", or that the development of life was an extremely complex and almost unimaginably long process, and that the description of it by mainstream science is considerably more accurate and informative than deductions tortured out of ancient religious documents?

Now, when I go to school board meetings, believe it or not, no actually elected members are rushing to embrace the YEC position. They understand that to actually endorse, out loud, the nonsense you endorse would be to political suicide. No, what they're trying to do is to what politicians do: have it both ways.  They're trying to straddle the gulf between reality and religious fundamentalism with the imaginary bridge called "intelligent design". They're trying to say "sure, we support science, and technology, and medicine, all the cool toys and drugs and all, but there's this complicated dodge - way too complicated for me to explain right now (heck, I barely understand it myself! - but these distinguished gentlemen from the Discovery Institute assure me it's legit) - whereby up can simultaneously be down, negative is actually positive, and saying otherwise is the rankest form of viewpoint discrimination".

What would I like to believe? That's kind of a foreign concept to me. I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition. I suppose if I could arrange my "fantasy reality", I might entertain notions of being immortal, of getting having loved ones who have died resurrected and we could hang out indefinitely together enjoying good food and good times... oh, and can I keep my cat?  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy in the Sky to intervene at key moments to save me and my fellow Homo sapiens from our short-sightedness, and to assure me that even though I am appalled at some of my own deviations from my idea of proper conduct over the years, that all is forgiven, no need to worry about it.

I might like to believe there's no need to challenge ignorance and backwardness, because knowledge and understanding, being inherently more powerful, will always prevail with or without my input.

What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,06:24

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe they are using Lightfoots chronology which places it on Sept. 12th (or October 22 or October 25) 3929 B.C.E. or Scaliger's Jan. 1, 4713 BC, or mabye one of the hundreds of other such dates.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,06:29

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
[snip]  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy [snip]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did someone mention < Big Daddy >?
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2006,06:33

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A former physics professor of mine believes it's not just possible, it's likely. He argues that most of human history has been ruled by religious and tribal affiliations, that humans revert to that in times of crisis, and that some crisis in the future would pop our effervescent bubble of secularism and peace.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,06:56

-Someone's always got to bring up big daddy.-

(quote): Russell
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

1 : The path from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion

2 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith rather than reason and evidence <Religion is one of the few things people will kill and die for without considering the risks and benefits beforehand.>
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:04

Dave, this morning's discussion is getting pretty far afield, so I'd like to yank things back on track, if I might. There are currently two very current outstanding issues you need to address (on top of the 70 or so other issues that are there in the backlog of unanswered questions and unaddressed objections). Here they are:

  • You need to address Mike's "executive summary" of his refutation of your "mixing lines" argument. So far, all you've done is repeat your argument that he claims he's defeated. In other words, you're just repeating yourself. It's as if you made a  claim that 2 + 2 != 4, and then Mike posted a mathematical proof demonstrating that 2 + 2 = 4, and when he asked you to point to places in his proof where you disagree, you merely repeat your claim that 2 + 2 != 4. So it's not his move, Dave: it's yours. What about his executive summary do you disagree with, and why?
  • You claim that Denton's chart showing that all eukaryotes are equally distantly-related to all prokaryotes (actually, his chart only has one prokaryote on it, but that's the gist of his, and therefore your, claim) refutes the theory of evolution. Actually, it supports it, but that's another issue. Your claim is that if the theory of evolution were correct, then the longer ago a eukaryote shared a common ancestor with (I guess it doesn't matter with what, but for the sake of argument let's just say) humans, the more closely related that organism should be to prokaryotes. This amounts to a claim that eukaryotes did not diverge from prokaryotes all at the same time, but have continued to do so up until—when?—the present time? Or, conversely, it could amount to a claim that once an organism first appeared, it sort of, well, stopped evolving, so that, say, a worm stopped evolving a thousand million years ago, but a horse only stopped evolving a few tens of millions of years ago.

Either way, this last claim is so wrong, Dave, that it's difficult for me even to phrase it in a way that makes sense. As I said yesterday, in reality this claim doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. It's so orthagonal to the real state of affairs that it's hard for me get my mind around it. But in any event, you haven't even begun to support your claim that this chart refutes evolution, let alone show it follows from or in any way supports your hypothesis.

So, get crackin,' Dave. The number of unanswered questions and objections to your "hypothesis" has grown so large that SteveStory has asked me not to post it all in one message, so as to avoid problems with the software. I guess I'll have to restrict myself to just posting the questions that are germaine to whatever particular quagmire you find yourself in at any given time.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,07:09

EVOLUTIONISTS, AKA DARWINISTS, AKA THUMBSTERS NEED DEEP TIME (continued)

(Thus explaining why rocks are carefully selected for RM "Dating")



OK, Dave, what in the world does a lungfish have to do with the present conversation?  A lot!  Are you ready?  Brains engaged?

Michael Denton, author of the much-feared-by-Darwinists-book entitled, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisishas claimed that this chart ...



... comes as a serious disappointment to Darwinists because it shouldn't be this way.  He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.

Now the Thumbsters here are in high gear throwing all kinds of mud at Denton, saying he made a "bone-headed" mistake and "he doesn't understand Evolution" etc, etc, ad nauseum.  I like Ashby Camp's response to Theobald in this regard ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Who was that that was trying to tell me how vital it is to scientific careers to understand evolution?  Wasn't there some bongo here trying to tell me "Dave, the oil companies all use evolutionary theory to find oil!!  See isn't Darwinism great??!!"  What a riot!

Anyway, Darwinists want to paint Denton as a dummy, but, as usual, this is vacuous.  Denton understands ToE just fine and he has the guts to write a book showing it's fatal flaws, that's all.

Back to the chart, lungfish and Darwinists NEED for Deep Time.  

If Evolution were true, this chart would be far different as I said above.  Now ... Incorygible here is trying to tell me ...

"Well, Dave, you (and Denton) just don't understand evolution.  You have this dorky idea that ANCIENT bacteria would have the same cytochrome sequence as MODERN bacteria.  Poor naive little Davey!  That chart is exactly what we Darwinists would predict!  Isn't it wonderful!!"

Mmmm ... don't think so, boys ... Denton probably anticipated people like you when he shows the prevailing view of Darwinists back in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

So what we have is Darwinists themselves EXPECTING molecular biology to confirm their views back in the early 60's, but what really happened is that they were refuted.  Now of course they will never admit defeat, so what did they do?  Start backpedaling and writing all kinds of stupid articles like Wesley's which tries to say that Darwinism PREDICTS the chart above.  What a joke!

So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.

Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!

Oh man ... you guys are hilarious!  How can you keep swallowing this Darwinist tripe year after year?  Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.

I feel for you ... I truly do!

So ... to wrap up ... what we have is that Evolutionists NEED DEEP TIME to make all those tiny changes that supposedly accumulate to magically transform a single celled organism into ... Voila!  A human being!

How do they get the Deep Time they need?  Simple ... they have George the Geochronologist who doesn't mind ignoring pesky "little" details like "discordances are the rule, not the exception", excess Argon, Argon loss, isochrons can be mixing diagrams, Helium loss in zircons shows a young earth, etc. etc. etc.

It all makes perfect sense!
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,07:16

Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 03 2006,07:27

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:16)
Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise be His name.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,07:33

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,07:33

Dave, we told you why Denton and yourself don't understand squat about molecular evolution and phylogenetics.
Are you dishonest or just dumb? I can't tell.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:16)
Almost forgot ...

HAIL, DARWIN !!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Praise Satan!  :D
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:36

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:09)
Michael Denton, author of the much-feared-by-Darwinists-book entitled, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisishas claimed that this chart ... comes as a serious disappointment to Darwinists because it shouldn't be this way.  He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, normally I'd cut you some slack because you couldn't have read my post before you posted your latest, but I won't this time, because I and others have already raised this issue with you multiple times, and you've ignored it every single time.

One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES. Strangely enough, that's exactly what Denton's chart shows. His claim that "amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true" is simply false, and I've shown you exactly why it's false.

So what's your response, Dave? There are essentially two possibilities for your claim, that different eukaryotes should be unequally related to prokaryotes it the ToE is true, to be correct: it could either be true that eukaryotes have diverged from prokaryotes at different times, possibly right up to the present. In other words, fungi diverged from bacteria at one point in time, fish at a later time, and amphibians at a still later time. Or, it could be true that once fungi first appeared, they stopped evolving completely. Then, later, fish first appeared, and they stopped evolving. Even later still, amphibians appeared, and then they stopped evolving too.

Neither of these scenarios is a prediction of the theory of evolution, Dave. If you can think of some other scenario that could produce the pattern Denton claims should be there "if the ToE is true," i.e., with more recently-appearing eukaryotes being more distantly related to prokaryotes than  eukaryotes that appeared earlier, feel free to post it. But it won't matter if you do, because whatever that scenario is, it is not one that is proposed by the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution predicts exactly the pattern that Denton says it doesn't predict: that all eukaryotes should be equally distantly related to all prokaryotes.

Now, before you go an refer to this as my theory, Dave: it's not. It is the currently accepted theory of evolution, the one that's accepted by every evolutionary biologist out there. Not one evolutionary biologist out there is remotely surprised by Denton's chart. What is surprising is that Denton was ever surprised by it.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,07:47

You know, even after Incorygible < warned > Dave about lying and misrepresenting his statements, Dave went right ahead and did it anyway.
   
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,12:09)
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.

Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, really, Dave?

   
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 02 2006,15:03)
I did not say that any particular sequence difference (especially across the entire genome!) between ancient bacteria and modern bacteria vs. human and ancient bacteria would be the same. I did not say that we have such a "true" molecular clock up to the task.

I was illustrating that a molecular clock, in principle, would (practically by definition) reveal the same time since divergence from ancient bacteria for both modern bacteria and humans. This is not a guess.  It is, in fact, a bit of a truism if you understand phylogeny. For Dave, it's a momentous discovery (especially when you misrepresent it!).

I say this right now, so I can link to it when Dave inevitably claims (AGAIN) that I said something along the lines of "the modern bacterial genome is as different from the ancestral bacterial genome as the human genome is".

I did not say this.  This is detailed clarification that I did not say this.

I accept any responsibility for forgetting that one can have no more subtlety than the average sledghammer when trying to teach Dave anything.

However, following this post, any further claim by AFDave suggesting that I said anything remotely similar to "modern bacteria are as genetically different from ancient bacteria as humans are" will be a deliberate misrepresentation (read: a lie).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



God, Dave, catching you in a lie is like shooting fish in a barrel, when you're already in the barrel.

Which brings us to the inevitable question: what would Jesus lie about?
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,07:53

Dave, who is more closely related to your cousins, you or your brother?  If you look more like your grandfather than your brother does, what affect does that have?

Same question, but back a generation, who is more closely related to your great uncles grandchildren, you or your cousin?

Same question, but back many generation, who is more closely related to modern bacteria, humans or fish?
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,07:55

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
EVOLUTIONISTS, AKA DARWINISTS, AKA THUMBSTERS NEED DEEP TIME (continued)

(Thus explaining why rocks are carefully selected for RM "Dating")
[snip]
How do they get the Deep Time they need?  Simple ... they have George the Geochronologist who doesn't mind ignoring pesky "little" details like "discordances are the rule, not the exception", excess Argon, Argon loss, isochrons can be mixing diagrams, Helium loss in zircons shows a young earth, etc. etc. etc.

It all makes perfect (non)sense!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
Ignoring my summary again.  Your latest arguments with Denton had references and arguments and counter-points, but nothing about my summary.

Having trouble digging up some copy/paste counter-points to my summary that refutes your "mixing" argument?  Try reading it yourself and finding the flaws yourself.  It's an executive summary written for CEO-like characters like yourself.

Please review my summary.  (now I sound like the Video Professor)
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,08:11

Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".

How are you Darwinists going to get around all of them?  You cannot!

Jeannot...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, we told you why Denton and yourself don't understand squat about molecular evolution and phylogenetics.  Are you dishonest or just dumb? I can't tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IOW ... "My name is Fidel Castro and I AM RIGHT!!  You citizens of Cuba are stupid!  I know what's right and what's wrong because I AM THE RULER OF THIS COUNTRY!!  Why do you stupid citizens question my policies?  Off with your heads!" (Ok. I exaggerated that last part just a bit :-) )

******************************

Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.

Diogenes-- I suggest you go back to talking about the Bible and Christianity.  You made a lot more sense back when you were doing that.
Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,08:14

ericmurphy wrote:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, this morning's discussion is getting pretty far afield, so I'd like to yank things back on track, if I might. There are currently two very current outstanding issues you need to address (on top of the 70 or so other issues that are there in the backlog of unanswered questions and unaddressed objections).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Eric must be young and idealistic, and think there's actually a chance Dave's going to seriously engage scientific facts. I admire that. Hope springs eternal, and all that. Me, I figure that since this whole thread is all about religion, and nothing about science, maybe there's a better chance to get Dave to engage in religious questions.

But on another note...

Denton can't be fundamentally wrong about evolution, because he has a PhD in developmental biology (oh, and a MD). But then,  99.99% of molecular biologists with PhDs can't be fundamentally wrong when they say Denton is fundamentally wrong, because, well, they have PhDs (in the actual subject areas, by the way, that Denton is writing about).

Oh no! My head just exploded! Again!
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Evolution were true, this chart would be far different as I said above.  Now ... Incorygible here is trying to tell me ...

"Well, Dave, you (and Denton) just don't understand evolution.  You have this dorky idea that ANCIENT bacteria would have the same cytochrome sequence as MODERN bacteria.  Poor naive little Davey!  That chart is exactly what we Darwinists would predict!  Isn't it wonderful!!"

Mmmm ... don't think so, boys ... Denton probably anticipated people like you when he shows the prevailing view of Darwinists back in 1963 ...  
Quote
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin", Scientific American, 213(5): 110-18, see p111.


This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, Denton's observation that, "Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms." is what allows us to use cytochrome to go all the way back to bacteria in the first place! Have you not noticed us throwing the term "conserved" around a lot when it comes to Cytochrome C? If it changed rapidly over time, we would not be able to use it to compare distantly related taxa at all!

Your argument has NOTHING to do with the pattern in the chart. Whether or not ancestral bacterial cytochrome resembles modern bacterial cytochrome was a hypothetical (which you asked for!;) and is IRRELEVANT to the phenomenon you are woefully misinterpreting. EVEN IF bacterial cytochrome had not changed AT ALL since its ancestral state, we would STILL SEE the pattern of similar divergence among all eukaryotes in the table. That pattern is produced by the single divergence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Capiche?

No, you don't. Your misrepresentations and misunderstandings speak for themselves.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So what we have is Darwinists themselves EXPECTING molecular biology to confirm their views back in the early 60's, but what really happened is that they were refuted.  Now of course they will never admit defeat, so what did they do?  Start backpedaling and writing all kinds of stupid articles like Wesley's which tries to say that Darwinism PREDICTS the chart above.  What a joke!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bullshit, Dave. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. I dare you to find an evolutionary textbook (even one prior to the "refuting" findings of molecular biology) that shows multiple divergences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Because, as Eric points out, that's what you would need to expect what you expect.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yup. Even in a highly conserved coding sequence, hundreds of millions of years is going to produce changes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, pretty likely, Cory!  You really want me to believe that some ancestor of this nice lungfish evolved for 400 million years on one branch to produce modern humans, yet didn't evolve at all on another branch and basically stayed the same for 400 million years, yet you would have me believe that the cytochrome in the ancient and modern lungfish are vastly different??  I bet you have some great exp dlanation for how this can be, but Denton anticipates these as well and nukes them.  He relates how the evolutionary community is basically divided into two camps--the Selectionist and the Neutralist camps ... and both are destroying each other.  I like it!  My ideological enemies are doing my work for me!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've emphasized the part of your question that reveals your (and Denton's) spectaculary terrible understanding of evolution. Why has been explained ad nauseam. No further answer is necessary, other than to point out the Selectionist vs. Neutralist battle is, like most  everything you rant, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh man ... you guys are hilarious!  How can you keep swallowing this Darwinist tripe year after year?  Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Indeed.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:21

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)
Improv...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".

How are you Darwinists going to get around all of them?  You cannot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jebus, have you ever seen the "God of the Gaps" argument stated so explicitly? In bold?

Oh, and here is Dave's amazing unchanging ancestral bacterium:

< [img=http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4423/bacteriaqw8.th.gif] >
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,08:25

AFD with the old creationist double step



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Duck and weave AFD , did you hang around school yards handing out "I lie for Jesus" pamphlets?

That's the last time I heard that cheap, useless, cop out.

After that, if I saw one of you coming, you were asked if you liked sex and travel.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 03 2006,08:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave,
You show the efforts of a couch potato.  Click on the word < summary > to find my referenced permalink.

Not to say, however, that I think Eric and I linked my summary in our messages at least six times in the past few days.

Do you need instructions in the ikonboard tools?  I see you've masterred CAPS, BOLDING and image imprints.  An underlined word could be an underlined word OR a < URL > reference.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:29

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Improv...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave... the bacteria is the basis for that entire table.  If it's useless for comparison, then the rest of the table is useless as well.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,08:30

Dave, you are misunderestimating.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

Posted by: Russell on Oct. 03 2006,08:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denton's book has been out for over 20 years, rings true as ever, yet most of you haven't even read it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just for the record, I have read it. Having actually studied this stuff extensively in many years of schooling, I had no trouble in instantly determining that it was ridiculous, for exactly the reasons the inexplicably patient people on this board have been trying to explain to you.

Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent? Probably because inexplicably patient people who actually understand molecular biology were able, finally, to show him how fundamentally wrong he had been?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and you are blindly wandering around in a fog, totally unaware that the Darwinist ship is sinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Motes and beams, Dave. Motes and beams.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:34

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your image is not displaying.  Although I do find the "red x" as a representation of Dave's theory quite amusing.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,08:46

Speaking of motes and beams, Davey, exactly what is the YEC explanation for why the cytochrome c of such diverse critters as yeast, fish and humans is genetically equidistant from bacteria?

For example, apparently you think yeast is much more similar to bacteria than to humans. It's your basis for claiming we should see decreasing genetic distance as we move from left to right in that last row.

Now, with common design and all that, why did God painstakingly see to it that cytochrome c would present a pattern of nested hierarchies consistent with that ol' bogus evolutionary phylogeny? If the pattern in the table fit anything BUT nested hierarchies, it would scream "common design" rather than common descent. Is that why He didn't do this? To fool us? Given your latest analogy, was this his way of marking which of us would be destined for the camps?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,08:46

Aargg < My Webpage >

I uploaded it to my blog and used the view image to find the link. maybe I can see it because I'm logged in or something.

I'll try to fix it.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,08:59

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, you are misunderestimating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I set it up on imageshack for you.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,09:03

Russell...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course.  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.  He has not "abandoned his whole thesis."  He simply cannot think of another alternative to evolution, so he reluctantly accepts it.  Too bad he's too proud (or too something) to read some AIG stuff.  He'd have the answer he's looking for.

One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question:  Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth?  Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins?  COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components?  Could cells be designed differently?  From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions:  Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth?  And even:  Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?

The stunning answer to this last question is yes.  Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature.  If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible.  For life to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.

Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.  Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny.  Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind."

and ...

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,09:06

< 20 years, and true as it ever was: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Denton attempts to build a broad case for his typological perspective. I shall confine attention to his treatment of molecular data, which his editors specifically tout in the blurbs on the dust jacket. (Readers interested in problems with Denton's treatment of other areas should see the chapters by Joel Cracraft, Laurie Godfrey, and C. Loring Brace in Scientists Confront Creationism.) Advances in molecular biology during the past thirty years opened a new window for viewing genealogical relations among organisms. The results are close to spectacular. Embedded in the structures of common proteins are telltale clues of genealogical relationships that provide overwhelming, independent, corroboration of the principle of biological evolution. Typological thinking in biology died long ago; molecular data have sealed the coffin. Denton, however, contends that molecular biology provides new evidence for a typological view of organisms. Inspection of Denton's arguments in Chapter 12-A Biochemical Echo of Typology"-reveal that his conclusions are based upon an artifact produced by faulty interpretation of the data. Since Denton's professional training is said to be in molecular biology, a detailed look at the situation is in order.

Biochemists have elucidated detailed structures of a variety of proteins obtained from a diverse array of organisms. (Anyone unfamiliar with rudimentary molecular genetics can read, with confidence, Denton's Chapter 11.) Some of the proteins studied are found only in certain kinds of organisms; others occur in virtually all organisms. In the latter case, the molecular structure of a specific protein-cytochrome C is a classic example and the one used by Denton-can be determined in each of many different organisms. It turns out that the structures of the same protein in two different organisms are rarely identical and in some cases quite dissimilar. The amount of difference can be quantified.

Denton provides representative data in Table 12.1. The data are extracted from the leading biochemical reference on the subject and are good; Denton's analysis and conclusions are not. Denton builds his arguments upon a phenomenon that he calls "molecular equidistance." He uses this phrase to refer to empirical results such as the observation that cytochrome C in bacteria, for example, differs by approximately the same amount (roughly 65-70 percent) from the cytochrome C's found in each one of the other organisms listed in the table (vertebrates, insects, plants, and yeasts). Denton uses such observations to infer (erroneously) distinct typological classes. Discussing the data, he makes statements such as: "The bacterial kingdom has no neighbour in any of the fantastically diverse eucaryotic types. The 'missing links' are well and truely missing" (p. 281); and "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish!" (p. 284).

These conclusions are erroneous: in his interpretation of 'molecular equidistance," Denton has confused ancestor-descendant relationships with cousin relationships. The telltale clues of molecular data are not, directly, concerned with parents and offspring, intermediate forms, and "missing links." They are, instead, reflections of relative relatedness between contemporary cousins. Twentieth-century bacteria are not ancestors of twentieth-century turtles and dogs: they are very distant cousins, and, as the data in Denton's presentation show, the bacteria are roughly equally distant cousins of both turtles and dogs (and all the other organisms that Denton included in Table 12.1).

Cousin relationships between contemporary individuals are governed by the number of generations since there last was an ancestor in common to the individuals. Different members of a group of close relatives always have the same relationship to a more distantly related individual who stands outside the group. Two sisters are equally related to a mutual first cousin. Members of a group of siblings and first cousins are all equally related to a mutual fifth cousin. Lampreys are equally distant cousins of both fish and humans because the last ancestor that lampreys had in common with humans was the same ancestor lampreys had in common with fish. The "molecular equidistance" argument that Denton invokes is invalid, resulting from making comparisons between a single distantly related organism and various members of a more closely related group.

There is an irony in Denton's presentation to anyone familiar with the data of molecular evolution. Reflections of genealogical relationships are so strong in molecular data that Denton, in spite of his arguments to the contrary, is unable to hide them. The missing "trace" of which he speaks is not a trace; it is a shout. Simple inspection of the data in Table 12.1 will reveal that cytochrome C found in horses, for example, is quite similar in its molecular structure to that found in turtles, slightly less similar to that in fish, still less similar to that in insects, and very much less similar to that in bacteria. The traditional evolutionary series is very much in evidence.

Denton provides a series of diagrams (pp. 282-87) in which nested e[l]lipses, arranged on the basis of molecular data, are used to illustrate his spurious "molecular equidistance" thesis. In these delightful figures organisms are seen to cluster fully in accord with the genealogical relationships that evolutionary biologists deduced from comparative anatomy and paleontological evidence long before molecular data were available. In the final figure, humans and chimps are seen side by side as each other's closest cousin. Anyone who wants to argue that these nested groups of organisms constitute separate, distinct, and unbridg[e]able groups has to contend with obvious hierarchical patterns of relatedness among the various groups. Notions of relatedness are, of course, antithetical to a typological view of organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,09:13

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:03)
Russell...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read Denton's followup book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he quietly abandons the whole thesis of the earlier book, and accepts common descent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Of course.  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.  He has not "abandoned his whole thesis."  He simply cannot think of another alternative to evolution, so he reluctantly accepts it.  Too bad he's too proud (or too something) to read some AIG stuff.  He'd have the answer he's looking for.

One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question:  Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth?  Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins?  COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components?  Could cells be designed differently?  From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions:  Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth?  And even:  Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?

The stunning answer to this last question is yes.  Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature.  If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible.  For life to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.


Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life.  Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny.  Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind.

and ...

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me get this straight:

Define all known life (carbon-based, DNA, chemical bonds, thermal properties of water, etc.) as "Homo-sapiens like creatures". Demonstrate that such creatures, newly defined, are the only life we know. Conclude that the universe was designed "with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose" and that "the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind".

Hoooohhh boy.

Ignoring the fallacy overload for a second, Dave, if mankind was made at the same time as everything else, why an "endpoint"? Surely this can't refer to evolution, albeit in a deeply erroneous teleological manner? Was this "finely tuned" universe's "endpoint" six days after its creation? Not much of an "endpoint", is it? I mean, I'm already reving up for the Canuck Thanksgiving weekend, but I wouldn't call Saturday an "endpoint".
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,09:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)


Mike-- Hate to tell you, but your "summary" is so far back, I'm not going to try and find it.  If you want me to consider it ... repost it.  Then try to keep up and state your case quickly and succinctly.  I have yet to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell me.  If you have not noticed, this is a fast moving thread.  I have things to accomplish and I cannot waste time searching for your stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, it's not so far back, and you don't need to look for it; < here it is. > And if it's too much trouble to follow the link, I'll just repost it, to eliminate yet another excuse for why you can't answer simple, basic questions posed to you:

   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 30 2006,15:03)
OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this < advertisement > for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you go, Dave. So, one more time; WHAT PART OF THIS "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" DO YOU DISAGREE WITH, AND WHY?

You claim you have "refuted" radiometric dating in its totality, and yet you can't even support your claim that all isochrons are merely mixing diagrams. You think you can just keep going, claiming you've disproven something when you've done no such thing. Well, it's my self-appointed task to call you on it every time you try it.

And, also, to point out about once a day that you have yet to post any affirmative evidence in support of your own damned "hypothesis."
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,09:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course(I have read Dentons Book).  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how finely tuned the universe is for mankind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwhhahahahahahahahahaha

Here let me fix that for you Bible boy.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course(I have read Dentons Book).  It's also one of my favorite books because it shows how mankind Denton finely tuned his view of the universe for what his projected ego aka god is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hand out more 'I lie for Jesus' pamphlets AFD.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,09:21

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2006,13:59)
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, you are misunderestimating.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I set it up on imageshack for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you. Do you like it? (I'm considering a new career as a computer graphics guy)
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,10:01

Dave, this snippet alone, all by itself, demonstrates the complete, utter lack of understanding of evolutionary theory you possess.
     
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:11)
But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The phrase "other organisms supposedly in the 'human ancestry'" is utterly without meaning, in the sense in which you are trying to use it.

There isn't some evolutionary branch that extends all the way back into time, with some organisms on it and others not. It simply isn't true that, e.g., "worms" are "on the road to humanity" and "penguins" are not. The only difference is that the ancestral line leading to humans and the one leading to worms diverged longer ago than the lines leading to humans and penguins. And, as Incorygible pointed out in his incomparable < post earlier today, > nothing alive today has an ancestral relationship to anything else alive today (other than, of course, its own progeny). Therefore, to talk about "worms" being on the ancestral line to humans, and penguins not being on the ancestral line to humans, again, isn't even wrong. It's just completely nonsensical.

So again, Dave: you've ignored this question enough, and it's time to answer it: do you believe that the theory of evolution predicts that different eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at different times, or that different eukaryotes "stopped evolving" at the times they first diverged from the ancestral line? Which one is it?

Neither one is an actual prediction of the theory of evolution, but I'm curious to know which one you think is. Because they're the only two predictions which would be fulfilled if Denton's chart showed that different eukaryotes were unequally related to prokaryotes.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,10:18

Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 03 2006,15:01)
And, as Incorygible pointed out in his incomparable < post earlier today, > nothing alive today has an ancestral relationship to anything else alive today (other than, of course, its own progeny).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incomparable it is, but it's not mine. It's one long quote from the link at the top (Spieth's 1987 review hosted by the NCSE). I've edited the tags to more clearly indicate this.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 03 2006,10:48

This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,11:04

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 03 2006,15:48)
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it doesn't assume anything of the sort and Denton has not come upon any sort of inexplicable "mystery." Denton is making a claim that the cytochrome c results are a problem for the ToE, because the ToE predicts that eukaryotes that appeared earlier should be more closely related to prokaryotes than ones that appeared later. This is the opposite of what the ToE really predicts, which is that all eukaryotes should be equally related to bacteria, and unequally related to each other. This is exactly what Denton's chart shows, which means it confirms the ToE, not disconfirms it.

Therefore, nothing about differential mutation rates, and no assumption about whether mutations are neutral or not, has any bearing whatsoever on Denton's chart.

Dave is trying to claim that Denton's chart, and not the underlying data, presents a huge problem for the theory. In fact, the chart, as it stands, confirms the predictions of evolutionary theory. Whether the actual data underlying the chart is accurate, and whether cytochrome is conserved, whether the mutations in question are neutral, whether mutation rates are constant over time or constant among taxa, has any effect whatsoever on whether the chart confirms a prediction of the theory, or disconfirms it.

Now you can argue over the assumptions Denton made with the chart, and you can argue over whether his data is accurate or not, or whether his assumptions (or the theory of evolution's assumptions) are warranted, but all of that is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Denton's chart, as it stands, confirms or disconfirms the ToE. It is clear that the chart does confirm the predictions of the theory.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,11:14

And, to cut Bill off at the pass, here's Dave's original < claim > about Denton's chart:

 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,11:32

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 03 2006,15:48)
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring. I think Theobald cited some papers showing that generation times are a minor factor, but if they do play a role, Denton's mystery remains.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The contribution of short generation times would be exponentially greater than that of long generation times. In other words, the average generation time of any one of those lineages is likely close to that of bacteria, and the (likely) recent and rare innovation of many-year generation times would have almost zero effect.

For example, as an extreme case to illustrate, compare the elapsed generations of two lineages: one (a) that maintained a one-day generation-time for 1 billion years, and one (b) that had a one-day generation time for 600 million years and a 100-year generation time for 400 million years. This is a 36,500-fold difference in generation times between the two lineages over 40% of their history.

# of generations in 1 billion years:
(a): 3.65 x 10^11
(b): 2.19 x 10^11

average generation time:
(a) 1 day
(b) 1.67 days

Obviously we don't have the complete map of generation times for any of the lineages, so we can only make guesses and relatively safe assumptions. The results (i.e, a predicted pattern of equidistance to bacteria within a small margin of error for evolutionary lineages that we might guess had vastly different generation maps -- fish vs. yeast for example) suggests they are, in fact, safe.

However, even if they weren't safe assumptions, this is all one huge non sequitur to the "equidistance" phenomenon at hand. Denton's mystery is blown out of the water regardless of generation times. Follow through on the logic of a quickly reproducing vs. a slowly reproducing lineage -- the former would be predicted to be more different from bacteria than the latter. Note that not only is this not observed, if we take the fish lineage as our "slow" example and the yeast lineage as our "fast" example, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what Denton says we should find (he says LESS difference for yeast-bacteria than fish-bacteria). Whatever you believe about which lineage was slow and which was fast (reverse fish and yeast if you want), there is no reason to expect this to conform to Denton's predicted typological distances.

At best (for your argument), we could posit that the rapid generation times of bacteria might swamp evidence of multiple divergences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. However, this would swamp Denton's claim as well, as his expected typological results would be similarly undetectable for the same reason.

Generation times are accounted for in more sensitive (and data rich) molecular clocks examining contemporary evolution.
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,11:51

Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,11:59

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,16:51)
Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, I was just thinking that Dave has exceeded all expectations in his comprehension of the simple stuff and thereby demonstrated that his intellect is ready for something closer to the complicated reality...

:p

P.S. I liked the graphic. I was actually waiting for Dave's answer (but not holding my breath), since it seems a fair and accurate representation of his CGH.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,12:04

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?  The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?  Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.

Why don't you just tell me in plain English, Eric, how you think it happened over the past 500 million years or so.  I want to see that nice little numbered list which begins with a single-celled organism and evolves all the way up to humans.  Can you do it?

You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 03 2006,12:07

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,17:51)
Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awww...the pretty colors...
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,12:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,17:04)
Eric: One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?  The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because most of the MAJOR differences between life forms are not a question of how many cells you have. Genetics confirmed this (and offered a few surprises along the way), but it was well known from cellular biology long before. Dave, your imagination as to what constitutes "same" and "different" (see the Dawkins/chimp picture from way back when) is irrelevant to biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bwahahaha. Ah, man, that's some good tard.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,12:39

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,17:04)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Dave, it sure was. No one has ever, ever, in the entire history of evolutionary theory, ever proposed that 1) first yeast diverged from bacteria, then 2) worms diverged from bacteria, then later 3) fish diverged from bacteria, then even later 4) amphibians diverged from bacteria, then even later than that 5) reptiles diverged from bacteria, etc. etc. etc. Yet this is exactly what Denton, and you, are supposing happened, if you think evolutionary theory does not predict what is on Denton's chart.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most logical prediction of ToE should be that single celled organism should be closer genetically to simpler life forms (worms for instance) than to humans if, in fact, ToE is true.  Why?  Simply because ToE says that some wormlike creature is ancestral to humans.  And it supposedly is a very ancient ancestor.  So this should put it much closer to a single celled organism than say, a chimp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Dave, that's not the most logical prediction! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over to you. No wormlike creature is ancestral to humans! Nothing alive today is "ancestral" to humans!

The common ancestor of all humans, all worms, all fish, all birds, all reptiles, all eukaryotes, diverged from bacteria at one time in the distant past. This is why all of those organisms are equally distantly related to bacteria. How many different ways can I say this?

Dave, think of all your cousins who are alive today. Are some of those cousins more closely related to their common great-great-great-great grandfather, or not? Take a complete stranger on the street, completely unrelated to you. Does it make any sense to ask whether you, or your brother, is more closely related to this stranger?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't you just tell me in plain English, Eric, how you think it happened over the past 500 million years or so.  I want to see that nice little numbered list which begins with a single-celled organism and evolves all the way up to humans.  Can you do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, get this through your thick, brainless skull: THERE IS NO SUCH LIST. Your belief that there is such a list is an artifact of your completely broken misunderstanding of phylogeny, and your belief that there is some sort of "ladder" of evolution.

The only thing you can say is that worms appeared earlier than fish, which appeared earlier than reptiles, which appeared earlier than apes. None of these organisms is any more closely-related, or more distantly-related, to bacteria than any other is.

What you are not getting, Dave, no matter how often is repeated to you, is that all eukaryotes—yeast, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals—diverged from bacteria at the same time. Thus, all eukaryotes—yeast, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals—are equally unrelated to bacteria.

I just don't know how much more simply I can put this, Dave. There really isn't any other way to state it. Humans are no more distantly related to bacteria than yeast are. I know you have  hard time believing it, but regardless of whether you believe it or not, you shouldn't have this much trouble understanding it. Whether you think the theory of evolution should predict that all eukaryotes are equally distantly related to bacteria or not is irrelevant. In fact, that is what it predicts, and it's what Denton's chart shows.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem to think I don't understand ToE, but the fact is I do ... probably better than you. In fact, I understand it well enough to realize it is not plausible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




No you don't, Dave, and your request that I put together a little list of which eukaryotes I think are more closely related to bacteria than others, even after I've told you there's no way to construct such a list, because they would all appear at the same location on the list, is proof positive that you don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution at all. You insist that evolution predicts that various eukaryotes are more closely related to bacteria than others, despite having been told at least a dozen times now by different people that evolutionary theory makes no such prediction.

Just out of curiosity, Dave: do you think evolutionary theory predicts that humans diverged from bacteria before, after, or at the same time as, say, penguins? And of those possibilities, which one is confirmed by Denton's chart?

(Note to others: I know the question I asked Dave about humans and penguins makes no sense in the context of evolutionary theory. This is why I say that Dave's argument isn't even wrong.)
Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 03 2006,12:52

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,16:51)
Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you asked, I think it sucks.  

Firstly, notice that after the flood both the lines that denote animals and plants continue at their current size for quite some period of time.  This is patently ridiculous.  While an exponetial growth situation makes sense, we've only got 4500 years to go from 1 beetle kind to the 5-8 million beetle species currently estimated, so we better start that massive speciation immediately after the flood (also we need dogs to become dingos and hop on future australia before it departs for it's current location, and that happens really soon after the flood).  

Secondly, you need the branching to stop at some point before the modern day to explain the lack of massive speciation in modern times.  I suggest using November 23, 1859 as the date when it stopped, after that the lines should all be perfectly straight and horizontal.  

Thirdly, why do the animal  and plant curve back at the edges.  Are you suggesting that animals can go backwards in time?  This is just sillyness. (Note: would time traveling animals help explain the ordliness of the fossil record?).

Fourthly, who the #### is the guy in the picture that's used to represent all of mankind?  You should have picked someone that embodies all the best qualities of humanity.  Someone with both the mental agility and physique of a man that typifies the pinnacle of the human form.  The only modern person I can think of that has all these qualities is Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,13:04

Okay, we’ve had our fun. We’ve witnessed Dave, parroting Denton, presume to tell us – contrary to all available evidence -- what evolutionary theory tells us we should expect in direct comparisons of currently existing organisms. Recall that, according to Dave (a la Denton), we should expect intermediates. When corrected with the obvious ramifications of nested hierarchies of descent, we watched him claim that these were ad hoc explanations developed by evolutionists to rescue a “theory in crisis” that had been “refuted” by molecular biology. We watched him stand by Denton as his lone, inerrant authority on interpreting evolutionary theory, despite the weight of opinion against him. Finally, we have witnessed him claim to know evolution better than those of us who would argue this point.

Fun’s over. It’s time to turn the floor over to Chuck (praise be his name!;).

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, First Edition, Chapter IX, p. 280-82:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas.

So with natural species, if we look to forms very distinct, for instance to the horse and tapir, we have no reason to suppose that links ever existed directly intermediate between them, but between each and an unknown common parent. The common parent will have had in its whole organisation much general resemblance to the tapir and to the horse; but in some points of structure may have differed considerably from both, even perhaps more than they differ from each other. Hence in all such cases, we should be unable to recognise the parent-form of any two or more species, even if we closely compared the structure of the parent with that of its modified descendants, unless at the same time we had a nearly perfect chain of the intermediate links.

It is just possible by my theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; and in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them. But such a case would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; for in all cases the new and improved forms of life will tend to supplant the old and unimproved.

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: edmund on Oct. 03 2006,13:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh really?  Was it predicting this in the 50's also before genomes were elucidated?  Please explain to me why this (what you are saying) would be a prediction of ToE?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.

Neutral genetic variation, by the way, is not something that biologists came up with in order to salvage evolutionary theory. We now know enough about genes to be confident that a lot of variation should be neutral or nearly so-- silent substitutions, pseudogenes, and so forth.

So, Dave, the argument that you are using might have been a plausible one in the 1950's. It is certainly not plausible today, not in light of what geneticists have learned about genes in the last 50 years. Given what we know today about genetics, that chart in Denton's book is exactly what we'd expect to see if all of those organisms share common ancestry.

from GoP:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This might have already been addressed, but doesn't the rebuttal of Denton's cytochrome c chart assume the mutation rates are purely neutral and therefore independent of sexual generation times? For example, a quickly reproducing species can be expected to accumulate more mutations due to recombination than one who has a longer lifespan and fewer offspring.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If mutations occur mostly during meiosis, then, yes, you'd expect strictly neutral divergence to accumulate on a per-generation basis. However, 1) organisms with short generation times tend to have large population sizes, and 2) scientists have discovered that a lot of variation is not precisely neutral. As population size increases, selection gets better and better at weeding out these very faintly harmful mutations. This reduces the observed divergence from other taxa. The increased rate of mutation in short-lived organisms and the increased efficiency of selection tend to balance one another out, leaving a "molecular clock" with a rate that's roughly proportional to absolute time rather than the number of generations that have passed.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 03 2006,14:05

Quote (edmund @ Oct. 03 2006,18:13)
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But keep in mind that this is only an implication of Dave's claim, not Dave's claim itself. Dave claims that evolutionary theory predicts that as one looks at organisms that appeared earlier and earlier in geologic time, those organisms should be more closely related to bacteria. But this is not at all what evolutionary theory predicts. Quite the opposite, in fact. As long as the existence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes as separate taxa has been known, it's been a prediction that all eukaryotes diverged from all prokaryotes exactly once, and therefore all eukaryotes are equally distant phylogenentically from bacteria. This is true in the same sense that it's true that Dave and all his syblings are equally related to a distant cousin. Just because Dave might be older or younger than one of his syblings doesn't make him closer more more distantly related to the cousin.

And this is true regardless of what the genes actually show. The genes are only an artifact of what actually happened.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,14:15

Cytochrome c is conservative. It is essential to respiration in eukaryotes and for electron transport, catalysis, etc.. Interestingly, Archeans like Sulfolobus don't neccesarily use cytochrome c, but precursor type "a" and "b" cytochromes. Denton wants to just talk about "percentages" (which, as we all know can sometimes be misleading.) Variations in which the cytochrome protein wasn't folded correctly results in decreased "reproductive success" or death. Despite it being "conservative," it can allow for phylogenetic studies, and is indicative of relatedness and LCA's of groups. Below is a "chart"  with each letter representing a specific amino acid taken from < http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie010.html >  and   < http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/seq.html > . You can click on the species name in the first page referred to and find the studies the sequences were taken from. The "key" for which amino acid each letter stands for is found at < http://www.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Softdata/Misc/aacode.htm >
Notice how the amino sequences group nicely and reflect evolution.  

human               mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne  
chimpanzee       mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne  
rhesus monkey  gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne  

rabbit                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne  
mouse               mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne  
rat                     mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne  
guinea pig         gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
gray whale        gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
camel                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne  
pig                    gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge redliaylkk atne  

chicken              mgdiekgkki fvqkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaegfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkks ervdliaylk datsk  
duck                  gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atak  
pigeon              gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkq atak  
penguin            gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgifgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk  
ostrich              gdiekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nldglfgrkt gqaegfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkse radliaylkd atsk  

alligator            gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhgligrkt gqapgfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkpe radliaylke atsn  
turtle                gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlngligrkt gqaegfsyte anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkae radliaylkd atsk  
rattlesnake      gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak  
monitor            gdvekgkkif vqkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhqlfgrkt geaegfsyta anknkgitwg edtlfeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkte rddliaylke atak  
bullfrog            gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk  

tuna                gdvakgkktf vqkcaqchtv enggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqaegysytd ankskgivwn entlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdlvaylks ats  
carp                 gdvekgkkvf vqkcaqchtv zbggkhkvgp nlwglfgrkt gqapgfsytb abkskgivwb zztlmeylzb pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylks ats
 
starfish            gqvekgkkif vqrcaqchtv ekagkhktgp nlngilgrkt gqaagfsytd anrnkgitwk netlfeylen pkkyipgtkm vfaglkkqke rqdliaylea atk  
flesh fly           gvpagdvekg kkifvqrcaq chtveaggkh kvgpnlhglf grktgqapgf aytdankakg itwnedtlfe ylenpkkyip gtkmifaglk kpnergdlia ylksatk  
fruit fly            mgvpagdvek gkklfvqrca qchtveaggk hkvgpnlhgl igrktgqaag faytdankak gitwnedtlf eylenpkkyi pgtkmifagl kkpnergdli aylksatk  

corn                asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a  
sunflower        asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a


By the way, DaveStupid, I simplified my presentation here knowing that not only are you a likely dyslexic, but also dumb as a box of hair. And yeah, I'd match my knowledge of the Bible against yours any day, DumbAss. It's not OUR fault you're ignorant, Dave, but it IS yours.
Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 03 2006,14:50

Thanks for the answers, everyone.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,15:18

[quote=edmund,Oct. 03 2006,18:13]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One more time, Dave: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences. This would be the expectation, if you assumed that all molecular variation is under selection. And that wasn't a bad assumption back in the '50's or early '60's. However, since neutral theory was developed in the early 1970's, we've come to realize that much of the genetic variation out there is neutral variation, which should drift at a more or less constant rate regardless of how morphology is or isn't changing.

Neutral genetic variation, by the way, is not something that biologists came up with in order to salvage evolutionary theory. We now know enough about genes to be confident that a lot of variation should be neutral or nearly so-- silent substitutions, pseudogenes, and so forth.

So, Dave, the argument that you are using might have been a plausible one in the 1950's. It is certainly not plausible today, not in light of what geneticists have learned about genes in the last 50 years. Given what we know today about genetics, that chart in Denton's book is exactly what we'd expect to see if all of those organisms share common ancestry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edmund, with all due respect and no doubt with VERY understandable reason (i.e., disbelief that it could be as bad as it sounds), I think you are vastly overestimating the sophistication of Dave's (and even Denton's) argument.

This isn't ye olde neutralist vs. selectionist debate (despite Dave's reference to it); this is a contention that the genetic distance between modern species directly recapitulates phylogenetic intermediates. Whether neutralist or selectionist, that's a grievous error. Furthermore, when Dave or Denton talk about "similar-looking organisms", they're talking aobut organisms as biologically "similar-looking" as yeast and bacteria -- in other words, practically not at all. You don't need to have a horse in the Kimura vs. Darwin race to see that this is ridiculous, even if you were considering it prior to 1950. You really just have to go as far as seeing the biological relevance of the presence/absence of a nuclear envelope.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,15:20

BWE: Your chart is stupendalicious, magnelephantine in its granderrificness. It immediately arrested my eyes. After I bailed them out, I was struck by the laserlike wit, the contra-post-modernist subtext and the Joycean playfulness. I am HUMBLED and grateful for each day that I am alive to bask in the glory of your creations.
Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 03 2006,15:49

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2006,20:20)
BWE: Your chart is stupendalicious, magnelephantine in its granderrificness. It immediately arrested my eyes. After I bailed them out, I was struck by the laserlike wit, the contra-post-modernist subtext and the Joycean playfulness. I am HUMBLED and grateful for each day that I am alive to bask in the glory of your creations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BWE, Deadman d@mns you with faint praise.  Kidding, this has gotta be your new sig.  I found the chart squee worthy, it restored sight in my bad eye.
Oh, and Dave:
Tyre.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,15:58

7Popes: that's nothing. After viewing BWE's sacred chart, I felt a sudden glowing warming glow enveloping me, and I can now read Etruscan. I can divide by zero. I have squared the circle and played the "Goldberg Variations" on the xylophone with my toes. Praise BwE!!
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 03 2006,16:41

Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Edmund...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,16:59

Uh, Dave, I have read Denton, just as I have read the Bible, you dumbass. Try reading for comprehension, you pithecine pinhead
Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 03 2006,17:00

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,19:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

Edmund...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Instead, why don't you answer Mike question about what your objections are to his executive summary?  He's been politely asking for days now.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 03 2006,17:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



AFD the Excrable Obscurantist blurts out another of his Freudian faux pas.

ah ...AFD

I think it's strange how YOU think that proves the BIBLE,


Come on AFD explain how Denton proves Genisis, it's your theory remember?

ALSO disparaging the Theory of Evolution DOES NOT prove the BIBLE.

Do you actually believe the comic book version of Noah's Ark? I thought you were joking...and you call yourself an Engineer? You couldn't calculate your way out of wet paper bag.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 03 2006,17:44

I'm still trying to figure out what the supernatural part of Denton's claim is.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 03 2006,18:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh huh, I understand your contention, erroneous as it may be. I think I also did pretty well interpreting Wieland's chromosome argument (and his probable source of error) to you in our first interaction months ago. I seem to have a knack for following the minds of Creationists through their twisted up-is-down mazes. Probably a sign I'm in serious need of meds.

Anyhow, I want you to do something for me, Dave (if you're not going to answer Mike as Argy et al. have requested).

Your claim is basically this (although I know you don't believe it, but think evolutionists should): currently existing organisms represent different phylogenetic intermediate stages on the path to humans. Bacteria is the earliest. You think yeast should serve as a good, relatively unchanged model for another very early stage when we were still unicellular blobs many hundreds of millions of years ago. As vertebrates, modern fish are much further up the scale, giving us a good idea of what we were like 300 million years ago (and they have remained practically unchanged since then). And finally, there's us. (For simplicity, I've omitted all but these four: bacteria, yeast, fish, humans.)

If that is a pretty good representation of your argument, please do the following:

You have suggested that yeast are biologically similar to bacteria. Fish are much more different, but less so than humans, which are the most different of all. Present what you believe to be the MAJOR biological similarities and differences between these four representative organisms.  What do you think were the major biological stepping stones from bacteria to yeast, yeast to fish, fish to humans?

In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
Posted by: BWE on Oct. 03 2006,18:59

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,17:52)
Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you asked, I think it sucks.  

Firstly, notice that after the flood both the lines that denote animals and plants continue at their current size for quite some period of time.  This is patently ridiculous.  While an exponetial growth situation makes sense, we've only got 4500 years to go from 1 beetle kind to the 5-8 million beetle species currently estimated, so we better start that massive speciation immediately after the flood (also we need dogs to become dingos and hop on future australia before it departs for it's current location, and that happens really soon after the flood).  

Secondly, you need the branching to stop at some point before the modern day to explain the lack of massive speciation in modern times.  I suggest using November 23, 1859 as the date when it stopped, after that the lines should all be perfectly straight and horizontal.  

Thirdly, why do the animal  and plant curve back at the edges.  Are you suggesting that animals can go backwards in time?  This is just sillyness. (Note: would time traveling animals help explain the ordliness of the fossil record?).

Fourthly, who the #### is the guy in the picture that's used to represent all of mankind?  You should have picked someone that embodies all the best qualities of humanity.  Someone with both the mental agility and physique of a man that typifies the pinnacle of the human form.  The only modern person I can think of that has all these qualities is Ronald Reagan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Firstly, time is relative in quantum mechanics. And for Gob's sake, you think they wanted to screw after being stuck with their husbands and wives for 40 days? Took a while before they got up the urge again. But when it did,well, it musta been like the movie, the wagon train, the valley, the sunset, "Honey, we're home. Let's make us a passel of youngens."

Have you ever grown a Bonsai fruit tree?

< Arthur Brown > was carefully considered. You may be too young but, believe me, he's closer than Ronnie.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,19:17

Since I'm NOT a biologist, just a lowly archaeologist and paleoanth guy, I'd like some criticism of the following from those familiar with the field:
************************************************
DumbAssDave, earlier in the thread you claimed to know "better" than others about evolutionary theory. Biology and biochem and genetics are all part of that.

Criticism One
The use of "percentage" as a criteria --IN A CONSERVED PROTEIN...is duplicitious, underhanded and wrong. When put in terms of amino acid sequences, you see that contrary to your claim, phylogeny is observable, and the differences are plain. Yet the percentages are the same...why? Because organisms need the protein to live. Knock out sections or otherwise disrupt it and you have a non-functioning, non-folding protein...the only thing that can happen is substitutions (and some accumulation?) around a "core" of amino sequences  -- and that is what happens, as shown in the data I gave you.    
Read what I posted just a few pages back:  he[ Denton] fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described...Cytochromes of living organisms, are not intermediary (between bacteria and other living critters), because all are descendants.
The bacterium he cites is a living species. Denton apparently thinks because a bacterium "looks" primitive, then any modern bacterium can be used as a "model" for an ancestral bacterium. But it cannot be an ancestor. It is not a 2-3 billion-year-old ancestor, but a descendant of a 2-3 billion-year-old ancestor. Yes, the bacterium still looks 'simple', but it was not trapped in a time warp from the moment it branched off from an Ur-bacterium. That means that its proteins must have accumulated mutations from the moment it separated from the common ancestor.

[b]Criticism Two

Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.

A null hypothesis would predict that the sequences would be randomly vastly different, given the potential variational space...Hubert Yockey estimated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome sequences --  they all would theoretically fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and all perform the same biological role -- even though a protein sequence folds into a unique three-dimensional protein structure, different sequences can fold into similar structures.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false.
In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93. Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10 ^29.
Criticism Three
Okay, now let's look at another aspect of this. I'll try a different approach here--this is a test of Denton, too. If Denton were correct about his assumption ( Man should differ MORE than a modern lamprey does from a  bacterium) then we should expect that bacteria and OTHER bacteria should differ LESS in terms of percentages, since "bacteria are more closely related to each other"...correct?  
R P Ambler, R G Bartsch, M Daniel, M D Kamen, L McLellan, T E Meyer, and J Van Beeumen (1981) Amino acid sequences of bacterial cytochromes c' and c-556.
"The cytochrome c' are electron transport proteins widely distributed in photosynthetic and aerobic bacteria. We report the amino acid sequences of the proteins from 12 different bacterial species, and we show by sequences that the cytochromes c-556 from 2 different bacteria are structurally related to the cytochromes c'... Quantitative comparison of cytochrome c' and c-556 sequences indicates a relatively low 28% average [sequence] identity."  Now, the question I'd like you to answer is WHY, Dave ???
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2006,19:41

Nota Bene : Obviously, I stole a bunch of that from online sources, but I feel uneasy about how I stated/framed things, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 03 2006,21:28

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Edmund...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If that's not your claim. Please explain us why you expect a  modern yeast to be closer to a bacterium than a human is.

Methinks you don't even understand your own arguments.
Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 03 2006,21:53

Maybe it will help everyone involved if I give a little comparison of the reality of ToE vs Dave's understanding of it

Dave version of the ToE:
Bacteria existed at the start. At some point, yeast evolved from it, and bacteria remained bacteria. Then worms evolved from yeast, and yeast remained yeast. Then fish evolved from worms, and worms remained worms. etc.

Actual ToE:
Unevolved unicellular creatures (UUC)* existed. If we could see them today, they would look bacteria-like to us, but human-like to modern bacterias. UUC speciated into two brothers - brother a's descendants became modern bacteria, brother b's descendants, modern non-bacteria.

Brother b's descendants did so by dividing into two family trees, b1 and b2, that we call Archaea and Eucaryota, and whose ultimate grandfathers were brothers. Etc.

I.e. Dave simply thinks that once a worm speciated from the bacteria, it stopped evolving. ToE tells us that nothing stops evolving, and thus that modern bacteria are as evolved as modern humans. Which is the part that Dave cannot accept - and the part that he is trying to discredit.

Oh, and since it is my first posting to the thread, let me state that as a lurker I am firmly in the camp of "Dave is getting his @ss kicked". You know, for the record.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

* Just came up with the name. It may help Dave understand what "ancient bacteria" are. But I doubt it.

Note: I realise everyone but one person knows this already. Mostly I post this so that one person looks even more of an idiot when he continues to misrepresent the Theory of Evolution. It is amazing how he continues to find new depths to stupidity. It is a scientific enquiry, in fact - is there a bottom to the pit of human stupidity? can it be reached?
Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 03 2006,22:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
is there a bottom to the pit of human stupidity? can it be reached?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



only when employing extreme force of will.  You can't stumble on the depths of stupidity shown by AFD by accident.
Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 03 2006,22:47

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 04 2006,03:31)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
only when employing extreme force of will.  You can't stumble on the depths of stupidity shown by AFD by accident.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, I agree. In fact, it has long been my belief that Dave is actually *digging*. I.e. purposedly reaching further into abject mindlessness. He started off a simple ignorant, but as this thread grows he is necessarily learning things and distorting them on purpose to fit his objectives. That takes a lot of work.

But while Russians may have managed to dig two kilometres into the Earth and had to give up for the difficulty of it all, Dave continues to dig, has passed the incandescent rock section, somehow ignores the preasure (of knowledge and expertise) and must be getting close to the metallic core.

Or so I would think - except evidence seems to indicate that the "Stupidity End" hypothesis is wrong and that (as in so many things) Einstein was right when he possited:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.". Further observation is, of course, necessary.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,03:34

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,01:41)
Nota Bene : Obviously, I stole a bunch of that from online sources, but I feel uneasy about how I stated/framed things, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Deadman,
I've been enjoying the smackdown on the evolutionary biology front.  I don't have the knowledge or background to participate much in the biology field, but there is enough knowledge on the board for me to read and learn.  I'll stick my own neck out if I see an angle or aspect of the information that no one has presented yet.

In the mean time, kick my feet up, eat some popcorn, and enjoy the show.  AFDave's misinformed ideas are like this house in the < video >.
Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,03:40

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,00:37)
In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Predicted Dave response:

They're both so tiny!  I mean, just look at them.  Ah-ha!  You can't, can you?  Not without your sciencey equipment that filters out the important unknown supernatural stuff that you don't want to see.  But to a person with the true worldview, they appear almost identical.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,05:19

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 04 2006,08:40)
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,00:37)
In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Predicted Dave response:

They're both so tiny!  I mean, just look at them.  Ah-ha!  You can't, can you?  Not without your sciencey equipment that filters out the important unknown supernatural stuff that you don't want to see.  But to a person with the true worldview, they appear almost identical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's what I'm expecting, too. But for Dave to throw up comparable microscopic pictures (or diagrams) of a bacterium and a yeast cell (i.e., as he did with Dawkins and a gorilla, only this time to demonstrate how similar they are), he will at least have to see the differences, won't he? Not all the differences, to be sure, but enough to give him pause. Right?

Nah.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,05:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,05:38

ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION



I see that you guys think I don't understand ToE and that is arguable, but I certainly think Michael Denton understands it ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now ... Grey Wolf said that UUC's started the whole process and he said that the UUC would look like a bacteria--how about we say it looked like the "coccus" in the upper LH corner above, OK?  Now what I am most interested in learning about ToE is about [b]Human Evolution
.  So I think I can safely say that I can at least identify the endpoints of ToE regarding humans: namely, a UUC at the beginning and a Human at the end.  Now calm down, calm down ... I know there are MANY "endpoints" in your theory ... zillions of them, namely, all the modern organisms we see today.  I realize that.  But I am not interested in all of those.  I am ONLY interested in the single line of ancestry which "connects the dots" from the UUC to the Human, OK?  Are we clear?  Somewhere in the distant past, I have a "grandpa" who looks like an ape, right?  According to Cory, this guy lived about 5 MY ago.  And somewhere in the distant past I have another "grandpa" (I'm omitting all the "greats" for simplicity) who resembles a lemur? (help me out here ... this gets fuzzy) and then another even more distant "grandpa" that looks like maybe a bullfrog, a fish, a worm, and ultimately my first "grandpa" was a bacterium like this nice little "coccus" pictured above.  How am I doing?

Now one of my statements is that this wonderful progression from a UUC to a Human ...

REQUIRES LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME

Translation:  Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to be plausible.  

(It still is not plausible even given eons of time, but at least it is more plausible than if the time scale was only thousands of years instead of billions.)

And of course, George the Geochronologist "dates" rocks for Evos and they select the "correct" dates which fit in with the Deep Time Scale.

So that is one major point I am making.

**************************************************

Now to the other point ...

DENTON'S CHART WAS A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONISTS AND TRULY DELIVERS A DEATH BLOW TO THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
    The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

Not very likely, guys.

Denton points out that ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.

Again, here's the chart ...



What Denton has just discussed above is called the Neutral Drift Theory and represents one "camp" of evolutionists.  The other "camp" is the Selectionist Camp and he goes on to show how selectionist explanations fare no better than neutral drift explanations.  He explains why this is so by considering "living fossils" such as lungfish, opossums and such, then concludes, as in the case of neutralist explanations ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As in the case of uniform drift it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon -- the necessity to believe that since their common divergence every single family of homologous proteins have suffered the same number of adaptive substitutions over the same period of time in all phylogenetic lines -- which fatally weakens selectionist explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Denton notes that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought.  The evolutionary community has divided into two camps -- those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other ... both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Mr. Denton, but I would have used a different word, like "DOA."

************************************************

In case anyone is keeping track, we have now moved to Points C & D on AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis.  We have now covered A, B, G, H, K, L, & M (not that we won't periodically return to these points some).   You can see all the points at my blog site at < http://airdave.blogspot.com, > or on page 1 of this thread.

**************************************************

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The use of "percentage" as a criteria --IN A CONSERVED PROTEIN...is duplicitious, underhanded and wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey, I wasn't the one that came up with using percentages.  As far as I know, this is standard practice.  This is not something that Denton just made up to try to prove a point.  Cory used them to show me how close Chimps and Humans are.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
he[ Denton] fails to point out that necessarily only living species are described...Cytochromes of living organisms, are not intermediary (between bacteria and other living critters), because all are descendants.
The bacterium he cites is a living species. Denton apparently thinks because a bacterium "looks" primitive, then any modern bacterium can be used as a "model" for an ancestral bacterium.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He is simply revealing the prevailing view of evolutionists in the early 60's.  They thought this exact thing and fully expected that molecular biology would confirm their expectations of nice, ordered, transitional picture of the protein sequences of various organisms.  Boy were they wrong!  Here's the quote again from Zuckerkandl in 1963 ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, [b]probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That means that its proteins must have accumulated mutations from the moment it separated from the common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.  Remember also, "Similar Morphology=Similar Sequences."  (You said this yourself and I agree) We also see this readily from Denton's chart, we have seen it with chimps and humans, and I just showed you a leading evolutionist from the early 60's who says it's probably true when comparing ancient and modern forms.  Guess what ... he's probably right!  And that is fatal for ToE, which is what Denton is pointing out.  The truth is that our friend the lungfish did not get buried 400 MY ago as you think.  He got buried about 4300 years ago in the Flood.  And mutations can't facilitate "macroevolution."  All they do is either nothing or something harmful.  So today's lungfish population is essentially the same as it was 4300 years ago ... sure they've accumulated some neutral and some harmful mutations, but that's about it.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Common Design and Common descent both predict this.  Observing that they do have this supports both views equally.  We have to look at other things to determine between the two views.

Deadman...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quantitative comparison of cytochrome c' and c-556 sequences indicates a relatively low 28% average [sequence] identity."  Now, the question I'd like you to answer is WHY, Dave
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Denton's chart just specifies Cytochrome C comparisons.  I am not familiar with the C' and the C-556 sequences.  I would like to learn more about bacteria and see some sequence comparisons of Cytochrome C among bacteria.  Anyone have free access to an online atlas? (like the Dayhoff one referred to already).  My guess is that there is much greater variation than we find between, say, dogs and mice.  Why?  Not sure, but a really wild, layman guess would be that any two different species of bacteria are far more different fundamentally (in both form and function) from each other than dogs and mice.  Dogs and mice are actually quite similar in both form and function when you really think about it.  Now I don't know how this impacts either the Creationist view or the Naturalistic view, but that's what I am here for ... to investigate this.  But I do know this ... you can whack off the bacteria part of Denton's chart and still have a fatal problem for ToE.


Mike PSS...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mike, I think if you test single mineral within the rock, it is referred to as a mineral isochron, not a whole rock isochron.  The method of testing is the same as I understand it, it is just that they isolate the individual minerals first and test them separately.  With the whole rock method, I think they just crush the whole rock and analyze it.

What point of mine exactly are you attempting to refute?  The statement about "Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron charts are not merely mixing diagrams" ??  Is that the one?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:41

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,21:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,05:46

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 04 2006,11:28)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He says that amphibian cytochrome should be closer to bacterial cytochrome than human cytochrome is, and fish should be closer still and fungi should be closer still, if the ToE were true.  But it is not as this chart clearly shows.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I cant be bothered to read through the posts but has Dave admitted that this is a load of nonsense yet?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this what Dave is trying to do?

Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:48

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,00:17)
Criticism Two
Given the theory of common descent in evolution, we would predict that chimps and man, being closely related ...would have similar cytochrome c sequences. They do. Explain how it is that humans and chimps have essentially the same sequence.

A null hypothesis would predict that the sequences would be randomly vastly different, given the potential variational space...Hubert Yockey estimated that there are 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome sequences --  they all would theoretically fold into the same three-dimensional structure, and all perform the same biological role -- even though a protein sequence folds into a unique three-dimensional protein structure, different sequences can fold into similar structures.
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false.
In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 1 out of 10^93. Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 1 out of 10 ^29.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I made this argument to Dave, via the same Theobald article I've linked to countless times, five months ago. He didn't answer it then, he didn't answer it a few days ago when I raised it again, and I guarantee he won't answer it now.

Why? Because he can't.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,05:58

Dave, one more time, just for the record: DENTON'S CHART WAS NOT A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, AND CONFIRMS A KEY PREDICTION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: THAT ALL EUKARYOTES ARE EQUALLY DISTANTLY RELATED TO ALL PROKARYOTES. Half a dozen people have explained this to you in minute detail already, but you're too much of a half-wit to understand it. Either that, or you simply and adamantly refuse to get it.

You can keep repeating the same bad, wrong claim that Denton's chart somehow "disproves" evolutionary theory, but it doesn't. It disproves your bad, wrong, broken, mistaken misapprehension of evolutionary theory.

Got it yet? No? Didn't think so. But I thought I'd post this for the record anyway.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:00

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  

Yes, I did put up those pictures and you can see them here ... < http://airdave.blogspot.com > ... and they show precisely what I wanted them to show.  Go re-read it and you may understand.

And I know exactly which side of the fence I am on.

YOU are the confused one.  Wow, are you confused!!
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,06:11

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:00)
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman. You're the one who thinks this idea is some sort of proof of evolution. Weren't you the idiot who slapped up pictures of humans, chimps, and gorillas, and used the superficial similarity of chimps and gorillas to argue they're more closely related than either is to humans?

You can't even remember which side of the fence you're supposedly on in your arguments.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  

Yes, I did put up those pictures and you can see them here ... < http://airdave.blogspot.com > ... and they show precisely what I wanted them to show.  Go re-read it and you may understand.

And I know exactly which side of the fence I am on.

YOU are the confused one.  Wow, are you confused!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, does deadman agree with you that because chimps look more like gorillas than they do humans, therefore chimps should have more sequence similarity to gorillas than they do to humans?

Duh.

Dave, you're not even sure where the fence is, let alone which side of it you're on.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,06:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. And yes to your question by the way.

Denton's analysis gives this tree:

The distance between bacteria and all the other species should be approximately (as you said mutation rates etc are not exactly equal) the same, as the divergence times are equal. It just so happens that they are between 64%-72%, which leads Denton to conclude that they are all equally similar to the bacteria. You're going to have to explian slightly harder why this isn't what evolution would predict.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of my favorite quotes ever is from this book ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Allow me to share a few of mine:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century (3), have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, new organs and structures that cannot be reached via a series of functional morphological intermediates can still be reached by change in DNA sequence space
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,06:15

Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:37

Christ Hyland...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?

Eric...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We will get to that.  Easy answer.  Let's stick with the topic we are on though so we don't confuse everyone.
Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,06:44

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Mike PSS...   Mike, I think if you test single mineral within the rock, it is referred to as a mineral isochron, not a whole rock isochron.  The method of testing is the same as I understand it, it is just that they isolate the individual minerals first and test them separately.  With the whole rock method, I think they just crush the whole rock and analyze it.{explanation below}

What point of mine exactly are you attempting to refute?  The statement about "Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron charts are not merely mixing diagrams" ??  Is that the one?{yes, except I'm not saying anything about time, only your mixing falacy}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave,
If you have an olivine sample, it's made up of numerous crystal forms as outlined in my summary.  A whole rock isochron test will grind up the various crystal forms while a mineral isochron test will seperate the crystal forms and test each seperately.  Even if you have a sample of olivine and grind it up, your sample will statistacally contain different quantities of the crystal forms present, thus giving you a spread of Rb/Sr data.

Plus you may get a mixture of minerals or even amorphous areas of the rock.  The mineral mix depends on the magma constituents, temperature, pressure, etc.  Look over these charts for example

Figure 10e-1: The classification of igneous rocks. This graphic model describes the difference between nine common igneous rocks based on texture of mineral grains, temperature of crystallization, relative amounts of typical rock forming elements, and relative proportions of silica and some common minerals.


Figure 10e-2: Bowen reaction series.

All this from a homogenous magma source.  The rock samples must be from a co-genetic source.

Now, the only card (canard??) you have left to play is to poo-poo every geologic sample ever taken and say it isn't co-genetic, because if only one geologic source is shown to be co-genetic then the Isochron testing becomes valid.  This becomes a game of whack-a-mole with the geologist.  If this is your stance then please state it right up front.  You've already accused all geochronologists of collusion in some underground cabal of "Evilutionists", why not all geologists too (except of course Humphreys, Snelling, Woodmorappe and Austin)

"How about them maggot filled stinkin' apples!"
JAD.... errr... Mike PSS
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,06:52

Eric ... you are losing it, my friend ... you said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, you utter, fucking moron (if you'll pardon my French). You're the one who thinks similar-looking organisms should have similar sequences, not deadman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And I answered your question with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually we BOTH think that similar looking organisms should have similar sequences.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which is true.  We do.  Then you changed your question to this ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, does deadman agree with you that because chimps look more like gorillas than they do humans, therefore chimps should have more sequence similarity to gorillas than they do to humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the answer to this DIFFERENT question is "No" ... Then you act as if my answer would be "Yes" or something to this question by throwing mud ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Duh. Dave, you're not even sure where the fence is, let alone which side of it you're on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... You are the confused one.   Kindly get off my thread if you can't even keep things straight.  All you are doing is wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people here who have intelligent things to say such as Incorygible and Deadman and JonF and Chris Hyland and others.

Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,06:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Short answer: There has only been a relatively short time since the two dogs had a common ancestor for mutations to occur, whereas there have been 400MY for mutations to occur in the lungfish lineage, mutations that are neutral as far as the phenotype of 'being a lungfish' goes, which I suspect is the majority of nucleotides in the genome.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,06:55

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
Christ Hyland...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not a guess, dude.

With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors. The genetic distance between this ancestral "lungfish" and its descendent can be calculated. And it goes further, we could predict which point mutations occured in its lineages.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,06:58

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
Christ Hyland...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote  
Yes, it's true that mutations accumulate with time, but do you really believe that a 400 myo lungfish had very different sequences than a modern lungfish?  They look identical, remember.
Im pretty sure cyctochrome C doesn't determine what an organism looks like. An yes to your question by the way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  IOW my golden retriever here in Missouri would have identical sequences to your golden retriever in England, right?  Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Re: the bolded part: And YOU base THIS on what logic?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:04

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:37)
So you actually believe that a 400 MYO lungfish had significantly different sequences that the modern lungfish which is still living today?  How much different?  Can you hazard a guess?  20%?  40%?  And yet you agree with me that identical homologies in modern species have identical sequences?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, do you understand what is meant by "non-coding sequences"? Do you understand that they are not subject to selective pressure? Do you understand that there's nothing to stop mutations from piling up in non-coding lungfish DNA over 400 million years? Do you therefore understand that it's entirely likely, to the point of a virtual certainty, that the non-coding sections of lungfish DNA today probably barely even resemble non-coding sections of lungfish DNA from 400 million years ago?

Of course you don't.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave, what I really don't understand about you is that you don't think 4 billion years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to 10 million species, but at the same time you think 4,500 years is enough time to get from a few thousand species to ten million species.

Could you possibly explain, using short, easy-to-understand words—an "executive summary," if you will—how this makes any sense at all?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We will get to that.  Easy answer.  Let's stick with the topic we are on though so we don't confuse everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that not the topic now, Dave? You claim that 4 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to evolved to the diversity we see today, but 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved to the diversity we see today. Do you see the problem with this reasoning?

Or is this going to require another of your "miracles"?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,07:04

Jeannot...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you infer this? On what basis?  We have strong reason for believing that the golden retrievers have virtually identical sequences because they LOOK similar.  Why would we not apply the same logic to modern and fossil lungfish which ALSO look virtually identical?  

Chris...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Short answer: There has only been a relatively short time since the two dogs had a common ancestor for mutations to occur, whereas there have been 400MY for mutations to occur in the lungfish lineage, mutations that are neutral as far as the phenotype of 'being a lungfish' goes, which I suspect is the majority of nucleotides in the genome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you know there has been 400 MY?  RM dating?  Or the "fact" that evolution has occurred?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:04)
Jeannot...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With cladistics (not based on genetic distance, BTW), we can infer the molecular states of extinct ancestors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How do you infer this? On what basis?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the principle of descent with modification, that you refuse to admit. I won't waste my time again trying to educate you on this. Go read a book.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have strong reason for believing that the golden retrievers have virtually identical sequences because they LOOK similar.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not because they look similar, because we know they have a very recent common ancestor (which explain why they look similar).
Do you know the genetic distance between the common troot and a lungfish? They sure look similar to some degree.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:15

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:52)
You are the confused one.   Kindly get off my thread if you can't even keep things straight.  All you are doing is wasting everyone's time. There are plenty of people here who have intelligent things to say such as Incorygible and Deadman and JonF and Chris Hyland and others.

Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I'm beginning to think you don't understand what "morphology" means. Organisms with similar morphologies may have similar sequences, or they may not. Birds and bats have similar morphologies, and wildly different sequences.

On the other hand, organisms that have very different morphologies can have very similar morphologies. Take-home lesson? Morphology is not an indicator of sequence similarity. This is the part you are totally, completely wrong about.

This is also why you believe that because chimps are more similar morphologically to gorillas than to humans, therefore they must have greater sequence similarity to gorillas than to humans. This is what you have always been wrong about, and it's what everyone here has been trying to tell you.

Yeast is not more closely related to bacteria than it is to humans, just because it more closely resembles bacteria. This is the whole point you simply cannot and will not grasp.

Try this, Dave: ask Incorygible, Deadman, JonF and Chris Hyland if they think you know more about evolutionary theory than I do. Ask them if they think I am more confused about this stuff than you are.

If you kept stupid statements off this thread, Dave, you'd have nothing left to say.
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,07:19

Incorygible...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet the 400 MYO old lungfish--which is just as identical to the modern lungfish as the two golden retrievers--you think would have very different sequences?  And you base this on what logic?

Re: the bolded part: And YOU base THIS on what logic?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish based on two very powerful evidences ...

1)  The prevailing expectation of evolutionists in the 60's (pre-molecular biology),  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

These are two very powerful pieces of evidence.  It seems to me that the ONLY basis you have for saying otherwise in the case of the lungfish is the NEED to say so to try to protect the ToE from a fatal problem.

But this, of course, doesn't work because the present discussion is about WHICH view is correct.  You need to show independently why it is reasonable to believe that the sequences would truly be different in the face of contrary evidence.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,07:37

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:19)
My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish based on two very powerful evidences ...

1)  The prevailing expectation of evolutionists in the 60's (pre-molecular biology),      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

These are two very powerful pieces of evidence.  It seems to me that the ONLY basis you have for saying otherwise in the case of the lungfish is the NEED to say so to try to protect the ToE from a fatal problem.

But this, of course, doesn't work because the present discussion is about WHICH view is correct.  You need to show independently why it is reasonable to believe that the sequences would truly be different in the face of contrary evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave, I just did. Did you miss it?

There is no selective pressure on non-coding sections of DNA. Therefore, mutations pile up there. They pile up pretty extensively over 400 million years. A significant fraction of lungfish DNA (like any other eukaryotic DNA) is non-coding. Therefore, one would expect to see a great deal of sequence differences in non-coding lungfish DNA over 400 million years.

Your first piece of "evidence" is entirely inapplicable, because your quote is not discussing non-coding DNA.

Your second piece of evidence is simply wrong, as I pointed out earlier. Morphological similarity is not an indicator of sequence homology. Yeast look much more like bacteria than like humans, yet their DNA is more similar to humans than it is to bacteria.

In other words, Dave, you have no evidence for your assertion that 400 million year old lungfish should be identical to modern lungfish. That you think so is entirely due to your bad, wrong idea that organisms that first appeared millions of years in the past stopped evolving as soon as they appeared. This is wrong, and your whole argument, which is really Denton's whole argument, falls apart as a result.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,07:47

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,10:38)
ALRIGHT, LET'S NAIL DOWN WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

I see that you guys think I don't understand ToE and that is arguable, but I certainly think Michael Denton understands it ...  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So did Charles Darwin, as I already < posted >.

Dave quotes talkorigins:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next, Dr. Theobald chides me for quoting "another confused anti-evolutionist," Michael Denton. As an aside, I find it fascinating that, according to Dr. Theobald, Denton "doesn't understand even the most fundamental evolutionary concepts." It is fascinating because one often hears that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. And yet, Denton, being ignorant of the most fundamental evolutionary concepts, managed to earn a Ph.D. in developmental biology (in addition to an M. D.), to write or co-author over seventy articles in professional journals, and to work for decades as a genetics researcher. Apparently knowledge of evolution is irrelevant to a career in science.< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did Dobzhansky say "No careers or credentials or valuable work in biology are possible except in light of evolution"? Don't think so. So let's look at this again. Dobzhansky says (paraphrase) "nothing MAKES SENSE in biology except in light of evolution". Denton has demonstrated that he does NOT understand evolution (or at least did not in 1985). Denton looks at the patterns of divergence in cytochrome-c. and shrieks, "This doesn't make any sense!" People who do understand evolution reply, "Uh, yeah it does." Me, I'm chalking another one up for Theodosius, Dave.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From
< Talk Origins >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now ... Grey Wolf said that UUC's started the whole process and he said that the UUC would look like a bacteria--how about we say it looked like the "coccus" in the upper LH corner above, OK?  Now what I am most interested in learning about ToE is about [b]Human Evolution</b>.  So I think I can safely say that I can at least identify the endpoints of ToE regarding humans: namely, a UUC at the beginning and a Human at the end.  Now calm down, calm down ... I know there are MANY "endpoints" in your theory ... zillions of them, namely, all the modern organisms we see today.  I realize that.  But I am not interested in all of those.  I am ONLY interested in the single line of ancestry which "connects the dots" from the UUC to the Human, OK?  Are we clear?  Somewhere in the distant past, I have a "grandpa" who looks like an ape, right?  According to Cory, this guy lived about 5 MY ago.  And somewhere in the distant past I have another "grandpa" (I'm omitting all the "greats" for simplicity) who resembles a lemur? (help me out here ... this gets fuzzy) and then another even more distant "grandpa" that looks like maybe a bullfrog, a fish, a worm, and ultimately my first "grandpa" was a bacterium like this nice little "coccus" pictured above.  How am I doing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not as piss-poor as usual, Dave (at least you're adding the very subjective and anthropocentrically-coloured "looks like"). You know, one of the coolest parts of Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale is the inclusion of an artist's conception of each LCA at the beginning of each chapter. These beautiful (and fanciful!;) drawings inspire the imagination, though we will probably never know how accurate they are. Sure, some of them look like current organisms (you might think the ur-simian looks like today's monkeys, perhaps) and some of them look like fossil organisms we have found from around that time, but where else is an artist to start? For the time being (fundamentally, not much has changed since Darwin describes his penchant for doing the same in that Origins quote I provide), speculating on the features of LCA is an exercise in imagination.

However, speculating on their genomic sequence is not (or at least, not NEARLY to the same degree). We've been talking a lot about yeast, for example. There was a fascinating experiment not too long ago examining the evolution of sex (a very costly investment from the perspective of your genes and their propagation). Now, yeast can reproduce both sexually and asexually, and the authors wanted to uncover the adaptive advantages of the former over the latter. To do this (and I won't get into why), they actually ENGINEERED a hypothetical ancestral yeast genome, which was the most parsimonious genetic "mid-way" point between two current yeast genomes. Pretty cool. Probably pretty different from the real ancestor, but still a close-enough model, and a good illustration of what Jeannot is trying to explain to you.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now one of my statements is that this wonderful progression from a UUC to a Human ...

[b]REQUIRES LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME</b>

Translation:  Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to be plausible.  

(It still is not plausible even given eons of time, but at least it is more plausible than if the time scale was only thousands of years instead of billions.)

And of course, George the Geochronologist "dates" rocks for Evos and they select the "correct" dates which fit in with the Deep Time Scale.

So that is one major point I am making.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



*yawn*

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
**************************************************

Now to the other point ...

[b]DENTON'S CHART WAS A SURPRISE TO EVOLUTIONISTS AND TRULY DELIVERS A DEATH BLOW TO THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alive and kicking 20 years later, Dave. Denton's "argument" was stillborn, not to mention anticipated (and appropriately cautioned) by Darwin a century earlier.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
    The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

Not very likely, guys.

Denton points out that ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
Again, here's the chart [snip]...

What Denton has just discussed above is called the Neutral Drift Theory and represents one "camp" of evolutionists.  The other "camp" is the Selectionist Camp and he goes on to show how selectionist explanations fare no better than neutral drift explanations.  He explains why this is so by considering "living fossils" such as lungfish, opossums and such, then concludes, as in the case of neutralist explanations ...    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As in the case of uniform drift it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon -- the necessity to believe that since their common divergence every single family of homologous proteins have suffered the same number of adaptive substitutions over the same period of time in all phylogenetic lines -- which fatally weakens selectionist explanations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Denton notes that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The difficulties associated with attempting to explain how a family of homologous proteins could have evolved at constant rates has created chaos in evolutionary thought.  The evolutionary community has divided into two camps -- those still adhering to the selectionist position, and those rejecting it in favor of the neutralist. The devastating aspect of this controversy is that neither side can adequately account for the constancy of the rate of molecular evolution, yet each side fatally weakens the other ... both sides win valid points, but in the process the credibility of the molecular clock hypothesis is severely strained and with it the whole paradigm of evolution itself is endangered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Mr. Denton, but I would have used a different word, like "DOA."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, I COULD go into all the major errors here, but I'm jut going to briefly treat a few. First, compare Denton's "If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare" with Darwin's "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." Second, apparently "different molecular clocks...each ticking  at its own unique and highly specific rate" is supposed to be a problem?! ####, Dave, that's what allows us to use cytochrome (a very SLOW ticking clock) in the first place! But I'm just going to ignore the overwhelming errors (someone else can tackle them), let them stand, and focus on your (and Denton's) conclusion.

But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave. Your first argument was that evolutionary theory should predict a DIFFERENT PATTERN in the cytochrome data than we see (i.e., one in which genetic distance between current organisms directly recapitulates phylogenetic intermediates). Your new argument is that the pattern we observe, although it EXACTLY corresponds to what we expect from evolutionary theory (i.e., nested hierarchies), shouldn't have actually been produced by natural selection (or neutral drift).

Nevertheless and most importantly, Dave, if your (and Denton's) contention is really:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then I just don't know what to say. If you think the strikingly similar nested hierarchies of descent suggested by morphology (contemporary and paleontological), microbiology (comparison of thousands of diffferent proteins, for example, right down to comparison of the presumably neutral introns and non-neutral exons in cytochrome-c) and genetics WEAKENS the theory of evolution, then you have entered some kind of Orwellian thought process that even I can't follow.

Up is down, God is Hitler, and identical nested hierarchies at all levels of comparison disprove evolution.

If you say so, big guy.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,07:49

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,12:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and ...
2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... Only in genes that control morphology, which is not the case of cytochrome C.
For other sequences that prediction does not apply. The authors didn't have any reason to think that the whole genome of a lineage should stop evolving.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2006,07:56

I think even I get this.
Davie, think of DNA like a vinyl record. The label (non-coding) you can mark and scribble all you like on, but if you try and do that on the record (the part that's played) itself it's really unlikely that you'll make it sound better (more fit) by accident (the random bit). The sound that comes out does not depend on the state of the label.

So, perhaps 400billion year old crocs might look like modern crocs but their "label" will be different. And, if you can only move one step at a time in mutation space then it'll take you a minimum amount of time to get to another part of that space (new label to old, worn label).

Not that the "new/worn"  analogy means much here I would imagine, more like state X to Y?
Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:00

Zuckerkandl didn't specify which type of proteins he was talking about.  It is clear that he thought "ancient" forms had similar sequences of ALL types.

Similar morphology unquestionably DOES yield similar sequences in larger organisms.  I agree, they get more dissimilar when comparing things that are very small like yeast and bacteria.  And you will note that I have hazarded a layman's guess as to why this is so.

Remember, the "Similar Morphology=Similar Sequences" (at least for larger organisms) is something agreed upon by Creos and Evos alike.

The fact remains, like it or not, that the information which comprises Denton's chart was a surprise to the evolutionary community.  You can be sure that if the molecular data had been "transitional looking" instead of "typological looking" (possibly I'm using incorrect terminology here) evolutionists would have jumped on this as supportive of their theory.

Eric-- Here's an exercise just for you, since you seem to have so much time on your hands ...

Type out for me the whole sequence of human evolutionary history.  Start with the "UUC" then fill in the whole sequence like this:

UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,08:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact remains, like it or not, that the information which comprises Denton's chart was a surprise to the evolutionary community.  You can be sure that if the molecular data had been "transitional looking" instead of "typological looking" (possibly I'm using incorrect terminology here) evolutionists would have jumped on this as supportive of their theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is simply wrong Dave sorry. If the graph showed what Denton thought it should, ie (bacteria to snails) > (bacteria to birds) > (bacteria to humans), that would have forced some major rethinks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How do you know there has been 400MY?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because you said so.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So what, humans manufacture a great many polypeptide sequences that differ only slightly from chimps, and your assertion

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 My view is that the "400MYO" lungfish would have identical sequences to modern lungfish
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

certainly does not follow from the quote. Also

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

certainly doesn't apply to cytochrome c.
Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,08:09

Why thank you AFT about.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or if you are going to say stupid things, kindly keep them short and seldom ... you know ... like K.E does.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have noticed I don't blather on about things I know very little about, unlike your good self, who seems to take a pathological pleasure in being whipped for being...well stupid.


However, I can safely say that I know more about how evolution works than you do even though you have devoured what appears to be a mountain of books mostly the work of fiction by your own reports.

Why is that AFT wipe?

Well the theory of evolution is so simple even a child can understand it, they can use it straight away if they are taught problem solving using the scientific method.

( as an aside that is why the Bible boys are so sh*t scared of it)

The ToE allows a scientist to make predictions about what will happen to say a virus if people over medicate on anti-virals or this AFUD..

Since each Human has enough unique DNA to allow a forensic identification with enough reliability to be used in a court of law and AT THE SAME TIME inherited DNA that allows identification of distant family members then there should be a method to identify common DNA among various ethnic groups of Humans  and or common ancestors ..right?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mitochondrial Eve
From Wikipedia,
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor for all living humans, from whom all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in living humans is derived. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of the Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor.

She is believed by some to have lived about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now Bible  boy what does the Bible say about 150,000 year old African and presumably Black Eve?
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,08:18

Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,12:47)
Nevertheless and most importantly, Dave, if your (and Denton's) contention is really:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



then I just don't know what to say. If you think the strikingly similar nested hierarchies of descent suggested by morphology (contemporary and paleontological), microbiology (comparison of thousands of diffferent proteins, for example, right down to comparison of the presumably neutral introns and non-neutral exons in cytochrome-c) and genetics WEAKENS the theory of evolution, then you have entered some kind of Orwellian thought process that even I can't follow.

Up is down, God is Hitler, and identical nested hierarchies at all levels of comparison disprove evolution.

If you say so, big guy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


…but somehow I'm the one who doesn't know anything about evolutionary theory.
Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,08:22

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:00)
UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using the faulty direct-descendancy logic you're using here (with no room for unknown common ancestors), this is as far as we can go:

UUC - ancient jawed fish (not a shark or a lamprey) - ancient reptile (not a dinosaur) - ape (Human)

The rest (birds, amphibians*, plants, etc., including every other living thing on this planet) are cousins connected by an unknown common ancestor, Dave.

*Note that we would have passed through an "amphibious" phase (i.e., living on both land and in water), but the we are not a part of the Class Amphibia -- we are indirectly related to them by some unknown common ancestor, which isn't allowed in Dave's scheme.
Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,08:45

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:00)
Eric-- Here's an exercise just for you, since you seem to have so much time on your hands ...

Type out for me the whole sequence of human evolutionary history.  Start with the "UUC" then fill in the whole sequence like this:

UUC-A-B-C-D-E-F-G-Fish-Amphibian-Reptile-H-I-J-Ape-Human.

I've never been too clear on the "ABCDEFG" and "HIJ" part of the sequence, so maybe you could fill in those blanks for me.  I do realize that things like penguins that you referred to supposedly branch off somewhere after "Reptile" but help me out here.  Set me straight.  Explain this whole thing to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, no problem:

  • All Life
  • Eukaryota
  • Metazoa
  • Bilateria
  • Deuterostomia
  • Chordata
  • Craniata
  • Vertebrata
  • Gnathostomata
  • Sarcopterygii
  • Stegocephalia
  • Amniota
  • Synapsida
  • Therapsida
  • Mammalia
  • Eutheria
  • Primates
  • Catarrhini
  • Hominidae
  • Homo

    Are we clear now?

    You'll note something interesting about this list, if you compare it to Denton's chart. Every single organism on that chart is on my list, except for one: prokaryota (that's the bacterium at the bottom of the chart). Does that give you pause in your original claim that Denton's chart demonstrates a "fatal flaw" in evolutionary theory?

    I'm guessing not. But that's your problem, Dave, not the theory's problem.
    Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:49



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Oh really?  And have you read the entire article?  And yes, it does sound pretty damning to me.

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    New one?  How in the world have I not restated my argument?  I thought I went to great lengths to restate and explain it.

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I think even I get this.
    Davie, think of DNA like a vinyl record. The label (non-coding) you can mark and scribble all you like on, but if you try and do that on the record (the part that's played) itself it's really unlikely that you'll make it sound better (more fit) by accident (the random bit). The sound that comes out does not depend on the state of the label.

    So, perhaps 400billion year old crocs might look like modern crocs but their "label" will be different. And, if you can only move one step at a time in mutation space then it'll take you a minimum amount of time to get to another part of that space (new label to old, worn label).

    Not that the "new/worn"  analogy means much here I would imagine, more like state X to Y?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Great in theory.  You can speculate all day long that 400 MYO crocs or lungfish or what have you had different non-coding DNA, but the fact remains ...

    YOU ARE SPECULATING

    You have no evidence to support your speculation.  You have a theory.  IOW another Speculation to support your first Speculation.

    I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

    Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...

    and ...

    This being quite probable, we can also say that ...

    Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.

    Quick!  Get off the sinking Ship of Darwin before it's too late!!!  Hurry!  There's still time!
    Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,08:52

    Actually, I'm pretty sure Dave's going to need yet another analogy to understand the above here.

    Dave, as we have told you many times, by analogy you have asked us to describe your family tree by inserting currently living members (actually, the most recent generation) as ancestors. It simply can't be done.

    However, there are defining features of classes, and we can use these to craft a similar analogy that might help you out. Bear with me.

    You are a Hawkins, but pretend that your family had (very early on) really run with that horribly liberal trend of hyphenating surnames.

    So in the beginning we have Hawkins (=UUC, by the way). Well into the Hawkins line, we got the Hawkins-Fish hyphenation. (We've actually skipped over many generations and the many, many potential Hawkins-Eukaryote, Hawkins-Eukaryote-Chordata, and similar hyphenations that could have been your name, as well as other hyphenations that wouldn't be in your name: one of your Hawkins-Eukaryote ancestors went on to eventually spawn the Hawkins-Eukaryote-Plant family, of which you have never been a member, for example.)

    The members of the Hawkins-Fish family spawned a number of separate families, one of which (yours) was Hawkins-Fish-Reptile, another of which (not yours) was Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian.

    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal (your family) and Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur (not your family). (Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur later gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird, many of which still attend your reunions, although you haven't shared the Hawkins-Fish-Reptile name for a long time.)

    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal gave rise to Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape (you), as well as Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog (not you).

    You are still Dave Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape, albeit of the of the Human Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Apes (picture the question "are you one of the Massachusetts Kennedy's?"), as opposed to the Chimpanzee ("Connecticut"?) Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Apes. However, your Human Hawkins-etc. great-great-great granddaughter has an eye on adding another hyphen, as does a great-great-great granddaughter of the Chimpanzee Hawkins-etc. clan, so eventually you will be recognized as different families by different names (and not just "Connecticut Kennedy's" vs. "New York Kennedy's").

    Edit (after Dave continues to spout the bullshit above): You GO to a family reunion tomorrow, Dave. Of the following existing family names, which CHILDREN AT THE REUNINON are MORE related to the last known just-plain "Hawkins":

    Hawkins-Yeast
    Hawkins-Fish-Trout
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Crocodile
    Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian-Frog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird-Eagle
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape

    NOW do you get it?
    Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,08:55

    Hey hAFDopey why so strident?

    You are such a fake....
    you say the earth is 6000 years old and you are using evidence from a 400myo fish????




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

    Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    well OK .......now I see why you are acting crazy.

    Get off the Bible drug AFD ....seek help....its not firm evidence.
    Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,08:58

    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2006,08:59

    sure, quote me when there's a 1000 points you have not answered at all. That's my understanding of other peoples answers to you , my summary is alot easier to pick holes in then the actual real scientific arguments themselves made in this very forum in answer to you. So i'm not surprised you've done that, dishonesty is your daily bread.

    so, when the world's scientists jump from the sinking ship of darwinism, what exactly are you picking them up with?

    "Right, so on Monday we'll all bring a bible to the lab and have a nice chat about how wonderfull we all are and how all those horrible people outside our little circle here are going to he*l"
    Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:01

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:49)
    This being quite probable, we can also say that ...

    Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.

    Quick!  Get off the sinking Ship of Darwin before it's too late!!!  Hurry!  There's still time!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dave, I simply cannot believe you are still making this same stupid claim. It's been explained to you over, and over, and over, and over again why it's wrong, but it just doesn't penetrate. How many times do we need to explain to you that evolutionary theory predicts exactly what Denton's chart shows: that fish and humans are equidistant from bacteria, "as Denton clearly shows."

    What is up with that? Are you actually mentally retarded? Or do you just play one on TV?

    God, you're an idiot.
    Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 04 2006,09:06

    Hehe, Dave's turned common ancestry into ancestry. Go on Dave, beat that strawman!
    Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,09:06

    Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 04 2006,15:01)
    What is up with that? Are you actually mentally retarded? Or do you just play one on TV?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Well, one thing I've noticed is that Dave doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between coding and non-coding sequences.  I'll bet he doesn't believe that such a distinction is valid.
    Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:07

    Dave said:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    2)  The observed fact (agreed upon by Creos and Evos) that Similar Morphology = Similar Sequences

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Counterexample: dolphins and sharks. Same body shape, similar snout, similar fin, similar eating patterns, similar senses, similar swimming. Similar as you can get. And their sequences look nowhere near. Ergo, Dave is lying.

    Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos. Or dogs and giraffes.

    So you better find better "facts", Dave.

    And in regards to my poor UUC, I see that you have managed to ignore the bit about "looks human-like to modern bacteria", which was the important part. I'll repeat, just so you can continue to look an ignorant:

    Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

    The LCA between you and gorillas may look like a "tail-less monkey" to you, but gorillas would see it as "human" - the lack of size, for example ("so small!", thought the gorilla, "must be a puny human"). Equally, the LCA between apes and monkeys *also* looks like a monkey to you, but it would look like an ape to any self-respecting monkey.

    And why is that? Because LCAs have characteristics belonging to both groups. One of the families took some of those chracteristics and built upon them ("Those with tails survive more often"/"Tails are in the way and kill you"/"Tails are handy if they are prensible"), and added a few that the LCA didn't have. The other did precisely the same, but with some other characteristics.

    All your talk about modern lungfish having the same DNA as the LCA between humans and lungfish is BS. Same with modern bacteria having the same DNA as UUC. Just because they look similar to your untrained and ignorant eye, it doesn't mean they are. Dolphins and sharks, Dave. Dolphins and sharks.

    Hope that helps,

    Grey Wolf
    Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,09:07

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:58)
    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dave, you obviously didn't understand anything of this discussion.
    Posted by: k.e on Oct. 04 2006,09:16

    Sharks and Dolphins/Whales good point GW.

    Now here is a trick question AFUD

    where did mamals first evolve on land or in the sea?

    and how many millions of years ago?

    And where in the Bible does it give that information?
    Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,09:19



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    You GO to a family reunion tomorrow, Dave. Of the following existing family names, which CHILDREN AT THE REUNINON are MORE related to the last known just-plain "Hawkins":

    Hawkins-Yeast
    Hawkins-Fish-Trout
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Crocodile
    Hawkins-Fish-Amphibian-Frog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Dinosaur-Bird-Eagle
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Dog
    Hawkins-Fish-Reptile-Mammal-Ape

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I WANT an ANSWER to this, Dave, and I want to add a related question.

    1. (as asked above) Of those family names, which of the children at the reunion are most related to the last original "Hawkins" (with no hyphenation)?

    2. Of those family names, which of the children at the reunion are most related to YOU? Rank them all. (Hint: there's a tie, and not everybody hyphenated strictly according to the family tradition.)

    It shouldn't take you long to come up with or type (not nearly as long as it took me to type), and I've done my best to answer your questions. So please be sure to answer these two question soon, mmkay?
    Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:20

    Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:58)
    Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sure, no problem

    • All Life - bacteria
    • Eukaryota - yeasts, plants
    • Metazoa
    • Bilateria - insects
    • Deuterostomia
    • Chordata -
    • Craniata
    • Vertebrata - lamprey
    • Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna
    • Sarcopterygii
    • Stegocephalia
    • Amniota - snapping turtle, birds
    • Synapsida -
    • Therapsida
    • Mammalia - kangaroo
    • Eutheria - dog, horse
    • Primates
    • Catarrhini
    • Hominidae
    • Homo

      It will help you to figure this out if you stop looking at my list as some sort of evolutionary "ladder." It's not; it's a list of nested hierarchies. Each entry on the list contains all the entries below it. You'll note that bacteria are at the top of the list, which is "all life." That means that bacteria are not a member of any of the clades listed below, but all of the organisms listed at eukaryotes and below are contained within the eukaryote clade. What this means, Dave, is that yeasts are members of the same clade as humans. Bacteria are not. Bacteria are an "outgroup," in the same sense that gorillas are an "outgroup" of humans and chimps.

      Again, Dave, note that all of these organisms except for bacteria are contained within the eukaryote clade. What does that tell you? I'll give you another hint. It tells you this: that bacteria are an outgroup from all the other organisms on Denton's chart.

      What does that tell you, Dave? What can you say about the relative relatedness of all members of a clade with an outgroup from that clade? It tells you that all members of that clade are equally unrelated to the outgroup.

      Straightforward theory of evolution, Dave.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,09:21



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I, on the other hand, have firm evidence to support my speculation that ...

      Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No you don't you havent provided any evidence. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Modern fish and modern humans have spent equal time diverging from bacteria. The cytochrome C gene has nothing to do with morphology, so your argument makes no sense.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:25

      Dave lies again:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric--Excellent.  Now put an example of each of those by each name you have given.  I think you should also include bacteria at the top of your list ... at least according to Grey Wolf.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, you are lying/distorting facts/misrepresenting my position/dense (take your pick).

      I called that creature "UUC" so you could tell it apart from bacteria. It was not a bacteria. It is as far from bacteria as from humans, according to the ToE. Dolphins and sharks - it looks bacterial to you, but it looks human to them. The UUC's "descendants" branches into two families. The modern descendants of one of those families are the thousands (millions?) of species of bacteria. The other is the thousands of species of everything else.

      Eric cannot give you an example of any of those groups except the last one because, for every other group, the LCA is dead and was never named*. Or else, if you want a modern animal whose LCA is the same as the human, then "gorilla" is ok for every level except the last one:

      All Life - Gorilla
      Eukaryota - Gorilla
      Metazoa - Gorilla
      Bilateria - Gorilla
      Deuterostomia - Gorilla
      Chordata - Gorilla
      Craniata - Gorilla
      Vertebrata - Gorilla
      Gnathostomata - Gorilla
      Sarcopterygii - Gorilla
      Stegocephalia - Gorilla
      Amniota - Gorilla
      Synapsida - Gorilla
      Therapsida - Gorilla
      Mammalia - Gorilla
      Eutheria - Gorilla
      Primates - Gorilla
      Catarrhini - Gorilla
      Hominidae - Gorilla
      Homo - Not Gorilla

      Of course, the easiest is:
      All Life - Einstein
      Eukaryota - Einstein
      Metazoa - Einstein
      Bilateria - Einstein
      Deuterostomia - Einstein
      Chordata - Einstein
      Craniata - Einstein
      Vertebrata - Einstein
      Gnathostomata - Einstein
      Sarcopterygii - Einstein
      Stegocephalia - Einstein
      Amniota - Einstein
      Synapsida - Einstein
      Therapsida - Einstein
      Mammalia - Einstein
      Eutheria - Einstein
      Primates - Einstein
      Catarrhini - Einstein
      Hominidae - Einstein
      Homo - Einstein

      Easy enough. But what you want is the name of the LCA? Can't give it to you. But I can tell you that it is not "bacteria" or "lungfish". And until you realise that just because it looks like a lungfish to you it doesn't make it a modern lungfish, you won't begin to understand ToE.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf

      *Edit: Actually, Eric (or someone else) may know the name of intermediary fossils close enough to the LCA of any of those groups that he can give it to you.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,09:27

      One more analogy for Dave. I've been using hammers, the back of a shovel, a sledgehammer; now I'm reaching for the wrecking ball.

      Let's say you've got a brother and a sister, Dave. So your biological family is your mom, your dad, your brother, your sister, and you.

      Now, your mom gets a divorce, or maybe your dad dies. Then your mom remarries.

      So—among you, your brother, and your sister, who is most unrelated to your stepdad (biologically, not legally), and who is least unrelated?
      Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,09:28

      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,09:32

      For extra points, We have given you three different versions of the "example list":



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      All Life - bacteria
      Eukaryota - yeasts, plants
      Metazoa
      Bilateria - insects
      Deuterostomia
      Chordata -
      Craniata
      Vertebrata - lamprey
      Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna
      Sarcopterygii
      Stegocephalia
      Amniota - snapping turtle, birds
      Synapsida -
      Therapsida
      Mammalia - kangaroo
      Eutheria - dog, horse
      Primates
      Catarrhini
      Hominidae
      Homo

      All Life - Gorilla
      Eukaryota - Gorilla
      Metazoa - Gorilla
      Bilateria - Gorilla
      Deuterostomia - Gorilla
      Chordata - Gorilla
      Craniata - Gorilla
      Vertebrata - Gorilla
      Gnathostomata - Gorilla
      Sarcopterygii - Gorilla
      Stegocephalia - Gorilla
      Amniota - Gorilla
      Synapsida - Gorilla
      Therapsida - Gorilla
      Mammalia - Gorilla
      Eutheria - Gorilla
      Primates - Gorilla
      Catarrhini - Gorilla
      Hominidae - Gorilla
      Homo - Not Gorilla

      All Life - Einstein
      Eukaryota - Einstein
      Metazoa - Einstein
      Bilateria - Einstein
      Deuterostomia - Einstein
      Chordata - Einstein
      Craniata - Einstein
      Vertebrata - Einstein
      Gnathostomata - Einstein
      Sarcopterygii - Einstein
      Stegocephalia - Einstein
      Amniota - Einstein
      Synapsida - Einstein
      Therapsida - Einstein
      Mammalia - Einstein
      Eutheria - Einstein
      Primates - Einstein
      Catarrhini - Einstein
      Hominidae - Einstein
      Homo - Einstein

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Notice the three are different - are they all correct, Dave? If yes, why? if not, why not?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,10:31

      Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:28)
      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No they don't, Bill, and you know better. We thrashed this out almost a year ago. You cannot expect to construct an entire phylogenetic tree of every organism from one section of coding DNA. You need many, many genes, along with  non-coding sections of DNA, combined with a great deal of other data: morphology, fossil record, protein analysis, etc.

      Weird results for one protein don't have evolutionists scratching their heads, and as I also pointed out to you months ago, the consensus phylogenetic tree has been established beyond any possibility of doubt. This doesn't mean that the location of every single known organism on that tree has been established, but that in no way undermines the structure, to say nothing of the existence, of the tree.

      Also, since neither humans nor kangaroos have "branched off" the mammal line (both are mammals), your statement on that topic makes no sense.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,10:41

      Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 04 2006,14:32)
      For extra points, We have given you three different versions of the "example list":

      ...

      Notice the three are different - are they all correct, Dave? If yes, why? if not, why not?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I'll even give you a hint, Dave. In the list Grey Wolf gave you, both the gorilla and Einstein are members of every clade listed. In the list I gave you, each organism is listed in the most specific clade of which it is not a member of an outgroup.

      If you really do understand the Theory of Evolution, you should understand what that means. Do you?

      I could also make a list that looks like this:

      • Milky Way
      • Solar System
      • Earth
      • North America
      • United States
      • Missouri

      Now I could make two additional lists:

      • Milky Way - Arcturus
      • Solar System - Mars
      • Earth - Australia
      • North America - Canada
      • United States - Nebraska
      • Missouri - Dave Hawkins

      and this:

      • Milky Way - Dave Hawkins
      • Solar System - Dave Hawkins
      • Earth - Dave Hawkins
      • North America - Dave Hawkins
      • United States - Dave Hawkins
      • Missouri - Dave Hawkins


      Hope this helps,

      em
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,10:52

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 04 2006,15:31)
      Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,14:28)
      Dave, a better approach might be to compare cytochrome c phlogenies with evolutionist's predictions. < Here's one paper. > I remember another one that had humans branching off the mammal line before kangaroos! If I recall correctly, the evos had to remove the viper early on cause it kept clustering with humans. "Mistakes" like this leave evos scratching their heads....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No they don't, Bill, and you know better. We thrashed this out almost a year ago. You cannot expect to construct an entire phylogenetic tree of every organism from one section of coding DNA. You need many, many genes, along with  non-coding sections of DNA, combined with a great deal of other data: morphology, fossil record, protein analysis, etc.

      Weird results for one protein don't have evolutionists scratching their heads, and as I also pointed out to you months ago, the consensus phylogenetic tree has been established beyond any possibility of doubt. This doesn't mean that the location of every single known organism on that tree has been established, but that in no way undermines the structure, to say nothing of the existence, of the tree.

      Also, since neither humans nor kangaroos have "branched off" the mammal line (both are mammals), your statement on that topic makes no sense.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together. That was way back at the beginning of the last thread.

      Round and round and round we go. If Dave takes Paley's suggestion, we will have gotten no further than exchanging guinea pigs and Gulo for vipers and cytochrome-c. Maybe that's where we are now, for all I can tell.

      Except for the fact that I believe I might finally be approaching the point where I'm willing to "call it" and declare a winner in AFDave Indecision 2006: Dishonest vs. Ignorant. It's been a long, tough race, with both contenders putting up a good show and landing some knock-out blows. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.) But with 90% of polls reporting, it looks like Dishonest will be my Descriptor-In-Chief for AFDave in the coming term.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 04 2006,11:51



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I don't think this guy has suddenly become your ideological ally, Russell, as you seem to imagine.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I imagine no such thing. The guy is flailing, clearly had to abandon his earlier thesis, but couldn't very well publish a brand new book saying, "oops... sorry about the boneheadedness".

      No. It's the same dodge - "somehow evolution is wrong". But he had to abandon the molecular biology angle because he had no answer to the very criticisms you are so thoroughly failing to deal with here. So he found a new set of arcane sciencey words, now having to do more with physics - in which his claim to expertise is even more suspect.

      Believe or not, dave, even though you and Muqtada al Sadr probably disagree on just about everything, neither of you is closer to being my "ideological ally" than the other. It's a lot like the relationship between streptococcus, salmonella, and chimpanzees that way.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 04 2006,11:54

      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      (There are many other angles which I will show you)

      Again, this whole segment started with my statement that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  This is quite true as we have seen that enough time has to be available to go from a single celled organism all the way up to a modern human.  Of course, this is ridiculous given ANY amount of time, but at least it SOUNDS less ridiculous if you say there were billions of years available for the required transformations to occur.  So this explains quite nicely why paleontologists turn a blind eye to the HUGE problems with RM Dating (which I have already discussed) and latch onto "correct dates" when trying to determine ages of fossil bearing rock strata.

      Now, let me say one more time why molecular sequence data deals a death blow to ToE.  Better yet, let Denton say it ... ready?



      Hopefully this will make everything more clear to you.  I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.  I think somehow you guys thought that I thought many of those things WERE in the human lineage, but I do not.  Never did. (I do realize that you don't believe sunflowers and wheat are in the human lineage) I simply posted the chart and hoped we had a common understanding -- guess not.

      Anyway, this chart should help you understand Denton's contention.

      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.

      Now do you get it?

      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.

      Pretty crazy, now, don't you think?

      *******************************************************

      Greywolf...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Counterexample: dolphins and sharks. Same body shape, similar snout, similar fin, similar eating patterns, similar senses, similar swimming. Similar as you can get. And their sequences look nowhere near. Ergo, Dave is lying.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh I see. So now you're telling me that comparing fossil lungfish with modern lungfish (virtually identical and undoubtedly the same species) is the same a comparing sharks and dolphins.

      Boy are you guys confused!

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Really?  Are you sure about this one?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

      The LCA between you and gorillas may look like a "tail-less monkey" to you, but gorillas would see it as "human" - the lack of size, for example ("so small!", thought the gorilla, "must be a puny human"). Equally, the LCA between apes and monkeys *also* looks like a monkey to you, but it would look like an ape to any self-respecting monkey.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Holy mackerel!  Mark this one down as a classic for posterity!  

      Pick *any* common antecessor. Say the one between yeast and humans: it will look yeast-like to you, but human-like to yeast.

      Wow.  This one even top's BWE's classic of several months ago.  Does anyone here remember that one?

      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Easy enough. But what you want is the name of the LCA? Can't give it to you. But I can tell you that it is not "bacteria" or "lungfish". And until you realise that just because it looks like a lungfish to you it doesn't make it a modern lungfish, you won't begin to understand ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       YES.  YES.  Give me an example of all the LCA's from your blessed UUC all the way up to ME!  I understand that they are not the same as modern organisms.  But surely they looked similar to many extant forms, no?  Go ahead.  Give it a shot.  I'm sure you can do it.  If you like, use this terminology:  UUC - Worm like critter (WLC?) - Squid like critter (SLC?) - Fish like critter (FLC?) etc.  Get the idea now?

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Huh?  Boy are you dreaming.  No.  That's been a long time ago, but as I recall, I simply showed you that the gene was "broken" in two very distantly related (I would say unrelated) groups, thus showing that Dr. Max's contention that the "copied mistake" proves common descent was wrong.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,12:10

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY BLAHBLAHBLAH....
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, posting Denton's idiotic ideas over and over won't make them true.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,12:15

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,13:49)
         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh really?  And have you read the entire article?  And yes, it does sound pretty damning to me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No. Maybe I will when I get the chance, Dave. If I do, given my knowledge of Zuckerkandl's work, I anticipate that I will stand by the Talk Origins review. But let's suppose, having not read the paper in question, I'm wrong. Let's suppose the highly unlikely possibility that Zuckerkandl actually did claim that evolutionary mechanisms could not have produced most proteins. Even then, Dave -- even on that outside chance -- what one researcher (even one as esteemed and prolific as Zuckerkandl) wrote about the evolution of hemoglobin in a Sci-Am article more than 40 years ago and well before the advent of genetic sequence comparisons would not be "damning" to evolutionary theory. ####, I could refute it by Zuckerkandl's more recent work and words alone. Maybe his 1992 editorial in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, titled "Evolution under the fire of toy guns", would be a good place to start, eh?

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But first, I'm going to interject and highlight your dishonesty, Dave. You said that you were going to "restate" your argument this morning. Instead, you have presented an entirely new one that omits (without comment) the obvious errors your first argument was challenged on. Very dishonest, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      New one?  How in the world have I not restated my argument?  I thought I went to great lengths to restate and explain it.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, I suspect your "how am I dishonest?" is, itself, dishonest. Compare this (taken from the same post as the quote above):

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Fish, for example (to simplify the argument) should be closer genetically to bacteria than they are to humans if evolution is true because fish (or fish-like creatures which are indistinguishable from modern fish ... there ... are you happy?) are in the direct ancestry of humans. BUT THEY ARE NOT CLOSER.  They are EQUIDISTANT genetically as Denton clearly shows.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      with this (taken from your post this morning):



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now Denton's chart can ONLY be a prediction of ToE IF certain conditions are met.  And Denton goes on to show that these conditions are quite inconceivable.  He says...    
      Quote
      Only if the degree of evolution in a family of molecules such as the cytochromes had been constrained by some kind of time constant mechanism, so that in any one class the degree of change which occurs is always proportional to the lapse of absolute time.  Only in this way can the ordered pattern of molecular diversity be explained. This remarkable concept is widely known as that of the 'molecular clock hypothesis'.  But although such a clock is perfectly capable of accounting for the observed equal divergence of, say, all vertebrate cytochromes from those of insects, no one has been able to explain in precise terms exactly how such a time constant would work.  Rather than being a true explanation, the hypothesis of the molecular clock is really a tautology, no more than a restatement of the fact that at a molecular level the representatives of any one class are wqually isolated from the representatives of another class.
         The tautological nature of the molecular clock hypothesis is reminiscent of the explanations of the gaps in the fossil record.  The proposal put forward to save evolution in the face of the missing links--that connecting links are missing from the fossil record because transitional species are very rare--is essentially tautological.  If evolution is true then indeed the intermediates must be very rare.  But unfortunately we can only know that evolution is true after we have found the transitional types!  The explanation relies on belief in evolution in the first place.  Similarly, if evolution is true then, yes indeed, the clock hypothesis must also be true.  Again the hypothesis gets us nowhere.  We save evolution because we believed in it in the first place.(pp. 295-296 of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)


      Denton then goes on to explain an additional twist to the Clock Hypothesis, namely, different proteins exhibit different degrees of interspecies variation.  He illustrates this by comparing haemoglobin and cytochrome.  He shows that what you would really have to have is different "clocks" for each of several hundred protein families, each ticking at its own unique and highly specific rate!

      Not very likely, guys.

      Denton points out that ...    
      Quote
      Unfortunately, neither evolution by genetic drift nor evolution by positive selection is likely to have generated anything remotely resembling a uniform rate of evolution in a family of homologous proteins.
      He goes on to talk about genetic drift rates, mutation rates and generation times for diverse organisms--very interesting reading--and concludes on p. 301 ...    
      Quote
      Again, it is the sheer universality of the phenomenon--the necessity to believe that the functional constraints in all the members of a particular protein family, say A, in all diverse phylogenetic lines for all of hundreds of millions of years have remained precisely five times as stringent as those operating on the members of another protein family, say B--which fatally weakens the theory.


      Let's simplify that sentence for Denton ...

      It is the sheer universality of the phenomenon which fatally weakens the theory.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Argument 1 is that evolution predicts fish should be genetically closer to bacteria than humans. We don't observe this in cytochrome-c comparisons.

      Argument 2 is that evolution predicts a molecular clock will generate nested hierarchies, including genetic equidistance from bacteria for fish and humans. We observe this in cytochrome-c comparisons. However, because of the error introduced through the assumptions made for molecular clocks (constant rates, similar generation times, etc.), we should expect ANYTHING BUT a neat and orderly table showing nested hierarchies that align with evolutionary theory. The fact that we can measure cytochrome-c and observe these nested hierarchies despite our terrible assumptions proves that they don't exist. Do you see how ridiculous this claim actually is?

      Maybe you really don't know which arguments you're actually making (since I see we are reverting back to "fish should be more genetically similar to bacteria because me and Denton say so!"). Are you that much of an idiot, Dave? Or are you a liar?
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 04 2006,12:16

      The posters on this board might find this 1961 (the SciAm article is from 1965) paper by Zuckerkandl helpful, particularly the discussion section.

      < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/46/10/1349 >

      He interprets his findings mainly in terms of the last common ancestor between species, the same rationale that has been made by others on this board.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 04 2006,12:21



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      None of the higher jawed vertebrate groups is an [sic] any sense intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and other jawed vertebrate groups.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This is EXACTLY what everyone here has been trying to tell you, Dave, but you just don't get it.  And I'm sure by now everyone here thinks you never will.  So why don't you just move on to your supernatural evidence?  At least that would be a different flavor of tard from you.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 04 2006,12:27

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,17:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave takes his raw material...

             

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.

      Now do you get it?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Weaves a story with his hands....

             

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And proceeds to vanquish his creation...


      Ahhhhh.....  Tell me another story Dave.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 04 2006,12:28

      Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:

      You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast is the same as between bacterium and horse, because yeast and horse share the same common ancestor. Even if you don't accept that they share a common ancestor I'm not sure why you can't see that this is what the tree should look like if they do.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,12:33



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Second counterexample: dogs and dingos: look similar, but are further apart than dogs and rhinos.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Correction: I meant to say dogs and tasmanian wolves. Dingos are closer to dogs than to rhinos. My point stands, however: dogs are closer to rhinos than to tasmanian woves, even though they are far similar to the latter.

      Sorry,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,12:33

      Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 04 2006,17:28)
      Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:

      You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast should be the same as between bacterium and horse. Im not sure what your problem is with this.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Won't help. He's taking a man who says this:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome -> fish -> amphibian -> reptile -> mammal. Incredibly, man is as close to lamprey as are fish! None of the higher jawed vertebrate groups is an [sic] any sense intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and other jawed vertebrate groups.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      as his authority on what evolution predicts.

      Hopeless.

      Dave, you still haven't answered my easy "family-reunion" question.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,12:35

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      OK.  ONE LAST TRY TO GET YOU TO SEE HOW FOOLISH EVOLUTION IS FROM THE SEQUENCE DATA ANGLE.

      (There are many other angles which I will show you)

      Now, let me say one more time why molecular sequence data deals a death blow to ToE.  Better yet, let Denton say it ... ready?

      ...

      Hopefully this will make everything more clear to you.  I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.  I think somehow you guys thought that I thought many of those things WERE in the human lineage, but I do not.  Never did. (I do realize that you don't believe sunflowers and wheat are in the human lineage) I simply posted the chart and hoped we had a common understanding -- guess not.

      Anyway, this chart should help you understand Denton's contention.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Same problem, Dave. You're wrong for exactly the same reasons. All of those organisms—carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, human, diverged from the the common ancestor of the lamprey at the same time. If you look at the same list I posted earlier, you will note that the lamprey is a member of an outgroup of all the other organisms. This means, as we have pointed out to you to the point of stupidity, that all of those organisms are exactly equally distant from the lamprey.

      All you've done is moved further up the tree. If you chose, say, a dog, and compared the differences humans, baboons, and rhesus monkeys each have with a dog, you'd see the exact same pattern.

      That you don't get this is symptomatic of your utter ignorance of evolutionary theory in general and cladistics in particular. It's not a problem for evolutionary theory, Dave; it's a problem for your bad, wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

      Further, Dave, carp, fish, frogs, chickens, and kangaroos are no more, nor less, "in the human lineage" than sunflowers and wheat are. The only difference is how long ago the  organism in question shared a common ancestor with humans. The common ancestor of humans and kangaroos is more recent than the common ancestor of humans and wheat. That's the only difference.

      And, you know, I'm pretty sure I've pointed this out to you more than once, Dave. But somehow (and this is less and less surprising every time), you just don't get it.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2006,12:45

      I explained carefully why we do not expect to see large "percentage" differences in a conserved protein.  Dave keeps ignoring responses along that line and continues to create a straw man argument , just as Denton once did.

      Dave: "Look how similar they are in percentages - evolution says they should be very different, mutated and changed!!!"

      Biologist : "No, those proteins are essential to life and cannot be altered hugely -- they must remain basically the same to function, which is why human cytochrome c can be used by yeast."

      Dave: "but they are similar in percentages and evolution says they must be different!! The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true!!"
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,12:49

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I don't need to, Dave. I only placed the organisms on Denton's chart in the proper clade. To add additional organisms adds nothing to my list, other than confusion. After all, you will notice that proterostomia is not on my list, nor is there an example of a proterostome.

      My point was to show the relationships between in-groups and out-groups, which is central to the error of your argument, Dave. No useful purpose is served by providing an example of an organism in each clade.

      Oh, wait a minute—are you inferring that my list is an exhaustive list of all phylogenetic clades? I'm hoping you didn't want an example of an organism in every single phylogenetic taxon, do you?

      Your request for additional examples is giving me the distinct impression that you are not even aware of what my list is a list of, dave.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 04 2006,13:08

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Indeed, Dave already tried Paley's suggestion by arguing that Gulo (vitamin C) sequencing data meant "evolutionists" should classify guinea pigs and humans together.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Huh?  Boy are you dreaming.  No.  That's been a long time ago, but as I recall, I simply showed you that the gene was "broken" in two very distantly related (I would say unrelated) groups, thus showing that Dr. Max's contention that the "copied mistake" proves common descent was wrong.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Liar. You < referenced here > an < AIG page > which used an Inai et al. paper to claim exactly what I said. To quote that AIG article:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Let us now take the pseudogene ‘shared mistake’ argument to its logical conclusion. The unexpected degree of identicalness between the ‘lesions’ of the guinea pig GULO pseudogene and those of its counterpart in the higher primates (including humans) leads to the preposterous conclusion that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to prosimian primates!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Whatever apology you make for how "preposterous" that claim is, or whether you waiver in your support for that claim (as you do in your references to this issue, presented below), you cannot avoid that this argument contends that humans and guinea pigs should be classified together as an evolutionary unit on the basis of GLO. Which is what I said.

      < #1 >



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      This scenario also seems to me to be supported by the 2003 Inai study comparing guinea pig and human pseudo-GLO.  Guinea pigs and humans are obviously not in sister groups, but they both have pseudo-GLO, which actually has 36% "identicalness" according to the report.  Are we to conclude that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs who (like humans) have pseudo-GLO, than to pro-simians who have functional GLO?  It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You have the problem of the appearance that humans are more closely related to guinea pigs than to the pro-simians! (who have functional GLO)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      < #2: >



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It appears that they [Inai et al.? AiG?] are saying that humans would be more closely related to guinea pigs (because humans also have broken GLO) than to pro-simians (functional GLO) if we followed evolutionary logic, but this is obviously absurd, because they are not related.  Again, I don't know if I agree with this or not.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      < #3: >


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      We went through some logic exercises comparing the DNA code to relatively unknown languages, and we went down a small rabbit trail with the AIG article and the whole "humans are more closely related to guinea pigs since they both have broken GULO and 36% similar substitutions" idea that AIG seems to be promoting.  To tell you the truth, I honestly don't even know what AIG is asserting exactly, but to me it has very little bearing (if any) on the main issue that we are discussing.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,13:22

      You guys should all win perseverance awards for continuing to deal with Dave Hawkins, the Tard's tard.

      All the technical detail is great for the lurkers, but never forget what Davie-poo has filling his lying little Fundie cranium:
      Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 04 2006,14:45

      Speaking of the GULO gene, lookie at what I just < found: >

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In my last post, Common Design Errors, I proposed a problem for biblical creation.  I received one response from a creationist, who cited Inai et al. (2003).  This paper compared the largest set of homologous exons between humans, guinea pigs, and rats.  You see, guinea pigs, like most primates and a few other taxa, lack L-guluno-gamma-lactone oxidase.  Two sections were quoted to me.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When the human and guinea pig sequences (647 nucleotides in total) of the regions of exons 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 were compared, we found 129 and 96 substitutions in humans and guinea pigs, respectively, when compared with the rat sequences (Fig. 2).  The same substitutions from rats to both human and guinea pigs occurred at 47 nucleotide positions among the 129 positions where substitutions occurred in the human sequences.  A high percentage of the same substitutions in the total substitutions (36%) indicates that there were many hot spots for nucleotide substitution throughout the sequences examined.

      (p. 316)

      Assuming an equal chance of substitution throughout the sequences, the probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions and more was calculated to be 1.84 x 10-12.  This extremely small probability indicates the presence of many mutational hot spots in the sequences.

      (p. 317)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      The poster then begins to outline what he feels is a fatal flaw in the paper:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      However, the sections quoted from Inai et al. (2003) suffer from a major methodological error; they failed to consider that substitutions could have occured in the rat lineage after the splits from the other two.  The researchers actually clustered substitutions that are specific to the rat lineage with separate substitutions shared by guinea pigs and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      He then proceeds to compare a nucleotide sequence from rat exon 10 to ten other species, and finds that:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When we look at this larger data table, only one position of the ten, 81, stands out as a possible case of a shared derived trait, one position, 97, is inconclusive, and the other eight positions are more than likely shared ancestral sites.  With this additional phylogenetic information, I have shown that the “hot spots” Inai et al. (2003) found are not well supported.  Therefore, the explaination given to me by the creationist who responded does not work.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Thus was the creationist claim destroyed. Or was it? A lurker begged to differ:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You are looking at a tiny fraction of the data analyzed in the Inai paper. I’m not defending the Inai paper as I have not read it. However, the sequence segment you selected is quite different from other segments. In your segment there is high similarity. This is not characteristic, and more species doesn’t help. Elsewhere one finds a hodge-podge: poor alignments, segments with high human-guinea pig similarity but low similarity to the rat, etc. There are various possible explanations. The substitutions occurred in the rat lineage, insertions and deletions, etc.

      This all makes interpreting the data a bit difficult. I suspect things will become clearer with more research, but, as you are probably aware, pseudogenes in general have not proven to be as straightforward as once thought. The Inai paper may be in error, but the idea of mutational hotspots is not controversial.
      [....]
      Following up on my previous message, note for example the multiple alignments just up and downstream of the segment you show in your above post. Just upstream, we have the rat, mouse, cow, pig and chicken all with “CATCCC”, but human ang guinea pig with “TGAGTG”. Just downstream we see the same groups with “CCCT” and “TGAC”, respectively. This is not unusual and, for these cases, evolution is left with the explanation that while the ancestral sequence was preserved in the rat, mouse, cow, pig and chicken, the human and guinea pig independently made identical changes. The pattern, and especially its dependence on segment location is rather striking.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      When asked to support his claim, the skeptic provided this data:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Here is an alignment that is a superset of your alignment (there are roughly an additional 90 residues upstream and 40 downstream). Of course you’ll need to format with a monospace font (~ represents inserts).

      204149GGAAGAAGGAAAACTGCAACCTCAGCCATAAGATCTTC~~ACCTACGAGTGCCGCTTCAA_Cow
      14994234_CAAAGGCTGAGCAGGTCAAGCGCAGTGATAAGGCTTTC~~AACTTTGACTGTCTCTTCAA_Shrk
      46425804_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CAATGTCAGCTACAAGATCTTC~~AACTACGAGTGCCGCTTCAA_Chkn
      220300_AGGCTGGGAACCTGTGCAGAGTCTTGAGGGAGGGCACCCAGCGGTCCCTTCCCACCCTGA_Humn
      _*_G~~~CAGCATGTACAAGACTGGGCCATCCCTAGGGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTACTGGA
      38325769_G~~~CAGCATGTCCAAGACTGGGCCATCCCCAGGGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTGCTGGA
      24637282_G~~~CAGCATGTCCAGGACTGGGCCATCCCCAGAGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTCCTGGA
      5924388_GGTCCAGATGGCATCCCC~TGCCCTGAGTGCAGAGAGAAGACCAAGGAGGCCCTGCTGGA
      493656_****_*_*

      204149GCTGAAGGCCATGCTGGAGGCGAGCCCCAAGGTAGTGGCCCACTACCCCGTGGAGGTACG
      14994234_GCTGAAGGATTGGCTGGACAACAATCCTAATGTGCGAGCACATTTTCCTGTCGAGGTTCG
      46425804_GCTGAAGGCTGCCCTGGAGAACAACCCCAAGATGGTGGCCCACTACCCTGTGGAGGTGCG
      220300_GCTGAAGGCCGTGCTGGAGGCCCACCCTGAGGTGGTGTCCCACTACCTGGTGGGGGTACG
      ****_**_***_*_***_**

      204149CTTCACTCGCGGGGACGACATCCTGCTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGCGAGACAGCTGCTACAT
      14994234_GTTTGTTCGTGCAGACGATATTCTGCTCAGCCCCTGTTACAGACAGGACAGCTGCTACAT
      46425804_CTTTGCTCGAGCGGATGAGATCTGGCTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGAGGGACAGCTGCTACAT
      220300_CTTCACCTGGAGG~ATGACATCCTACTGAGCCCCTGCTTCCAGTGGGACAGCCGCTACCT
      ****_**_***_*_******_*****_*

      204149GAACGTCATCATGTACAGGCCCTATGGCAAGGACGTACCGCGGCTGGACTACTGGCTGGC
      14994234_TAACATCATCATGTACAGACCCTACGGGAAGGAGGTGCCACGCGAGGGGTACTGGGCAAT
      46425804_GAACATCATCATGTACAGGCCCTATGGGAAGAACGTGCCCCGGCTCAACTACTGGCTGAC
      220300_GAACATCAACCTGTACAGGTGACAGCTCACTGGGAGGTGGAGATGGGCCTGGGAGCCGGC
      ***_**___


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Then the thread starter (Reed Cartwright) responded with:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I haven’t had time to look at your larger dataset.

      However, certain additional points need to be made about using phylogenetic data to estimate hotspots.

      1)The macroevolutionary comparisons that are being done tell us about substitutions not mutations.
      2)Long branch attraction

      [...]

      I’m going through the GULO data and producing an alignment of the cds region. Some of the genebank files are a little confusing. For instance the cavie exon sequences include introns. I suspect that the upstream and downstream regions that Responder is refering to are places where the alignment is wrong because introns are being aligned with exons.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      But has not answered the claim. Why? No one knows.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 04 2006,15:37

      Davey - simple question:

      Does your hero, Michael Denton, as of his most recent book, accept the notion of "common descent"? Yes or no.
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 04 2006,15:57

      I need a little clarification here.  There's a lot of talk about coding and non-coding DNA so when we're talking about divergence and conservation are we talking about only the coding regions or both the coding and non-coding regions?
      Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 04 2006,16:45

      skeptic-

      you're thinking in terms of whole genome, rather than specific marker sequences.

      yes, these are coding sequences, but very specific ones.

      we don't have enough whole genome studies to make gross comparisons, but of the ones we have so far, we see the same patterns as exhibited by specific marker sequences.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2006,17:20

      A picture of feces has been removed from Occam's post. -st
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,18:13

      steveS, your "inconsistant moderator" act is wearing kinda thin.  

      You wanna give the board your rationale for why today you allowed Richardthughes to post this about DaveScot

      It was DaveScot,


      but you deleted my picture of a dog turd?
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2006,18:20

      1 an obviously faked latex mask of a deformed person didn't disgust me.

      2 your photo did.

      3 No one emailed me about Richard's photo.

      4 Some people emailed me about yours.

      If that's not good enough, send further complaints to me or Wes in private messages.

      UPDATE: Just FYI, I saw your photo hours ago. I didn't delete it, but I was close. When some people emailed complaining about it, you might say there was a tipping point.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 04 2006,18:30



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Wow.  This one even top's BWE's classic of several months ago.  Does anyone here remember that one?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      no. refresh my memory please.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2006,19:17

      So an an obviously faked latex mask of a terribly deformed and mutilated human being is OK, but an obviously faked latex mold of a dog turd is verbotten.  Wow, just...wow.

      Mea culpa.  Will all those who emailed stevestory (he tells me it was more than one) and complained because they couldn't stand a photo of fake dog poo please identify yourselves here, and I will issue each a personal apology.

      Thanks in advance

      ETA: Please respond to this request by PM - I have no desire to waste board space or distract from AFDave's regularly scheduled floggings  ;)
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 04 2006,19:26

      AFDave says that evolutionists before the advent of molecular methods thought that animals with similar morhpologies would have similar genetic sequences or protein sequences. He bases this on a quote by Zuckerkandl from Scientific American. I decided to read the article that AFDave cited, and found that it does not back this assertion.

      Before I present the quote, I also want to correct AFDaves citation. His citation is Zuckerkandl, E., "The Evolution of Haemoglobin",Scientific American,213(5): 110-18, see p111. In fact, the correct citation is Zuckerkandl, E; Sci Am 1965, v. 212 iss 5, pg111. He also states that the article is from 1963,  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ...and I think Zuckerkandl understood it in 1963 ...    
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      , when in fact is is from 1965.

      With that out of the way I give the full paragraph which AFDave's quote was taken from, with AFDave's quote in italics.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Notice how Zuckerkandl qualifies this statement as contraversial and not representing the mainstream view of the field. It just so happens that the mainstream view as given by Zuckerkandl is the same view espoused today by posters in this thread.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 04 2006,20:37

      Bagged again quote-mining, Dave. What is this, the tenth time you've been caught so far?
      Posted by: bfish on Oct. 04 2006,20:38

      [quote=afdave,Oct. 02 2006,12:31][/quote]
      Dave on October 2:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      To answer Argy's question, I would guess that there is VERY LITTLE sequence difference among modern bacterial DNA.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave on October 4:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I am not familiar with the C' and the C-556 sequences.  I would like to learn more about bacteria and see some sequence comparisons of Cytochrome C among bacteria.  Anyone have free access to an online atlas? (like the Dayhoff one referred to already).  My guess is that there is much greater variation than we find between, say, dogs and mice.  Why?  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Um, because many people corrected you after your October 2 stab in the dark?


      Since the subject of sequence similarity versus morphological similarity came up, I thought some of you might be interested in a Nature paper from last week:
      Nature 443, 401-402(28 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/443401a; Published online 27 September 2006
      Evolution: Different paths to the same end

      "Genetic dissection of a yeast gene-regulatory pathway shows that the logical output of such a pathway can remain the same even though the molecular mechanisms underlying the output have diverged remarkably.

      From penguins to mushrooms and baobabs, the world around us harbours a bewildering diversity of life forms. Much of the evolution of this diversity is due to changes in the under-lying genetic regulatory architecture1. But what happens to such architecture when organisms that diverged long ago retain the same traits (or 'phenotypes';)? Can this regulatory architecture diverge while the overlying phenotypes remain similar? On page 415 of this issue, Tsong et al.2 examine the gene-regulatory circuit that governs mating type in several yeast species, and they identify a remarkable example of divergence at the genotypic level (the DNA sequence) despite conservation at the phenotypic level."
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,20:59

      Dave said:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Oh I see. So now you're telling me that comparing fossil lungfish with modern lungfish (virtually identical and undoubtedly the same species) is the same a comparing sharks and dolphins
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      a) I was putting the stake in your "if they are similar, their sequence is similar" stupidity. You made a blanket statement that is false, and I gave you a counterexample to show it was false. If you had the morality or reading ability that God gave the pistachio, you'd admit it.

      b) Only you claim that the ancient and modern lungfish are the same species. Lets see some evidence for that. You do know that the modern coelacanths and ancient one are not the same species either, do you?

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf

      Edit: typo
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2006,21:18

      Incorygible posed this question for Dave:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Are you that much of an idiot, Dave? Or are you a liar?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Ever since I joined this forum back in June -- I think it was -- I've felt that Dave was a deliberate liar. He proved it (to me) by lying directly about me. My vote is for "b" : AirHead is a deliberate, calculating liar.

      **ack, I just checked. It was May. Six months of watching this idiot lie his ass off, quote-mine, spew fallacies and shred logic, reason and human knowledge. What a maroon, as Bugs used to say.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 04 2006,21:30

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      I think many of you got confused because the first Denton chart had many organism which are not like anything in the supposed ancestry of humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      None of the organisms in the chart are in the ancestry of humans, since they are all modern. Remember, the whole "they look similar, they have similar sequences" is something you came up with, not something that ToE says (aka "dolphins and sharks").

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      The numbers on this chart SHOULD be something like Carp 35, Frog 55 Human 75 (not sure what chicken and kangaroo should be) if Evolution is really true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You are the only one that claims that. The ToE says that two modern animals will be equally distant from their LCA. I will repeat that until you get it or show evidence to the contrary (things you pulled out of creationist propagando do not count for this purpose - maybe you could try quoting a biology textbook, though).

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Now do you get it?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Oh, we get it all right. You build a strawman version of ToE ("bacteria are closer to yeast than to men") and then you beat it. But since what ToE says is "Bacteria are as close to yeast as to man", your chart only confirms ToE.

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      To say otherwise means you have to take the ridiculous position of assuming that things like fossil lungfish (which look identical to modern lungfish) somehow have far different sequences.

      Pretty crazy, now, don't you think?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You cannot tell bacteria apart, either, and nevertheless they have wildly different sequences and DNA. Just because to your untrained and ignorant eye look the same it doesn't mean that their DNA are the same. Dolphins and Sharks.

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Boy are you guys confused!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      <sarcasm>Yes, all of the biology experts in the world are confused. It cannot possibly be that you are wrong. Nooooo.</sarcasm>

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      Eric-- Great.  How about examples of Metazoa, Deuterostomia, Chordata, Craniata, Sarco-whatever, Stego-whatever, and the rest you didn't give an example for, eh?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      I gave you two examples of each. How many do you need, Dave?

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,16:54)
      YES.  YES.  Give me an example of all the LCA's from your blessed UUC all the way up to ME!  I understand that they are not the same as modern organisms.  But surely they looked similar to many extant forms, no?  Go ahead.  Give it a shot.  I'm sure you can do it.  If you like, use this terminology:  UUC - Worm like critter (WLC?) - Squid like critter (SLC?) - Fish like critter (FLC?) etc.  Get the idea now?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      All Life - Human-like critter (it is alive)

      Eukaryota - Human-like critter (has complex cells)

      Metazoa - Human-like critter (has many cells)

      Bilateria - Human-like critter (has two symetrical sides)

      Deuterostomia - Human-like critter

      Chordata - Human-like critter (has a notocord)

      Craniata - Human-like critter (has a skull)

      Vertebrata - Human-like critter (has vertebra)

      Gnathostomata - Human-like critter

      Sarcopterygii - Human-like critter (has four limbs)

      Stegocephalia - Human-like critter

      Amniota - Human-like critter (development of embrio in amniotic liquid

      Synapsida - Human-like critter (has fused arches)

      Therapsida - Human-like critter

      Mammalia - Human-like critter (has mammary glands)

      Eutheria - Human-like critter (has placenta)

      Primates - Human-like critter

      Catarrhini - Human-like critter (has a narrow nose)

      Hominidae - Human-like critter (doesn't have a tail?)

      Homo - Human-like critter

      I've left out some descriptions, for those I wasn't sure. I'm sure Eric can complete it, though.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 04 2006,23:43

      Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 04 2006,17:45)
      Dave: "Look how similar they are in percentages - evolution says they should be very different, mutated and changed!!!"

      Biologist : "No, those proteins are essential to life and cannot be altered hugely -- they must remain basically the same to function, which is why human cytochrome c can be used by yeast."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This is not the best explanation. Sequence divergence is mostly correlated with time of divergence, not morphology.
      The divergence in protein sequence can be rather large and the data remain the same for neutral mutations.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,01:39

      Jeannot: Agreed.  Dave has been told about...what..10 different times about cousin/cousin versus ancestor-descendant relationships. He just isn't getting it or he's being deliberately obtuse.

      I hoped he might "understand " that a core sequence coding for a vital protein would be conserved, and that  Cytochrome C Oxidase Deficiency is fatal in kids, for instance. But I guess he'd just find a way to reject that, too.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,03:20

      AFDave,
      Still waiting for your response to my < reply > to your questions.  I'm claiming victory soon if you can't come up with any challange to my summary and response.  So far you've countered with whinging and requests for restatements, but no actual counter points to the arguments presented.
      **********************
      I also remember that you wrote....  
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 04 2006,11:38)
      In case anyone is keeping track, we have now moved to Points C & D on AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis.  We have now covered A, B, G, H, K, L, & M (not that we won't periodically return to these points some).   You can see all the points at my blog site at < http://airdave.blogspot.com, > or on page 1 of this thread.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Ummmmmm....... We haven't "covered" all these < points > yet.  Here's my scorecard so far:
      (A) is fine.  You can believe what you want.
      (B) is fine.  Except for the fundamental goal statement.  We haven't covered that yet.
      (C&D) MANY items left to hash out in these two points.  From whizzing continents to 900 year old men to genetically rich Adam and Eve.  And don't forget the incestual claims.  And can you at least give a definition of a "kind"?
      (G&H) are DOA.  Da Flud.  No points for you, and we certainly haven't "covered" this topic.  MANY questions left for you on this one.
      (K&L) aren't covered either.  The only thing you've done on this point is restate your original hypothesis.  We haven't "covered" this one at all.
      (M) seems to be the basis for your 6000 year old earth claim.  You haven't covered how Graf-Wellhausen theory has been discredited either.  And RM dating can fit into this point so we haven't "covered" this yet, we are still in discussion.

      AFDave,
      Please define the term "covered" so we can come to terms with what your trying to state in the quote above.  My take on your claim runs counter to what your claiming.

      Mike PSS
      __
      Edit: typo in first statement (add 'my';).  thx Grey Wolf c
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,05:04

      My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.

      --Emile Zuckerkandl, Scientific American, 1965




      I hate to tell you this, but in an attempt to accuse me (and Michael Denton) of quote mining, you have, like the Kamikaze pilot above, destroyed your own position.  Many of you, including Incorygible, have bought into Mark Vuletic's lie on Talk Origins that Michael Denton doesn't understand evolutionary theory.  At least two of you (I won't embarrass you by naming you) also read this quote wrong and thought it helped your position.

      Let me give you the quote again ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now you have to read that carefully, or you will miss his meaning as evidently some of you did.  Note that he is ...

      1) Suggesting a fourth postulate--the postulate that "Ancient 'Living Fossil' Biochemistry = Modern 'Living Fossil' Biochemistry"
      2) Admitting that this is controversial b/c many people in his day also held the view that YOU hold today
      3) Telling us his own view which is ...that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.

      IOW ... he's saying "How can this lungfish have the same appearance 400 MY later without also having the same biochemistry?  Unlikely."

      IOW ... he agrees with me.

      Denton is vindicated.

      AFDave is vindicated.

      You guys just crashed and burned.  And yet, some of you wil still try to wiggle and squirm and God knows what else.   Many of you falsely accuse me of lying and quote mining, yet will anyone here acknowledge this latest error publicly?  Maybe Cory will.  He apologized quite grandly one time for misquoting me.

      Let me summarize again for you what I have been saying.  I am making two major points ...

      1)  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time to make ToE work
      2)  Many evolutionists in the 60's were hoping that molecular biology would support ToE.  However ... it did not as Michael Denton so ably points out.


      Now that the secrets of biochemistry have been revealed and have given no support to Darwinists, they have tap danced and tried to tell the world that the observed sequence patterns were "just what we expected."

      BALONEY!!!

      They are not at all what was expected.  They are not what Zuckerkandl expected and he represented a large group of evolutionists--my guess, the majority, judging from his prominence.  What these evolutionists expected was a "transitional nature" in the sequence data, something like this ... (Suggested Evo expectations in RED)


      And this is truly how it should look if Evolution were true.  

      There is a good  reason that people like me (and much of the public) talks about  the ToE in terms of Bacteria > Worm > Squid > Fish > Amphibian > Reptile > Mammal > Ape > Human Evolution, substituting images of modern creatures into these steps.  This was evidently a quite popular view at one time and the only reason it is not STILL popular is because the Molecular Sequence Data which has now been revealed in the last 40 years does not support this view ... so evolutionists have backpedalled and come up with even more preposterous ideas for how evolution worked.

      I gotta tell you guys ... it is really looney to say that ...

      That  400 MYO lungfish had FAR DIFFERENT biochemistry than the modern one (even though they look identical

      (oh, but we think similar MODERN organisms should have similar biochemistry ... See?  apes and humans have similar biochemistry and they look similar.)

      Unbelievable that you guys would take this preposterous position, unsupported by all reason and observation, and even contradicted by a leading scientist, Emile Zuckerkandl.

      But then, wonders never cease.  I can't fathom how people can fly themselves into buildings.  I can't fathom how some teens can paint their hair green and put rings in their tongues.  And yet they do.

      I do have to say thanks to Drew Headley for digging up the full quote and correcting my citation.  He is correct that the date was 1965, not 1963 (I got the 1963 from Denton's text, but he has the right year in the footnote.  His volume number is also wrong in the footnote.)  Good catch, Drew!

      ******************************

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Even then, Dave -- even on that outside chance -- what one researcher (even one as esteemed and prolific as Zuckerkandl) wrote about the evolution of hemoglobin in a Sci-Am article more than 40 years ago and well before the advent of genetic sequence comparisons would not be "damning" to evolutionary theory. ####, I could refute it by Zuckerkandl's more recent work and words alone.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Of course you could refute it by his more recent work.  That is precisely my point.  You either missed my point or are pretending that you did.  Again, my point was to show what much of the evolutionary community's view USED TO BE BEFORE the molecular biology revolution ... and Zuckerandl's quote does that quite nicely.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Whatever apology you make for how "preposterous" that claim is, or whether you waiver in your support for that claim (as you do in your references to this issue, presented below), you cannot avoid that this argument contends that humans and guinea pigs should be classified together as an evolutionary unit on the basis of GLO. Which is what I said.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No. That's NOT what I said.  If anybody said that it was AIG, and it's none too clear if even THEY are saying that.  And I made it quite clear in my quotes you posted that I was not even sure what AIG was saying and thus not sure if I agreed.  And you call me a liar.  Shame!  You're getting sloppy, Cory.  And wasteful of space.  That was about 24 vertical inches of wasted rabbit trail.

      Chris Hyland...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave you are still wrong, I will try again to explain why. Here is the picture I posted before:



      You can clearly see from this tree that the distance between bacterium and yeast is the same as between bacterium and horse, because yeast and horse share the same common ancestor. Even if you don't accept that they share a common ancestor I'm not sure why you can't see that this is what the tree should look like if they do.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Of course I see what you are saying.  I just don't agree.  I think it is preposterous.  There is no way you're going to get me to believe that the ancient lungfish (I say 4300 year old, you say 400 MY old) is any different biochemically than a modern lungfish.  And the same would apply to any "LCA" on your tree.  To tell you the truth, Chris, I think it is quite impossible to draw a plausible "Evolutionary Tree" simply because the fact is ... Macroevolution is impossible.  To attempt to answer your question, though, I suppose your tree would be correct, except that the lines moving up and to the left do not represent any evolution going on.  They represent simple inheritance and reproduction over time, but not evolution.  IOW those bacteria have reproduced over time, but they have not changed fundamentally.  Like the lungfish, they have the same basic biochemistry that they have always had.  I would also like to hear your explanation for why these "living fossils" stopped evolving.  I know you say that they haven't stopped evolving, but from the looks of it, they did stop (stopped 400 MY ago in your timeframe) and they give no indication of resuming any time soon.  They appear quite happy with their present morphology!  And they have been quite happy with it for 400 million years!  This should raise HUGE RED FLAGS in your mind about the whole ToE.  You really want me to believe that this lungfish (and opossum and many other organisms) haven't changed in 400 million years?  You guys need to have your brains checked for tumors.  That is utterly ridiculous.  If this one thing alone doesn't cause you to question the whole ToE with its goofy billions of years, then you are blind! And I know you guys say "Well, it was the non-coding (junk) DNA that has evolved, not the coding DNA ... that's why they look the same."   Well, this is total speculation also because they are finding out that it's not "junk DNA" after all.  It's simply that we haven't yet discovered it's function.  And why on earth shouldn't the coding DNA evolve also?  What mechanism allows DNA to evolve selectively?

      Russell..  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Davey - simple question:  Does your hero, Michael Denton, as of his most recent book, accept the notion of "common descent"? Yes or no.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Sure.  What alternative does he have?  He's a little like "skeptic" here.  He's knows ToE is in trouble, but he has nothing better.  Too bad for him that he doesn't accept Creationism which actually does fit ALL the evidence and would solve his problems.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,05:20

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:04)
      {big mondo snip, too much CD for me to wade through}
      Too bad for him that he doesn't accept Creationism which actually does fit ALL the evidence and would solve his problems.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      AFDave,
      Are you implying that your brand of Creationism that you are presenting in this thread has answered ALL the evidence presented throughout the past ??221?? pages?

      I don't see an answer to my refutation of mixing yet.  Maybe you should edit your statement to say "ALMOST ALL"  :O
      Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 05 2006,05:22

      phht.

      almost all?

      try absolutely none.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,05:26

      Dave?  Did you miss my question?

      Does Denton accept common descent?
      Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 05 2006,05:27



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And this is truly how it should look if Evolution were true.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      No.  That's how it would look if your misinformed strawman interpretation of evolution was true.  Unfortunately for you, you do not get to define evolution, as we are going by the established scientific principle in this debate, and not your feverish imaginings.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,05:35

      Russell ... do you know the meaning of the word "Sure"?  It means the same as "Yes" in the context of your question.  Now go read my answer at the end of my post.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,05:39

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:04)
      IOW those bacteria have reproduced over time, but they have not changed fundamentally.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I suggested earlier that someone could demonstrate the genetic differences between 2 or more modern bacteria.  Or maybe even between a modern bacteria and a modern archaea.

      If Dave is correct, all bacteria (and probably even archaea) should be fundamentally identical in terms of genetics.

      Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge and expertise to compile this information.  But I was hoping someone else here could give it a shot.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 05 2006,05:45

      Geez god boy get it right .....the Kamakazi motif fits ID to a tee...they crashed and burned in Dover remember? The body completely imolated, the airframe totally vaporized and the whole world knows.


      ID is dead

      Air Nippon Dave ...your last desperate attempt to inspire a dying regime by divine wind hot air ...crashes everytime you take off..fittingly in scratchy old time black and white moving pictures ...pulled from the dusty archives of long forgotten, moth eaten, perished rubber, pre internet, debunked creationists.

      But don't stop, with people like you promoting the crash site as a going concern, the whole world can see it will never take off again.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,05:46

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:35)
      Russell ... do you know the meaning of the word "Sure"?  It means the same as "Yes" in the context of your question.  Now go read my answer at the end of my post.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Russell, Dave is saying that Denton accepts the "sciencey" evidence in favor of evolution, but does not consider the additional "supernatural" evidence that supports creationism.  As long as one disregards this "supernatural" evidence, there is no choice but to accept evolution.  Dave has been quite clear on this point recently.
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 05 2006,05:57

      AFDave's original point, justified by the Zuckerkandl quote:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Ancient lungfish had similar sequences to modern lungfish, namely "Similar Morphologies=Similar Sequences in Modern lifeforms" ... and, the Evo community used to think that ancient lifeforms should have similar sequences to modern similar forms ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      AFDave's new point, justified by the revised Zuckerkandl quote:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1)  Evolutionists NEED Deep Time to make ToE work
      2)  Many evolutionists in the 60's were hoping that molecular biology would support ToE.  However ... it did not as Michael Denton so ably points out.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1) Suggesting a fourth postulate--the postulate that "Ancient 'Living Fossil' Biochemistry = Modern 'Living Fossil' Biochemistry"
      2) Admitting that this is controversial b/c many people in his day also held the view that YOU hold today
      3) Telling us his own view which is ...that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Note that the bolded portions are in direct disagreement. AFDave, will you acknowledge that your position has changed? That your earlier statement based on the Zuckerkandl quote was wrong.

      It is obvious that Zuckerkandl in 1965 agreed with you, and it was based on assumptions similar to yours. Assumptions that were shown to not hold when techniques in molecular biology reached the level of sophistication to compare sequence differences between species.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2)  Many evolutionists in the 60's were hoping that molecular biology would support ToE.  However ... it did not as Michael Denton so ably points out.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Molecular biology did wind up supporting the mainstream view of ToE in 1965, which was according to Zuckerkandl:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      The chart provided by Denton demonstrates that.

      Both AFDave now, and Zuckerkandl then, are going out on a limb; a limb that contradicted thinking in evolution in 1965, and evidence from molecular biology today.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,05:58

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,10:04)
      IOW ... he's saying "How can this lungfish have the same appearance 400 MY later without also having the same biochemistry?  Unlikely."

      IOW ... he agrees with me.

      Denton is vindicated.

      AFDave is vindicated.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, I simply cannot believe that you think you're winning this argument.

      You take a statement made by a scientist more than 40 years ago, which is speculative at best (no one knows, nor will anyone ever know, for a certainty whether the DNA - coding and non-coding, of a 400 million year old lungfish is very similar, or wildly different, from a modern lungfish—for all you know, they wouldn't even be interfertile, and aren't even of the same species), and use that to "vindicate" your argument. Your believe that they would be the same is based on nothing other than your personal incredulity, and yet you use that incredulity as not evidence, but proof, for your claim.

      First, whether it's true that 400 million year old lungfish DNA is the same as modern lungfish DNA has nothing whatsoever to do with whether all eukaryotes are equally distant from bacteria or not, which is your original claim, and the only one that matters. It has nothing to do with whether any group of organisms is equally or differentially related to a member of an outgroup, which is the point you're trying to prove here.

      This is exactly like your "Portuguese" claim, Dave. Your claim was annihilated by half a dozen different posters, and yet you still claimed victory. Your claim that different eukaryotes should be differentially related to prokaryotes if the theory of evolution is correct has similarly been demolished, right out of the gate, by a dozen different posters, and yet you still claim victory.

      And in the meantime, you've never figured out the whole concept of cladistics and nested hierarchies, which is absolutely central to your argument. You still haven't figured out my list of taxa, have you, Dave?

      And yet you believe you understand evolutionary theory.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,06:05



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell ... do you know the meaning of the word "Sure"?  It means the same as "Yes" in the context of your question.  Now go read my answer at the end of my post.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oops. My bad. I didn't wade through all the same old same old to get to the end.

      Now that we've cleared that up - do you think that Denton accepted common descent in his earlier book "Theory in Crisis"? Again - simple question. Simple yes (or "sure" as the case may be) or no.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,06:41

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,10:04)
      You guys just crashed and burned.  And yet, some of you wil still try to wiggle and squirm and God knows what else.   Many of you falsely accuse me of lying and quote mining, yet will anyone here acknowledge this latest error publicly?  Maybe Cory will.  He apologized quite grandly one time for misquoting me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Not bloody likely, Dave. I've already demonstrated that one VERY prominent evolutionist in the '60s (in this case, the 1860s) predicted exactly what the data show (i.e., NO direct transitional intermediacy in currently existing species). Even if you were right, and every damned molecular biologist in the 1960s predicted this intermediacy (and Zuckerkandl's frequent use of the word "contraversial" belies this claim), you'd have no case for your "backpedalling" argument (unless Darwin was backpedalling?).



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Even then, Dave -- even on that outside chance -- what one researcher (even one as esteemed and prolific as Zuckerkandl) wrote about the evolution of hemoglobin in a Sci-Am article more than 40 years ago and well before the advent of genetic sequence comparisons would not be "damning" to evolutionary theory. ####, I could refute it by Zuckerkandl's more recent work and words alone.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Of course you could refute it by his more recent work.  That is precisely my point.  You either missed my point or are pretending that you did.  Again, my point was to show what much of the evolutionary community's view USED TO BE BEFORE the molecular biology revolution ... and Zuckerandl's quote does that quite nicely.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And I already pointed out what the "evolutionary community's view" was over a hundred years earlier when it consisted of (practically) one member. Interesting that you have completely ignored this, though I have referenced it many times.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Whatever apology you make for how "preposterous" that claim is, or whether you waiver in your support for that claim (as you do in your references to this issue, presented below), you cannot avoid that this argument contends that humans and guinea pigs should be classified together as an evolutionary unit on the basis of GLO. Which is what I said.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No. That's NOT what I said.  If anybody said that it was AIG, and it's none too clear if even THEY are saying that.  And I made it quite clear in my quotes you posted that I was not even sure what AIG was saying and thus not sure if I agreed.  And you call me a liar.  Shame!  You're getting sloppy, Cory.  And wasteful of space.  That was about 24 vertical inches of wasted rabbit trail.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Your outrage is amusing, Dave.

      1. Paley suggested you would make more headway arguing against evolutionary logic by digging up remote ancestral outliers clustering with humans in cytochrome-c comparisons (vipers or some such).
      2. I pointed out that we had been over this exact same ground with guinea pigs and GLO. (Do you see any difference at all between the arguments?)
      3. I linked to the AIG article that YOU presented (and appeared to use as your only source!;) and discussed in detail. That article stated that the "logical conclusion" is that evolutionists should infer close relation between humans and guinea pigs (exactly what I said) based on comparison at one locus.
      4. Now you would "shame" me for parenthetically referencing the explicitly stated "logical conclusion" of your principal source in the guinea-pig argument when reminding Paley that we have been over this well-trod ground?

      Laughable, Dave. Made even more laughable in the context of the post in which you accuse me of being "wasteful of space".

      Now answer the questions and challenges you've been posed. Or continue in your dodging and diverting. Either should be entertaining.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,06:50



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      What mechanism allows DNA to evolve selectively?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Bwahaha! I almost missed this gem in Dave's lengthy rant answering Chris Hyland (which would take more patience than I have to fully refute).

      Dave: Three guesses. Two words. One big bolded hint.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,06:50

      Drew--  I cannot (and you cannot either) say what percentage of the evolutionary community in 1965 held my view, simply based on this one quote by Zuckerkandl.  All we can say for sure is that Zuckerkandl was a prominent and prolific scientist in 1965 and he no doubt represented a large percentage of evolutionists.  How large?  Only further literature searches would tell.  Evidently Denton observed that it was quite large.  My opinion is that it was a majority.

      My post today simply shows that Denton was quite justified in using this quote to demonstrate a very prominent view in the evolutionary community in 1965.  I don't know if it was mainstream or not, but my guess is that it was.  My post also shows that your attempt to show that I quote mined and came to an erroneous conclusion ... well ... crashed and burned.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,06:53



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell, Dave is saying that Denton accepts the "sciencey" evidence in favor of evolution, but does not consider the additional "supernatural" evidence that supports creationism.  As long as one disregards this "supernatural" evidence, there is no choice but to accept evolution.  Dave has been quite clear on this point recently.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I have to admit I have not been paying really close attention.

      I'm just trying to point out that Denton is a pretty pathetic source for Davy to be relying on, and for a number of reasons:

      1. Denton has never been taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about molecular biology in the first place.

      2. Denton's position in "Evolution - a Theory in Crisis" is contradicted by Denton himself in "Nature's Destiny"; all the tables and charts Davy is quoting from ETiC are supposed to be arguments against common descent. (What else are they supposed to prove???) But now Denton says he has no problem with common descent.

      3. Not only does Denton not buy the YEC position - at this point, I believe you'll find that Intelligent Design Headquarters (i.e. the Discovery Institute) is distancing itself from Denton; once a "fellow" of the institute, widely cited by Wells, Dembski, Johnson etc, as being key to their own thinking, now you'll find scant mention of the old kook.

      4. Not only did Denton misunderstand evolution and the relevant the molecular data when he wrote ETiC (he may get it now; I don't know), but Davy doesn't understand how Denton misunderstood.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,07:23

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,12:50)
      Drew--  I cannot (and you cannot either) say what percentage of the evolutionary community in 1965 held my view, simply based on this one quote by Zuckerkandl.  All we can say for sure is that Zuckerkandl was a prominent and prolific scientist in 1965 and he no doubt represented a large percentage of evolutionists.  How large?  Only further literature searches would tell.  Evidently Denton observed that it was quite large.  My opinion is that it was a majority.

      My post today simply shows that Denton was quite justified in using this quote to demonstrate a very prominent view in the evolutionary community in 1965.  I don't know if it was mainstream or not, but my guess is that it was.  My post also shows that your attempt to show that I quote mined and came to an erroneous conclusion ... well ... crashed and burned.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I think you missed this part, Dave:

      "...it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,07:24

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1. Denton has never been taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about molecular biology in the first place.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Of course not.  He doesn't blindly swallow ToE hook line and sinker.  No establishment scientist takes ANYONE seriously who dares breathe a word against their hallowed master, Darwin.  

      (Hail, Darwin!! )



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2. Denton's position in "Evolution - a Theory in Crisis" is contradicted by Denton himself in "Nature's Destiny"; all the tables and charts Davy is quoting from ETiC are supposed to be arguments against common descent. (What else are they supposed to prove???) But now Denton says he has no problem with common descent.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yup.  Explained already.  He's a tormented man.  He's smart enough to realize that Darwinism is stupid, but he has no other alternative.  What alternative does ANYONE have if one rejects supernaturalism?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      3. Not only does Denton not buy the YEC position - at this point, I believe you'll find that Intelligent Design Headquarters (i.e. the Discovery Institute) is distancing itself from Denton; once a "fellow" of the institute, widely cited by Wells, Dembski, Johnson etc, as being key to their own thinking, now you'll find scant mention of the old kook.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No one ever claimed he was a YEC.  I realize he's not associated with DI anymore.  So what is that supposed to mean?  There could be many reasons for this.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      4. Not only did Denton misunderstand evolution and the relevant the molecular data when he wrote ETiC (he may get it now; I don't know), but Davy doesn't understand how Denton misunderstood.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You cannot claim Denton misunderstood evolution.  If you do, then you have to say that Zuckerkandl and probably a majority of evolutionists also misunderstood it.

      I see, Russell, that you have no real defense at all for any of the specifics in any of my posts.  All you can do is whine and moan about how stupid YECs are and how misguided Denton was, but you never actually manage to refute anything he says or demonstrate the sensibleness of you own theory.

      Speaking of showing the sensibleness of one's own theory, I intend to continue doing just that.  I rest my case on defending Denton and anyone that still thinks Denton didn't nail it is just a dim bulb.  No other way to put it.

      Russell--  I think you nailed it when you said ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I have to admit I have not been paying really close attention.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I think you have no idea how true this is.  You truly have NOT been paying attention to the facts of science for your whole life and how they contradict your precious Darwinism.   And now you are not paying attention to the Creationist revival and the truth that is being communicated by an increasing number of first rate PhD'ed scientists in all branches of study.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 05 2006,07:29

      oooh too good

      Quote mining god boy AFD



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And now you are not paying attention to the Creationist revival and the truth that is being communicated by an increasing number of first rate PhD'ed scientists in all branches of study.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Bwhahahahahahahahahaha
      hehehehehehehehe

      hhohohohohohohohohohho

      Keep 'em coming god boy...classic Iraqi Information Minister stuff.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 05 2006,07:33

      Dave, we're not talking about biochemical activity, we're talking about the DNA sequence of the gene. Most changes to the DNA sequence of the gene won't affect the biochemical activity of the protein at all. As someone mentioned before the human gene functions perfectly well in yeast, the biochemical activity is not changed, the nucleotide sequence of the gene is.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,07:35

      I think we can all agree on a few points: (1) StupidDave is wrong, because Denton was wrong (no, Stupid, your opinion doesn't count). (2) Dave's shifting claims on this matter show he's desperate, per usual. (3) Dave is too Stupid and dishonest to simply bother to look up things on his own. He'll pretend he's "right" and that this claim by Denton is some huge glaring flaw for evolutionary theory. Of course, he'll deny the facts. This is standard for Stupid.
      Truthfully, I think him holding this view and using it as a "good" argument is cause for laughter and fingerpointing at how truly asinine uninformed, empty-headed creationists like Stupid can be.
      If he can't grasp cousin-cousin relationships versus ancestor-descendant, if he can't grasp the idea of conserved sequences that can kill off an organism if not maintained...great. It just reinforces how stupid he is, or how dishonest he is. Or both, which is my conclusion. The sheer fact that anyone with a brain that he uses this on will eventually find out Denton disagrees with Dave now on the matter...well, that's just icing on the big cake of stupid that is Dave.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 05 2006,07:36

      Example update:

      All Life - Human-like critter (it is alive)

      Eukaryota - Human-like critter (has complex cells)

      Metazoa - Human-like critter (has many cells)

      Bilateria - Human-like critter (has two symetrical sides)

      Deuterostomia - Human-like critter (has mouth and anus)

      Chordata - Human-like critter (has a notocord)

      Craniata - Human-like critter (has a skull)

      Vertebrata - Human-like critter (has vertebra)

      Gnathostomata - Human-like critter (has a jaw)

      Sarcopterygii - Human-like critter (has four limbs)

      Stegocephalia - Human-like critter (has fingers)

      Amniota - Human-like critter (development of embrio in amniotic liquid)

      Synapsida - Human-like critter (has fused arches)

      Therapsida - Human-like critter (no scales?)

      Mammalia - Human-like critter (has mammary glands)

      Eutheria - Human-like critter (has placenta)

      Primates - Human-like critter

      Catarrhini - Human-like critter (has a narrow nose)

      Hominidae - Human-like critter (doesn't have a tail?)

      Homo - Human-like critter

      Further, Dave, if you were tight in that modern lungfish are virtually identical to the LCA of lungfish and humans, it would have to apply to bacteria too. But there are bacteria pairs that are far more different between them than the difference between you and a jellyfish.

      So tell me, Dave, which of the millions of bacteria is the one whose DNA is "very similar" to that of the UUC? Can't be all, because, chosen properly, a microbiologist could find two bacteria that had less than 10% common sequences. And yet, according to you, they "look identical". So which one is it? Genus and species, please.

      Finally, Dave, you are mixing two things. I have not yet tried to prove that ToE is correct, I'm only trying to explain to you what ToE claims. You may agree or disagree with ToE, but you're still misrepresenting it. ToE says that all fishes and humans are equally distant from bacteria, and that bacteria are equally distant from snails and worms and birds and humans.

      You may think it is stupid, but you have brought to the discussion the evidence that it is right. And you have been told the reason why it is so, according to the ToE. And this has been part of the ToE since Darwin, and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf

      Edit: clarity
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,07:37

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:24)
      What alternative does ANYONE have if one rejects supernaturalism?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Please, Dave, enlighten us as to the scientific merits of supernaturalism.
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 05 2006,07:37

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:50)
      Drew--  I cannot (and you cannot either) say what percentage of the evolutionary community in 1965 held my view, simply based on this one quote by Zuckerkandl.  All we can say for sure is that Zuckerkandl was a prominent and prolific scientist in 1965 and he no doubt represented a large percentage of evolutionists.  How large?  Only further literature searches would tell.  Evidently Denton observed that it was quite large.  My opinion is that it was a majority.

      My post today simply shows that Denton was quite justified in using this quote to demonstrate a very prominent view in the evolutionary community in 1965.  I don't know if it was mainstream or not, but my guess is that it was.  My post also shows that your attempt to show that I quote mined and came to an erroneous conclusion ... well ... crashed and burned.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      If you are correct, and Zuckerkandl's view is the mainstream or prominent view for his time, why would he have to qualify his statement as contraversial, twice? Also, why would he then describe the postion that similar morphology = similar sequences as "My own view..."? Those do not sound like the words of somebody who is espousing a mainstream opinion.

      Do you have any evidence besides the Zuckerkandl quote that it was a mainstream opinion?
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,07:40

      This one cracks me up, too:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      What alternative does ANYONE have if one rejects supernaturalism?

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Bwahaha...one has reason and logic, and the data as it now stands -- far outweighing your ability to support your claim of supernaturalism, since you can't and won't answer any questions on it. The sheer fact that you are painfully ignorant about this little Denton contretemps is just another source of joy for me.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,07:41

      Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2006,12:35)
      I think we can all agree on a few points: (1) StupidDave is wrong, because Denton was wrong (no, Stupid, your opinion doesn't count). (2) Dave's shifting claims on this matter show he's desperate, per usual. (3) Dave is too Stupid and dishonest to simply bother to look up things on his own. He'll pretend he's "right" and that this claim by Denton is some huge glaring flaw for evolutionary theory. Of course, he'll deny the facts. This is standard for Stupid.
      Truthfully, I think him holding this view and using it as a "good" argument is cause for laughter and fingerpointing at how truly asinine uninformed, empty-headed creationists like Stupid can be.
      If he can't grasp cousin-cousin relationships versus ancestor-descendant, if he can't grasp the idea of conserved sequences that can kill off an organism if not maintained...great. It just reinforces how stupid he is, or how dishonest he is. Or both, which is my conclusion. The sheer fact that anyone with a brain that he uses this on will eventually find out Denton disagrees with Dave now on the matter...well, that's just icing on the big cake of stupid that is Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Most importantly, most "kids4truth" will easily grasp cladistics and wonder how their would-be mentor could be so dense.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,07:44

      Improv...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I think you missed this part, Dave:

      "...it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  By others.  Not Zuckerkandl.  Quote miner.  Of course I didn't miss it.  Here's the quote plus the key part you are leaving out ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      See that, Improv...?   He says, "This postulate [Zuckerkandl's, which agrees with what I said] is contraversial because it is often said [by others, not Zuckerkandl ... how many others? unclear, but probably a small number] that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held [by these others, not Zuckerkandl] that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."

      Now, quit quote mining and being dishonest, will you?  Shameful considering all the preaching you guys do against quote mining.

      Deadman ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Hey everyone.  We've refuted STUPID.  See?  Ain't Darwinism great?

      Greywolf ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Human-like critter Human-like critter Human-like critter Human-like critter ... Hope that helps!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yeah.  Great help!  Thanks Greywolf!
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,07:47

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)
      See that, Improv...?   He says, "This postulate [Zuckerkandl's, which agrees with what I said] is contraversial because it is often said [by others, not Zuckerkandl ... how many others? unclear, but probably a small number] that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held [by these others, not Zuckerkandl] that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You're fucking insane.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,07:49



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ... Blah blah blah ... STUPID ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      The really funny part about that is ...that probably IS what your tiny brain sees. It reminds me of the old Gary Larsen cartoon where the guy is talking to his dog and larsen depicts the dog as hearing "blah, blah, blah, fido...blah, blah, blah, fido" In case you don't grasp this insult, you're the dog in the cartoon.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,07:55



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So what is that supposed to mean
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      It's supposed to mean that if you're having trouble getting anyone to take you seriously [as you are, Dave; you do recognize that much, don't you?], it's not a good strategy to use, as your pillar of credibility, someone that no one takes seriously.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      No establishment scientist takes ANYONE seriously who dares breathe a word against their hallowed master, Darwin.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Really? So if I go on record, here and now, as saying Darwin was wrong on Lamarckism and on genetically determined human male/female mental characteristics, I will be shunned by all "establishment" scientists?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I see, Russell, that you have no real defense at all for any of the specifics in any of my posts
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I don't think I have anything significant to add to the errors pointed out ably and at great length by others here, nor do I think there's any point in even trying. If the fact that 99.99% of scientists think you're an idiot doesn't give you pause, I doubt that 99.99001% will tip the balance.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I think you have no idea how true this [the fact that I haven't been paying close attention to Dave's "arguments"] is.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Tell you what. When you and your kind have had anything more than zero impact in any of the professional literature that defines science as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the time to read what you have to say. In the meantime, I'm just skimming for laughs.

      Just as you are perfectly justified in not spending too much time reading what I have to say about, say, what Jesus thought about homosexuality. Especially if I go on about it for hundreds of pages.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,07:56

      Hah, I should have taken the time to photoshop in some comments on genetic relationships in the upper part, but this is the cartoon I meant. Dave, you're "Ginger,"except I've met dogs a tad smarter than you
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 05 2006,07:56

      Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 05 2006,12:37)
      Do you have any evidence besides the Zuckerkandl quote that it was a mainstream opinion?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave doesn't do the "E" word. "E" for the flood? a book. Why can you trust the book? Because it says it is inerrant. Independent "E"? No, he doesn't do that kind of stuff.

      This post is inerrant. It was inspired by God. It is the reflection of God's plan. Follow it and you shall be saved

      The flood didn't happen. And there is evidence that it did not happen. Oh, and the universe is older than 10 billion years.

      Now, Dave, refute this post. It is as reliable as the Bible.

      Oh, I need a couple of prophecies, too, don't I?

      1) New York's WTC will be hit by planes piloted by terrorists in 2001.
      2) If the people in Beirut don't brush their teeth before going to bed, the city of Beirut will be destroyed by its enemies
      3) The consumist society heads to a crisis when the petroleum becomes scarce.

      That should do it. As good as Dave's Bible, and far shorter.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,07:57

      AFDave,
      Seeing as you cannot refute anything in my summary and reply to your questions I'm about to declare victory and state;
      WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS FROM A CO-GENETIC SOURCE GIVE VALID DATA SETS AND ARE NOT, NOR EVER WERE, A RESULT OF MIXING.

      Since you won't answer my questions I have a question about the Denton table.  You said...
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:24)
      Speaking of showing the sensibleness of one's own theory, I intend to continue doing just that.  I rest my case on defending Denton and anyone that still thinks Denton didn't nail it is just a dim bulb.  No other way to put it.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Here's the table.

      Now everything I've read from you, or referenced from Denton, argues AGAINST the ToE.  What I want to know is....
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

      You yourself have said that the data here was not predicted by ToE (at least before the scheming PhD's changed the rules in the '70s).  So, what is the UCGH hypothesis to explain the table and what predictions can we make, test, and verify with the hypothesis.

      Another chance for AFDave's UCGH to shine on this board and show up all these doubting thomas'.

      Mike PSS
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 05 2006,08:07

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,12:44)
      Greywolf ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Human-like critter Human-like critter Human-like critter Human-like critter ... Hope that helps!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yeah.  Great help!  Thanks Greywolf!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      1) Learn to write my name properly. I have been unfailingly correct in writing your name and expect the same from you - unless your name is not Dave, in which case please tell me how I can refer to you.

      2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that. Furthermore, I gave you the characteristic why it was like that modern animal. It will help you to understand ToE if you realise that at every point, that LCAs were like humans, and like all their other descendants, in one crucial characteristic. The brother of that LCA did *not* have that characteristic and their decendants still don't ahve it to this day. *That* is what ToE says.

      Alternatively, you could try and explain why my examples are wrong. That should be funny to read.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,08:10

      Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,12:57)
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      That's at least < TWICE > you've been asked this now, Dave.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,08:11

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,12:24)
      He's smart enough to realize that Darwinism is stupid, but he has no other alternative.  What alternative does ANYONE have if one rejects supernaturalism?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      In other words, the only explanation for the origin of species is the Theory of Evolution, unless you believe in magic.

      You said it, Dave, not me.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,08:22



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Wait, wait, I know!!!!  
      MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
      BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
      LAID DOWN BY WATER
      ALL OVER THE EARTH


      Bwahahahaha
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,08:29

      Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 05 2006,13:36)
      Finally, Dave, you are mixing two things. I have not yet tried to prove that ToE is correct, I'm only trying to explain to you what ToE claims. You may agree or disagree with ToE, but you're still misrepresenting it. ToE says that all fishes and humans are equally distant from bacteria, and that bacteria are equally distant from snails and worms and birds and humans.

      You may think it is stupid, but you have brought to the discussion the evidence that it is right. And you have been told the reason why it is so, according to the ToE. And this has been part of the ToE since Darwin, and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      And this has been the strawman that AFDave has been flailing at since the start of this Denton fiasco.

      I didn't post those straw pictures for nothing.

      AFDave,
      Calling your argument a strawman is not a denigration.  It only means that the argument isn't addressing the real target (in this case ToE) but some made-up target (Denton's interpretation of the ToE).  I wish you would address this mistake and refine your argument.  In fact, you should argue about what your UCGH says instead of what the ToE supposedly doesn't say.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,08:33

      Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 05 2006,14:10)
       
      Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,12:57)
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      That's at least < TWICE > you've been asked this now, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Incorygible, you are incorrigible.

      Wait....  Ohh......

      I've learned my one new thing today.  Time for beer.

      I humbly cede primacy of this question to incorygible.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,08:36

      Dave, you still somehow think Denton was right when he claimed the theory of evolution predicts that eukaryotes should be differentially unrelated to prokaryotes, evidently depending on how long ago they first appeared.

      You've had it explained to you at least twenty different times that the theory of evolution makes no such prediction, and in fact really predicts that all eukaryotes should be equally unrelated to prokaryotes, which is what Denton's chart demonstrates. In other words, not that this is the first time you've heard this, Denton's chart confirms the actual prediction of the theory of evolution.

      Now, you asked me a while ago to provide you a list of organisms between (i.e., intermediate to) bacteria and humans. There is no such list, because the question makes no sense. Humans branched off from bacteria at the same time as every single other eukaryote that ever lived, approximately a billion or so years ago. There are no eukaryotes which are intermediate between bacteria and humans. Nevertheless, I was able to give you a list which sort of, kind of answered your question, in the only sense it's possible to answer it.

      You accepted my list, but you wanted me to give you an example of each organism in each clade I listed. In the interests of something resembling clarity, given the stupidity of your original question, I placed each organism on Denton's chart in its most logical and meaningful location, i.e., in the most specific clade to which it is not a member of an outgroup.

      You asked me for additional examples for the clades I did not give an example for, which I declined to do, because it would have served no useful purpose.

      Presumably, when you asked me for my list initially, you were planning on using it to prove a point. You have not yet done so, which is surprising, because the point you were planning to make is central to your argument that if the ToE were correct, then various eukaryotes should be differentially unrelated to bacteria.

      I believe the reason you have not done so is not because you've seen the error of your argument, but because you don't understand the implications of my list. My list demonstrates conclusively that your claim, that different eukaryotes should be differentially unrelated to bacteria if the ToE is correct, is false. But you don't understand my list well enough either to see why that is the case, or because you simply don't understand the implications of my list, or even what it is a list of, in the first place.

      You claim you understand the theory of evolution better than I do, Dave, but you don't even understand how my list works. Prove me wrong by demonstrating that you have the first idea what my list is even a list of.

      Otherwise, I will know for a certainly that you're as idiotic as I claim you are.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,08:41

      Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,13:33)
      Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 05 2006,14:10)
       
      Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,12:57)
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      That's at least < TWICE > you've been asked this now, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Incorygible, you are incorrigible.

      Wait....  Ohh......

      I've learned my one new thing today.  Time for beer.

      I humbly cede primacy of this question to incorygible.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      :)

      Lookin' for an answer, not primacy. (Eric could probably dig up true primacy on this one from way back in the guinea pig discussion.) I figure if he doesn't answer your questions, and he doesn't answer my questions, maybe we need to present a united front, eh?

      Time for beer indeed.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 05 2006,08:47

      Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2006,20:20)
      BWE: Your chart is stupendalicious, magnelephantine in its granderrificness. It immediately arrested my eyes. After I bailed them out, I was struck by the laserlike wit, the contra-post-modernist subtext and the Joycean playfulness. I am HUMBLED and grateful for each day that I am alive to bask in the glory of your creations.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Quote ( Seven Popes Oct. 03 2006 @ 20:49)
      BWE, Deadman d@mns you with faint praise.  Kidding, this has gotta be your new sig.  I found the chart squee worthy, it restored sight in my bad eye.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Quote (deadman_932 Oct. 03 2006 @ 20:58)
       
      7Popes: that's nothing. After viewing BWE's sacred chart, I felt a sudden glowing warming glow enveloping me, and I can now read Etruscan. I can divide by zero. I have squared the circle and played the "Goldberg Variations" on the xylophone with my toes. Praise BwE!!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      I'm flattered. [sheepish grin]

      So Dave, does this graphic represent approximately your idea of the phylogenic tree?
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 05 2006,08:55

      call me cynical , but I find it interesting how often Dave leaves and a single anonymous member shows up on the user list (like now). Or the fact that Dave pops in and out of here frequently in the early morning..about 6-ish his time...when there's negative comments he's been avoiding. Or the odd coincidence that Dave seems to comment just AFTER the page has "turned over" with some hard questions for him to answer. I'm sure it's all just my natural suspiciousness.     ???
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 05 2006,09:39

      I noticed that to DM.

      Mike_PSS was hoping for a sane answer to his GREAT QUESTION several pages ago ( I had to shout that so AFD could hear) and I predicted AFD would blast it off the page with one of his argumentum absurdium/ ad infinitum long posts which AFD was already preparing.

      He popped up with a short post for appearances sake but true to form be blasted the page a little later.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,09:42

      What I find interesting is how Dave morphs an issue from one where he's totally, completely, inarguably wrong, to one where he's still wrong but it doesn't really matter whether he's wrong or not, and then claims he "won" on the previous issue, without showing "how" he won.

      Here's what's happened over the last few days. Dave initially presented a chart from Michael Denton which shows that while there's a great deal of variability of relatedness among the eukaryotes on the chart (that's everything except the bacteria, Dave), there's little to no variability of relatedness between all the eukaryotes and the lone prokaryote on the chart. Dave parroted Denton's claim that this pattern is a problem for the theory of evolution, because that theory claims eukaryotes should be differentially related to prokaryotes.

      Half a dozen posters immediately pointed out that Denton's, and Dave's, argument, is a strawman argument, because the theory of evolution makes no such claim, instead claiming all eukaryotes should be equally related to prokaryotes, and in fact Denton's chart confirms this claim.

      At this point, someone (I think it was deadman, I'm too lazy to check and it doesn't matter anyway) pointed out that organisms don't just stop evolving once they first appear, and that fossil lungfish DNA probably was significantly different (at least in non-coding DNA) from modern lungfish DNA.

      Dave then essentially stopped arguing his initial claim (other than to repeat it about once per post), and instead argued that it probably wasn't true that modern lungfish DNA has changed at all compared to ancient lungfish DNA, and cited a 40-year-old article from Zuckerkandl as support, despite the fact that Zuckerkandl himself admitted that his was not the consensus view then, and it certainly isn't the consensus view now. Dave appeared to be making a big deal out of a perceived change in the consensus view, which even if true matters not a whit, since many of the details of the theory of evolution have changed even in the last five years, let alone the last 40 years, without the fundamental tenets of the theory changing at all. But it is not true, and the consensus view on this issue has remained constant the entire time since Zuckerkandl published his original paper.

      And, in a sort of random detour, Dave began to claim that the bottom row of Denton's chart, the bacterium, was essentially irrelevant to Denton's claim, which is even more ridiculous, because the bacterium is central to Denton's claim! Which makes one wonder if Dave even understands Denton's argument in the first place.

      So to recap: Dave makes an initial claim, which is immediately destroyed. He then makes another, much much weaker version of his initial claim, which even if true wouldn't do anything at all to support his initial claim, which is also demolished. And, in a non-sequitor of operatic scale, he's using all of these claims to somehow support his underlying argument that since biologists need deep time for the theory of evolution to work, therefore, um, I guess, it must not be true that deep time actually exists, and therefore geologists must be in collusion (knowingly or not, evidently) with biologists in order to give them the time they need.

      But his ultimate argument seems to be this: if one doesn't believe in magic, one has no choice in believing that the theory of evolution is correct. And, strange as it might seem, I actually agree with Dave on this last point. Which must be a first of some sort.
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 05 2006,09:53

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,12:44)
      Improv...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I think you missed this part, Dave:

      "...it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  By others.  Not Zuckerkandl.  Quote miner.  Of course I didn't miss it.  Here's the quote plus the key part you are leaving out ...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In addition to these three postulates I would like to suggest a fourth that is much more contraversial: Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organism probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the cockroach, the horseshoe crab, [the lungfish shown above] the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago. This postulate is contraversial because it is often said that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors. My own view is that it is unlikely that selective forces would favor the stability of morphological characteristics without at the same time favoring the stability of biochemical characteristics, which is more fundamental.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      See that, Improv...?   He says, "This postulate [Zuckerkandl's, which agrees with what I said] is contraversial because it is often said [by others, not Zuckerkandl ... how many others? unclear, but probably a small number] that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held [by these others, not Zuckerkandl] that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."

      Now, quit quote mining and being dishonest, will you?  Shameful considering all the preaching you guys do against quote mining.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      If I understand you correctly, you are making the argument that Zuckerkandl was expressing a mainstream opinion in the field. However, Zuckerkandl's own reflection the matter is quiet different from your portrayal.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      During a time in 1964, I thought that it would
      turn out that in so-called living fossils a majority of
      structural genes have remained close to their ancestral
      forms (Zuckerkandl 1964b, 1965); they would
      more strongly diverge along lines of descent of organisms
      whose anatomy and physiology differed
      considerably from those of their ancestors. This was
      a partial, not a complete, reversal of position in
      regard to the molecular evolutionary clock, which
      was simultaneously affirmed (Zuckerkandl 1965). It
      was a concept of the linkage between rates of morphological
      and macromolecular evolution involving
      a certain proportion of polypeptide chains. Why,
      indeed, should rates of macromolecular evolution
      be completely disconnected from rates of morphological
      evolution? I have already said here why they
      could be disconnected and had referred to this matter
      for the first time in 1963. Nevertheless, in 1964,
      I held a view at variance with the earlier--and later--
      concept of such a disconnectedness. I returned to
      my first position later in the same year (Zuckerkandl
      and Pauling 1965b). Why this return to the assumption
      of an independence of rates at the organismal
      and macromolecular levels? The data that I
      had been able newly to bring together related to a
      few eutherian mammals and did not provide a test.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Title:   ON THE MOLECULAR EVOLUTIONARY CLOCK
      Source: Journal of molecular evolution [0022-2844] ZUCKERKANDL yr:1987 vol:26 iss:1-2 pg:34 -46


      It sounds to me like he went out on a limb, found the evidence lacking, and went back to the consensus opinion.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,10:25

      You could be right.  He might have been out on a limb.  I doubt it, but maybe.  The problem for ToE is that either position a ToE advocate takes, he is forced to try to defend an absurdity in either view.  They are different absurdities, but they are both absurdities.

      Position #1:  Ancient forms are different.  Inexplicable Absurdity:  this defies all logic and observation.

      Position #2:  Ancient forms are the same.  Inexplicable Absurdity:  Denton's chart should not be as it is.

      So when you truly get to the bottom of it, ToE (macroevolution, that is) is doomed either way.  It is simply a logically and evidentially bankrupt view, and time will reveal this.

      Bottom line?  ToE is impossible.  ID is the only possible alternative.  And Theism is the only sensible form of ID that is consistent with the facts.  And YEC is the most consistent theistic position with the evidence within Theism.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2006,10:32

      Quote (improvius @ Oct. 05 2006,13:47)
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)
      See that, Improv...?   He says, "This postulate [Zuckerkandl's, which agrees with what I said] is contraversial because it is often said [by others, not Zuckerkandl ... how many others? unclear, but probably a small number] that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held [by these others, not Zuckerkandl] that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You're fucking insane.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Funny trivia: I've gotten lots of emails and pm's saying "such and such comment is unacceptable, you must remove it."

      This is the first comment which inspired someone to preemptively write to me saying "I totally support that comment, please leave it up".
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 05 2006,10:34

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,16:25)
      Bottom line?  ToE is impossible.  ID is the only possible alternative.  And Theism is the only sensible form of ID that is consistent with the facts.  And YEC is the most consistent theistic position with the evidence within Theism.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Yes Dave we know you hold this view.  What were asking is:

      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 05 2006,10:36

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      You could be right.  He might have been out on a limb.  I doubt it, but maybe.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Well if you doubt it, back up your claim with evidence. If not just admit you are wrong.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 05 2006,10:41

      You know, I think the participants on this thread deserve some credit. It's been 6500 comments now, and 98% of them have been serious, content-driven comments. The other 2% aren't pretty, but that's not a bad ratio for an internet discussion.
      Posted by: TangoJuliett on Oct. 05 2006,10:45

      Davey dear, dumb as dirt and proud of it... the only ship that's sinking in these parts is the one carrying your dizzy daffy devious dubious dodgy distorted dastardly dirty disgusting dogmatic dumb-assed dictator deity worshipping cult.  And the endless flailing around twisting meanings, obfuscating, repeating lies and generally making a total ass out of yourself isn't helping your case at all. Nope. We all know you're dishonest deceitful disturbed distressed distraught distrustful distainfully desperate and in total denial and it scares the holy shit out of you, but at some point you're going to have to face reality or end up in a padded cell with the other mangy mindless misguided malfunctioning malcontent maniacal morons of magical malfeasance.

      Not surprisingly, this message was brought to you by the letters D and M for Davey Moron.
      Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 05 2006,10:51

      Thanks Grey Wolf.  Very helpful.

      (Edit:  Referring to the definitions you posted earlier--even easy for me to understand.)
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 05 2006,10:54

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      It is simply a logically and evidentially bankrupt view, and time will reveal this.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      A) You can hardly talk about evidence as you've not provided any yet.
      B) Time will not reveal anything. People will. Most people are not liars even when they are not of the same religion as you.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 05 2006,10:58



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      < Our current knowledge of the thyroid axis in the lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri, is consistent with neoteny in amphibians, but the only Devonian fossil considered to be a larval lungfish bears no resemblance to living lungfish or to panderichthiads. The enigmatic phylogenetic relationship of lungfish with the first tetrapods remains, but the hunt for other forms of larval Devonian lungfish is on! >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,11:07

      Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 05 2006,15:36)
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      You could be right.  He might have been out on a limb.  I doubt it, but maybe.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Well if you doubt it, back up your claim with evidence. If not just admit you are wrong.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      In any case, we can accept that there were, at the time, molecular biologists (including some as fully credentialed and prolific as Zuckerkandl) who disagreed with Zuckerkandl's interpretation and prediction from evolutionary theory (including Zuckerkandl himself before and after 1964). So when you tell us Michaeld Denton "cannot be wrong about evolution" because he holds a PhD in microbiology, etc., that obviously isn't a valid argument no matter whom you think is right. When you try to buttress it with, "if Denton is wrong, then Zuckerkandl was wrong", we can say, "Yup", and Zuckerkandl would be the first to agree (as he did in 1965).

      Now, it's one thing to be unapologetically wrong in one's speculations. For example, based on my knowledge of his more recent work, I speculated that Zuckerkandl would not have been so far out on a limb regarding evolutionary theory. Looks like he was, and my speculation was wrong (and, unlike some, I allowed such a possibility). But it's quite another thing to stand by erroneous speculations after they had been shown (and acknowledged) to be erroneous (as Zuckerkandl's were twenty years before Denton wrote his book).

      The last vestige of your "argument" -- that the entire theory of evolution was conspiratorially rewritten after the molecular evidence came in -- is so ridiculous as to need no reply. But Darwin himself refutes that argument in the very first edition of Origin.

      But even if you were correct, and all evolutionary biologists at the time were proven wrong, and a completely rewritten theory emerged (all hush-hush like) -- what then? It'd be another example of science following the evidence, and you'd STILL be dead wrong when it came to evolution as it has been understood for the past 40 years.
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 05 2006,11:20

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      You could be right.  He might have been out on a limb.  I doubt it, but maybe.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      *Could* be right? Zuckerkandl publishes a retraction and all you can say is that Drew *could* be right? What would it take you to admit that Zuckerkandl decided that his hypothesis about similar animals means similar DNA was baseless, Dave? Your expert just admitted that he was wrong, and that the ancient creatures were different from the modern ones!

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      The problem for ToE is that either position a ToE advocate takes, he is forced to try to defend an absurdity in either view.  They are different absurdities, but they are both absurdities.

      Position #1:  Ancient forms are different.  Inexplicable Absurdity:  this defies all logic and observation.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Just because you cannot picture it doesn't mean that noone can. I have no problem accepting that two animals sepparated by 400 MY must be very different. It does not defy logic, because nothing stops evolution from acting and it does not defy observation, because from the fossil record is obvious that modern animals have all changed from their predecessors.

      Evidence? the chart that Denton used and that you posted, which ToE can explain and your own "hypothesis" cannot. That's score for ToE. Although it's too late to start keeping the score. Let's call it ToE 100 - You 0.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)

      So when you truly get to the bottom of it, ToE (macroevolution, that is) is doomed either way.  It is simply a logically and evidentially bankrupt view, and time will reveal this.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Do you really think that just stating that kind of stupidity will make it true? or convince us?

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)

      Bottom line?  ToE is impossible.  ID is the only possible alternative.  And Theism is the only sensible form of ID that is consistent with the facts.  And YEC is the most consistent theistic position with the evidence within Theism.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Bottom line: ToE is perfectly possible. If it was not, there are thousands of alternatives that are not ID. Including, ridiculously enough, your own "hypothesis" (or chunks of it, anyway), which you somehow have forgotten in that last paragraph. Or Last Thurdaism. Of course, all but the ToE are weak and against Occam and most don't fit the data. But ehy are conceivable.

      BTW, you do realise that the only published ID accepts macroevolution all the way back to the Cambrian Explosion which happened billions of years ago, don't you?

      In short: ID and YEC are incompatible.

      You know what you mostly remind me of, Dave? Of a petulant, spoiled 4 year old child that is insisting that the world must cater to his every wish and at this time is asking to let him be an astronaut and crying when someone tries to tell him that he needs to grow up and get an education first.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,11:44

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,15:25)
      The problem for ToE is that either position a ToE advocate takes, he is forced to try to defend an absurdity in either view.  They are different absurdities, but they are both absurdities.

      Position #1:  Ancient forms are different.  Inexplicable Absurdity:  this defies all logic and observation.

      Position #2:  Ancient forms are the same.  Inexplicable Absurdity:  Denton's chart should not be as it is.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hmm. This is an interesting thesis. Dave claims that if

      a) ancient bacteria (e.g.) had the same DNA, coding and/or non-coding, from modern bacteria, then the theory of evolution must be wrong, and if

      b) ancient bacteria (e.g.) had different DNA, coding and/or non-coding, then the theory of evolution must also be wrong.

      And, even stranger, he claims that both possibilities are absurdities. But, in Dembskian terms, the two possibilities exhaust all possibilities (i.e., there is no third alternative). Therefore, Dave seems to be claiming that it's absurd to believe ancient bacteria are the same as modern ones, and it's absurd to believe they're different.

      Is there any belief one could have about the comparison of ancient and modern bacteria that is not absurd, Dave?

      And more to the point, why do you think either one of these possibilities is absurd? It seems to me that either one could be true, and more to the point, neither would falsify the theory of evolution.

      And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare? Or is this going to be yet another question on the long, long list of questions Dave cannot answer?
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 05 2006,11:52

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So when you tell us Michaeld Denton "cannot be wrong about evolution" because he holds a PhD in microbiology, etc., that obviously isn't a valid argument no matter whom you think is right.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.

      I mean ... saying Denton is wrong about ToE is sort of like saying that he's wrong about the Tooth Fairy.  "How dare he propose that the Tooth Fairy pays silver dollars for upper teeth and half dollars for lower ones.  The settled consensus of the scientific establishment is clearly that all teeth are paid for equally!!!"

      Tango Juliet ... excellent post!  If I'm going to get insulted, I like for you to be creative about it (as opposed to uncreative ones like dog turds.)

      Hey Greywolf ... why do you always say "Hope that helps!"  ??  What's up with that?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,12:04

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,16:52)
      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I can definitely see why you'd like to think that, Dave. Because of all the people I've heard pontificate about evolution -- from children to preachers to ID "theorists" to AIG to random crazies -- if I had to name the wrongest of the wrong, it's you.

      (No need to respond with your usual flippant "you saying I'm wrong convinces me I'm right" garbage.)

      Of course, those of us who live in the reality-based community have developed some particularly good methods for separating wrong from right (or at least less wrong). You should learn how they work some time.

      I mean, science is certainly over your head, as you've aptly demonstrated. But basic logic might be within your grasp, if you really apply yourself. Take Eric's example above as a good example of how to identify an argument that is flawed prima facie.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,12:07



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Logically, then, that will be your last post here.

      Despite the title of this thread, for these 200+ pages you've provided no evidence for your so-called hypothesis, only attempts (pretty feeble ones, long since rejected by anyone with a high-school education worthy of the name) to find problems with standard science. Not terrifically surprising, since that's all creationism has ever amounted to.

      So, unless you're prepared to produce the long-promised but never delivered positive evidence for your alternative "hypothesis" (actually, "hypotheses", since you need to replace the existing explanations of biological diversity, radioactive decay, thermodynamics, star formation, geological structures, and probably others I'm too lazy to go back and identify) - if all you have to offer is observations in an area where you have declared that "NO ONE can be wrong" - why are you still here?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,12:15

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,16:52)
      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Sure they can, Dave. I can make a wrong prediction that, if correct, would falsify the entire theory.

      Ready?

      Here it is:

      "Rabbit fossils will be found in the Precambrian."

      I'd write that down if I were you, Dave. That way, if you ever come across an article that refers to the discovery of fossil rabbits in Precambrian shale, you'll know that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, and I was right.

      Or, if fossil rabbits turn out never to be found in Precambrian strata, then I was wrong.

      Who do you think is going to be wrong, Dave? Me, or the theory of evolution?


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Hey Greywolf ... why do you always say "Hope that helps!"  ??  What's up with that?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Wishful thinking on Grey Wolf's part.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,12:29

      You know, I'm starting to take it as a compliment that Dave rarely responds to my posts.

      It cannot have escaped anyone's notice at this point that Dave ignores questions he cannot answer, or which present major problems for his arguments. It's also pretty obvious that some of the most fundamental objections to Dave's "hypotheses" are those that are easily apprehended by a gradeschooler of average intelligence or above.

      Given that I'm easily the least educated person posting here (frighteningly enough, even Dave is theoretically more educated than I am), it naturally falls to me to point out the basic, fundamental, bone-simple flaws in Dave's "hypotheses," the ones that I could explain pretty easily to a nine year old. That these are the ones that stump Dave says a great deal about the strength of his arguments.

      Sure, Dave can spend a lot of bandwidth on handwaving about isochrons, or zircons, or GULO genes, or paleosols, but when it comes to ridiculously simple questions—where'd your flood waters come from, Dave? Are you more closely related to your cousins than your brother is, Dave? How can we see galaxies millions of lightyears away in a 6,000-year-old cosmos, Dave? How long would it take a sphere of iron massing 6E24 kg to cool, Dave?—he shuts up entirely. Doesn't even attempt to answer the question. Never even acknowledges the question was asked.

      So, when I ask him, if ancient bacteria are neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then what are they genetically compared to modern bacteria, I take it as personal affirmation that he can't answer me.

      So, here's my new idea for a contest: who can ask Dave the most questions that he won't even acknowlege? We can define "won't acknowledge" as questions he hasn't acknowledged for more than two weeks, because sometimes if you ask him the same one often enough, he will acknowledge it, even if he never answers it.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 05 2006,12:34

      Dave,

      I have been true to my word. I haven't made a single insult since I said I would stop but you still don't respond. ???

      I am genuinely curious if my chart is an accurate representation of your idea of how it worked?

      Because you could test some of the things in it and maybe actually come up with evidence (the e word?) for your hypothesis.

      Also, you are due for a change of topic about now anyway so I was wondering if you wanted to tackle core samples. ?

      Please correct me if I am wrong. If we can demonstrate that the world is older than 6500 years, then you are wrong. Right?

      I know that you have been holding back on us here. I want to believe.
      Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 05 2006,12:48

      Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 23 2006,11:44)
      Since we're posting lists
      A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
      (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
      (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
      (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
      (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
      (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
      (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
      (7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
      (8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
      (9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
      (10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
      (11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
      (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
      (13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
      (14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
      (15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
      (16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
      (17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
      (18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
      (19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
      (20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
      (21)  Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
      (22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
      (23)  How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
      (24)  If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
      (25)  Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft")
      (26)  You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
      (27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
      (28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
      (29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
      (30)  Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
      (31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
      (33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
      (34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
      (35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
      (36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
      (37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      > This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
      (38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
      (39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
      (40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
      (41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
      (42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
      (43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
      (44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
      (45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
      (46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
      (47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
      (48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
      (49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
      (50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?

      I would accept a global stratum that indicates a global flood. Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
      What creationists do is wave their delicate hands at ALL sedimentary layers and say "that MIGHT be one" without EVER clearly saying "here is the preflood basement...here's layer(s) X that were laid during the flood...and here are post-flood depositions."
      Continents zooming around clearly did not occur 4300 years ago, nor is there any indication of a post-flood "ice age" which happened while the Egyptians and many others were still literate and writing. I'd accept a global strata, evidence of a massive die-off at that time, including freshwater fish, insects, plants, annelids, etc. but the fact is that no such layer can be shown to exist.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Easy, Eric.
      Deadmans "death by a hundred cuts" compilation post.  It's not as beautiful as BWEs graphic arts endeavor, but seriously, what could be? Deadmans work showed fanatical attention to detail, patients, and bloodhound like tracking,  but clearly, while worthy, NOT divinely inspired.  After looking at that graphic this morning, feeling returned to my left leg, and the doctors say i might walk again. :D
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,12:50

      Help me out with Denton's table and your CGH, Dave!

      (I rarely use bold, but this question is REALLY bothering me. Dave, of course, will ignore it. The rest of you may be able to help me answer it, however.)

      Dave, you've explained your argument for why Denton's table is a "problem" for Evolution. Please explain why it is not a problem for Creationism.

      Observe:

      1. God creates the "kinds", including: human, monkey, lungfish, bacterium.
      2. Adam eats the fruit. Whoops.
      3. God allows sin into the world. ALL LIVING THINGS begin to degrade, deteriorate, and get rearranged morphologically and genetically. As one of the wages of sin, "microevolution" has officially begun, and things are constantly moving away from their PERFECT created state.
      4. Noah (the ancestor of man, who was bigger, taller, smarter and all-round better than modern man) builds his Ark to escape the Flood, along with a bunch of still-pretty-close-to-perfect kinds. The fossil lungfish wasn't so lucky.
      5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

      You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 05 2006,13:04

      And, of course, a more fundamental question, one that could easily be posed by a third-grader:

      How can both of these statements be true:

      • 4.55 billion years is not nearly long enough for life to have evolved from a few thousand species to the tens of millions of species in existence today.
      • 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved from a few thousand species on Noah's ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today.

      ?

      You'll note, Dave, that 4,500 years is just about one millionth of the time "evolutionists" propose for the earth to have existed. Is 4,500 years more time than 4.55 billion years, or less?

      You said you already have an answer for this, Dave. And you said you'd answer it when we get to that topic. But we're already there; you claim that evolutionists "need" deep time, and creationists don't. I'm saying that creationists "need" deep time just as much as "evolutionists" do. So by my lights we're already there, and you owe me an answer.

      You don't want me to get personal affirmation out of your ignoring my question, do you, Dave?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 05 2006,13:07

      Another noodle-scratcher, Dave.

      Here is a < phylogeny of human populations >.

      It's a picture instead of a table, but it shows genetic distance the same as Denton's (which Chris kindly converted into a similar picture for you). Now, if we read this as we did Denton's table (and there's no reason why we shouldn't), haplotype I is like bacteria -- the earliest branch. Haplotype II is yeast. Haplotype III is fish, and so on.

      So, as the first (bacteria) branch, haplotype I is the most primitive. Now haplotype I consists -- almost exclusively -- of African populations. So African populations must be most primitive.

      Now, before you think I'm accusing of you of racism, "primitive" here means "least changed since last common ancestor". Who was probably Noah (or one of his sons). Soooo...are African populations closer to Noachian near-perfection? Are European populations much further away from this perfection? Or is there something wrong with reading phylogenies and genetic distances like this?

      Tell me, Dave, since you have the genetic data at hand and can apparently make such comparisons a la Denton -- who are the least-changed humans? Do they sin less? Or if all are equally changed, equally sinful -- what does that mean for Denton's interpretation of the equidistance of humans from bacteria?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 05 2006,13:24

      ericmurphy wrote:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And, of course, a more fundamental question, one that could easily be posed by a third-grader:

      How can both of these statements be true:

      4.55 billion years is not nearly long enough for life to have evolved from a few thousand species to the tens of millions of species in existence today.

      4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved from a few thousand species on Noah's ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You see, dave, it's your total inability to address this simple but excellently posed question that tells me it's pointless to come up with yet more puzzles for you. If you can answer this one, I promise I'll make an exception and actually read, not just skim, your answer - even if it doesn't quite make it to the level of peer-reviewed professional scientific publication - at least up to the invocation of magic, which I will take as your concession of defeat.
      Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 05 2006,13:48

      To quote Mohandas Gandhi :
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
      Or in AFDaves View,
      First he fights you, then he laughs at you, then he ignores you, then you know you've won.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 05 2006,13:55



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Easy, Eric.
      Deadmans "death by a hundred cuts" compilation post.  It's not as beautiful as BWEs graphic arts endeavor, but seriously, what could be? Deadmans work showed fanatical attention to detail, patients, and bloodhound like tracking,  but clearly, while worthy, NOT divinely inspired.  After looking at that graphic this morning, feeling returned to my left leg, and the doctors say i might walk again. :D

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And, If you look close enough, you can see the virgin mary being deflowered in it! That always makes em walk again. :D
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 05 2006,15:49



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Tango Juliet ... excellent post!  If I'm going to get insulted, I like for you to be creative about it (as opposed to uncreative ones like dog turds.)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Well Davie, since you were undoubtedly one of the delicate flowers who cried like a little girl over the fake dog poo pic, here is one just like you - a great big spineless pussy.


      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 05 2006,21:51

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,16:52)
      Hey Greywolf ... why do you always say "Hope that helps!"  ??  What's up with that?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hey, Dave, are you being deliberately obstuse, deliberately insulting or simply moronic when you insist in mispelling my name afer I explicitly told you to stop doing it?

      There are many reasons why I always use "Hope that helps", but they are far more complex than what you can understand, given your level of awareness shown throught this thread, so I won't bother trying. Besides, it would distract you from actually addressing the subject of my posts. After all, I got the last word, and you have not been able to counter-argument, so I am winning the argument.

      BTW, going back to the "similar creatures must have similar sequences" statement. Tell me, Dave, given that the ichthyosaurs are similar to both sharks and dolphins, who are they closest to? What does the ToE predict? Are you even capable of finding the correct answer? I'm not asking for the truth here, just that you demonstrate the ability to not misrepresent the ToE.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 06 2006,03:48

      Grey Wolf wrote:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I'm not asking for the truth here, just that you demonstrate the ability to not misrepresent the ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I'll go a step further and ask for a prediction from Dave's alternative "hypothesis". Suppose tomorrow, by some unexpected twist of fate, we get our hands on some ichthyosaur DNA. Will that DNA show greater sequence similarity to: dolphins'? sharks'? crocodiles'? yeasts'?  Please show your logic.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2006,03:50

      Quote (Russell @ Oct. 06 2006,08:48)
      I'll go a step further and ask for a prediction from Dave's alternative "hypothesis". Suppose tomorrow, by some unexpected twist of fate, we get our hands on some ichthyosaur DNA. Will that DNA show greater sequence similarity to: dolphins'? sharks'? crocodiles'? yeasts'?  Please show your logic.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hehehe. And the survey sayyyssss:

      MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
      BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
      LAID DOWN BY WATER
      ALL OVER THE EARTH


      Bwahahahaha
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 06 2006,04:10

      THE TRUE "ORIGIN OF SPECIES" -- THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE BIBLICAL RECORD

      POINTS C & D IN THE AFDAVE CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

      C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

      D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

      History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." Quote by Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, quoted by C. Mann (1991) "Lynn Margulis:  Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381.  Lynn was the originator of the theory that mitochondria were once independent bacterial cells.

      Yes, I agree with you, Lynn, but these guys don't yet.  Maybe someday!

      There are many such quotes that I could give you and I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.  Why?  "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years!  What are you?  An idiot or something?"  [Insert Headscratching]

      So if Darwinism is bankrupt for explaining the Origin of Species [and I will continue to show you that it is], then how did it REALLY happen?  Glad you asked!

      It happened pretty much as I outlined in Points C and D above.  How do I know this?  Well of course this idea comes from the Biblical book of Genesis, which, as I have pointed out with no small effort, is most likely a compilation of written, eyewitness history--documents which were carefully recorded on clay tablets by contemporaries of the events recorded, then compiled into one volume by Moses.  You can read the details of this here < http://airdave.blogspot.com/2006....ts.html >.

      Now how do I KNOW it happened this way?  Well, of course I cannot KNOW it happened this way simply by reading the Book of Genesis.  Reading the Book of Genesis simply gives me an account of how it happened.  It is obviously a very high profile account due to the success and spread of the Christian religion, so it is reasonable to at least investigate this account and compare it to other accounts and investigate whether it could be true or not.  I have done this quite thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that, whether it is true or not, at the very least, it is far from being simply a Hebrew legend, similar to all the other legends of the world, passed down orally from generation to generation, possibly copied from Mesopotamian accounts.  No, my friends.  This book is unique.  On close examination, it has every evidence of being a solemn, eyewitness record of the events described.  And you can start with the link above to see why this is so.

      Now Dave, come on, you think this book is "inspired by God" ... how can you present a scientific hypothesis when you invoke God?  It's true, I have come to the conclusion that this book is inspired by God, but let's pretend that I don't think this, because I have not always thought this.  I have only come to this conclusion after careful study.  So at this point, we will pretend that there is no "inspiration" or "inerrancy" involved.  We will simply look at the Genesis record as a historical record and investigate it's claims regarding the "Origin of Species."

      Now most of you are already familiar with the Genesis Record and, if you have read my article above on the Tablet Theory of Genesis, you know that the huge events of Creation and the Flood are recorded on Tablets 1 - 4.

      Let's begin with my first statement ...

      "All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation."

      First, what do I mean by "genetically rich"?  Well hopefully you all are somewhat familiar with the facts of heredity, specifically, that a population of organisms that is NOT geographically isolated, will tend to maintain the original pool of traits.  Only when a subset of the population is isolated from the group will the original group and the subgroup experience a loss WRT the genetic information of the original group and thus will specialize.  For example, a group of 1000 similar looking "mutt" dogs on a desert island which have unrestricted access to the entire group would generally continue to produce "mutt" dogs.  Assuming that you could achieve thorough mixing, there would then be mixing of the characteristics in such a way that the overall characteristics of the group would not change.  Now if a dog breeder shows up on the island and begins isolating small groups of dogs, I think you know what will happen.  You will end up with Great Danes and Chihuahuas and everything in between.  Why?  Because of Geographic Isolation.  The dog breeder is physically separating the large original group into small, isolated groups, thereby cutting off each sub group from all the genetic information in the other sub groups.  So ... back to my original statement.  "Genetically rich" as I (and AIG) use the term, simply means "muttish" if you will.  It simply means that Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome, and their immediate descendants had free access to all other members of the group because there was only one super-continent (I think you agree with this already) and there would have been no compelling reason early on to separate from the group.  We are not told in the Genesis account that there were any differences in language until the Towel of Babel incident, so we assume that there was only one language originally.  

      Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today.  How do we know this?  Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population.  Thus if we go back in time 6000 years, we can infer that there were much fewer at that time.  How much fewer?  I cannot say.  One of the earliest prohibitions against close marriages that I know of came with the Law of Moses which was not given until around the 15th century BC.  And we know that the Bible records at least one close marriage about 500 years prior to this--Abraham marrying his half sister (see Genesis 20:12).  From this we infer that close marriages were not a problem for Adam and Eve's early descendants because harmful mutations had not yet accumulated enough to be a problem for close marriages.  We propose that the reason for the Mosaic prohibition on close marriages (Leviticus 18) is partly due to the accumulation of harmful mutations over the previous 2600 or so years since Creation.

      As for my second statement, "My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification", I think this needs no proof from me because I think you all agree that this was the situation initially.  We obviously disagree on how long ago that this situation prevailed, but I think we agree that it is a quite likely scenario at some point in the past.

      Now what have I done this morning?  Not much yet, but we are moving.  Have I quoted massive quantities of scientific papers?  No.  What I have done is merely started with a written record of events, shown you my research into why this record is a historical account, then pointed out some simple facts of science which anyone with a high school education should know.  In doing so, I have merely shown you that the historical record is plausible.  Have I proven that it is true?  No.  "Proof" is a hard thing to come by.  But I have given you good reasons from well known scientific observations that the statements ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      ... are indeed quite plausible.

      Now for your comments!

      ****************************************************

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It's supposed to mean that if you're having trouble getting anyone to take you seriously [as you are, Dave; you do recognize that much, don't you?], it's not a good strategy to use, as your pillar of credibility, someone that no one takes seriously. ... Tell you what. When you and your kind have had anything more than zero impact in any of the professional literature that defines science as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the time to read what you have to say. In the meantime, I'm just skimming for laughs.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Hmmm ... I get the feeling, Russell, that you are like a windsock.  You will point in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing.  IOW you accept only what the "experts" determine is true, not what YOU have determined is true.  America (and modern science) was built by radical, out-of-the-box thinkers with stout spines.  America and the world needs more people like this.  I challenge you--as my English teacher in 11th grade once did to me--to stop following and start leading.

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You listed "human like critter" at every step.  I think you know what I am looking for.  And I am beginning to think that for some reason, no one wants to stick their neck out and list them all.

      Mike PSS...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  And I have to tell you that this was an eye opener to me.  I knew Darwinism did not make any sense to me.  But I never dreamed that Darwinists would ever propose something this wild, the implications of which are so ridiculous as to render one unable to do anything but stand with mouth agape in utter amazement.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now, you asked me a while ago to provide you a list of organisms between (i.e., intermediate to) bacteria and humans. There is no such list, because the question makes no sense. Humans branched off from bacteria at the same time as every single other eukaryote that ever lived, approximately a billion or so years ago. There are no eukaryotes which are intermediate between bacteria and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, but you are so wrong.  There IS such a list!  The question makes perfect sense.  You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms.  You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will.  And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc.  If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet.  They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And more to the point, why do you think either one of these possibilities is absurd? It seems to me that either one could be true, and more to the point, neither would falsify the theory of evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Simple.  If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, then Denton's discussion on sequence data is very apt--as he points out, molecular biology then gives no support to ToE whatsoever.  Now, if they are different, then you have the emabarrassing task of trying to explain why in the world they would be different, given what we know about say, two modern golden retrievers.  The golden retrievers are just as similar in form, physiology and function as are the "living fossil" specimens.  How in the world could they live on planet earth for 400 million years and not change a bit?  Yet you try to tell me "Oh, they've changed--you just can't see it because it is in non-coding DNA."  You are right about one thing, Eric.  My argument HAS changed.  I began this segment pointing out that evolutionists NEED Deep Time, and this has been easily shown.  Then I presented Denton's info on sequence data which presents a real problem to evolutionists who used to believe as Zuckerkandl once did.  But you have given me new information, namely, that you think the ancient forms of "living fossils" were far different that modern forms.  This is so ridiculous sounding to me that yes, I have been focusing on this more lately.  And why not?  I began by pointing out a problem for Darwinism.  Now I see an even bigger problem for Darwinism.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      When you complete the list I asked for.

      Russell..

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
      Logically, then, that will be your last post here.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      It is quite a different matter, Russell, to say "NO ONE can be wrong about ToE" than to say "The ToE is a fairy tale."  IOW, I'm saying it is absurd for one fairy tale adherent (you, for example) to say that so-and-so fairy tale adherent (Denton, for example) is wrong about our fairy tale.  The truth is, it's a fairy tale anyway, so who cares if so-and-so gets some details wrong.  There is no such thing as "wrong" when dealing in fairy tales.  But I am not a fairy tale adherent.  I stand outside the Darwinian fairy tale and seek to show WHY it is a fairy tale and why the Biblical explanation is NOT a fairy tale.  So, logically, then, I have many more posts ahead of me here.

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Despite the title of this thread, for these 200+ pages you've provided no evidence for your so-called hypothesis, only attempts (pretty feeble ones, long since rejected by anyone with a high-school education worthy of the name) to find problems with standard science. Not terrifically surprising, since that's all creationism has ever amounted to.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D).  You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points.  That's coming.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So, when I ask him, if ancient bacteria are neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then what are they genetically compared to modern bacteria, I take it as personal affirmation that he can't answer me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Then you are either ignorant or dishonest.  There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.  But I would be a fool to assume that this is because you CANNOT answer them.  Only when you DO answer them and the answer is no good, can I assume that you are not able to answer.  There are many reasons why you may not answer.  1) You cannot 2) You're not in the mood 3) You don't want to take the time, etc.  Origins is a very broad subject and one only has a limited amount of time.  My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in.  And I know that most people here are the same way.

      Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.  Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions."

      Sort of like how Aftershave is revealing his true character when he posts pictures of dog turds.

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

      You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      How can both of these statements be true:

      4.55 billion years is not nearly long enough for life to have evolved from a few thousand species to the tens of millions of species in existence today.

      4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved from a few thousand species on Noah's ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

      Grey_Wolf_c ... I will now refer to you as "GW" ... I am not into using the SHIFT key 3 separate times just to type someone's name properly ... sorry!  Hope that helps! :-)
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 06 2006,04:23

      AFDave says:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Simple.  If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, then Denton's discussion on sequence data is very apt--as he points out, molecular biology then gives no support to ToE whatsoever.  [...]  Then I presented Denton's info on sequence data which presents a real problem to evolutionists who used to believe as Zuckerkandl once did.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Where is your evidence for this? Even Zuckerkandl admitted it was his opinion, and not the mainstream view in the field. Please provide evidence for this or stop claiming it is true.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 06 2006,04:39



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Ok this is important: Dave no one is saying it had a different biochemical makeup, we are saying the nucleotide sequence of the cytochrome c gene will have been different. The sequence of the gene can be quite different without affecting the biochemical activity of the protein it produces, hence the reason yeast can use the human protein even though the sequence of the gene is quite different. If you do not understand this you need to learn some genetics and biochemistry.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 06 2006,04:49

      Do you all think Dave assumes that modern and Devonian lungfish are identical just because they're both referred to as "lungfish"?  I've been trying to guess where he picked up that notion.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2006,05:02



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Cute of you to insert the "all" in there, Stupid. The question is not whether EACH person has answered EACH question you've posed -- but whether or not you can actually cite a question you've posed that has NOT been answered.
      THAT is the relevant question...And it is a fact that each relevant and pertinent question that YOU have asked...HAS been answered by one or more people here.

      On the other hand, you fail to answer direct questions daily. THAT is the distinction, AirHead
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 06 2006,05:08



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Hmmm ... I get the feeling, Russell, that you are like a windsock.  You will point in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing.  IOW you accept only what the "experts" determine is true, not what YOU have determined is true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I am one of those "experts". I publish what I determine to be true in professional journals, and document how I make those determinations. An important part of that process is evaluating what other "experts" have determined. If you read what I've written (< here >, for example), you'll notice that evaluation is  not simply a process of accepting everything that's been published, even in respectable sources (not to be confused with jokes like AiG.)  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      America (and modern science) was built by radical, out-of-the-box thinkers with stout spines.  America and the world needs more people like this.  I challenge you--as my English teacher in 11th grade once did to me--to stop following and start leading.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I suggest that you, of all people, are in no position to distinguish between leaders and followers in science. Name me one significant advance in science since, say, 1900 made by a scientist who rejects evolution, or a millions-of-years old earth. Note: "significance", to count as such, has to be detectable in the reality-based community.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2006,05:11



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      It is not "dishonest" of people to point out that you have not answered them at all. It is definitely not dishonest of people to say that you yourself have stated that you COULD NOT answer multiple questions.
      Yet, as I said, I doubt seriously whether you could come up with a single relevant question that you have asked...that has NOT been answered.
      This, again, shows the vacuity and painful inability of your "theory that is better than any other" to deal with facts and data. Thus it can be dismissed as lacking in explanatory value...it can be dismissed for being unfalsifiable, it can be dismissed for consisting of hand-waving and fallacies galore.
      Have a nice day, stupid.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,05:21

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This definition always comes "later". Because once you define it in biologically relevant terms (i.e., as opposed to "what God created" or "what Noah had on the Ark" or "looks like a dog if you stand 30 feet away"), you're going to run into more problems than you could possibly imagine, Dave.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." Quote by Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, quoted by C. Mann (1991) "Lynn Margulis:  Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381.  Lynn was the originator of the theory that mitochondria were once independent bacterial cells.

      Yes, I agree with you, Lynn, but these guys don't yet.  Maybe someday!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You agree with Lynn Margulis, eh? (Just like you "agreed" with Zuckerkandl?) Hoh, boy, Dave. So do you agree with her very next sentence (which I notice you didn't quote to provide the context for the above): "Gaia threatens everything they do." Do you agree with: In Margulis' view, Earth is a "single enormous system deriving from a 3500-million-year-old common ancestor." Or how about her description of bacteria reacting to toxic compounds: "How is this defferent in kind from a driver stopping at a red light, or children flocking around a Good Humor van? Show me any definition of consciousness in the textbook, and I'll show you a protist that can fit it. That should tell you something." These are all from the same article, Dave. If you don't agree with them (I'd rather suspect you think she's stark, raving mad, don't you Dave?), why do you pick the sentence above to voice agreement? Is somebody you consider loony-tunes a good person to cite in order to lend authority to your argument? Why not pick Niles Eldredge's quote in the same paper: "I think she's being simple-minded. That view of neo-Darwinism is a cartoon -- and I say this as a critic of some aspects of neo-Darwinism. Understanding speciation is indeed difficult, but biology is not in the straitjacket she says it is. Evolutionary biology is much richer than she is portraying it to be." Because you don't agree with it. Tell me, are you quote-mining again, Dave?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There are many such quotes that I could give you and I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So why didn't you give some of the above? Dave, if you think evolutionists are so wrong -- so blinded by comfortable oblivion -- why do you latch on to quotes like the one above? Why would you take anything these idiots say seriously?

      As for your bible lesson, we've heard it before, Dave. Give us evidence -- give us testable hypotheses (preferably ones that would contrast the predictions of your hypothesis with those of evolution) -- and we'll respond to it. Until then, you're pissing in the wind.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      America (and modern science) was built by radical, out-of-the-box thinkers with stout spines.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Like Lynn Margulis, I presume. America, one nation under Gaia...

      No?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

      You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      I won't hold my breath, Dave. When I posed a similar question regarding the chimp-gorilla-human thing, you were "outta time" for a while before mumbling something about "haven't looked into baraminology yet". But rest assured, if and when you actually stop your tangential sermonizing and provide answers to these questions, I'll be waiting.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2006,05:30

      Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred. They even know what drives it: the growth of any population of organisms beyond the ability of the environment to support them, the appearance of organisms that have novel genetic traits, and the greater growth of some of those variant organisms leading to changed populations over time - the process known as natural selection. But biologists are still debating the details of how it occurs. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is being continually revised and refined... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma.

      Farewell To Newton, Einstein, Darwin..., Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, Dec 1981, pp.55-57.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 06 2006,05:33

      I've been wondering why creationists trace humanity back to a "genetically rich" Adam and Eve, when what really matters (to them) is a "genetically rich" Noah & family.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 06 2006,05:39

      Note, that while Margulis complains about "neo-Darwinists", she describes herself as < "definitely a Darwinist" >. What distinction do you suppose she's making, Dave? Does that question interest you at all?
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 06 2006,05:44

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Later when, Dave? It is rather central to the discussion.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      There are many such quotes that I could give you

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      "A million dollars will now fall in my lap" (looks up). D@mm, wishing doesn't change reality. You finding people's "predictions" means nothing. Evidence does. There have always been cranks. Nevertheless, we have evidence for the ToE and you do not have any for your own "hypothesis", so ToE wins by default.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Present evidence that they are indistinguishable, Dave. Your word has long been worth less than nothing in this discussion. You could tell me that the sun rises in the East and that would prompt me to check the following morning. Your only back-up is a quote from a scientist that went back on his hypothesis a year later.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Why?  "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, Dave. Because bacteria cannot be like their ancient bacteria (because the modern ones are too different between them), and horses are not like the fist mammals and...

      Bottom line is that for every creature whose skeleton has not changed too much (and I still think that a biologist would have no trouble telling apart a modern and ancient lungfish), *millions* of animals are extremelly different in some ways but oh-so-very close in others. That's the overwheliming evidence, Dave. The ocassional creature whose skeleton hasn't changed much doesn't mean squat in the face of every other one.

      Besides, the point of the lungfish was to support that stupid statement that "two alike creatures are alike genetically", remember? The one that was killed with the dophin/shark example? You cannot even keep your arguments straight.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      So if Darwinism is bankrupt for explaining the Origin of Species [and I will continue to show you that it is]

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, you cannot even say what the ToE states, so how can you criticise it? Show your knowledge, Dave, by giving us a textbook definition of the ToE. I'll wager that you cannot. Define LCA, too, since it comes up so often.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      First, what do I mean by "genetically rich"? [...] For example, a group of 1000 similar looking "mutt" dogs on a desert island which have unrestricted access to the entire group would generally continue to produce "mutt" dogs. [...] Now if a dog breeder shows up on the island and begins isolating small groups of dogs, I think you know what will happen.  You will end up with Great Danes and Chihuahuas and everything in between. [...] "Genetically rich" as I (and AIG) use the term, simply means "muttish" if you will.  It simply means that Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So Adam had the gene from blue eyes, and green eyes, and brond eyes? At the same time? How? He also had the gene for red hair, and black hair and brown hair and blonde hair? And he was also both tall and short, and had all skin colours? And you tell us that with a straight face?

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      We are not told in the Genesis account that there were any differences in language until the Towel of Babel incident, so we assume that there was only one language originally.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      When did the Babel incident happen, Dave? I predict that we have written accounts in at least three different languages predating Babel.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today.  How do we know this?  Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      False. Present evidence to support your baseless assertion, Dave.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      GW...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You listed "human like critter" at every step.  I think you know what I am looking for.  And I am beginning to think that for some reason, no one wants to stick their neck out and list them all.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Yes, I know what you want. You want a list of "bacteria-like" then "worm-like" then "fish-like". But since that would be wrong, I cannot give it to you. Because since it is the human descent, at every point it has to be human-like, Dave. And I gave you the reason why it is human like.

      Of course, many other modern creatures share some of those characteristics. Indeed, I could do the list with Gorilla-like (except homo). This is what the ToE *says*, Dave, and you wishing that some LCA a billion years ago looked like a modern bacteria, or a modern fish, is wishful thinking of the highest orde, because they did not look anything close, to trained eyes.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Oh, but you are so wrong.  There IS such a list!  The question makes perfect sense.  You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms.  You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will.  And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc.  If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet.  They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, those creatures were as worm-like as they were human-like,  for the reason that I added after each human-like. You don't like it, or understand it, but nevertheless that is what the ToE *says*. You asked for it, you got precisely what you asked for, even if it was not what you wanted since it did not fit your idiotic strawman version of the ToE. But you cannot rewrite the ToE so it "makes sense to Dave" anymore than you can change the Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Theory. They explain the data and are internally consistent and make useful predictions. Common sense, however, is very dangerous in science, because it leads to the kind of stupidity you get from Flat Earthers.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point,
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You believe it was so (mostly because it supports your burning strawman), but a) Zuckerkandl wrote that it was controversial (i.e. science-speak for "most other scientists think it is bullshit and I better have very solid evidence") and he discarded the idea a year later!. Present evidence anyone else believed it Dave. Because you saying something not only doesn't make it true, given your track record it makes it suspect.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Eric...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      When you complete the list I asked for.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I gave you the list, Dave. Your pathetic complaints about the list doesn't make it less true. Deal with what the ToE says, not what you would like it to say.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D).  You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points.  That's coming.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Very little of what you have presented was evidence for your "hypothesis" (evidence against evolution isn't evidence for creation, particularly when you need ultra-fast evolution yourself), and *nothing* you has presented has survived cross-examination. Mostly because you keep refusing to stick to a topic until all our problems with it are answered. Like the paleosols. You were utterly defeated because there are still open questions that you have not answered - like how continents could move at hundreds of mph without melting, boiling the water and killing everything on Earth, just to mention one.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Please give us 10 questions you have posed that you got no answer for, Dave. I doubt you can find even half that. You got answers, but you a) didn't accept the answer; b) didn't understand the answer or c) had to ignore it because it made big holes in your ideas.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Your approach is to present "evidence" "against evolution" and then run away from the topic when you are shown to be wrong.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.  Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Actually, what they show is that you are not able to answer them, because only someone that cannot answer questions on a topic he started and thus presumably is an interest of his, leaves questions unanswered and changes subject. That is actually the mark of the lier, Dave: the changing of subjects when things get tough and the lies are exposed.

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Grey_Wolf_c ... I will now refer to you as "GW" ... I am not into using the SHIFT key 3 separate times just to type someone's name properly ... sorry!  Hope that helps! :-)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Again, if you had the reading ability that God gave to the pistachio, you would have noticed that the name I sign with is "Grey Wolf" so all it takes is two shifts.

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 06 2006,05:57

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      THE TRUE "ORIGIN OF SPECIES" -- THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE BIBLICAL RECORD

      POINTS C & D IN THE AFDAVE CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

      C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

      D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

      History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." Quote by Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, quoted by C. Mann (1991) "Lynn Margulis:  Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381.  Lynn was the originator of the theory that mitochondria were once independent bacterial cells.

      Yes, I agree with you, Lynn, but these guys don't yet.  Maybe someday!

      There are many such quotes that I could give you and I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.  Why?  "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years!  What are you?  An idiot or something?"  [Insert Headscratching]

      So if Darwinism is bankrupt for explaining the Origin of Species [and I will continue to show you that it is], then how did it REALLY happen?  Glad you asked!

      It happened pretty much as I outlined in Points C and D above.  How do I know this?  Well of course this idea comes from the Biblical book of Genesis, which, as I have pointed out with no small effort, is most likely a compilation of written, eyewitness history--documents which were carefully recorded on clay tablets by contemporaries of the events recorded, then compiled into one volume by Moses.  You can read the details of this here < http://airdave.blogspot.com/2006....ts.html >.

      Now how do I KNOW it happened this way?  Well, of course I cannot KNOW it happened this way simply by reading the Book of Genesis.  Reading the Book of Genesis simply gives me an account of how it happened.  It is obviously a very high profile account due to the success and spread of the Christian religion, so it is reasonable to at least investigate this account and compare it to other accounts and investigate whether it could be true or not.  I have done this quite thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that, whether it is true or not, at the very least, it is far from being simply a Hebrew legend, similar to all the other legends of the world, passed down orally from generation to generation, possibly copied from Mesopotamian accounts.  No, my friends.  This book is unique.  On close examination, it has every evidence of being a solemn, eyewitness record of the events described.  And you can start with the link above to see why this is so.

      Now Dave, come on, you think this book is "inspired by God" ... how can you present a scientific hypothesis when you invoke God?  It's true, I have come to the conclusion that this book is inspired by God, but let's pretend that I don't think this, because I have not always thought this.  I have only come to this conclusion after careful study.  So at this point, we will pretend that there is no "inspiration" or "inerrancy" involved.  We will simply look at the Genesis record as a historical record and investigate it's claims regarding the "Origin of Species."

      Now most of you are already familiar with the Genesis Record and, if you have read my article above on the Tablet Theory of Genesis, you know that the huge events of Creation and the Flood are recorded on Tablets 1 - 4.

      Let's begin with my first statement ...

      "All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation."

      First, what do I mean by "genetically rich"?  Well hopefully you all are somewhat familiar with the facts of heredity, specifically, that a population of organisms that is NOT geographically isolated, will tend to maintain the original pool of traits.  Only when a subset of the population is isolated from the group will the original group and the subgroup experience a loss WRT the genetic information of the original group and thus will specialize.  For example, a group of 1000 similar looking "mutt" dogs on a desert island which have unrestricted access to the entire group would generally continue to produce "mutt" dogs.  Assuming that you could achieve thorough mixing, there would then be mixing of the characteristics in such a way that the overall characteristics of the group would not change.  Now if a dog breeder shows up on the island and begins isolating small groups of dogs, I think you know what will happen.  You will end up with Great Danes and Chihuahuas and everything in between.  Why?  Because of Geographic Isolation.  The dog breeder is physically separating the large original group into small, isolated groups, thereby cutting off each sub group from all the genetic information in the other sub groups.  So ... back to my original statement.  "Genetically rich" as I (and AIG) use the term, simply means "muttish" if you will.  It simply means that Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome, and their immediate descendants had free access to all other members of the group because there was only one super-continent (I think you agree with this already) and there would have been no compelling reason early on to separate from the group.  We are not told in the Genesis account that there were any differences in language until the Towel of Babel incident, so we assume that there was only one language originally.  

      Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today.  How do we know this?  Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population.  Thus if we go back in time 6000 years, we can infer that there were much fewer at that time.  How much fewer?  I cannot say.  One of the earliest prohibitions against close marriages that I know of came with the Law of Moses which was not given until around the 15th century BC.  And we know that the Bible records at least one close marriage about 500 years prior to this--Abraham marrying his half sister (see Genesis 20:12).  From this we infer that close marriages were not a problem for Adam and Eve's early descendants because harmful mutations had not yet accumulated enough to be a problem for close marriages.  We propose that the reason for the Mosaic prohibition on close marriages (Leviticus 18) is partly due to the accumulation of harmful mutations over the previous 2600 or so years since Creation.

      As for my second statement, "My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification", I think this needs no proof from me because I think you all agree that this was the situation initially.  We obviously disagree on how long ago that this situation prevailed, but I think we agree that it is a quite likely scenario at some point in the past.

      Now what have I done this morning?  Not much yet, but we are moving.  Have I quoted massive quantities of scientific papers?  No.  What I have done is merely started with a written record of events, shown you my research into why this record is a historical account, then pointed out some simple facts of science which anyone with a high school education should know.  In doing so, I have merely shown you that the historical record is plausible.  Have I proven that it is true?  No.  "Proof" is a hard thing to come by.  But I have given you good reasons from well known scientific observations that the statements ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      ... are indeed quite plausible.

      Now for your comments!

      ****************************************************

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It's supposed to mean that if you're having trouble getting anyone to take you seriously [as you are, Dave; you do recognize that much, don't you?], it's not a good strategy to use, as your pillar of credibility, someone that no one takes seriously. ... Tell you what. When you and your kind have had anything more than zero impact in any of the professional literature that defines science as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the time to read what you have to say. In the meantime, I'm just skimming for laughs.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Hmmm ... I get the feeling, Russell, that you are like a windsock.  You will point in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing.  IOW you accept only what the "experts" determine is true, not what YOU have determined is true.  America (and modern science) was built by radical, out-of-the-box thinkers with stout spines.  America and the world needs more people like this.  I challenge you--as my English teacher in 11th grade once did to me--to stop following and start leading.

      GW...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You listed "human like critter" at every step.  I think you know what I am looking for.  And I am beginning to think that for some reason, no one wants to stick their neck out and list them all.

      Mike PSS...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      and no amount of you saying that "The ToE says that fish are closer to bacteria than humans" is going to change the reality of what the ToE says - which is that humans and fishes are equally distant from bacteria.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  And I have to tell you that this was an eye opener to me.  I knew Darwinism did not make any sense to me.  But I never dreamed that Darwinists would ever propose something this wild, the implications of which are so ridiculous as to render one unable to do anything but stand with mouth agape in utter amazement.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now, you asked me a while ago to provide you a list of organisms between (i.e., intermediate to) bacteria and humans. There is no such list, because the question makes no sense. Humans branched off from bacteria at the same time as every single other eukaryote that ever lived, approximately a billion or so years ago. There are no eukaryotes which are intermediate between bacteria and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, but you are so wrong.  There IS such a list!  The question makes perfect sense.  You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms.  You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will.  And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc.  If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet.  They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And more to the point, why do you think either one of these possibilities is absurd? It seems to me that either one could be true, and more to the point, neither would falsify the theory of evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Simple.  If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, then Denton's discussion on sequence data is very apt--as he points out, molecular biology then gives no support to ToE whatsoever.  Now, if they are different, then you have the emabarrassing task of trying to explain why in the world they would be different, given what we know about say, two modern golden retrievers.  The golden retrievers are just as similar in form, physiology and function as are the "living fossil" specimens.  How in the world could they live on planet earth for 400 million years and not change a bit?  Yet you try to tell me "Oh, they've changed--you just can't see it because it is in non-coding DNA."  You are right about one thing, Eric.  My argument HAS changed.  I began this segment pointing out that evolutionists NEED Deep Time, and this has been easily shown.  Then I presented Denton's info on sequence data which presents a real problem to evolutionists who used to believe as Zuckerkandl once did.  But you have given me new information, namely, that you think the ancient forms of "living fossils" were far different that modern forms.  This is so ridiculous sounding to me that yes, I have been focusing on this more lately.  And why not?  I began by pointing out a problem for Darwinism.  Now I see an even bigger problem for Darwinism.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      When you complete the list I asked for.

      Russell..  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that NO ONE can be wrong about Evolution.
      Logically, then, that will be your last post here.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      It is quite a different matter, Russell, to say "NO ONE can be wrong about ToE" than to say "The ToE is a fairy tale."  IOW, I'm saying it is absurd for one fairy tale adherent (you, for example) to say that so-and-so fairy tale adherent (Denton, for example) is wrong about our fairy tale.  The truth is, it's a fairy tale anyway, so who cares if so-and-so gets some details wrong.  There is no such thing as "wrong" when dealing in fairy tales.  But I am not a fairy tale adherent.  I stand outside the Darwinian fairy tale and seek to show WHY it is a fairy tale and why the Biblical explanation is NOT a fairy tale.  So, logically, then, I have many more posts ahead of me here.

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Despite the title of this thread, for these 200+ pages you've provided no evidence for your so-called hypothesis, only attempts (pretty feeble ones, long since rejected by anyone with a high-school education worthy of the name) to find problems with standard science. Not terrifically surprising, since that's all creationism has ever amounted to.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D).  You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points.  That's coming.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So, when I ask him, if ancient bacteria are neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then what are they genetically compared to modern bacteria, I take it as personal affirmation that he can't answer me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Then you are either ignorant or dishonest.  There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.  But I would be a fool to assume that this is because you CANNOT answer them.  Only when you DO answer them and the answer is no good, can I assume that you are not able to answer.  There are many reasons why you may not answer.  1) You cannot 2) You're not in the mood 3) You don't want to take the time, etc.  Origins is a very broad subject and one only has a limited amount of time.  My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in.  And I know that most people here are the same way.

      Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.  Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions."

      Sort of like how Aftershave is revealing his true character when he posts pictures of dog turds.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

      You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      How can both of these statements be true:

      4.55 billion years is not nearly long enough for life to have evolved from a few thousand species to the tens of millions of species in existence today.

      4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have evolved from a few thousand species on Noah's ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.

      Grey_Wolf_c ... I will now refer to you as "GW" ... I am not into using the SHIFT key 3 separate times just to type someone's name properly ... sorry!  Hope that helps! :-)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, You left out...

      "Thanks...I'll be here all week!...Don't forget to tip your waitresses.....Try the veal!"

      I'm not sure when I have read a more funny post!  Honestly, thanks for the belly laugh.  

      I'm sure they childen you "mentor" will find you just as funny when the learn to think for themselves.
      Posted by: clamboy on Oct. 06 2006,06:03

      afdave says, "Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome".

      If that's true, then I feel so sorry for their kids, what with the cystic fibrosis, Usher syndrome (I, II, AND III!;), sickle cell anemia, I could go on all day....

      Of course afdave then says that they were "fewer mutations," which is the helpful contradiction to explain why there were no genetic disorders to be passed along. With afdave, you can *always* have it both ways!

      Man, there is so much caca in that post of afdave's. But let me tell you, I am so glad afdave has moved on.
      Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 06 2006,06:09

      Holy shit.  I just popped on over to Dave's Lies4Kids site, and clicked on the word "HEART" in the top right corner.  What did I get?
      "Children need to know God's word now, before it's TOO LATE"

      Very classy, Dave.  Threaten the kids with eternal damnation.  That's pretty sick.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,06:16

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now, you asked me a while ago to provide you a list of organisms between (i.e., intermediate to) bacteria and humans. There is no such list, because the question makes no sense. Humans branched off from bacteria at the same time as every single other eukaryote that ever lived, approximately a billion or so years ago. There are no eukaryotes which are intermediate between bacteria and humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, but you are so wrong.  There IS such a list!  The question makes perfect sense.  You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms.  You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will.  And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc.  If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet.  They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, are you asking me to go back in my, or your, or any human's ancestry and give you a list of every single ancestor in my ancestry all the way back to the beginning of time? Do you have any idea how many organisms that is? Going back just through the Cenozoic, which is about 1.5% of the earth's history, we're talking about dozens if not hundreds of different species, virtually all of which are unknown. Is that what's you're asking for? A list of all the common ancestors intermediate between humans and bacteria, 99.999% of which are completely unknown?

      Let me ask you this, Dave. Can you give me the name of every human ancestor you have, just going back to, say, 1,000 B.C., a date both you and I agree exists in the earth's history? What percentage of those names do you think you have? Because what you're asking for is astronomically more extensive than what I just asked.

      I can tell you that every single one of the clades I listed, and only those, contains a common ancestor of me, and of every human alive today. Can I give you the species name of every one of them? Of course not, Dave. 99.999% of them are completely unknown and are not part of the fossil record. Now, can you give me the Christian name of every one of your ancestors going back to the First Century? No? Why not? They all must have existed.

      And you're wrong, Dave. There are no, as in not any, eukaryotes intermediate between humans and bacteria.  You still haven't figured out the difference between cousin/cousin and ancestor/descendent relationships.


       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And more to the point, why do you think either one of these possibilities is absurd? It seems to me that either one could be true, and more to the point, neither would falsify the theory of evolution.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Simple.  If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, then Denton's discussion on sequence data is very apt--as he points out, molecular biology then gives no support to ToE whatsoever.  Now, if they are different, then you have the emabarrassing task of trying to explain why in the world they would be different, given what we know about say, two modern golden retrievers.  The golden retrievers are just as similar in form, physiology and function as are the "living fossil" specimens.  How in the world could they live on planet earth for 400 million years and not change a bit?  Yet you try to tell me "Oh, they've changed--you just can't see it because it is in non-coding DNA."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, you haven't explained why you think either one of these possibilities is absurd, let alone  both of them.

      You personally believe that 400-million year lungfish are genetically identical (based, evidently, on nothing other than the similarity of their skeletons). So if that's an absurd belief, then why do you subscribe to it?

      In any event, you're certainly wrong, and you've given exactly no reason why anyone should think that 400-million-year-old anything should be identical to a living descendant. Your "golden retriever" example is worse than useless, except to point out that you really, really do not get the distinction between cousin/cousin relationships (the golden retrievers) and ancestor/descendant relationships (the lungfish). You seem to believe they're the same thing.


       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You are right about one thing, Eric.  My argument HAS changed.  I began this segment pointing out that evolutionists NEED Deep Time, and this has been easily shown.  Then I presented Denton's info on sequence data which presents a real problem to evolutionists who used to believe as Zuckerkandl once did.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      It presents no such problem, Dave, either to someone of Zuckerkandl's 1965 persuasion, or to Zuckerkandl's 1963 or 1967 persuasion. You simply do not get the concept that all eukaryotes are equally unrelated to prokaryotes, regardless of which of Zuckerkandl's positions turned out to be true.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But you have given me new information, namely, that you think the ancient forms of "living fossils" were far different that modern forms.  This is so ridiculous sounding to me that yes, I have been focusing on this more lately.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, a world more than 10,000 years old sounds ridiculous to you too, so why should anyone care if you think a line of organisms could continue to exist for half a billion years without any changes to its DNA? You have lots of preposterous beliefs, and disbelieve many other totally straightforward things. I'm frankly surprised you don't believe the sun goes around the earth.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And why not?  I began by pointing out a problem for Darwinism.  Now I see an even bigger problem for Darwinism.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, you pointed out a problem for your own wrong, broken misunderstanding of "Darwinism," not a problem for evolutionary theory.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      When you complete the list I asked for.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I'll give it to you when you give me a list of the Christian names of all of your ancestors going back to the first century. Your task is much easier than mine. But in the meantime, I will point out to you that the list of clades I gave you is complete already. But you don't know what the list is a list of.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D).  You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points.  That's coming.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Nope. You have yet to provide evidence, solid or otherwise, for any of your points, let alone seven of them, Dave. You're still really unclear on the meaning of the word "evidence."

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So, when I ask him, if ancient bacteria are neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then what are they genetically compared to modern bacteria, I take it as personal affirmation that he can't answer me.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Then you are either ignorant or dishonest.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Oh really, Dave? If ancient bacteria were neither the same genetically nor different genetically from modern bacteria, then how do they compare? Are you really unaware of the problem with this claim?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.  But I would be a fool to assume that this is because you CANNOT answer them.  Only when you DO answer them and the answer is no good, can I assume that you are not able to answer.  There are many reasons why you may not answer.  1) You cannot 2) You're not in the mood 3) You don't want to take the time, etc.  Origins is a very broad subject and one only has a limited amount of time.  My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in.  And I know that most people here are the same way.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      And which questions are those, Dave? Which question have you ever asked of anyone here that is remotely germaine that has gone ignored for even a day, let alone for months? The list of questions you haven't even acknowledged is long enough that Stevestory would prefer we not post it all at once to avoid problems with the software!

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them.  Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, if you claim to be able to answer these questions, then why don't you? Too lazy? Don't want to do the research? We should just take your word for it that you can answer them? I'm not pretending that you can't answer them. I'm saying you haven't answered them. And if you think that's a dishonest or wrong statement, prove me wrong by posting a permalink to your answer.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,06:20

      Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 06 2006,10:44)
       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Present evidence that they are indistinguishable, Dave. Your word has long been worth less than nothing in this discussion. You could tell me that the sun rises in the East and that would prompt me to check the following morning. Your only back-up is a quote from a scientist that went back on his hypothesis a year later.

         
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10)
      Why?  "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, Dave. Because bacteria cannot be like their ancient bacteria (because the modern ones are too different between them), and horses are not like the fist mammals and...

      Bottom line is that for every creature whose skeleton has not changed too much (and I still think that a biologist would have no trouble telling apart a modern and ancient lungfish), *millions* of animals are extremelly different in some ways but oh-so-very close in others. That's the overwheliming evidence, Dave. The ocassional creature whose skeleton hasn't changed much doesn't mean squat in the face of every other one.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave:



      Are these the same animal? Remember you are talking to a fish biologist here. (The figure legend might give you a good clue.)

      And no escaping with "same kind", "fins lost through microevolution", etc. That's irrelevant. You argued that this group has not changed morphologically (and therefore biochemically) since the fossil was laid down in da Flood.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 06 2006,06:25

      Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 06 2006,12:09)
      Holy shit.  I just popped on over to Dave's Lies4Kids site, and clicked on the word "HEART" in the top right corner.  What did I get?
      "Children need to know God's word now, before it's TOO LATE"

      Very classy, Dave.  Threaten the kids with eternal damnation.  That's pretty sick.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder."
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,06:53

      Dave's "unevolving" lungfish (with another living fossil, the horseshoe "crab", thrown in for good measure):



      Do you see any evidence of change since our LCA (>350 mya), Dave?

      (And yes, I have a problem with the "evolution is not happening" instead of "morphological characters are not changing" in the legend, as will others. Anyone know what book this is from?)
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,07:16

      Okay, in the interest of not giving Dave the chance to say I don't answer his questions (even the nonsensical ones), I've decided to give Dave my list in a way that he thinks is "complete" (not that it was incomplete to begin with):

      • All Life - bacteria
      • Eukaryota - yeasts, plants
      • Metazoa - triploblasts
      • Bilateria - insects
      • Deuterostomia - starfish
      • Chordata - tunicates
      • Craniata - Hyperotreti
      • Vertebrata - lamprey
      • Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna
      • Sarcopterygii - ray-finned fishes
      • Stegocephalia - Microsauria
      • Amniota - snapping turtle, birds
      • Synapsida - Lyserophia
      • Therapsida - Cynodonts
      • Mammalia - kangaroo
      • Eutheria - dog, horse
      • Primates - New World Monkeys
      • Catarrhini - Old World Monkeys
      • Hominidae - Gorilla
      • Homo - Dave

      I suspect Dave will find this list less useful than he imagined, especially since many of the organisms listed are extinct.

      Well, why didn't I place living organisms in each clade, then? Okay, I will:

      • All Life - bacteria
      • Eukaryota - humans
      • Metazoa - humans
      • Bilateria - humans
      • Deuterostomia - humans
      • Chordata - humans
      • Craniata - humans
      • Vertebrata - humans
      • Gnathostomata - humans
      • Sarcopterygii - humans
      • Stegocephalia - humans
      • Amniota - humans
      • Synapsida - humans
      • Therapsida - humans
      • Mammalia - humans
      • Eutheria - humans
      • Primates - humans
      • Catarrhini - humans
      • Hominidae - humans
      • Homo - Dave

      ("Heh heh heh...he called Dave a 'homo.'") Okay, that was juvenile.

      But have you figured out yet what my list is a list of, Dave? Because it's probably not what you think it is.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,07:36

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,11:16)
      And you're wrong, Dave. There are no, as in not any, eukaryotes intermediate between humans and bacteria.  You still haven't figured out the difference between cousin/cousin and ancestor/descendent relationships.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Actually, there is one type of organism that may be intermediate between bacteria and humans, Dave (the phylogeny is currently controversial, given that we're talking about a divergence that may have happened anywhere from one thousand to three thousand million years ago). Can you < guess > what it is?
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 06 2006,08:49

      AFDave,
      You still haven't replied to my summary (or a reply I gave you to questions you had).  I'm getting discouraged.  Is my summary one of the cases where

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions {not}= Unanswerable Questions."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      All you have to do is let me know if/when/how you'll address these points.  You can even call "time-out" from this subject and we will freeze all discussion where it stood (i.e. that you were still trying to answer a valid refutation of your assertion so the present prevailing views on Isochrons are correct).  I don't declare your assertions invalid, just not supportable to any other point you make.  In other words you can't claim your "mixing" argument in any other posts unless you address the summary and reply I made.

      I tried reading through your recent post but my mind started spinning a little with the amount of CD (cognitive distance in this case) present.  You do have a way of mixing your assertions all over the place.  I had an image of you speaking while doing this


      Just a word of advice.  Keep your arguments a little more focused and not all over the map.  I have a good argument FOR your hypothesis that I think I'll share with you soon.

      As you like to say... hopefully tomorrow. :D

      Mike PSS

      p.s.  You addressed a question in your last post to me.  It wasn't from me.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 06 2006,09:27

      Yawnnn.... Saturday already?  I (hopefully) owe an answer to AFDave.

      Dave, I asked you earlier
      How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?

      Then I remembered that you were asking for a list from Bacteria to Homo (cheap shot eric).  Here's a list (my bolding) from Grey Wolf (one shift, one space).  But I overlaid ericmurphys entries on animal forms.    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      All Life - bacteria (it is alive)
      Eukaryota - yeasts, plants (has complex cells)
      Metazoa - triploblasts (has many cells)
      Bilateria - insects (has two symetrical sides)
      Deuterostomia - starfish (has mouth and anus)
      Chordata - tunicates (has a notocord)
      Craniata - Hyperotreti (has a skull)
      Vertebrata - lamprey (has vertebra)
      Gnathostomata - carp, bonito, tuna (has a jaw)
      Sarcopterygii - ray-finned fishes (has four limbs)
      Stegocephalia - Microsauria (has fingers)
      Amniota - snapping turtle, birds (development of embrio in amniotic liquid)
      Synapsida - Lyserophia (has fused arches)
      Therapsida - Cynodonts (no scales?)
      Mammalia - kangaroo (has mammary glands)
      Eutheria - dog, horse (has placenta)
      Primates - New World Monkeys
      Catarrhini - Old World Monkeys (has a narrow nose)
      Hominidae - Gorilla (doesn't have a tail?)
      Homo - Dave
      Oopsss.  I called Dave a Homo too. :O
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I begin to see the connections.  As we move down the list the different animals are ADDING traits and characteristics to their morphology.  So... here's my hypothesis to maybe add some testable value to your UCGH.

      **ahem....**  **cough**cough**cough** (cue Ann Elke)

      As creature morphology becomes more complex, with Humans representing the pinnacle of complexity, the measured difference of sequence variations between the lesser complex and greater complex life-forms relates to the number and type of morphological additions are present between the greater and lesser life-forms.

      So, my prediction from this hypothesis is that we can assign a score, or value, on each complexity step in the phylogeny sequence.  So the addition of a notochord (Chordata creatures) adds, say, 10 sequence variation points to a creatures complexity score.  We can go through the list and determine the score for each developmental trait present.  And since each creature below a point on the list has the combined score of every creature above it (all the traits present) plus the score of the next trait addition then the scores increase as you go down the list.

      So, Denton shows a valid measurement test of cytochrome-c sequence variance.  And I'm sure that other measured genome sequences show a similar relationship.  So the theory fits the data and we past our first test.

      Now, I think I can make other predictions with this hypothesis but I need to know if you agree with this rational idea or not.

      Please let me know.  And you can use this idea freely, I don't hold any rights to it at all.

      Mike PSS
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 06 2006,10:09

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,12:16)

      • All Life - bacteria
      • Eukaryota - humans
      • Metazoa - humans
      • Bilateria - humans
      • Deuterostomia - humans
      • Chordata - humans
      • Craniata - humans
      • Vertebrata - humans
      • Gnathostomata - humans
      • Sarcopterygii - humans
      • Stegocephalia - humans
      • Amniota - humans
      • Synapsida - humans
      • Therapsida - humans
      • Mammalia - humans
      • Eutheria - humans
      • Primates - humans
      • Catarrhini - humans
      • Hominidae - humans
      • Homo - Dave

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Not to mention that this list of groups is far from incomplete. A true phylogenetic classification should have a taxon for each known clade.
      For instance, the clade comprising archea and eukaryotes is unnamed, AFAIK.

      We also belong to the groups:
      opisthokonts (propulsive flagellum) - Saccharomyces(yeast)
      osteichtyes (vertebrates with true bones)  - Salmo

      Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully, but it seems that no one linked the < Tree of Life wel project >.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,10:36

      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 06 2006,15:09)
      Not to mention that this list of groups is far from incomplete. A true phylogenetic classification should have a taxon for each known clade.
      For instance, the clade comprising archea and eukaryotes is unnamed, AFAIK.

      We also belong to the groups:
      opisthokonts (propulsive flagellum) - Saccharomyces(yeast)
      osteichtyes (vertabrates with true bones)  - Salmo

      Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully, but it seems that no one linked the < Tree of Life wel project >.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I assume you meant to say the list is far from "complete." If so, this is true; there are millions of clades that are not on the list; far more than are on it. I assumed Dave was not looking for a complete list of every classification of organism on the planet. If he was, I'm afraid I'm not going to do that. But someone < has already created > a list of almost all of them.

      So yes, I have linked to the Tree of Life webpage numerous times, and this is only the most recent time. Dave claims he's looked at it, and dismissed it as "garbage."
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,10:50

      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 06 2006,15:09)
      For instance, the clade comprising archea and eukaryotes is unnamed, AFAIK.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Actually, Jeannot, you're probably just the person to ask about this issue. I'm not sure what the current state of the consensus is with respect to the rooting of the phylogenetic tree. Last I recall, the consensus appeared to be that archae and eukaryotes split off as a monophyletic group from prokaryotes, and only later did archae and eukaryotes diverge, meaning that archae and eukaryotes are equally unrelated to prokaryotes. Is this still the consensus? Does the tree look like this:

      -----------Prokaryotes
            |
            |----------archae
                  |-----eukaryotes


      Or does it look like this:

      -----------Eukaryotes
            |
            |----------Prokaryotes
                  |-----Archae

      (Sorry for the diagram; didn't want to take the time creating a graphic); or

      does no one really know, and think the root of the tree is just a tangle of brambles?

      Based on your statement about the clade enclosing archae and eukaryotes, I'm guessing the first. Am I right?
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 06 2006,11:35

      Chris Hyland...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Quote  
      The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.

      Ok this is important: Dave no one is saying it had a different biochemical makeup, we are saying the nucleotide sequence of the cytochrome c gene will have been different. The sequence of the gene can be quite different without affecting the biochemical activity of the protein it produces, hence the reason yeast can use the human protein even though the sequence of the gene is quite different. If you do not understand this you need to learn some genetics and biochemistry.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So I am using the wrong terminology.  OK.  Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?  In every opportunity we have in the real world to compare the sequences of similar organisms, what do we find?

      SIMILAR SEQUENCES

      Look at Denton's chart again ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data.  I may be using non-standard terminology to communicate my thought--maybe I should not say similar morphology--maybe it should be another term, I don't know.  But all I know is the 4 examples above are in the same groups and are similar in appearance and in many characteristics, and guess what ... they have very similar sequences!  Why should the "ancient" and modern lungfish be any different?



      Yes, Cory, I think they are both lungfish and they probably have almost identical sequences.  And that is based upon HARD EVIDENCE (see above) that we can actually see and test, not like your speculations based on your wishful thinking about ToE being true.

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You agree with Lynn Margulis, eh? (Just like you "agreed" with Zuckerkandl?) Hoh, boy, Dave. So do you agree with her very next sentence (which I notice you didn't quote to provide the context for the above): "Gaia threatens everything they do."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I agree with Lynn Margulis in the quote I gave.  I could care less about any weird ideas she has.  I care about YOUR opinions don't I?  For all I know you could be an ex-con with a criminal record a mile long.  I have no idea and I don't care as far as this discussion goes.  All I care about is that you seem to have some knowledge of evolutionary biology.  So does Lynn Margulis.  She made a name for herself with mitochondria.  She knows a thing or two about neo-Darwinism.  And she made a strong statement.  That's all I care about.  Do you see now?

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...   Quote  
      5. The ark lands and organisms begin to radiate. "Microevolution" really takes off. Humans "microevolve" into all the races currently existing (and the mislabeled "species" that are now extinct). The Ark-monkey "microevolves" into all the monkey "species" we see today. The Ark-lungfish...stays the same. The Ark-bacterium...stays the same.

      You see the predicament, Dave. If there's no difference between the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish, then that lungfish hasn't changed (i.e., deteriorated) since the Flood. Why has it not been paying the price of sin for the past 4,000 years? Did God grant it a pardon? Does that mean we should revere lungfish, bacteria and other species which "look the same" as their fossil ancestors as the currently living things that MOST RESEMBLE God's initial, perfect Creation?  

      Excellent question.  Outta time today.  I want to answer this though ... hopefully tomorrow.


      I won't hold my breath, Dave. When I posed a similar question regarding the chimp-gorilla-human thing, you were "outta time" for a while before mumbling something about "haven't looked into baraminology yet". But rest assured, if and when you actually stop your tangential sermonizing and provide answers to these questions, I'll be waiting.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I think you will have your long answer as we walk through Points C & D in the next few days.  But I'll give you a hint ... think about what causes a species to specialize and what causes them NOT to specialize.  I talked about it in my long piece today.

      Deadman...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes. In their dreams.

      Improvius...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I've been wondering why creationists trace humanity back to a "genetically rich" Adam and Eve, when what really matters (to them) is a "genetically rich" Noah & family.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Ooo ... very good.  You are correct.  Both were genetically rich.  I'm starting with Adam simply b/c that's where Genesis starts.

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Note, that while Margulis complains about "neo-Darwinists", she describes herself as "definitely a Darwinist". What distinction do you suppose she's making, Dave? Does that question interest you at all?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes. Fill me in.

      Grey WOlf...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science.  The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup.  


      Present evidence that they are indistinguishable, Dave. Your word has long been worth less than nothing in this discussion. You could tell me that the sun rises in the East and that would prompt me to check the following morning. Your only back-up is a quote from a scientist that went back on his hypothesis a year later.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  He apparently had a moment of clear thinking, then succumbed to the fog again.  Not only is Zuckerkandl my backup, but common sense, logic and observation is my backup.  Also, I find it hard to believe that Zuckerkandl was the only one in the 50's and 60's who shared my view.  I do not have access to the publications that Drew Headley does, though, so I cannot prove this.

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      No, Dave. Because bacteria cannot be like their ancient bacteria (because the modern ones are too different between them),
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      ... because you've seen them no doubt.

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So Adam had the gene from blue eyes, and green eyes, and brond eyes? At the same time? How? He also had the gene for red hair, and black hair and brown hair and blonde hair? And he was also both tall and short, and had all skin colours? And you tell us that with a straight face?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Would someone care to do a little remedial training with GW please?  Chris?  Cory?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today.  How do we know this?  Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population.  

      False. Present evidence to support your baseless assertion, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      What's wrong with my evidence?  Why do you say this is false?  Do you think populations of organisms are having LESS harmful mutations as time goes on?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Yes, I know what you want. You want a list of "bacteria-like" then "worm-like" then "fish-like". But since that would be wrong, I cannot give it to you.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes.  I know you cannot.  Or won't.  Which is why I asked.  Why do I get the feeling that I am trying to nail Jello to the wall?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, those creatures were as worm-like as they were human-like,  for the reason that I added after each human-like.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Another classic to go along with ... "Dave, your LCA looks like a human to a yeast!"

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Like the paleosols. You were utterly defeated
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      NOBODY has shown me a single convincing "paleosol."  JonF posted some pictures of what he claimed were paleosols but they didn't remotely resemble anything close to an old soil formation.  I posted an AIG article which thoroughly refuted a claim of a supposed paleosol in Missouri. Show me what you have.  I'll refute it.

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Please give us 10 questions you have posed that you got no answer for, Dave.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Let's just start with this one.  Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different in "ancient" lungfish compared to modern lungfish?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?

      GW...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Your approach is to present "evidence" "against evolution" and then run away from the topic when you are shown to be wrong.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No running.  I stuck with RM dating until JonF got tired and left.  Mike PSS tried to take over for JonF with mineral isochrons, but can't seem to get in gear.  I'm quite ready for him if he ever comes up with anything.  

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, are you asking me to go back in my, or your, or any human's ancestry and give you a list of every single ancestor in my ancestry all the way back to the beginning of time?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, Eric.  And bring me back some moon cheese while you're out in space, please.  Thx

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And you're wrong, Dave. There are no, as in not any, eukaryotes intermediate between humans and bacteria.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh good.  Thought not.  Then you agree with the Book of Genesis.  That only took 5 months to convince you.  Now you can join me in helping all these other poor Darwinist blighters see how their theory REQUIRES an intermediate eukaryote between humans and some bacteria-like organism.  Think about it, Eric.  If ToE is true and prokaryotes were the first living organisms, then there HAD to be some lucky prokaryote that evolved a cell wall, then some lucky descendant of this little guy got friendly with some other bacteria and Voila! ... multi-celled organisms, etc. etc. all the way to (drum roll ... Eric Murphy!;) NOW do you understand your own theory?

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In any event, you're certainly wrong, and you've given exactly no reason why anyone should think that 400-million-year-old anything should be identical to a living descendant.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Actually, I've given two very good reasons.  YOU have given me none supporting your position other than "ToE is true", which is not evidence to convince me that ToE is true.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But you don't know what the list is a list of.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You're probably right. Then tell me, O wise one.

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      [Horseshoe Crab pictures]Do you see any evidence of change since our LCA (>350 mya), Dave?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Small changes, yes.  Nothing more significant than say, the differences between bassett hounds and terriers (probably less).  These pictures support MY world view.  Not yours.  As does ALL data in the real world.  Your only support comes from your desperate minds.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,12:03

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 006,16:35)
      SIMILAR SEQUENCES

      Look at Denton's chart again ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data.  I may be using non-standard terminology to communicate my thought--maybe I should not say similar morphology--maybe it should be another term, I don't know.  But all I know is the 4 examples above are in the same groups and are similar in appearance and in many characteristics, and guess what ... they have very similar sequences!  Why should the "ancient" and modern lungfish be any different?



      Yes, Cory, I think they are both lungfish and they probably have almost identical sequences.  And that is based upon HARD EVIDENCE (see above) that we can actually see and test, not like your speculations based on your wishful thinking about ToE being true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Why don't you find out before spouting off and calling your speculation "HARD EVIDENCE"? (Too late, I know.)

      You can keep telling me this, Dave, but you might want to tell the lungfish (they don't seem to agree). Your homework is to compare the genetic distances between existing species of lungfish (ONE kind that hasn't changed at all, apparently) with those between humans and chimpanzees (two DIFFERENT kinds):

      To get you started, here is a molecular phylogeny for the  AFRICAN lungfish species:

      < [img=http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9679/lungfish1sv2.th.gif] >

      Or consider the morphological change (retention of external gills in adults) which has evolved TWICE:

      < [img=http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1086/lungfish2tk6.th.gif] >

      This is long after these things supposedly "stopped" evolving.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You agree with Lynn Margulis, eh? (Just like you "agreed" with Zuckerkandl?) Hoh, boy, Dave. So do you agree with her very next sentence (which I notice you didn't quote to provide the context for the above): "Gaia threatens everything they do."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I agree with Lynn Margulis in the quote I gave.  I could care less about any weird ideas she has.  I care about YOUR opinions don't I?  For all I know you could be an ex-con with a criminal record a mile long.  I have no idea and I don't care as far as this discussion goes.  All I care about is that you seem to have some knowledge of evolutionary biology.  So does Lynn Margulis.  She made a name for herself with mitochondria.  She knows a thing or two about neo-Darwinism.  And she made a strong statement.  That's all I care about.  Do you see now?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      All you care about is she made a negative statement about "Neo-Darwinism", despite the fact that she obviously (1) meant something different by "neo-Darwinism" than you do; and (2) made it for completely different reasons and with completely different implications that you wouldn't agree with in the slightest. Your claim that you "agree" with her is (and by implication that she and her scientific credentials agree with you) is dishonest in the extreme. Shorthand: you quote-mined. Do you see it now?

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I think you will have your long answer as we walk through Points C & D in the next few days.  But I'll give you a hint ... think about what causes a species to specialize and what causes them NOT to specialize.  I talked about it in my long piece today.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Hint: if you think your own breed of "geographic isolation" is going to explain the "specialization" of chimps and gorillas without necessarily including humans in the same kind, you're going to have to think harder about this one.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      [Horseshoe Crab pictures]Do you see any evidence of change since our LCA (>350 mya), Dave?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Small changes, yes.  Nothing more significant than say, the differences between bassett hounds and terriers (probably less).  These pictures support MY world view.  Not yours.  As does ALL data in the real world.  Your only support comes from your desperate minds.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Do your homework (above) for genetic distances betwen existing lungfish vs. between chimps and humans. For bonus points, provide genetic distances between basset hounds and terriers for comparison. Then, when you show me this "HARD EVIDENCE" (which you absolutely require to make your claim anything more than worthless conjecture -- more than worthless, considering the availability of actual evidence), we'll talk.

      Until then, I'll add LAZY to dishonest and ignorant.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,12:23

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,16:35)
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, are you asking me to go back in my, or your, or any human's ancestry and give you a list of every single ancestor in my ancestry all the way back to the beginning of time?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, Eric.  And bring me back some moon cheese while you're out in space, please.  Thx
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So then if that's not what you're asking for, why did you insist that my list was incomplete, Dave? Do you think my most recent list is also incomplete? If so, why? If not, why not? Have you yet figured out what my list is a list of? How many times will I have to ask you this question before you even acknowledge it, let alone answer it?
         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And you're wrong, Dave. There are no, as in not any, eukaryotes intermediate between humans and bacteria.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh good.  Thought not.  Then you agree with the Book of Genesis.  That only took 5 months to convince you.  Now you can join me in helping all these other poor Darwinist blighters see how their theory REQUIRES an intermediate eukaryote between humans and some bacteria-like organism.  Think about it, Eric.  If ToE is true and prokaryotes were the first living organisms, then there HAD to be some lucky prokaryote that evolved a cell wall, then some lucky descendant of this little guy got friendly with some other bacteria and Voila! ... multi-celled organisms, etc. etc. all the way to (drum roll ... Eric Murphy!) NOW do you understand your own theory?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, Dave, that's not how it works. There are no eukaryotes "intermediate" between bacteria and humans, because all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time. This is easily the twentieth time you've been told this. Therefore, all eukaryotes are equally unrelated to bacteria, and none is intermediate between the two. One more time, Dave: are you more closely related to your cousins than your sister is, or less closely related, or exactly equally related?

      I don't "agree" with Genesis, Dave. You think no two organisms are related to each other unless they're from the same "kind" (from which all the other descendants of that "kind" have evolved away from their common ancestor at rates fantastically accelerated beyond anything the theory of evolution proposes). I think all organisms are related, and can be classified as more or less closely related to each other according the position of their last common ancestor. Your inability to understand this is what makes you make stupid statements like "sunflowers aren't in the human ancestry."

      The theory of evolution doesn't "require" a eukaryote to be "intermediate" between bacteria and other eukaryotes; it forbids it. It's long past obvious that you will never, ever get this fundamental fact, no matter how often it's repeated to you.

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In any event, you're certainly wrong, and you've given exactly no reason why anyone should think that 400-million-year-old anything should be identical to a living descendant.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Actually, I've given two very good reasons.  YOU have given me none supporting your position other than "ToE is true", which is not evidence to convince me that ToE is true.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      God, Dave, do you even read anyone else's posts? I and others have already explained to you why those two reasons are utterly irrelevant.

      The only evidence I need to demonstrate that 400 million year old lungfish DNA is different from modern lungfish DNA is that it is literally impossible for 400 million generations of meiosis to have proceeded without any transcription errors at all. In the meantime, you've already said it's absurd to believe that ancient bacterial DNA can be the same as modern bacterial DNA, so why is it not absurd to believe that ancient lungfish DNA is different from modern lungfish DNA?

      Furthermore, you yourself claim that morphological differences are evidence of genetic differences. There is no lungfish alive today that is identical morphologically (to say nothing of genotypically) to a lungfish of 400 million years ago. It's true that lungfish have not evolved as quickly as, say, some eutherians. But to claim that they have not evolved at all is easily disproved by comparing the morphological characteristics of fossil lungfish to modern lungfish, as Incorygible pointed out, and notice the gross differences between them. So what remains of your claim that there are no differences between the two, Dave? That you can't tell the differences between two pictures of very different lungfish that someone like me, a complete non-specialist in comparative anatomy could pick out with my eyes crossed? Did you count the number of fins, Dave?

      Which brings me back to the question I've asked three times now, and which you have complete ignored: if ancient bacterial DNA is not the same as modern bacterial DNA, and it's not different from modern bacterial DNA, then how does it compare to modern bacterial DNA? Is it the same, or is it different, or is it in some other, alternative state?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But you don't know what the list is a list of.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You're probably right. Then tell me, O wise one..
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Here's what it is, Dave: it's a list of clades, every one of which humans are a member of. Do you now know what the list is of, or does that not help you, either? The fact that you still don't know what my list is of, even after I tell you what it is of, is conclusive evidence, if any were needed, that you are utterly clueless about a theory you're attempting to criticize.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 06 2006,12:25

      Me:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Note, that while Margulis complains about "neo-Darwinists", she describes herself as "definitely a Darwinist". What distinction do you suppose she's making, Dave? Does that question interest you at all?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Dave:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Yes. Fill me in.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, no. It's your job to figure that out. Suffice it to say that, until you understand the distinction, your abuse of the Margulis quote reveals you as [surprise!] a shallow quote-miner of no understanding.

      Did you at least follow the link?
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 06 2006,12:59

      I STAND CORRECTED ON LYNN MARGULIS

      The link that Russell provided me says...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It has been well documented how ID proponents quote people and papers as somehow supporting intelligent design or as evidence of people disagreeing with Darwinian theory. In case of Margulis however we find an unambiguous statement that she considers herself a Darwinist

      Michod’s talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, “This is the most wonderful conference I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of conferences.” She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.” She then outlined the basis of her theory of the origin of the cell nucleus as a fusion between archaebacteria (thermoplasma) and Eubacteria (Spirochaeta). “We live on a bacterial planet,” she reflected. “The cell is the fundamental unit of life. A minimal cell has DNA, mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, amino acylating enzymes, polymerases, sources of energy and electrons, lipoprotein membranes, and ion channels, all contained within a cell wall, and is an autopoietic (self-regulating feedback) system.” The biggest break in life, she explained, was between the prokaryotes (cells with nucleoids: monera, prokaryota; archaebacteria, eubacteria) and eukaryotes (cells with nuclei: protoctista, fungi, plantae, animalia).

      In this framework, Margulis continued, all of life’s history can be divided into three major eons: Archean (3,500 to 2,500 million years ago), Proterozoic (2,500 to 540 mya), and Phanerozoic (540 to 0 mya). “Most evolutionary biologists deal with the Phanerozoic, which is like saying that history began in 1909 when the Ford Motor Company opened shop in Dearborn, Mich,” Margulis quipped. The major steps in evolution involved symbiogenesis, which Margulis described succinctly as “the inheritance of acquired genomes” and more formally in its relationship to symbiosis, “the long-term physical association between members of different types (species).” The problem with neo-Darwinism, Margulis concluded, is that “Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis–the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction–is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes–animals, plants, and fungi.”

      There were no direct challenges to Margulis in the discussion period that followed, so I once again queried a number of the experts in this area after the lecture. The overall impression I received was that Margulis goes too far in her rejection of neo-Darwinism, but because she was right about the role of symbiogenesis in the origin of the first eukaryote cells, they are taking a wait-and-see approach. One scientist added that since Margulis was to receive an honorary doctorate that afternoon, it seemed inappropriate to challenge her in this venue.

      Source: Michael Shermer, The Woodstock of evolution, Scientific American June 27, 2005
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Wow ... whoduthunk you could make such a statement as she made, but then still be a Darwinist!

      Wonders never cease!

      ***********************************

      Cory ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Why don't you find out before spouting off and calling your speculation "HARD EVIDENCE"?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      My HARD EVIDENCE was the list of sequence differences I provided.  What do you have to say about them?  I will look at your lungfish links.

      Here's my hard evidence ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      SIMILAR SEQUENCES

      Look at Denton's chart again ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data.  I may be using non-standard terminology to communicate my thought--maybe I should not say similar morphology--maybe it should be another term, I don't know.  But all I know is the 4 examples above are in the same groups and are similar in appearance and in many characteristics, and guess what ... they have very similar sequences!  Why should the "ancient" and modern lungfish be any different?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,13:31

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,17:59)
      I STAND CORRECTED ON LYNN MARGULIS

      The link that Russell provided me says...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      In this framework, Margulis continued, all of life’s history can be divided into three major eons: Archean (3,500 to 2,500 million years ago), Proterozoic (2,500 to 540 mya), and Phanerozoic (540 to 0 mya). “Most evolutionary biologists deal with the Phanerozoic, which is like saying that history began in 1909 when the Ford Motor Company opened shop in Dearborn, Mich,” Margulis quipped.
      Source: Michael Shermer, The Woodstock of evolution, Scientific American June 27, 2005
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      But you think you agree with her. Considering that the Phanerozoic began half a billion years before you think the earth was created, Dave, I'd have to say the points of agreement you have with Ms. Margulis are utterly dwarfed by the points on which you disagree with her.
           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      SIMILAR SEQUENCES

      Look at Denton's chart again ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data.  I may be using non-standard terminology to communicate my thought--maybe I should not say similar morphology--maybe it should be another term, I don't know.  But all I know is the 4 examples above are in the same groups and are similar in appearance and in many characteristics, and guess what ... they have very similar sequences!  Why should the "ancient" and modern lungfish be any different?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So what do you have to say about a 20% intraspecific sequence difference in some species of bacteria, Dave? Still say that similar morphology guarantees similar genotype?

      Once again, you assume that some are x means all are x.

      And you still haven't exaplained why you think this is important, Dave. If you think 1 or 2% difference is unimportant, then do you now conclude that humans and chimps are essentially identical? If not, given that humans and chimps are less than 2% apart, why are humans and chimps vastly different, but tunafish and bonito almost the same?

      You seem to be having a hard time keeping your arguments straight here.

      And you still haven't answered my question: are ancient bacteria the same genetically as modern ones, or different? Or are they the same and different?
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 06 2006,13:33

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,15:50)
      does no one really know, and think the root of the tree is just a tangle of brambles?

      Based on your statement about the clade enclosing archae and eukaryotes, I'm guessing the first. Am I right?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Regarding the root of the tree... I am not sure what you mean. The infered common ancestors of each of the three empires are very distant from each other, which implies that a lot of intermediate forms disappeared. But this doesn't alter the fact that LUCA was, at most, a population of indivuduals if gene flow was possible between lineages (some sort of sexual reproduction). Anyway, all lineages eventually coalesce to a single one, a single cell, be it LUCA or one of its ancestors.

      The first tree represents the correct phylogeny even if the consensus is not shared by the whole scientific community. I think that the term "bacteria" should be used instead of "prokaryotes" to avoid a confusion.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,13:38

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,17:59)
      Cory ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Why don't you find out before spouting off and calling your speculation "HARD EVIDENCE"?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      My HARD EVIDENCE was the list of sequence differences I provided.  What do you have to say about them?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      1. They don't include lungfish.
      2. They don't include basset hounds, terriers, golden retrievers, or similar (your model of a single "kind").
      3. They therefore don't provide "HARD EVIDENCE" of any sort for your speculative claims.
      4. This information is available if you're not lazy.
      5. I honestly don't know what such comparisons (i.e., ones that would provide "HARD EVIDENCE" will reveal (I only provided a headstart). (Of course, I do have my suspicions as to what you'll find.) So why not go vindicate yourself, Dave?

      Or are you lazy?

      That is all for now.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,13:40

      [quote=afdave,Oct. 06 2006,17:59]Here's my hard evidence ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      SIMILAR SEQUENCES

      Look at Denton's chart again ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Has something occurred to you about your argument yet, Dave? In comparing tuna to bonito, are you comparing modern tuna to modern bonito, or modern tuna to ancient bonito? Are you comparing horse, a modern eutherian, to an ancient eutherian from 30 million years ago? Do you have any idea how Equus compares with Eohippus? The ancient and modern horse are definitely more closely related than a modern horse and a modern dog, and yet you have absolutely no idea whether a modern horse and an ancient horse are similar genetically or not. You have no justification for an assumption either way.

      You still don't get the distinction between cousin/cousin relationships and ancestor/descendant relationships, and you never will. You clearly don't see any difference between your sister and your great-great-great-great grandmother.

      Are you, by any chance, an only child, Dave? If you are, that would explain a lot.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 06 2006,13:44



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?
      It is quite clear that Similar Organisms = Similar Sequence Data
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You should compare shark vs. lungfish vs. human, it'll be interesting.
      Or maybe sponge vs. jellyfish vs. human? :O
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,13:52

      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 06 2006,18:33)
      Regarding the root of the tree... I am not sure what you mean. The infered common ancestors of each of the three empires are very distant from each other, which implies that a lot of intermediate forms disappeared. But this doesn't alter the fact that LUCA was, at most, a population of indivuduals if gene flow was possible between lineages (some sort of sexual reproduction). Anyway, all lineages eventually coalesce to a single one, a single cell, be it LUCA or one of its ancestors.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Yes, that pretty much answers my questions with regard to brambles at the root of the tree.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The first tree represents the correct phylogeny even if the consensus is not shared by the whole scientific community. I think that the term "bacteria" should be used instead of "prokaryotes" to avoid a confusion.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So in other words, a clade (unnamed, as you point out) comprised of the common ancestor of eukaryotes and archae, diverged from eubacteria, and then some time later archae and eukaryotes split off in their separate directions? Would that be accurate?
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 06 2006,13:56

      AFDave said:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Yes.  He apparently had a moment of clear thinking, then succumbed to the fog again.  Not only is Zuckerkandl my backup, but common sense, logic and observation is my backup.  Also, I find it hard to believe that Zuckerkandl was the only one in the 50's and 60's who shared my view.  I do not have access to the publications that Drew Headley does, though, so I cannot prove this.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      I appreciate you admitting that you cannot prove this. Now please, do not use it as evidence to back up your assertion that evolutionists used to think that similar homology implied sequence similarity.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 06 2006,14:00

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,18:52)
      So in other words, a clade (unnamed, as you point out) comprised of the common ancestor of eukaryotes and archae, diverged from eubacteria, and then some time later archae and eukaryotes split off in their separate directions? Would that be accurate?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      That seems so, but most of this is unknown (how the nucleus appeared and so on). And don't forget endosymbiosis. We are partially bacterial. I'd like to hear Dave about that BTW, how his hypothesis explains organelles better than the ToE does.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,14:07

      Dave, I have no wish to surprise you in your upcoming quest to define a “kind” in any meaningful fashion.

      I will therefore lay ALL my cards on the table.

      When it comes to explaining life on this planet, the following is the BARE MINIMUM in explanatory power that is required for your CGH to even enter the same solar system as the ToE. Anything else is a grievous waste of your time and ours.

      You will provide a biologically relevant definition of “kind” that will allow us to identify these “kinds” and classify a representative sample of organisms (some of your choice, some of ours) according to comparisons of morphology, biochemistry and/or genetics (e.g., data such as Denton’s table) ON OUR OWN, without the wisdom of your opinion (and we better all arrive at similar conclusions or your criteria SUCK). Only then will we be able to bask in the light of your “Truth”. You have already argued that there should be a strong relationship between morphology, biochemistry and genetics. If this applies to evolutionary clades, it applies to “kinds” as well. Otherwise, you will have to deny such a link, and your days of “arguments against evolution” from Denton's table are worthless.

      You will provide objective, biologically relevant criteria for recognizing these kinds. Any subjective argument of the “looks-like-a-fish/gorilla/retriever to me” sort will be dismissed with disdain unless you explain WHY it looks as such.

      At the VERY least, to be consistent with your former claims, your biological criteria for kinds will have to give us a “window” in the amount of permissible “microevolutionary” divergence within a kind (according to whatever biological measure you deem relevant) that is:

      (1) NARROW enough to separate chimps from humans as two separate kinds that could not have emerged via “microevolution”.

      (2) BROAD enough to group bacteria, lungfish, and chimps/gorillas/orangutans/?monkeys? as single “kinds”.

      I will be challenging you on the consistency of your definition with your own statements concerning “kinds”, your CGH, and your criticisms of evolutionary theory.

      Good luck. You’re going to need it. May you succeed where EVERY former Creationist has failed. (Actually, for good reason, they’ve never tried.)

      P.S. You have already been given more than enough information to realize that you are in tough with this one. If you wish to save time and receive a “dishonorable discharge”, please explain why the above request is unfair or cannot be met.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,14:11

      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 06 2006,19:00)
       
      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 06 2006,18:52)
      So in other words, a clade (unnamed, as you point out) comprised of the common ancestor of eukaryotes and archae, diverged from eubacteria, and then some time later archae and eukaryotes split off in their separate directions? Would that be accurate?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      That seems so, but most of this is unknown (how the nucleus appeared and so on). And don't forget endosymbiosis. We are partially bacterial. I'd like to hear Dave about that BTW, how his hypothesis explains organelles better than the ToE does.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I wouldn't hold your breath. Dave can't even explain how 4.55 billion years is not nearly enough time to account for the 10 million or so species currently in existence, but at the same time thinks 4,500 years is plenty of time to account for the 10 million or so species currently in existence.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 06 2006,14:42



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You should compare shark vs. lungfish vs. human, it'll be interesting.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I believe we had this discussion with one of our resident outside-the-boxers - ("Shi" or "Skeptic"; can't remember exactly).

      But it's a good point for Dave to ponder. What does ToE predict about the degrees of similarity between the following pairs of DNA's:

      salmon and shark
      shark and human
      human and salmon

      What does Dave's theory predict?
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 06 2006,16:28



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I am assuming that large amounts of time seperate the two fish that is all. Just by looking at them if we have no idea about the timescales involved, then we can't make any inference about neutral mutations. We can't look at them and say they must have very similar sequences, unless we assume that there is very little time seperating the two.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 06 2006,16:49

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But you think you agree with her.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Are you mad?  Of course I don't agree with her if she's still a Darwinist.

      Drew...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      appreciate you admitting that you cannot prove this. Now please, do not use it as evidence to back up your assertion that evolutionists used to think that similar homology implied sequence similarity.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You can't tell me that Z was the only one who believed this in 1965.  I guess I am going to have to figure out a way to get access to these journals online.

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1. They don't include lungfish.
      2. They don't include basset hounds, terriers, golden retrievers, or similar (your model of a single "kind").
      3. They therefore don't provide "HARD EVIDENCE" of any sort for your speculative claims.
      4. This information is available if you're not lazy.
      5. I honestly don't know what such comparisons (i.e., ones that would provide "HARD EVIDENCE" will reveal (I only provided a headstart). (Of course, I do have my suspicions as to what you'll find.) So why not go vindicate yourself, Dave?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      OK.  Scratch basset hounds, retrievers and terriers then if you like.  My hard evidence for these organisms ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      ...proves my point quite clearly.

      Eric...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Has something occurred to you about your argument yet, Dave? In comparing tuna to bonito, are you comparing modern tuna to modern bonito, or modern tuna to ancient bonito?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, LOTS is occurring to me ... namely, that ToE is a hoot!  I know it's difficult for you to understand, but I'm showing you that when we compare MODERN organisms, the similar ones yield very similar sequences.  By inference, we say that a similar ANCIENT lungfish must have similar sequences also.  (As "the Z man" once did also)
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,17:16

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,21:49)
      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      But you think you agree with her.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Are you mad?  Of course I don't agree with her if she's still a Darwinist.

      Drew...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      appreciate you admitting that you cannot prove this. Now please, do not use it as evidence to back up your assertion that evolutionists used to think that similar homology implied sequence similarity.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You can't tell me that Z was the only one who believed this in 1965.  I guess I am going to have to figure out a way to get access to these journals online.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1. They don't include lungfish.
      2. They don't include basset hounds, terriers, golden retrievers, or similar (your model of a single "kind").
      3. They therefore don't provide "HARD EVIDENCE" of any sort for your speculative claims.
      4. This information is available if you're not lazy.
      5. I honestly don't know what such comparisons (i.e., ones that would provide "HARD EVIDENCE" will reveal (I only provided a headstart). (Of course, I do have my suspicions as to what you'll find.) So why not go vindicate yourself, Dave?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      OK.  Scratch basset hounds, retrievers and terriers then if you like.  My hard evidence for these organisms ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      ...proves my point quite clearly.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Has something occurred to you about your argument yet, Dave? In comparing tuna to bonito, are you comparing modern tuna to modern bonito, or modern tuna to ancient bonito?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, LOTS is occurring to me ... namely, that ToE is a hoot!  I know it's difficult for you to understand, but I'm showing you that when we compare MODERN organisms, the similar ones yield very similar sequences.  By inference, we say that a similar ANCIENT lungfish must have similar sequences also.  (As "the Z man" once did also)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, no intellectually honest person would EXTRAPOLATE to make a claim when the data to INTERPOLATE were readily available. Your "inference" is worthless. And that's assuming your extrapolation is performed in a sensical and valid manner. It's not.

      Furthermore, I'm willing to front you the difference between ancient lungfish and modern lungfish as the shortest possible genetic distance between all existing lungfish species and some point "in-between". This is the most conservative estimate possible: the most similar the ancient ancestor could possibly have been to modern lungfish. I have actually already presented paleontological evidence which STRONGLY suggests such an exercise would SERIOUSLY overestimate the similarity between ancient and modern lungfish, but for the purposes of the argument, I'm willing to stipulate it as stated. All you have to do is actually figure out what that distance is. How hard could that be (especially for someone who understands evolution and genetics better than we do)?

      Coward.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 06 2006,17:24

      AFDAVE.  READ THIS MESSAGE AND RESPOND OR ANSWER MY SUMMARY PLEASE.  
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,17:35)
      GW...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Your approach is to present "evidence" "against evolution" and then run away from the topic when you are shown to be wrong.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No running.  I stuck with RM dating until JonF got tired and left.  Mike PSS tried to take over for JonF with mineral isochrons, but can't seem to get in gear.  I'm quite ready for him if he ever comes up with anything.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Ha, Ha, Ha Dave.  I have an unanswered summary and a reply to your questions unanswered and unacknowledged by you.  I can get the quotes and reference links if you want.

      Anyway, I see we will have to redefine the rules of engagement on these subjects.  I thought we had a point/counter-point agreement going but your recent bluster has dissuaded me from carrying on with this format.  In fact I think you have ignored BWE with this format for months now.

      I thought of posting long, detailed explanations but you have said you don't like that format either.  And you even asked for an executive summary approach, which was tried and ultimately failed.

      What have we left Dave, yelling at each other?  Calling names?  Anything I've tried to get you to discuss some straight-forward points that are on-topic in your thread have been met with silence or a request to repeat the original question.

      What's it going to be Dave.  You obviously want me to present something to you, but for the life of me I don't know how you want it presented.

      Make up your mind and stay to it please.

      Mike PSS
      Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 06 2006,17:36



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You can't tell me that Z was the only one who believed this in 1965.  I guess I am going to have to figure out a way to get access to these journals online.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Go to your local University Library.  They'll have online access to most journal articles since around 1995, stacks with major journals going back to the 50s, less prominent journals going back to the 80s, and articles available in reserves upon request.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,17:38

      Also, Dave, not that you should need this pointed out (knowing more than us and all), but in the following "HARD EVIDENCE" of yours:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      you have this question mark in a particularly important comparison, indicating (quite rightly) that you are unsure about one value. The answer to it has already been given. Your value is incorrect by a considerable margin. Please supply the correct datum. Thank you.

      Sesame Street Hint: One of these things is not like the other...
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 06 2006,17:40

      Cory...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, no intellectually honest person would EXTRAPOLATE to make a claim when the data to INTERPOLATE were readily available.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I don't have modern lungfish comparison data readily available.  So I make inferences based on the data I DO have -- which is the Denton data I already posted.

      *************************************

      Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

      "Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

      You fill in the blank.

      Or ...

      "Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."

      *********************************

      Yes, Argy, it seems I will have to drive the 40 miles to do that (sigh).
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 06 2006,17:47

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,22:40)
      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, no intellectually honest person would EXTRAPOLATE to make a claim when the data to INTERPOLATE were readily available.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I don't have modern lungfish comparison data readily available.  So I make inferences based on the data I DO have -- which is the Denton data I already posted.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Those data are not up to the task of justifying your claim. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you have included a grievously erroneous value in your "HARD EVIDENCE" which is NOT from Denton's table. For many months, I and others have been spoonfeeding you information, not only about what evolution predicts vs. what the data say, but also about what your CGH predicts vs. what the data say.

      No more. After claiming you know this stuff better than we do, it's time to walk the walk, Dave.

      If you're too lazy to be interested in answering questions versus making unfounded speculations, so be it. Your view of the "truth" and the "evidence" will just be weighted accordingly. As it stands, your data are wrong, and your "inference" is invalid. Stop wasting our time.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 06 2006,19:03

      Dave, in order to criticize a theory, you at least need to have an elementary understanding of the theory. You've demonstrated again and again that you don't understand the simplest elements of the theory of evolution. You still don't get the concept of nested hierarchies, nor do you understand the distinction between cousin/cousin relationships and ancestor/descendent relationships, which prevents you from making any progress in critiquing the theory at all.
         
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,21:49)
      Eric...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Has something occurred to you about your argument yet, Dave? In comparing tuna to bonito, are you comparing modern tuna to modern bonito, or modern tuna to ancient bonito?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, LOTS is occurring to me ... namely, that ToE is a hoot!  I know it's difficult for you to understand, but I'm showing you that when we compare MODERN organisms, the similar ones yield very similar sequences.  By inference, we say that a similar ANCIENT lungfish must have similar sequences also.  (As "the Z man" once did also).
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, you have absolutely no idea what ancient sequences looked like. How would you? Have you obtained samples of 400 million year old DNA somewhere that you can compare to modern DNA? You're guessing when you say they're similar, and you don't even have any justification for making such a guess.

      Everything alive today has been evolving for close to four billion years. Everything alive 400 million years ago had been evolving for 400 million years' less time. You're still hung up on this idea that bacteria stopped evolving a billion years ago, that starfish stopped evolving 600 million years ago, that lungfish stopped evolving 400 million years ago, and that chimps stopped evolving a few million years ago. Except, of course, you think everything did essentially all the evolving it was ever going to do in a matter of a few hundred years. We've gone from a monkey "kind" to over 200 species of monkeys in less than a few thousand years.

      And once more: if tuna and bonita are practically the same thing with a 2% sequence difference, are humans and chimps practically the same thing with a 1.5% sequence difference? You're the one who claims humans and chimps aren't even related.

      Now, will you explain why it's absurd to think that ancient bacteria could have similar genotypes to modern bacteria, and it's absurd to believe they could have different genotypes from modern bacteria? Or will you instead admit you fucked up when you tried to make this argument?

      And, you seem to have lost interest in the list you had me make up for you. Is that because you now realize that it actually hurts your argument that some eukaryotes should be more closely related to prokaryotes than others? Have you now abandoned that claim? Because if you have, then the argument you've wasted all this bandwidth on, which is based on your assumption that ancient organisms have the same DNA sequence as similar modern organisms, completely falls apart.

      Also, now would be a good time to answer Incorygible's questions about your definition of a "kind." You're not going to be able to duck this question forever, because at some point you're going to need to justify your claim of fantastically-accelerated macroevolution that gets from some number of "kinds" (a few hundred? a few thousand? a few hundred thousand?) to anywhere from five million to a hundred million currently existing species.

      I don't care whether you can answer these questions, Dave. I care whether you have answered them. You haven't.
      Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 06 2006,20:50

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,22:40)
      Yes, Argy, it seems I will have to drive the 40 miles to do that (sigh).
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      More lies from RDDTTD. A short trip to the Linda Hall Library < http://www.lindahall.org/ > would fulfill all his sciency needs.

      Here's a contact for you to continue your education on paleosols in Missouri,

      Chalfant, Michael
      Soil Scientist and Archaeologist
      Phone: (573) 884-3440

      View paleosol and loess with your bare nekkid eyeballs Davey and be enlightened. I dare you.

      You can also start preparing your refutation of cosmogenic-isotope dating.

      Science keeps outrunning you and your AIG/ICR knuckleheads RDDTTD.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 06 2006,23:07

      Mike PSS,
      Dave claimed victory in the portuguese debate without ever making a single point/counterpoint. Nada.
      < link here >

      He has ignored my questions ever since.

      Speaking of which Dave, I offered to take either side of the debate. Jeez.

      Core samples. You never answered my question: If I could demonstrate that the earth is more than your 6000 years or whatever date you want, would that prove your hypothesis wrong?
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 06 2006,23:37



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      ...proves my point quite clearly.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Yeah, like the distance between chimp and gorilla. You remember, Dave?

      Dude, it doesn't prove your point, it proves that organisms which diverged recently are less distant. You took two fish that belong to the same recent family, you idiot. Do you know how many families of fish there are?
      Aves and especially homonidae appeared rather recently.

      I challenge you to compare the genetic distances between shark and salmon or sponge vs. jellyfish to the distances that separate them from humans. It will prove that you are wrong.
      But you wont take this challenge and one will have to put the data just before your eyes. Then you will ignore them or spit your usual nonsense like "man, only 10% difference? Are you kidding?"
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 07 2006,01:36

      Hey bible boy   ( Yes, LOTS is occurring to me ... namely, that ToE is a hoot!)

      Better call these guys up and set them straight, it seems they don't agree with your "one true version of creation" in fact, they seem to be giving it the finger.

      < 'Monster' fossil find in Arctic >



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Norwegian scientists have discovered a "treasure trove" of fossils belonging to giant sea reptiles that roamed the seas at the time of the dinosaurs.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Make sure you don't give them your name and number tho' bible boy, you don't want the men in  white coats comming around, do you?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 07 2006,05:06

      Alright, since Dave isn't likely to see the error in his table of "HARD EVIDENCE" anytime soon (that would mean understanding data, and being careful with its use), let's not let him get away with it anymore.

      The following are from Denton's abridged table of Dayhoff's 1972 "atlas" of cytochrome-c AMINO ACID sequence differences:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      The last entry


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      is presumably from the table of GENETIC SEQUENCE data at a broad sample of loci for humans and chimps that I provided earlier.

      Dave doesn't understand that directly comparing the % difference results for AMINO ACID sequence vs. GENETIC SEQUENCE is comparing apples to oranges, so he puts them in the same table (even though the relevant amino-acid comparison for humans vs. chimps has been pointed out to him).

      Dave, the correct entry in your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" is:

      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 0.0% difference
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 07 2006,05:15

      Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 07 2006,10:06)
      Dave doesn't understand that directly comparing the % difference results for AMINO ACID sequence vs. GENETIC SEQUENCE is comparing apples to oranges, so he puts them in the same table (even though the relevant amino-acid comparison for humans vs. chimps has been pointed out to him).

      Dave, the correct entry in your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" is:

      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 0.0% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I didn't catch this, which was dumb of me because I had already < challenged > Dave to explain how it came to be that humans and chimps have exactly the same cytochrome c amino acid sequence, given the 10^93 different functional versions of the protein.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There's one critter on this charter that's missing, Dave: the chimpanzee. Humans and chimps have < exactly the same cytochrome c protein sequence. > (theoretically, you should already have known this; did you?) The chances of this happening by chance, given the functional redundancy of the cytochrome c protein, are conservatively estimated at less than one out of 10^93.

      Any explanation for this, Dave? Another "miracle?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      Of course, he never bothered to respond (even though he claims to answer all our questions), but here's another one, Dave: if chimps are closer to gorillas than humans, why is it that their cytochrome c is closer to humans than gorillas? You use cytochrome to determine relatedness of other organisms, and seem to think 2% difference is pretty close. What do you make of zero difference?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 07 2006,05:18

      I was about to ask what this  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      ...proves my point quite clearly.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      was supposed to prove. But incorygible's post cleared that up for me. Thanks, incorygible.

      Dave, this misunderstanding of data makes your claims of having any grasp at all of the subject matter you so confidently and arrogantly call "a hoot" even more laughable than does your mishandling of the Margulis quote. Which is saying a lot.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 07 2006,05:25

      I think it might be time for a recap of Dave's current argument. It seems to go like this:

      • All eukaryotes are equally unrelated to bacteria in their cytochrome c amino acid sequence. Dave thinks this is a problem for evolutionary theory.
      • He thinks it's a problem for the theory because he also erroneously thinks that DNA from ancient organisms should be the same as the DNA from similar organisms alive today. He's never really explained why this position, even if correct, supports his earlier assertion.
      • He thinks that these two assertions together somehow prove his assertion that "evolutionists" "need" deep time, which even if true (and it probably is true), doesn't seem to support his next assertion at all, which is:
      • Since "evolutionists" "need" deep time, geochronologists are happy to give it to them, and decide which rocks to date according to what kind of dates "evolutionists" "need" for evolution to have occurred.

      This is what I've gleaned from your posts over the last week, Dave. Aside from your obvious disagreements with me over whether you've proved your points, would you agree that this is an accurate statement of your argument?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 07 2006,05:27

      Let's add one more, shall we?

      LAND/SEA MAMMALS?: guinea pig vs. gray whale = 2% difference

      Similar animals, Dave? Only a third as different as, say, a dog vs. a horse? I mean, look at them, it's obvious!

      guinea pig: gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

      gray whale: gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg eetlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge radliaylkk atne

      Dave, since I know you're an honest sort, I'm sure you will add this to your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" demonstrating that "similar" animals have similar cytochrome-c, right? More data never hurts, and this is a directly comparable datum well within your range of "similarity".
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 07 2006,05:43

      Oh and another point AFD since you are claiming X percentage difference between the Human and Chimp Genome what does that actually say?

      Are you saying that the time required to produce that difference through evolution from their LCA is more or less than 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 years ago?

      If you want to use DNA to calculate time then why is it that scientists who have proven the mathematical  fact the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent (Mitochondrial Eve) is 10's of thousands of years older than Y-chromosome Adam?

      SO AFD tell us all, where in your bible does it give the age of 'Eve' as less than 6000 years (fundy 'scholars' don't count BTW) when scientists have proven mathematically that the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent (Mitochondrial Eve) is more than 150,000 years old? AND didn't live in the same millennium as Y-chromosome Adam?

      AFD you are getting an absolute hiding here, help us all out, please provide a mathematical proof this is not the case.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 07 2006,06:03

      Just looked up this

      < A Critique of Carl Wieland's AiG article on Mitochondrial Eve by Alec MacAndrew >

      he ends with



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now.  They will be as wrong then as they are now.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So how about it AFD ....who was 'Eve's' mother...the stork?
      Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 07 2006,06:39

      Ooooo, oooooh, ooooh.  Pick Me!
      Please, pick me.  I'd like to have some fun and wear AFDave's dunce cap for a moment.
      I bet I know how he will answer it!
      We all know that "evolutionists" have conspired with the geologists and the dendrocronologists etc. to create the "silly fairy tale" of deep time, right?
      Well,(drum roll please), how about we just include the genetisists and the mathematicians in on the whole "evolutionist" conspiracy.  Maybe the lab guys in all the DNA labs around the world are being duped by cause of the Grand Deep Time Conspiracy.  'Cause...well...we're all afraid of God or something. :(
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 07 2006,07:37

      Welcome aboard AFD's very fast sinking "Ark" Cedric

      We could include in AFD's conspiracy every financial institution and Oil company in the world for not funding 'creation' based Oil exploration

      ..I can't imagine why ......there seems to be the mistaken belief by those people that the Carboniferous Age (135 million years ago) was the source for most trapped hydrocarbons.

      Climatologists who date ice cores from Greenland using Oxygen isotopes that show the level of trapped oxygen going back over 100,000 years.

      Astronomers who just can't get it through their heads that the solar system is only 6000 years old.

      Engineers who poo poo the idea of a big wooden ark.

      Archaeologists who constantly find stuff older than 6000 years.

      All the companies that the produce equipment scientists use for radio-metric dating...it's criminal ...surely AFD should sue all those liars.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 07 2006,07:59

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,22:49)
      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

      ...proves my point quite clearly.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      More of your made-up data only proves one thing:


      Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2006,11:13

      Something I'm wondering about - average mutation rates are typically given as per number of generations. But with multicelled critters, doesn't the DNA typically get copied several times between one generation and the next, as the organism matures enough to produce offspring? Could that be a factor in why the short generation and long generation species seem to match up on the amount of accumulative mutation?

      (Sorry if this question was already brought up, but this thread moves too fast for me to read all of it.)

      Henry
      Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 07 2006,11:53

      Quote (k.e @ Oct. 07 2006,12:37)
      Welcome aboard AFD's very fast sinking "Ark" Cedric

      We could include in AFD's conspiracy every financial institution and Oil company in the world for not funding 'creation' based Oil exploration

      ..I can't imagine why ......there seems to be the mistaken belief by those people that the Carboniferous Age (135 million years ago) was the source for most trapped hydrocarbons.

      Climatologists who date ice cores from Greenland using Oxygen isotopes that show the level of trapped oxygen going back over 100,000 years.

      Astronomers who just can't get it through their heads that the solar system is only 6000 years old.

      Engineers who poo poo the idea of a big wooden ark.

      Archaeologists who constantly find stuff older than 6000 years.

      All the companies that the produce equipment scientists use for radio-metric dating...it's criminal ...surely AFD should sue all those liars.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hey! You left out those dastardly computer scientists that produce all those programs that show that random changes and natural selection produce results.

      And of course all those teachers that indoctrinate children in proper science. If only they would get out of the way and let Dave brainw... err... educate them in proper fear of God, the world would be so much better.

      And lets not forget the better educated segment of society that keeps repressing Dave and his fellow creationists. How dare they think they know more just because they have studied the relevant subjects at university level!

      Hope that helps,

      Grey Wolf
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 07 2006,13:45

      I apologize for the long post but I just read this off the newsbot and I'm betting most of these never get read.  I thought this was very well written and might be worth discussing here:

      The Sunday Times   October 08, 2006

      Comment: The need to believe
      In his new book, Richard Dawkins argues that God is a delusion. But, asks Rod Liddle, isn't 'evangelical atheism' an article of faith in itself
      Here’s a conundrum, of sorts, for evangelical atheists. Richard Dawkins has just written a book — an entertaining, wildly informative, splendidly written polemic against the existence of a divine being — called The God Delusion. As a scientist, perhaps these days our most lauded scientist, Dawkins is canny enough to know that, by the lights of his own methodology, it is impossible to state with certainty that there is no God. So he quietly concedes, early on, that God is “improbable”. Yet the rest of the book burns with a fervent faith that God is a childish construct of our imaginations; that He never existed and was a delusion.

      Rhetoric and dark humour are brought to bear to swing the vacillating reader; we are elegantly cajoled, cleverly harangued into shedding ourselves of this superstitious nonsense that has bedevilled us since our first visit to Sunday school.

      It is a passionate book; it is a book based on faith. It uses a wonderful array of literary and philosophical devices to convince that Dawkins’s belief is correct. It uses every manipulative trick there is to convince us of the author’s rectitude. It attempts to use science to destroy God, but cannot stick with science because science, sadly — by the author’s own admission — cannot do the job. “Well, there’s lots of science in it,” Dawkins replied, after a while, when I put this point to him during an interview for a Channel 4 documentary — and so there is. He had earlier concurred that The God Delusion was in the main a rhetorical work, and that he was in danger of becoming better known as a serial God-basher than as a serious scientist. “That would be sad,” he agreed.

      There is no reason, of course, why a brilliant scientific mind like Dawkins’s should be debarred from rhetoric, satire and humour. But the problem is, when you advance a case rooted in the supposedly disinterested scientific discourse that insists God probably does not exist, then flam it up so that God becomes a ludicrous and contemptible conceit, you undermine the basis of your argument. That’s the conundrum for atheists: the belief that God exists is scarcely less worthy than the belief that He does not exist. Or, at least, neither proposition obliges belief per se. It is this notion of belief, rather than God, that causes the problems. And The God Delusion throbs with belief, the belief of the disbeliever; its broad sweep of science is in most cases subordinate to the author’s standpoint.

      Science does not exist in a vacuum, its practitioners inured to such human frailties as hubris. If this were the case, we would have paradigm shifts less frequently; science would progress in a more orderly manner, each practitioner disinterestedly testing the hypotheses of their predecessors, unblemished by an unscientific attachment to this or that standpoint.

      That’s not how science works. Scientists tend to attach themselves to their disparate theories with a very human, unscientific fervour. Later, their theories are almost always amended or discarded; that’s the way with science. And refusing to let go of those theories is the way with human beings. You might argue further that if you are a scientist, you should be disinclined to talk in terms of certainties, knowing that human knowledge is finite and will change. Particularly when dealing with God, and even more so, when your viewpoint is drawn from a theory that is beginning to look a little careworn: Darwinism.

      Of all the scientific ideas that have sent God scurrying into a hole in the skirting board, Darwinism had the most shattering effect. The previously unanswerable question — how could an organ as complex as, say, an eye, evolve by chance? It couldn’t! There must be a creator! — was suddenly rendered irrelevant.

      For 147 years, Darwinism has been the best way we have of explaining evolution. And when Dawkins and the like eviscerate bone-headed creationists and advocates of intelligent design, one is unreservedly with him. Theirs is an obnoxious and dangerous stupidity, a wilful promulgation of ignorance. But increasingly one feels that their numbing certainties are matched by those of the atheists; that there is an intellectual blindness on the other side, too.

      Take Dawkins’s riposte to those who suggest that there may have been a God of some kind responsible for the inception of life, who then conveniently absented himself. This is silly, he suggests, because it would contradict the principle that the complex evolves from the simple; if God were there before the amoeba, He must surely have been a complex being, and therefore something must have created Him. QED, reverend.

      Well, that’s true if Darwinian evolution is a sort of sacred text that must never be gainsaid. Yet increasingly, scientists are picking holes in this notion of gradual change. The “evo-devo” school of thought holds that sudden change can occur within a species effectively in the space of one generation. It does not imply that there is a creator; it is, if you like, God- neutral. But it challenges a central tenet of something that has become less a theory than a faith.

      Nowhere, though, do the atheists flail more ineffectually than in attempting to fill what Sartre called the “God-shaped hole” inside all of us: our need to believe in something from which we derive our notion of morality.

      Atheists squirm when presented with the fact that political regimes that did away with religion and replaced it with a supposedly rational creed (to which the description “scientific” was frequently appended) ended up murdering more people than Torquemada could have ever envisaged.

      Clearly, something always moves in to fill that gap — and you might argue that the more avowedly “scientific” it is, the more it will be disposed towards viciousness. Dawkins acknowledges this need for something and concocts 10 commandments. For which thanks, Richard, mate. In place of don’t kill, steal or covet your neighbour’s wife, we have stuff like “Value the future on a timescale longer than your own”, or “Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else)”. It is the 10 commandments handed down not by Moses, but by a wet Guardian leader-writer, etched not in stone but perhaps on organic tofu. It is beyond parody, and its potential longevity as a useful moral code can be counted in years rather than millenniums.

      The truth, though, for the atheists — Dawkins included — is that science itself fills their “God-shaped holes” in a way that, by its own lights, it should not. Dawkins marshals figures that suggest belief in God is low among scientists, implying this is because they know better. More likely is that, being human, they have swapped one belief system for another and his statistics are simply a tautology: the scientists believe in a different God.

      It is evident in the fury and passion with which Dawkins et al advance their cause: they proselytise, they evangelise, they demand our repentance and our acceptance of their own creed. I’d rather treat science as a wonderful human creation for describing the world around us — often in metaphors that have an agreeably biblical ring to them. And, at the same time, I suspect — Betjeman called it, in a lovely oxymoron, a “faint conviction” — that we do not know everything, nor ever shall, and that there is a ghost somewhere in the machine.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 07 2006,14:02

      Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 07 2006,16:13)
      Something I'm wondering about - average mutation rates are typically given as per number of generations. But with multicelled critters, doesn't the DNA typically get copied several times between one generation and the next, as the organism matures enough to produce offspring? Could that be a factor in why the short generation and long generation species seem to match up on the amount of accumulative mutation?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      This amount depends on the fixation rate of new alleles, which essentialy varies with generation time, effective population size and of course mutation rate per generation (for neutral mutations). The latter variable is too low to allow the accumulation of mutations at the same locus in a cell line, even if gametes are produced after many cellular cycles.
      However, species whose germinal cell lines undergo many mitosis should have higher mutation rates per generation, all else being equal (which is unrealistic). However, I don't think a longer generation time can be compensated by a higher mutation rate per generation. The differences are not in the same order of magnitude. Moreover, I am not aware of a higher mutation rate/generation in organisms with longer lifespans.

      And I'd like to stress again that this reasoning only applies for neutral mutations. We don't know the selection coefficients of the mutations involved in the CytC distance matrix that our friend provided.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 07 2006,15:36

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,23:40)
      Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

      "Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

      You fill in the blank.

      Or ...

      "Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Alright Dave, I'll bite.

      However, the second statement in your quote happens to be one of your assertions, not one of my points.  You stated this assertion earlier but haven't followed up by discussing the difference between mineral Isochrons and whole rock Isochrons (or the concordia-discordia ramifications).  So I'll only be commenting ONLY on your first statement.
      ***************************
      So.... Here we go.

      Dave, your claim that whole rock isochrons are merely mixing diagrams is false because < I STATED THIS IN MY SUMMARY ON PAGE 7 WHEN YOU ASKED ME FOR THIS INFORMATION! >

      Stop, stop ,stop.  Oh, sorry, you wanted another format.  Let's try again.

      Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

      Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.

      Dave, If I simplify this anymore then my response will look like  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Rock, hard, good data, bad Dave, straight line, it burns, your turn.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Mike PSS
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 07 2006,16:22

      And speaking of Mr. Dawkins (who most certainly should not be confused with Mr. Hawkins), here's a quote from The Ancestor's Tale about, of all things, the lungfish:

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Although the anatomies, and presumably ways of life, of these living fossils have changed rather little, their DNA texts have not stopped evolving. We cousins of lungfish have changed massively during the hundreds of millions of years since we branched apart. But although lungfish bodies stagnated during that time, you wouldn't guess it if you looked at the speed of evolution of their DNA.

      The ray-finned fish (familiar fish, such as trout or perch) during this time have produced an amazing variety of forms. So, more familiarly, have the tetrapods—we glorified lobe-finned fish who moved out onto the land. The bodies of the lobefins themselves have evolved extremely slowly. Yet at the same time—here is the point this whole tale is leading up to—their genetic molecules seem not to have stuck to this same slow pace. If they had, the DNA sequences of lungfish and coelacanths would be much more similar to each other (and presumably to ancient ancestors) that they are to us, and to ray-finned fish. Yet they are not.

      We know from fossils the approximate timings of the ancestral splits between lungfish, coelacanths, ourselves and the ray finned fish. The first split, at about 440 million years ago, is that between the ray-finned fish and all the rest of us. The next to split off were the coelacanths, about 425 million years ago. That left the lungfish and all the rest of us. About 5 or 10 million years later still, the lungfish split off, leaving the rest of us, now called tetrapods, to make our own evolutionary way. As evolutionary time goes, all three of those splits occurred at pretty nearly the same time, at least compared to the long time over which all four lineages have been evolving ever since.

      While working on a different problem, Rafael Zardoya of Spain and Axel Meyer of Germany drew the evolutionary tree:



      for the DNA of various species. The length of each branch is drawn to reflect the amount of evolutionary change, in mitochondrial DNA, along it.

      If the DNA evolved at a constant rate, regardless of the species, then we would expect all the branches to finish lined up at the right-hand edge. This clearly isn't the case. Bur neither do the organisms that show the least morphological change have the shortest branches. The DNA seems to have evolved at about the same rate in the lungfish and the coelacanth as in the ray-finned fish. The vertebrates that colonised the land experienced a faster rate of DNA evolution, but even this is not obviously linked to morphological change. The winner and the runner-up of this molecular caucus race are the platypus and the alligator, neither of which have evolved morphologically as fast as, say, the blue whale or (vanity can't help whispering to us) us.

      The diagram illustrates an important fact. The rate of DNA evolution is not always constant, but neither is it obviously correlated with morphological change.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      —Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004, pg. 322—324.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 07 2006,16:48

      AN HONEST ANSWER BY CHRIS HYLAND ... OBFUSCATION BY CORY, RUSSELL AND OTHERS, AND A VERY INSIGHTFUL POST BY "SKEPTIC"

      (And no disgusting pictures by Mr. Aftershave)

      ... a very good day, all in all.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFD ...Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?

      Chris Hyland ...I am assuming that large amounts of time seperate the two fish that is all. Just by looking at them if we have no idea about the timescales involved, then we can't make any inference about neutral mutations. We can't look at them and say they must have very similar sequences, unless we assume that there is very little time seperating the two.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      That is just it, Chris.  You are ASSUMING large amounts of time separating the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish.  Nothing in our experience has ever led us to believe that organisms that look as similar as these two do--the fossil specimen and the modern specimen--would have anything other than virtually identical sequences.  All our experience comparing similar specimens of modern organisms shows us that they also have very similar sequences.  The only reason that you think otherwise is ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS HAS, IN FACT OCCURRED, AND ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT MANY NEUTRAL MUTATIONS MUST HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THIS ASSUMED IMMENSE LAPSE OF TIME.


      *************************************

      UH ... CORY ... 1.5% IS REEEALY REEEALY CLOSE TO 0%

      AFDave posts evidence that when we compare modern similar species, they have very similar sequences as follows ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?  

      (notice the question mark showing that I am honest enough to say I'm not sure about the exact value)

      Then Cory obfuscates (either accidently or on purpose) with this ...

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Those data are not up to the task of justifying your claim. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you have included a grievously erroneous value in your "HARD EVIDENCE" which is NOT from Denton's table.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and this ...

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, the correct entry in your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" is:

      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 0.0% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now, Cory ... were you deliberately obfuscating?  Or do you really not understand what's going on here?  Chris H apparently does understand and gave me an honest answer.  His answer exposes an enormous weakness of ToE, but he gave an honest answer anyway, which I appreciate.

      My point in posting that data was simply that Similar Modern Organisms >> Similar Sequences.  That's it.  Pretty simple.  Doesn't matter if Humans and Chimps are 1.5% apart or 0% apart.  Both values work just fine to illustrate my point.  Did you really honestly miss this?

      Russell ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I was about to ask what this  was supposed to prove. But incorygible's post cleared that up for me. Thanks, incorygible.

      Dave, this misunderstanding of data makes your claims of having any grasp at all of the subject matter you so confidently and arrogantly call "a hoot" even more laughable than does your mishandling of the Margulis quote. Which is saying a lot.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And I see Russell went beaming off in the same direction with Cory, also failing to see my point.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      LAND/SEA MAMMALS?: guinea pig vs. gray whale = 2% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And now a logic error in addition to your obfuscation.  This does not affect my point just made at all.  It's interesting.  And I wouldn't have guessed it, but it doesn't change the fact that ...

      When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??

      (drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!


      Yes, I see that when we compare DIFFERENT looking organisms, we might find similar sequences also, but that is a different matter.

      Crabby...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      More lies from RDDTTD. A short trip to the Linda Hall Library < http://www.lindahall.org/ > would fulfill all his sciency needs.

      Here's a contact for you to continue your education on paleosols in Missouri,

      Chalfant, Michael
      Soil Scientist and Archaeologist
      Phone: (573) 884-3440

      View paleosol and loess with your bare nekkid eyeballs Davey and be enlightened. I dare you.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Hey, Crabby, you are really quick to call people liars.  What's with that?  This happens to be the library that I was referring to when I told Argy I guess I would have to drive 40 miles to go get science journals.  They don't give non-students remote access.  Show me a paleosol more convincing than JonF's and I'll be happy to evaluate it for you.

      BWE...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Mike PSS,
      Dave claimed victory in the portuguese debate without ever making a single point/counterpoint. Nada.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Don't forget to tell him that I claimed victory over Rilke's Granddaughter, not you.  I never intended to debate you because I had already debated her.  Pretty spiffy "truth-twist" there, BWE.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 07 2006,17:00



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The only reason that you think otherwise is ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS HAS, IN FACT OCCURRED, AND ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT MANY NEUTRAL MUTATIONS MUST HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THIS ASSUMED IMMENSE LAPSE OF TIME.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      If we're having a discusson about evolution then we need to at least assume an ancient earth for the sake of argument otherwise its a waste of time. If those two fish are seperated by 400 million years then we have every reason to assume many mutations will have occured, and if we assume an ancient earth then Dentons figures support common descent.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 07 2006,17:05

      Skeptic wrote:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I just read this off the newsbot and I'm betting most of these never get read.  I thought this was very well written and might be worth discussing here:
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Actually, I thought it was rather poorly written, and I'm curious to know who wrote it. The attribution is just "The Sunday Times". Which Sunday Times? London? And I'm not prepared to accept the author's characterizations ("cleverly harangued", "manipulative trick", etc.) without reading the original work, thank you very much.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 07 2006,17:12

      I am having a discussion about Evolution, but my contention is that the assumption of macroevolution is false.  One cannot assume macroevolution has indeed occurred if this is the very statement which is being debated.  As I have said many times, I am perfectly willing to become a Proponent of ToE if I can be convinced that it is true.  I hope that likewise, you would become an advocate AGAINST ToE if you become convinced that it is false.

      You are correct that IF 400 MY separates the two specimens, then surely many mutations occurred.  But since they look virtually identical, and all MODERN similar specimens we anlayze yield similar sequences, then we should strongly suspect that possibly, just possibly, there is NOT 400 MY separating the two specimens.  Maybe, just maybe, there's only about 4300 years, as the creationists contend.

      This is the essence of my whole argument about these dear lungfish.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 07 2006,17:20



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And I see Russell went beaming off in the same direction with Cory, also failing to see my point.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Well, when you're right, you're right, Dave. I do completely fail to see your point.

      You've listed a series of pairs of Cytochrome C amino acid sequences, right? And - once we correct your error, and recognize that the Human vs. Chimp value is "0.0% - the values correspond pretty well to the degree of evolutionary distance between the members of each pair, right?

      Cytochrome C is a pretty poor tool for making these kinds of comparisons, though, because relatively little leeway is possible in such a central, critical protein. You'd have a more useful measure if you focused on some sequence under relatively lax selection. Is there some reason you don't want to do that?
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 07 2006,17:24



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You are correct that IF 400 MY separates the two specimens, then surely many mutations occurred.  But since they look virtually identical, and all MODERN similar specimens we anlayze yield similar sequences, then we should strongly suspect that possibly, just possibly, there is NOT 400 MY separating the two specimens.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      The secons sentence has nothing to do with the first. If you showed me two lungfish fossils and I knew nothing about their ages, I couldn't say anything about their cytochrome c differences.Im not sure what you're trying to argue with the fish, I think a 400 million year old fossil is that old because of dating, which us a different topic. If you want to use DNA to disprove evolution we shoul probably stick with living organisms.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 07 2006,17:37

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 07 2006,21:48)
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFD ...Why would you say that the nucleotide sequence of the Cytochrome C will have been different?  What in the world possible basis do you have for saying this other than the assumption that ToE is true?

      Chris Hyland ...I am assuming that large amounts of time seperate the two fish that is all. Just by looking at them if we have no idea about the timescales involved, then we can't make any inference about neutral mutations. We can't look at them and say they must have very similar sequences, unless we assume that there is very little time seperating the two.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      That is just it, Chris.  You are ASSUMING large amounts of time separating the fossil lungfish and the modern lungfish.  Nothing in our experience has ever led us to believe that organisms that look as similar as these two do--the fossil specimen and the modern specimen--would have anything other than virtually identical sequences.  All our experience comparing similar specimens of modern organisms shows us that they also have very similar sequences.  The only reason that you think otherwise is ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS HAS, IN FACT OCCURRED, AND ...

      THE ASSUMPTION THAT MANY NEUTRAL MUTATIONS MUST HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THIS ASSUMED IMMENSE LAPSE OF TIME.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, I still don't see why you think the notion that some similar organisms have similar genotypes is "an enormous problem for evolution." Are your twin golden retrievers with their virtually identical DNA a problem for evolution? If so, how? There are plenty of superficially-similar organisms with very different DNA, and there are plenty of superficially-different organisms with very similar DNA. The take-home lesson? Gross morphological similarity is a very poor indicator of genetic similarity, which is what we've been trying to tell you for a solid week.

      Did you read the Dawkins quote, Dave? Because it kind of blows a hole beneath the waterline in your argument that similar organisms should have similar, if not identical DNA. Lungfish and coelacanths are more similar than lungfish and trout, and yet there's more distance between lungfish and coelacanths than there is with lungfish and trout.

      You're the one who's "assuming," Dave, not Chris. You're assuming that more closely two organisms resemble each other, the more closely their DNA should resemble each other. This is your whole argument for why you think yeast and bacteria should be more similar genetically than yeast and humans. Yet we keep piling on the evidence that your initial assumption is flawed. Which, of course, you keep ignoring.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      UH ... CORY ... 1.5% IS REEEALY REEEALY CLOSE TO 0%

      AFDave posts evidence that when we compare modern similar species, they have very similar sequences as follows ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?  

      (notice the question mark showing that I am honest enough to say I'm not sure about the exact value)

      Then Cory obfuscates (either accidently or on purpose) with this ...

      Cory...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Those data are not up to the task of justifying your claim. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you have included a grievously erroneous value in your "HARD EVIDENCE" which is NOT from Denton's table.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and this ...

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, the correct entry in your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" is:

      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 0.0% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now, Cory ... were you deliberately obfuscating?  Or do you really not understand what's going on here?  Chris H apparently does understand and gave me an honest answer.  His answer exposes an enormous weakness of ToE, but he gave an honest answer anyway, which I appreciate.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Actually, you're the one obfuscating, Dave. Whether 1.5% is close to 0 or not is utterly irrelevant in this context, because you're comparing apples to cinderblocks. Your 1.5% is a measure of the difference in the whole genome of humans and chimps, while the 0 is a measure of the difference in the quantity your chart presents: cytochrome c amino acid sequences. So your 1.5% doesn't even belong in the chart.

      But the real point, Dave, is that the 0 difference between humans and chimps blows your argument away, because you yourself claim that chimps and humans don't resemble each other at all (remember the photos?). And yet their Cytochrome amino acid sequence is identical.

      So what does this say about your assumption that ancient and modern lungfish should have exactly the same DNA? It says it's an entirely unwarranted assumption, because modern lungfish look about as much like salmon as humans look like chimps, and yet the sequence difference between the two different groups isn't even close.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      My point in posting that data was simply that Similar Modern Organisms >> Similar Sequences.  That's it.  Pretty simple.  Doesn't matter if Humans and Chimps are 1.5% apart or 0% apart.  Both values work just fine to illustrate my point.  Did you really honestly miss this?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Then how similar are humans and chimps, Dave? You're the one who's been claiming for months that they're not even related.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      LAND/SEA MAMMALS?: guinea pig vs. gray whale = 2% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And now a logic error in addition to your obfuscation.  This does not affect my point just made at all.  It's interesting.  And I wouldn't have guessed it, but it doesn't change the fact that ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      It affects your point significantly, Dave. Your claim is that morphological similarity = genetic similarity. Which humans and chimps, with guinea pigs and whales, with lungfish and coelacanths, with lungfish and salmon, we've demonstrated that morphological similarity != genetic similarity, which completely undermines your point.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??

      (drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Except for lungfish and coelacanths, Dave.

      So, since you never stated otherwise, Dave, I guess we'll have to assume  my summary of your argument is accurate. Later, when you claim that it isn't your argument, I'll just have to permalink back to it.

      And in the meantime, are you ever going to tell us if ancient bacterial DNA isn't different from modern bacterial DNA, and it isn't the same as modern bacterial DNA, then what relationship does it bear to modern bacterial DNA?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      BWE...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Mike PSS,
      Dave claimed victory in the portuguese debate without ever making a single point/counterpoint. Nada.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Don't forget to tell him that I claimed victory over Rilke's Granddaughter, not you.  I never intended to debate you because I had already debated her.  Pretty spiffy "truth-twist" there, BWE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And it was no more true that you were victorious with Rilke's Granddaughter than you were with BWE. Less so, in fact, in that you never even debated BWE, and you were eviscerated by RG.
      Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 07 2006,17:52



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In his new book, Richard Dawkins argues that God is a delusion. But, asks Rod Liddle, isn't 'evangelical atheism' an article of faith in itself

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      noo.... 'evangelical atheism' is an article of the faithful.

      IOW, it's an invented word used to create a juxtaposed positional strawman for evangelical xians to argue against.

      sound familiar?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 07 2006,17:52

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 07 2006,21:48)
      AN HONEST ANSWER BY CHRIS HYLAND ... OBFUSCATION BY CORY, RUSSELL AND OTHERS, AND A VERY INSIGHTFUL POST BY "SKEPTIC"
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Throwing out terms like "obfuscation" won't get you out of the hopeless hole you're in, Davey. Your ranting is amusing.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      UH ... CORY ... 1.5% IS REEEALY REEEALY CLOSE TO 0%
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Indeed. Chimps are reeeealy reeeeealy close to humans. More so than gorillas. Remember when we argued about that?

      The POINT, Dave, was that you don't even know what your data ARE. We know where that 1.5% came from. And we also know that cytochrome-c amino acid sequence data is NOT reeeeeealy reeeeeeealy close to genome-wide genetic sequence data. Nice try, Davey, but you can't evade your own incompetence.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ...

      FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
      LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
      BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?  

      (notice the question mark showing that I am honest enough to say I'm not sure about the exact value)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Notice you're dishonest enough to snip the part of my post where I < acknowledge the question mark >. Notice you're ignorant enough to fail to present the exact value despite it being presented to you more than once. Notice you're so far from understanding any of this that you try to evade that you couldn't even keep two very different types of data straight.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFDave posts evidence that when we compare modern similar species, they have very similar sequences as follows

      Then Cory obfuscates (either accidently or on purpose) with this ...

      Cory...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Those data are not up to the task of justifying your claim. Furthermore, as pointed out above, you have included a grievously erroneous value in your "HARD EVIDENCE" which is NOT from Denton's table.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and this ...

             

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, the correct entry in your table of "HARD EVIDENCE" is:

      PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 0.0% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now, Cory ... were you deliberately obfuscating?  Or do you really not understand what's going on here?  Chris H apparently does understand and gave me an honest answer.  His answer exposes an enormous weakness of ToE, but he gave an honest answer anyway, which I appreciate.

      My point in posting that data was simply that Similar Modern Organisms >> Similar Sequences.  That's it.  Pretty simple.  Doesn't matter if Humans and Chimps are 1.5% apart or 0% apart.  Both values work just fine to illustrate my point.  Did you really honestly miss this?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      No, Dave. There's no obfuscation there. Merely illustrating that my defintion of "HARD EVIDENCE" does not include subjective inferences drawn from data that include an erroneous value, which itself was only included because of a serious misunderstanding regarding the type of data in question on the part of the person drawing the inference, which he claims to be authoritative. So I openly challenged you to back up your claim that modern lungfish should have similar sequences via this argument. Being lazy and cowardly, you ran away from that challenge. You're hilarious, Dave.

           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cory...        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      LAND/SEA MAMMALS?: guinea pig vs. gray whale = 2% difference
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And now a logic error in addition to your obfuscation.  This does not affect my point just made at all.  It's interesting.  And I wouldn't have guessed it, but it doesn't change the fact that ...

      When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??

      (drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!


      Yes, I see that when we compare DIFFERENT looking organisms, we might find similar sequences also, but that is a different matter.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So here's what Dave has given us:

      (1) similar looking organisms have similar sequences (humans vs. chimps, etc.).

      (2) different looking organisms can have very similar sequences (guinea pigs vs. gray whales).

      (3) similar looking organisms can have very different sequences (bacteria vs. yeast). Now, Dave was too much of a dishonest ,lazy coward to follow up on whether his similar-looking lungfish might have very different sequences. However, he ALREADY told us at the very start that things in the lower right of Denton's table (i.e., bacteria and yeast, which are apparently "similar-looking" to Dave) should have MORE similar sequences. That was why he thought Denton's table was a problem for the ToE. He also ignored people who pointed out that different bacteria species have sequences that are more than 70% different.

      So you see, Davey, your "inference" includes all possibilities and is completely, utterly useless. Furthermore, you are now LYING again when you say that similar-looking organisms having very different sequences is a "different matter": it was the BASIS for your entire claim.

      Honestly, Dave, do you even know what your arguments are anymore?

      You just keep looking more and more foolish.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 07 2006,17:55

      afdave:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      OBFUSCATION BY CORY, RUSSELL AND OTHERS,
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      By the way. I take strong exception to your accusation that I'm "obfuscating". That is certainly not my intention; my intention is exactly the opposite. If I've failed to grasp your point, well, I admit that. Apparently I'm not the only one.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AND A VERY INSIGHTFUL POST BY "SKEPTIC"
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And how, pray tell, is cutting and pasting someone else's suspect critique of a book that none of us has read "insightful"? Is it because it's critical of Dawkins? If I cut and paste a review of Dawkins that is neutral, or even favorable, is that necessarily not "insightful"?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 07 2006,17:57

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 07 2006,22:12)
      You are correct that IF 400 MY separates the two specimens, then surely many mutations occurred.  But since they look virtually identical, and all MODERN similar specimens we anlayze yield similar sequences, then we should strongly suspect that possibly, just possibly, there is NOT 400 MY separating the two specimens.  Maybe, just maybe, there's only about 4300 years, as the creationists contend.

      This is the essence of my whole argument about these dear lungfish.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, this argument has already failed, and you should stop using it. We have presented ample evidence that morphological similarity != genetic similarity, and there is no pattern between the degree of morphological similarity and the degree of genetic similarity. Therefore, any claim that 400 million year old lungfish should even be similar, let alone identical, genetically to modern lungfish fails.

      I'm sure you'll go on in this vein for quite a bit longer, since you seem to do that when you lose arguments, but you've already lost this one. You lost it a long time ago, when your own evidence showed that yeast was no closer genetically to bacteria than it was to humans, despite being quite a bit closer morphologically to bacteria than to humans. You claimed at the time that this observation falsified evolution, until it was pointed out to you that in fact it confirmed a central prediction of evolution. You've spent the last four or five days trying (and failing) to demonstrate that similar organisms should have similar DNA. It's now been conclusively been demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case, and therefore cannot be an a priori assumption, especially when you have no direct evidence to support it, and substantial direct evidence to contradict it.

      It's also strange that you're making this argument in the first place, because it undermines your more general argument which assumes special creation. If each organism is specially created, there's no reason to assume that there should be any pattern to cytochrome amino acid sequences based on common descent. Given the slight differences in efficiencies in electron transport among varieties of cytochrome, one would expect that organisms with similar metabolic rates (bats and birds, for example, or clams and barnacles) would have similar cytochrome amino acid sequences. But we do not in fact see this pattern. The pattern we see traces out, in rough outline, the same pattern of nested hierarchies one would expect from common descent. So your argument that similar (i.e., presumably, related) organisms should be similar genetically hurts your argument of special creation, or at least certainly doesn't help it. So maybe you should stop making this argument.

      In that case, what's your next wrong argument?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 07 2006,18:11

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 07 2006,22:12)
      I am having a discussion about Evolution, but my contention is that the assumption of macroevolution is false.  One cannot assume macroevolution has indeed occurred if this is the very statement which is being debated.  As I have said many times, I am perfectly willing to become a Proponent of ToE if I can be convinced that it is true.  I hope that likewise, you would become an advocate AGAINST ToE if you become convinced that it is false.

      You are correct that IF 400 MY separates the two specimens, then surely many mutations occurred.  But since they look virtually identical, and all MODERN similar specimens we anlayze yield similar sequences, then we should strongly suspect that possibly, just possibly, there is NOT 400 MY separating the two specimens.  Maybe, just maybe, there's only about 4300 years, as the creationists contend.

      This is the essence of my whole argument about these dear lungfish.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      UH, WAIT A MINUTE, DAVE. Where did you get the above bolded statement? To say that, you would have had to do your < homework. >

      I didn't provide you enough information to make that claim, and I encouraged you to follow up on it. You < told me > you could not do so:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      don't have modern lungfish comparison data readily available.  So I make inferences based on the data I DO have -- which is the Denton data I already posted.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now you are making a specific claim regarding sequence data for modern lungfish. Once again, Denton's table is not up to the task for this. How do you know lungfish sequence differences are more like horses vs. dogs, when they could be like those of yeast and bacteria (which you have already argued are similar)? For that matter, how do you know that lungfish are not like bacteria alone, whose sequences can be more than 70% different from each other? Shouldn't you look this up? Maybe read the Dawkins passage Eric quoted?

      The fact that you have derived your own subjective dogma from Denton's table, which you apparently feel does not need any testing against any other data, is very revealing, Dave. The fact that you offer it up as "evidence" is laughter-inducing of the piss-my-pants variety.
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 07 2006,18:35

      Quote (Russell @ Oct. 07 2006,22:55)


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AND A VERY INSIGHTFUL POST BY "SKEPTIC"
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And how, pray tell, is cutting and pasting someone else's suspect critique of a book that none of us has read "insightful"? Is it because it's critical of Dawkins? If I cut and paste a review of Dawkins that is neutral, or even favorable, is that necessarily not "insightful"?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I just finished it, actually (though I have my doubts about whether the reviewer got so far). Within the first few pages, Dawkins more-than-adequately addresses the review's central thesis (i.e., that if god cannot be proven impossible, then we can draw no conclusions regarding his probability, and any attempt to address this probability is a matter of "faith" or "fundamentalism"). In other words, the review is insightful in the same way that Dave is intellectually honest.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2006,22:52



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I am having a discussion about Evolution, but my contention is that the assumption of macroevolution is false...As I have said many times, I am perfectly willing to become a Proponent of ToE if I can be convinced that it is true.  I hope that likewise, you would become an advocate AGAINST ToE if you become convinced that it is false.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Nice Lie, AGAIN, AirHead. I offered on the last thread to deal with this very topic of evolution and you ran then, too.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      deadman_932 Posted: Aug. 10 2006,12:41 p. 133, previous thread.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Deadman ... you're just going to SNORT at my refusal to bet you? OK. Here's what I'll bet you on ... you show me a good comprehensive case that macroevolution has in fact happened
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Let's make sure we have our terms in order, DaveShitBrain.
      "Macroevolution" is speciation, Dave, yes or no?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      No response from Stupid, so I posted this: Aug. 10 2006,18:54 p.134, previous thread  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Oh, and for your information, ShitfaceDave, and including some things you won't find at TalkOrigins:

      Example 1-Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. The citation is: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
      Example 2- Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. The citation is: Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719
      Example 3- A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon. The citation is: Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553

      Example 4 - Central American fish, Xiphoporus maculatus [Endler, J.A. (1977) Geographic Variation, Speciation, and Clines. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.], that lives in rivers up the east coast and exibits various stages of speciation, from simple diversity of a single population, to subspecies, to full isolated species. Mayr [ Mayr, E. (1963), Populations, Species, And Evolution Harvard University Press. p.281] points out "Here then we have a series of related, allopatric populations showing every stage from the local genetic race, to the ordinary subspecies, to the almost specifically distinct subspecies ([X.] xiphidium), to the full species (couchianus)."

      Example 5- RAPID ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION IN LOGPERCH DARTERS Evolution: Vol. 58, No. 12, pp. 2798-2808. A resolved phylogeny was generated using mitochondrial DNA gene sequences for logperches, a monophyletic group of darters composed of 10 recognized species.

      Example 6- the Australian mallee thickhead Pachycephala [.Keast, A. (1961) Bird Speciation on the Australian Continent, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 123:305-495] In the first stage a wide ranging population became split into two due to changes in the vegetation of southern Australia. Eventually, the two populations were allowed to come into contact, but were reproductively isolated from each other --two new species.

      Example 7 -  is the fruit fly Rhagoletis [Bush, G.L. (1975) "Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Parasitic Insects" in Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites, edited by Price, P.W., Plenum Press, N.Y.]

      Example 8 - An example is the separation of marine creatures on either side of Central America when the Isthmus of Panama closed about 3 million years ago, creating a land bridge between North and South America. Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama has been studying populations of snapping shrimp. She and her colleagues found that shrimp on one side of the isthmus appeared almost identical to those on the other side -- having once been members of the same population.They had become separate species, just as the theory would predict.

      Nancy Knowlton;Lee A. Weigt. 1998. "New dates and new rates for divergence across the Isthmus of Panama". Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B. 265: 2257-2263 . Nancy Knowlton;Lee A. Weigt 2001. Evidence for three major clades within the snapping shrimp genus Alpheus inferred from nuclear and mitochondiral gene sequence data., Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:375-389.
      Nancy Knowlton and DeEtta K. Mills: “The Systematic Importance of Color and Color Pattern: Evidence for Complexes of Sibling Species of Snapping Shrimp (Caridea: Alpheidae: Alpheus) from the Caribbean and Pacific Coasts of Panama.” Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, No. 18, 1 November, 1992: 1-5.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      These were your dishonest "responses" AirHead:
      1. To the cichlid data,   you said "Neat. Did any of them grow legs? Let me know when they do. " Apparently you think "speciation" means "macromutation"
      2. To the snapping shrimp data, you replied :
      "Hmmm ... snapping shrimp, huh?  What do they evolve into?  Fish?  I have an idea!  Maybe someone like Incorygible could "help" the shrimp evolve into Self Cooking Shrimp!  Then I wouldn't have to cook them on my grill."
      Again, apparently unable to muster a genuine response
      3. To the fireweed data, you say :
      "Cool. Where do fireweeds fit on the Evo Tree?  Do they branch off from fungi or something?  What do they evolve into?  Redwoods?  Have any of your fireweeds done this?  No?  Hmmmm ... not enough time?"
      Imagining that an existing weed would "become" a redwood in one fell swoop, eh? yeah, that's creationist "science"
      And on and on...just stupid claims from you about "superfruitflies" able to leap buildings, etc., showing how truly ignorant and dishonest you are. And of course, you immediately ran away when I posted up a ton of citations on cichlids to take you up on your "bet" to show evolution/speciation.

      I'm interested in having you convince me of the validity of your claims, AirHead.
      After all, you just said  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I hope that likewise, you would become an advocate AGAINST ToE if you become convinced that it is false.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So answer some questions on your claims, AirHead, convince me that your "theory that is better than any other" can stand up under scrutiny. Want to take that challenge, stupid?
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2006,23:21

      The information we have on cichlids is a perfect data set to show Stupid is wrong on all counts. The geologic data shows when the East African lakes formed, the fossil data shows when the cichlids began to appear, the genetic data shows the differences between known  species.
      Care to show how your "theory that is better than any other " explains this , AirHead? Are you SINCERE in wanting to convince people over to your side? Or are you just talking shite, per usual?  Take up the cichlid challenge, LiarBoy.
      Bwahahaha.

      Albertson RC, Markert JA, Danley PD and Kocher TD. 1999. Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: the cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(9): 5107-5110

      Kocher TD, Conroy JA, McKaye KR, Stauffer JR and Lockwood SF. 1995. Evolution of the ND2 gene in East African cichlids. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4:420-432.

      Meyer A, Kocher TD and Wilson AC. 1992. African fishes. Nature 350:467-468.Meyer A, Kocher TD, Basaibwaki P and Wilson AC. 1990. Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Nature 347:550-553.

      Kornfield I, McKaye K and Kocher T. 1985. Evidence for the immigration hypothesis in the endemic cichlid fauna of Lake Tanganyika. Isozyme Bulletin 18:76

      Danley PD, Markert JA, Arnegard ME, and Kocher TD. 2000. Divergence with gene flow in the rock-dwelling cichlids of Lake Malawi. Evolution 54(5):1725-37.

      Arnegard ME, Markert JA, Danley PD, Stauffer JR Jr., Ambali AJ and Kocher TD. 1999. Population structure and colour variation of the cichlid fish Labeotropheus fuelleborni Ahl along a recently formed achipelago of rocky habitat patches in southern Lake Malawi. Proceedings Royal Society London B 266: 119-130.

      Markert, JA, Arnegard ME, Danley PD and Kocher TD. 1999. Biogeography and population genetics of the Lake Malawi cichlid Melanochromis auratus: habitat transience, philopatry and speciation. Mol. Ecol. 8(6): 1013-1026

      Stauffer JR Jr, Bowers NJ, Kocher TD and McKaye KR. 1995. Hybridization between Cynotilapia afra and Pseudotropheus zebra (Teleostei: Cichlidae) following an intralacustrine introduction in Lake Malawi, Africa. Copeia 1996: 203-208.

      Bowers N, Stauffer JR, and Kocher TD. 1994. Intra- and interspecific mitochondrial DNA sequence variation within two species of rock-dwelling cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi, Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3:75-82
      .
      McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. 1984. Genetic evidence of allopatric and sympatric differentiation among color morphs of a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Evolution 38:215-219.

      McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. 1982. A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia trewavas (Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi analyzed by enzyme electrophoresis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 76:91-96.

      Sabine Wilkins.(2001)  The Evolution of Cichlids. A talk presented at the June 2001 meeting of the Cichlid Society of NSW, Australia

      RUN, Davey, RUN, the evilushunists are after you! And they have DATA. RUNNNNNN!
      Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 07 2006,23:47

      OT, but, wow, it's like a time machine! I know a bunch of these guys.

      Axel Meyer was in my lab at Berzerkeley, and split his time with Alan Wilson (Wilson, AC) in his lab (testing PCR extraction techniques with some of the fish I collected).

      I met Ken McKaye on several occasions; again associated with some genetics stuff, and at some ichthyology conferences.  he was also a close acquantaince of my major prof. at the time.  I think he's in New Jersey now.

      I recognize but can't readily place a couple of other names too.

      always good to see them still "in business" so to speak.

      the rift lakes are perhaps the most productive place to study speciation on earth (barring local politics, that is - occasionally it gets right dangerous round those parts).
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 08 2006,00:48



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??

      (drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      But according to you, that's precisely what the ToE predicts, isn't it? So darwinism is confirmed.
      Thank you Dave for your help.

      Come back to us when you are able to formulate a coherent argument.

      ???
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 08 2006,02:34

      Just to clear up some points, the author of the piece was Rod Liddle who I know nothing about.  The only possible insightful action on my part was to post it here because that would give others the opportunity to read it that may not otherwise because it was a newsbot item.  I don't know if you guys are like me but I read about 1 out of 50 of those posts.  What I found as striking about Liddle's review and interview was Dawkins admission that God was not scientifically testable and then his insistance that God (or the idea thereof) was a delusion.  That followed by his acknowledgement that he did not want to be remembered as a zeolot rather than a scientist I found to be ironic.  I believe that is exactly what he has become but I assumed that it was intentional in order elevate name recognition, increase interview opportunities and book sales and to establish himself as the Darwin Defender Extraordinare of this century.  Otherwise I thought the article was very well written from a satirical perspective.  I guess that depends upon sense of humor.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 08 2006,02:36

      THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS MY ARGUMENT -- CHRIS HYLAND

      For those that don't, I'll try one more time ...

      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >

      2) If ToE were true, there would exist a direct ancestry between a "UUC" (Unknown, unicellular creature) and a Human.  This might look something like UUC>Wormlike>Squidlike>Fishlike>Lungfishlike>Amphibianlike>Proto-Apelike

      >Ape>Human.  

      3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above.  Indeed, I have documented at least one very prominent one who did expect this, Emile Zuckerkandl, the editor of the Journal of Molecular Biology.  Michael Denton implies that there were many who expected this prior to 1965.

      4) We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.  

      5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.

      Thus the validity of the assumption in (4) is quite likely false.  This throws doubt on ToE with its assumed millions of years.

      Now if that is not clear, then I give up.

      As for Ape and Human comparisons, again, I have never had any argument or problem with the fact that apes and humans have virtually identical sequences.  I have never tried to claim that the sequence differences are greater than they really are.  I have only claimed that apes and humans have fundamental non-biological differences.  See my blog < http://airdave.blogspot.com. >

      Russell-  I'll take your word for it that you were not obfuscating.  Many do here, so I lumped you in with them.  Sorry!

      Deadman, I didn't take your challenge because my definition of macroevolution is different than yours.  It is not simply speciation.  I know that speciation occurs.  Macroevolution is a much larger scale change than mere speciation.  Macroevolution would involve changes such as those I gave you examples for which you quoted.

      No one has ever observed these types of changes.  Therefore the "Macro" part of ToE is not empirically verifiable.
      Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 08 2006,03:13



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No not the ToE, the assumption that there is a significant amount of time between the two.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.

      Thus the validity of the assumption in (4) is quite likely false.  This throws doubt on ToE with its assumed millions of years.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      This just makes no sense. The reason we assume an ancient and current species will have different DNA is because we know that there is a great deal of time between the two. The only way we could look at modern organisms and change our minds is if we didn't see any mutation occuring in modern organims.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes of course we do, who has said any different?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above.  Indeed, I have documented at least one very prominent one who did expect this, Emile Zuckerkandl, the editor of the Journal of Molecular Biology.  Michael Denton implies that there were many who expected this prior to 1965.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Im sorry this is untrue, the data of Dentons fits perfectly with common descent. We would expect all eukaryotes to have the same distance from a abcteria if they share a common ancestor.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now if that is not clear, then I give up.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Its clear what your saying its just not clear why you think it, or why you think its a good argument.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2006,03:28



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Macroevolution is a much larger scale change than mere speciation.  Macroevolution would involve changes such as those I gave you examples for which you quoted. No one has ever observed these types of changes.  Therefore the "Macro" part of ToE is not empirically verifiable.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You're right, you have a cartoon version of evolution and no one has ever seen your cartoon version of evolution occur. Quite so. Your version of macroevolution is not the macroevolution of modern biology. You have chosen to redefine "macroevolution" to suit your whims, which is again, one of the many fallacies you use and abuse daily.
      You want colossal phenotypic change (fireweed to redwood in one generation!! ) along a scale that is beyond even macromutation or the most rabid saltationist...it is the stuff of bad 1950's horror movies, where a mad scientist creates a "ray" that then alters the entire body and genetics of some helpless creature.
      It is a fiction, like most of your arguments are essentially fictional...figments of your own fevered,  ignorant imaginings -- things that have little to do with science, but show how desperate you really are.
      You want to convince me how you are right...while wielding a "definition " that is straight out of a comic book? You are more stupid than even *I* imagined.
      Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 08 2006,03:41

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,08:36)
      THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS MY ARGUMENT -- CHRIS HYLAND

      For those that don't, I'll try one more time ...

      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >

      {snip}...

      No one has ever observed these types of changes.  Therefore the "Macro" part of ToE is not empirically verifiable.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave,
      I gave a < response > to the format you said would work for you.

      And looking at point #1 above you still feel you need to discuss RM dating.  Although I think using Koobi Fora as an example against RM dating is a bit disingenuous since even the experts in RM dating say that evaluating the consistency and co-genetic nature of aglomerated free-fall ash deposits (as opposed to magmatic flows) is difficult and can lead to erroneous results if not investigated in detail (which was done with this sample).

      Also Dave,
      The last statement of your quote is revealing.  Are you now taking the stance of Ken Hamm with any evidence?  Will you argue with anyone that presents any evidence from the past whether there was eyewitness accounts?  Will every aspect of argument go through the filter of "were you there"?  Just wonderring.

      Dave, can you answer my refutation of your mixing claim?  I can move on to physics if we address this issue.

      Mike PSS
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 08 2006,04:18

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,08:36)
      5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      By this logic, Dave, all modern bacteria should have "very similar sequences".

      But they don't.  How do you explain that?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 08 2006,04:25



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Right. Just like we need mutable genetic material. Do you suspect that DNA and its imperfect replication mechanisms were "invented" by Jesus-hating molecular biologists?        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You've shown us no evidence that such "selection" is being exercised.        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora [URL=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp]
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      That is, you've shown us no evidence from a source with a credibility greater than zero. I'm not wasting my time at AIG. If they, on the other hand, list references to the reality-based community, feel free to share those here. I'll be glad to check them out.          

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2) If ToE were true, there would exist a direct ancestry between a "UUC" (Unknown, unicellular creature) and a Human.  This might look something like UUC>Wormlike>Squidlike>Fishlike>Lungfishlike>Amphibianlike>Proto-Apelike


      >Ape>Human.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      That's basically true except (1) I've never heard of "squidlike" ancestors being part of our lineage. I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale" (by, who was it? Oh yes! Richard Dawkins) to clear up any confusion you might have on current thinking about our particular lineage. And (2) humans aren't just descended from apes, they are one of the five extant genera of great apes.        

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      You mean: "there should be a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity between, say, humans and representatives of species sharing increasingly distant ancestors."

      You haven't shown any instances where this prediction fails.
           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      4) We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Right. We have nothing other than ToE, at least at the moment, to say anything at all about their genetic sequence. At this point, however, it's wishful thinking on your part to characterize that as an "ASSUMPTION". Still, this point seems kind of tautological, and, well, pointless.  
           

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      ? ? ?
      Didn't we basically cover this under (3)?
      Yes, as we compare, say, genetically related humans, we find a nested hierarchy of genetic relatedness that reflects how far back you have to go to find a common ancestor. Same with species. But here's the interesting thing that ToE predicts that you seem to miss: When you have similar-looking species, as for instance with the thylacine wolf [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/video_time_caps.html] you expect the DNA to reflect the ancestry, not the morphology. Now, as it happens, I don't know anything specific about the the DNA of the creature in question here. But apparently the DNA exists; if sequence data is not currently available on Genebank, I guess they will be soon (I haven't checked). I'm willing to make a prediction based on ToE: I predict the DNA sequences will be closer to koalas and kangaroos (which these creatures don't resemble) than to wolves (which they do). How about you, Dave? What's your prediction?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 08 2006,05:18

      Actually, it occurs to me this "making predictions" game might be an interesting turn for this discussion to take.

      I predict, for instance, that Dave will not be able to find a single gene in which mice more closely resemble rats than humans do chimps. It's easy to see how that squares with the ToE; how would it square with Davism?

      Other evilushunists (a.k.a. members of the reality-based community): please list your predictions and corresponding challenges for Davism-based predictions. I imagine many such predictions and challenges can be found in the history of this thread. Let's collect them in one place!
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 08 2006,05:52

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,07:36)
      THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS MY ARGUMENT -- CHRIS HYLAND

      For those that don't, I'll try one more time ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, Dave, there are at least two (actually, everyone here understands your argument, with the possible exception of you; we just think your argument is unutterably idiotic). I posted a summary of your "argument," asked you if you disagreed with it, and you didn't respond. What else am I to suppose, other than that you agree with it?


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You've shown zero evidence of this, Dave. Your argument requires an unethical collusion among biologists and geologists which is a very serious charge of falsification of data. A serious charge like this requires serious evidence, but where's your evidence? You don't have any, of course, which is par for the course with you.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      2) If ToE were true, there would exist a direct ancestry between a "UUC" (Unknown, unicellular creature) and a Human.  This might look something like UUC>Wormlike>Squidlike>Fishlike>Lungfishlike>Amphibianlike>Proto-Apelike >Ape>Human.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      And your point is…? That science doesn't know the exact identity of every single one of these organisms in a direct ancestor/descendant relationship with humans? Do you have any reason to suspect a) that this relationship doesn't exist or b) if it did exist, that we should have a fossil of each one of them and a way to identify that such fossil is on a direct line in the ancestor/descendant relationship?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above.  Indeed, I have documented at least one very prominent one who did expect this, Emile Zuckerkandl, the editor of the Journal of Molecular Biology.  Michael Denton implies that there were many who expected this prior to 1965.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No they shouldn't, Dave, and the reason you don't think this is true is because you don't understand the difference between coding and non-coding DNA.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      4) We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, you're an idiot. I gave you direct evidence contradicting exactly this point yesterday. Maybe you're not smart enough even to have recognized that evidence? It doesn't take any kind of assumption at all; it takes an analysis of the DNA of morphologically-similar organisms. And what do we find when we perform such an analysis? We find that morphological similarity is a very weak indicator of genetic similarity. I told you to stop making this claim, since it's been disproven. You not only didn't disagree; you didn't even acknowledge that I'd made this statement.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No. See above. Often morphologically-similar organisms are less similar genetically than morphologically-very-different organisms.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Thus the validity of the assumption in (4) is quite likely false.  This throws doubt on ToE with its assumed millions of years.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Nope. Your assumptions are false, Dave, which means your conclusions are false as well.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now if that is not clear, then I give up.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      It's not that it's not clear. It's that it's wrong.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      As for Ape and Human comparisons, again, I have never had any argument or problem with the fact that apes and humans have virtually identical sequences.  I have never tried to claim that the sequence differences are greater than they really are.  I have only claimed that apes and humans have fundamental non-biological differences.  See my blog < http://airdave.blogspot.com. >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You've claimed that apes and those other apes, humans, look nothing alike, Dave. You've said it over and over again, with pictures. And in the meantime, you've been unable to enumerate a single non-biological difference between humans and chimps, or humans and any other organism, for that matter. You've never even defined what a "non-biological difference" is!



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Deadman, I didn't take your challenge because my definition of macroevolution is different than yours.  It is not simply speciation.  I know that speciation occurs.  Macroevolution is a much larger scale change than mere speciation.  Macroevolution would involve changes such as those I gave you examples for which you quoted.

      No one has ever observed these types of changes.  Therefore the "Macro" part of ToE is not empirically verifiable.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, this is the part that's idiotic. Even if you could get from a fern to a redwood, as your own pathetic "hypothesis" claims, in a few thousand years, how would you prove it happened? Would you stand around watching for a few thousand years? You have no more proof that whatever occupied the ark 4,500 years ago has diversified into 10 million or so species since then than "evolutionists" have proved the same thing happened over 4.5 billion years. Therefore the ultra-mega-stupendo-macro- part of your "hypothesis" is not empirically verifiable.

      And since you can't answer any of the other questions I've been posing to you over the past week, maybe you can answer this one: how can the following statements both be true:

      • 4.55 billion years isn't nearly enough time for life to radiated from a few thousand species to the 10 million or so in existence today;
      • 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have radiated from a few thousand species to the 10 million or so in existence today.

      ?

      You said you had an answer to this question. Where is it?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 08 2006,06:05

      Just for the fun of it, I should point out that I wasn't even looking for data to refute Dave's claim that morphological similarity = genetic similarity yesterday when I picked up Dawkins' book. I basically needed to take a nap after my ride, and I nap easier with a book on my chest. The chapters in The Ancestors Tale tend to be short, which works better for napping. I was scanning the chapters for something short, and what should come up but "The Lungfish's Tale." That's how hard I had to look to destroy Dave's argument. I literally wasn't even trying.

      And it gives you an idea of how honest Dave is when he says he's willing to be convinced of the truth of the ToE. If I can find evidence to support it without even trying, how hard can he be trying?
      Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 08 2006,08:37

      AFDave said:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      3) ToE advocates should expect a sequential nature when examining sequence data of modern organisms which resemble the ancestors listed above.  Indeed, I have documented at least one very prominent one who did expect this, Emile Zuckerkandl, the editor of the Journal of Molecular Biology.  Michael Denton implies that there were many who expected this prior to 1965.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dr. Zuckerkandl expected it for one year, and found the evidence lacking. He admits that it was his own opinion, and was a contraversial position to take at the time. Denton can imply all he wants, but it is your responsibility to back up his arguments if you are going to use them. Please stop making this argument, you do not have any proof that Dr. Zuckerkandl's opinion was predominant in the field at the time. I really cannot ask you any nicer than this.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 08 2006,08:44

      AFD, AFD, AFD you must get this fixed



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1) Evolutionists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the selection of rocks for RM Dating and the judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      That should read



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      1)Creationists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work.  This heavily influences the creo selection of rocks for RM Dating and the creo judgment of "good" and "bad" dates.  Example:  the revised creo RM "dating" of a human skull at Koobi Fora < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Fantastic reference there AFD .....do they offer free steak knives with it.

      Your whole case is based on YEAR ZERO being 6000 years ago.

      Why do you support negative time?

      You should have no touble producing the math to show accelerated DNA changes over that time ....YOU SAY THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING...well bible boy ....overwhelm me.

      And why you even acknowlegde TIME EVEN EXISTING BEFORE 6000 years ago is beyond me ...what's the problem? You deny it so why give it any credence at all, in effect you are denying your own denial.

      Deny time before YEAR ZERO and DON'T bring it up again.

      YOU ARE DISCREDITING YOUR OWN EVIDENCE which we are STILL all waiting on.

      Now since every other branch of the natural sciences and every sane person on earth already knows that the currently proven  age of the universe is around 13,500,000,000 years which Evolutionists have no reason to disagree with....

      the people who worship a book which contains a fairy tale about the earths age but no explanation of how DNA works; once again Creationists NEED Deep Time for ToE to work. otherwise the EVIDENCE would support YEAR ZERO as being 6000 years ago.

      So cut the crap about time existing before 6000 years ago and give us your (testable and falsifiable) explanation for your hypothesis.

      AFD you know you are lying.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 08 2006,14:23

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,07:36)
      As for Ape and Human comparisons, again, I have never had any argument or problem with the fact that apes and humans have virtually identical sequences.  I have never tried to claim that the sequence differences are greater than they really are.  I have only claimed that apes and humans have fundamental non-biological differences.  See my blog < http://airdave.blogspot.com. >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Here's Dave's claim that humans and chimps have "non-biological" differences:

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      (3) There are enormous non-physical differences between apes and humans, i.e. no complex language, very animal behaviour, no religious propensities, etc. etc.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Color me convinced, Dave. In your mind, "non-physical" means the same thing as "non-biological," I assume? But it's pretty clear that the reasons humans have, e.g., language, and chimps don't, are in fact "biological" reasons. Unless you think human and chimp brains are identical in size and structure.

      Same thing for "very animal behavior" (whatever that is) and "no religious propensities."

      So much for this claim, once again. We already totalled this claim months ago, Dave.
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 08 2006,17:41

      Eric, I'm afraid on the "biological" source of non-physical traits you run into the difficulty of direct causation unless you make the blanket statement that  all human traits are linked to a direct biological cause.  This statement lacks in specificity even though from a materialistic perspective it seems a given.  For example, how much advancement can be attributed directly to the opposable thumb, did language cause an increase in average brain sizes or was it the other way around, does religion fall into the catagory of social behavior or is it actually an evolved instinctual trait.  Assessing the major differences between chimps and humans becomes more of a philosophical argument much like the mind vs brain discussion.  I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 08 2006,19:02

      Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,23:41)
      For example, how much advancement can be attributed directly to the opposable thumb, did language cause an increase in average brain sizes or was it the other way around, does religion fall into the catagory of social behavior or is it actually an evolved instinctual trait.  Assessing the major differences between chimps and humans becomes more of a philosophical argument much like the mind vs brain discussion.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Well, language is a pretty easy one.  We've already mapped several areas in the brain that control language.  Not sure about religion, though...
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 08 2006,19:13

      Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,22:41)
      Eric, I'm afraid on the "biological" source of non-physical traits you run into the difficulty of direct causation unless you make the blanket statement that  all human traits are linked to a direct biological cause.  This statement lacks in specificity even though from a materialistic perspective it seems a given.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So are you saying the difference in intelligence between humans and chimps is due to something other than brain size and structure? You think that there are any traits humans have that chimps don't that are due to some causes other than physical causes? Do you have any evidence to support such a belief? Because otherwise we're talking about metaphysics, and frankly I can't be bothered talking metaphysics in the context of evolutionary biology.

      If there's some kind of connection between brain size and opposable thumbs, regardless of which caused which, there's still nothing other than a biological cause. Whether religion is a "social behavior" or "an evolved instinctual trait," it's still based on a biological instrumentality: the human brain.

      Look at developmentally-disabled people, Skeptic. Why are they developmentally-disabled? Because there are organic problems with their brains.

      Are you of the belief that human intelligence is due to something other than the human brain? Some sort of ethereal god-given ectoplasm?

      Maybe when there's some evidence for it.
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 08 2006,21:52

      Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,22:41)
      Eric, I'm afraid on the "biological" source of non-physical traits you run into the difficulty of direct causation unless you make the blanket statement that  all human traits are linked to a direct biological cause.  This statement lacks in specificity even though from a materialistic perspective it seems a given.  For example, how much advancement can be attributed directly to the opposable thumb, did language cause an increase in average brain sizes or was it the other way around, does religion fall into the catagory of social behavior or is it actually an evolved instinctual trait.  Assessing the major differences between chimps and humans becomes more of a philosophical argument much like the mind vs brain discussion.  I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      well, why dont you start us off with a list of uniquely human traits not linked to biological causes?

      Be specific now...
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,00:51

      Skeptic...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      As far as I am concerned, this is quite ON topic.  This question of "Are humans just another animal, or are they somehow unique?" is a fundamentally important question to me.  Of course, I believe we are fundmentally different, but I am not clear on how this can be shown to a committed materialist.  My view of humans, of course, comes from the Book of Genesis, then from the balance of Scripture.  Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas, including it's statements about humans.  Of course, there are many differences between apes and humans which are not quantified in the same way as genetic sequences are, and this presents a challenge.  However, I think there should be legitimate scientific ways of quantifying these things if one is a bit creative.
      Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 09 2006,01:29



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      AFDave, this is a really bad way of thinking.  
      As somebody once pointed out before, parts of a James Bond novel's "evidence" can be verified independently.  There really is an MI6, Moscow really is a city and there really was such a thing as a Cold War.  Yet trusting that therefore there must have been a real James Bond or that "Moonraker" actually happened is just silly.
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2006,02:33

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,05:51)
      Skeptic...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I realize that this is actually off topic but comparisons of uniquely human traits certainly bring these questions up.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      As far as I am concerned, this is quite ON topic.  This question of "Are humans just another animal, or are they somehow unique?" is a fundamentally important question to me.  Of course, I believe we are fundmentally different, but I am not clear on how this can be shown to a committed materialist.  My view of humans, of course, comes from the Book of Genesis, then from the balance of Scripture.  Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas, including it's statements about humans.  Of course, there are many differences between apes and humans which are not quantified in the same way as genetic sequences are, and this presents a challenge.  However, I think there should be legitimate scientific ways of quantifying these things if one is a bit creative.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      humans are just another animal. Deal with it.
      Of course, they are unique. But so are rabbits, deer, anything you could care to mention. So what.

      So, where Genesis is contradicted by the evidence do you then dis-believe those bits?

      How can you talk about legitimate scientific ways of "quantifying these things" when you reject so roundly the scientific method in general? You cant pick and choose, it's all or none.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,02:38



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas, including it's statements about humans.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Except the flood that didn't kill off civilizations at 2300 BCE, and all the other evidence you choose to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. That takes a special kind of willingness to lie and avoid. Good job!
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,02:50

      Cedric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFDave, this is a really bad way of thinking.  
      As somebody once pointed out before, parts of a James Bond novel's "evidence" can be verified independently.  There really is an MI6, Moscow really is a city and there really was such a thing as a Cold War.  Yet trusting that therefore there must have been a real James Bond or that "Moonraker" actually happened is just silly.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Cedric ... one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ... note the recurring phrase "these are the 'toledoths' of ...", a 'toledoth' being a family history.  See my blog article here ...  < http://airdave.blogspot.com >
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 09 2006,02:53

      Dave, you're falling in the same trap that Dawkins has sprung.  Your view of mankind is not based upon science it is based upon the Bible.  This is not an insult just a statement of fact.  It is a belief founded upon faith but you're trying to apply science in an un-scientific area.  You can not prove that God exists any more than Dawkins can prove that God doesn't.  Any attempt to do so belittles both disciplines.  The real questions concerning the unique qualities of mankind will never be found in a testtube or under a microscope and any attempts to do so leaves you searching for answers in the wrong places.  You gain your understanding from the Bible and you should continue to look for your answers there while others here find their answers in textbooks and peer-reviewed journals and they should continue to do so.  With that being said now can't we all just get along?   :D
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2006,02:57

      hear hear.
      I'd add to that "science can make predictions". Can you provide a prediction that we can test Davey?
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 09 2006,03:01

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 09 2006,00:13)
      Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,22:41)
      Eric, I'm afraid on the "biological" source of non-physical traits you run into the difficulty of direct causation unless you make the blanket statement that  all human traits are linked to a direct biological cause.  This statement lacks in specificity even though from a materialistic perspective it seems a given.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So are you saying the difference in intelligence between humans and chimps is due to something other than brain size and structure? You think that there are any traits humans have that chimps don't that are due to some causes other than physical causes? Do you have any evidence to support such a belief? Because otherwise we're talking about metaphysics, and frankly I can't be bothered talking metaphysics in the context of evolutionary biology.

      If there's some kind of connection between brain size and opposable thumbs, regardless of which caused which, there's still nothing other than a biological cause. Whether religion is a "social behavior" or "an evolved instinctual trait," it's still based on a biological instrumentality: the human brain.

      Look at developmentally-disabled people, Skeptic. Why are they developmentally-disabled? Because there are organic problems with their brains.

      Are you of the belief that human intelligence is due to something other than the human brain? Some sort of ethereal god-given ectoplasm?

      Maybe when there's some evidence for it.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, no I'm only saying that the actual biological causes are sometimes difficult to identify and while the concept may be self-evident it could be premature to make a blanket statement concerning all traits.  You do run into metaphysics when you talk about a topic like the location of the Mind but it is also a biological question in the context of brain-damage as you alluded to.  It has been said that humans are nothing more than a bag of chemical reactions but this may be impossible to completely support in a practical context and it is much more satisfying to regard mankind in a poetic light.
      Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 09 2006,03:09

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,07:50)
      one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      The "Blair Witch Project" started with the disclaimer that the events depicted were true.  Is it your contention that it was a documentary?
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,04:05

      AFD a bibliolater by choice states:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cedric ... one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ... note the recurring phrase "these are the 'toledoths' of ...", a 'toledoth' being a family history.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Invented works of literature by men. The old testament can only be a collection of the imagined history of the Jewish people, full of kings, conquest, larceny, witchcraft, necromancing, deceit, vanity,incest,egomania,ghosts, slavery, poverty, fear, villains and heroes and an invisible puppet master who only talks through a rabble of rambunctious rabbi's, who say whatever their political masters decree...for a price..the sacrifice of a foreskin.

      For a King a bit of skin is nothing, when those priests give herds of 2 legged sheep to him complete with frontal lobotomies or in AFD's case the knife seems to slipped and all he is left with is the reptilian brain (or mind if you are listening skeptic) ....now that is a sacrifice.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,04:09

      Skeptic:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, you're falling in the same trap that Dawkins has sprung.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Or that Liddle opines that Dawkins has sprung. I am, if you'll pardon the expression, Skeptical.    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ... You can not prove that God exists any more than Dawkins can prove that God doesn't.  Any attempt to do so belittles both disciplines.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      "Godology" is a discipline now?

      OldMan:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I'd add to that "science can make predictions". Can you provide a prediction that we can test Davey?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes. Speaking of predictions, should I be surprised that Davey has made a reappearance here, completely ignoring my specific  challenges w/r/t thylacine wolves and mouse/rat vs. human/chimp gene similarities?

      I think not.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,04:28

      Skeptic...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, you're falling in the same trap that Dawkins has sprung.  Your view of mankind is not based upon science it is based upon the Bible.  This is not an insult just a statement of fact.  It is a belief founded upon faith but you're trying to apply science in an un-scientific area.  You can not prove that God exists any more than Dawkins can prove that God doesn't.  Any attempt to do so belittles both disciplines.  The real questions concerning the unique qualities of mankind will never be found in a testtube or under a microscope and any attempts to do so leaves you searching for answers in the wrong places.  You gain your understanding from the Bible and you should continue to look for your answers there while others here find their answers in textbooks and peer-reviewed journals and they should continue to do so.  With that being said now can't we all just get along?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I am not falling into any traps.  I clearly understand what Dawkins is doing and I clearly understand the difference between believing something because of the account in Genesis vs. believing something because we tested it in the lab.  

      My contention--which your Dawkins article supports nicely--is that BOTH CAMPS are dabbling in metaphysics.  Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins BOTH make assertions which cannot be tested in the lab and which must be taken on faith.  The problem is this (and this is the reason there will be no peace between people like Russell and myself on the political scene until this is resolved) ...

      "Dawkinsianism" (to coin a term) is sold to our public school children as "science" in spite of the fact that it mixes empirical science (microevolution) with the aforementioned metaphysics (the exptrapolation of microevolution commonly known as macroevolution).  This part of ToE has never been verified in the lab and the ToE idea of origins can NEVER be verified in the lab, just as I can never verify in a lab that God created the universe.  So in a very real sense, our school children are being taught the "Religion of Dawkins" at taxpayer expense.

      So what has essentially happened in America is that school children used to be taught the Christian religion.  Now they are being taught the "Dawkins religion" under the false pretense that it is pure "science."    

      Christians like me don't care nearly so much about labels (what is science and what is not) as we do about fairness and not lying.  We feel that a much more fair approach to teaching school children would be to say "Here are the facts, kids. Here's the stuff we can test in the lab.  Now here are some various interpretations of the facts regarding Origins ... ToE, Creationism, blah, blah, blah ... now you and your parents decide what you want to believe."

      I believe that Darwinists can not stand the thought of this possibility because they fear that school children will choose Creationism over ToE if they are only presented the facts without Darwinian bias.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,04:39

      Hmmm.
      Still no predictions.
      Imagine that.
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2006,04:40

      well, if you are so sure, present us the facts as you'd like them taught to schoolchildren. There is no further meaningfull discussion until you do this. "let the children decide" you say. Well lets hear your case then!

      WHY DONT YOU PRESENT THE FACTS WITHOUT DARWINIAM BIAS, AS YOU WOULD IN A LESSON!

      Lets see them laid out. Then we can decide if you are talking science or not.

      Oh, by the way it's not possible to verify star-formation in the lab, nor the large scale formation of galaxys. However, this does not stop us understanding a heck of alot about these processes. So the fact you *think* it's not possible to verify "darwinism" in a lab means nothing at all.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,05:10

      OK fine.  Then if we are going to allow discussion of things not verifiable in the lab in school science classes, then let's allow MANY non-verifiable things.  Why is it that YOUR non-verifiable things can be discussed, but MINE cannot be?  It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,05:12



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I believe that Darwinists can not stand the thought of this possibility because they fear that school children will choose Creationism over ToE if they are only presented the facts without Darwinian bias.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      *snort*  Stupid, you can't even answer questions HERE about your claims, and when you're asked, you use every ploy possible -- fallacies, false quotes, avoidance, misdirection, lying... that's the fact of the matter. How's about that flood that didn't wipe out Egypt at 2300 BCE? Do ya like apples?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,05:13

      See, this whole confusion on Dave's part about what is science and what is not is intimately tied to this very reluctance inability to come up with predictions.

      Predictions are inferences, drawn with logic from data.

      I predict that Halley's comet will return in 2062. Has anyone proved this in a lab? No. It's an inference from collected observations, applying logic.

      I predict that no one will ever produce a perpetual motion machine. Now, you can't very well prove a negative like that in the laboratory. My prediction is based on the enormous body of data and logical analysis collectively known as thermodynamics.

      I predict that no rabbit fossils will ever be found in Pre-cambrian rocks - based on the enormous body of data and logical analysis collectively known as the theory of evolution.

      None of this should be confused with "metaphysics". When Davism can offer any consistent, testable predictions, perhaps it should be considered for inclusion in science class.

      Till then, this ridiculous conflation of religion ("it's all just metaphysics. Dawkins is given more credence than Ken Ham only because of the atheistic bias of the powers that be") is plausible only to the terminally brainwashed &/or ineducable.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Why is it that YOUR non-verifiable things can be discussed, but MINE cannot be?  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
      Posted by: Ved on Oct. 09 2006,05:13

      Quote (skeptic @ ,)
      You can not prove that God exists any more than Dawkins can prove that God doesn't.  Any attempt to do so belittles both disciplines.  The real questions concerning the unique qualities of mankind will never be found in a testtube or under a microscope and any attempts to do so leaves you searching for answers in the wrong places.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I would agree with this if I assumed God existed. However, if I assume he doesn't exist, when one goes from discussing God to discussing humans, the same qualities of unprovable and unknowable do not apply, it's just not in the same ballpark.

      We can study humans in a lab under a microscope or in a test tube, or in the field, to our heart's content. Who is to say that we, armed with science, couldn't find everything there is to know about ourselves?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,05:20

      Just out of curiosity, Dave—how would you test for macroevolution in the lab?

      How would you test for the existence of black holes in the lab?

      How would you test for the existence of Noah's ark in the lab?

      How would you test for the inerrancy of your admittedly errant bible in the lab?

      What is your fascination with testing things in the lab? I think it has something to do with your complete ignorance of the scientific method.

      But I have to say, the funniest thing I'll probably hear all day is your belief that the bible is true because it says it's true.

      God, what an idiot.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,05:22

      Dear Stupid: I'm curious about your definition of "macroevolution." Since you rely on the Encyclopedia Britannica constantly, what does it say about it? Where did you get YOUR fantasy definition from? Can you back it with any modern citations?
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,05:34

      Well now, at last some honesty from AFD.

      By the way AFD, skeptic doesn't agree with you're "world view" by your standard AFD, Skeptic is going to your Christian h3ll, he's not complaining too much tho', honor amongst thieves.....eh skeptic?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      So what has essentially happened in America is that school children used to be taught the Christian religion.  Now they are being taught the "Dawkins religion" under the false pretense that it is pure "science."  .
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Well AFD if it wasn't for people like you I'm sure Dawkins would find something else to do his complaint is deliberate ignorance promoted by liars...it's a pity you are not as bright as him it might be a fair fight.  

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Christians like me don't care nearly so much about labels (what is science and what is not) as we do about fairness and not lying.  .
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      Bwhhahahahahah wow Davey bird brain how is it that you get everything so BACWARDS


       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Christians Liars like me don't care nearly so much about labels (what is science and what is not) as we do about fairness and not lying  Christian .
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Very post modern ....almost gay.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      We feel that a much more fair approach to teaching school children would be to say "Here are the facts, kids. Here's the stuff we can test in the lab.  Now here are some various interpretations of the facts regarding Origins ... ToE, Creationism, blah, blah, blah ... now you and your parents decide what you want to believe."

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Pity that creationism is a religion AFD..... otherwise you would get that into science class...its all over red rover remember Dover.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I believe that Darwinists can not stand the thought of this possibility because they fear that school children will choose Creationism over ToE if they are only presented the facts without Darwinian bias.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Wow more "woe is me I'm walking backwards over a cliff into my private Christian h3ll...ignorance".

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I believe that Darwinists Creationists can not stand the thought of this possibility because they (Creationists) fear that school children will choose ToE over Creationism  if they are only presented the facts without Darwinian Creationist bias.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Time to get back to providing evidence for YEAR ZERO b eing 6000 years ago AFD...see how Pol Pot did it if you need some ideas.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,05:35

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
      OK fine.  Then if we are going to allow discussion of things not verifiable in the lab in school science classes, then let's allow MANY non-verifiable things.  Why is it that YOUR non-verifiable things can be discussed, but MINE cannot be?  It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Here's why, Dave: because most claims the bible makes are provably false. It's not just a matter of them being unverifiable, it's a matter of them being wrong. The earth is not 6,000 years old, there never was a "global catastrophic flood," the Grand Canyon was not made in a year, continents didn't go zooming around the planet at hundreds of miles an hour, all life today is not descended from a few thousand individuals 4,500 years ago.

      Sure, you believe all this crap is true, Dave. But it's only because you want to believe it. As everyone here has pointed out to you countless times, you have zero evidence to back up any of these claims, and science has entire libraries full of evidence to contradict them.

      That's why your Bible nonsense doesn't get into the science classroom.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,05:58

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.  I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,06:19

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:58)
      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.  I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      *clap* *clap* *clap*

      Dave finally went to "No transitional forms".  Anyone who has spent longer than 12 seconds in the creation/evolution debate understands how idiotic this claim is, so I can only come to one conclusion.  Dave is a loki.  Not just any loki though, Dave is the greatest loki of all time.  Looking at the 250 pages of content, at the all caps, bolded text, at the survey of creationist claims, at the inability to admit incorrectness against a massive body of evidence to the contary, it brings a tear to my eye.

      Bravo Dave, you are a true icon of your artform.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,06:37

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:58)
      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, I seriously doubt you even have an understanding of what a "transitional form" is, or what it would look like. What would you, in your own words, consider a "transitional form" to be?

      If you don't know what one looks like, or how one would define a "transitional form," then how do you know there aren't millions of them all through the fossil record?

      And what about your prediction about "fountains of the deep"? How did that one work out for you, Dave?
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,06:40

      Diogenes ... you must not be aware of the writings of many establishment scientists ... let me fill you in ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
      p. 132
      “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”
      p. 132
      “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
      p. 133
      “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

      Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
      p. 6
      “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

      Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
      p. 360
      “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

      Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
      p. 229
      “ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Yup, Mr. Dawkins, it has.

      Diogenes ... you were saying ...?
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2006,06:41

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:58)
      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.  I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      is that honestly the best you've got?

      Nobody's asking you to present a scientific paper, we know you are not capable (you've admitted as much youself).
      What we do want is for you to point to somebody elses papers that support your case.

      Can we avoid the stuff from the 50's? Anything from the last decade perhaps?
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,06:50

      I'm going to make a prediction.   I've never read The Blind Watchmaker, but given that you used a Richard Dawkins quote to back up a creationist position, I'm guessing that's a quote mine.  Further on in that same paragraph (and most likely the very next sentance) will explain what he really means.  Any with a copy of the book care to quote the full paragraph?
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2006,07:00

      so, that's the best you've got then Dave?
      Quotemining about transitional forms?

      tell you what, define what a transitional is, and then we'll point you towards the 100's found so far and you can tell us why they are not, in fact, transitional.

      Oh, what's that?, you can always point to two of them and say "ah -ha, but what comes in between those two" so I guess you win on that one Dave....LOL>

      Is that also your proposed lesson plan? "read these quotes, they prove goddiidit"
      Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 09 2006,07:01

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
      It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Actually, I don't have a revisionist interpretation of the establishment clause.  I'm perfectly happy with Thomas Jefferson's.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 09 2006,07:01



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I'm going to make a prediction.   I've never read The Blind Watchmaker, but given that you used a Richard Dawkins quote to back up a creationist position, I'm guessing that's a quote mine.  Further on in that same paragraph (and most likely the very next sentance) will explain what he really means.  Any with a copy of the book care to quote the full paragraph?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      You win.  Here is the whole Dawkins quote in context, with SFBDave's quote mined part in bold


      "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "

      Of course, predicting that AFDave Hawkins has been dishonest again is as tough as falling out of a boat and hitting water.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,07:12



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      [guffaw]
      Actual "science journalists", like scientists themselves, have to subject their work to peer review: editors, educated readers, people who can assess their summaries and explanations and pass on their merit. Who can vouch for the merit of your work, Dave?

      I don't need to be a scientist to make the kinds of predictions I challenged you to (thylacine wolves, mouse/rat vs. human/chimp sequence similarities). If I were a high-school science teacher, I would flunk any high school science student if he/she refused to even take a stab at it.  



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      And yet, you have thus far (1) failed to identify a single "lie" told in the name of Darwin and (2) you have ignored the many lies we've documented for your benefit told by AIG in the name of Jesus.

      Exhibit A: chromosome fusions. Did you ever follow up on what you yourself finally acknowledged was just plain wrong, but AIG continues to peddle as The Truth? Did you get them to correct or at least acknowledge their error? Are you concerned at all that your precious Kids will be not only misinformed, but misinformed, intentionally, in the name of Jesus?

      Investigative Science Journalist, indeed.

      And I'm the Tooth Fairy.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2006,07:13

      Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 09 2006,13:01)
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
      It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Actually, I don't have a revisionist interpretation of the establishment clause.  I'm perfectly happy with Thomas Jefferson's.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      More importantly, Madison said the same thing.

      Well, Dave's told us that physicists are wrong about physics, biologists wrong about biology, geologists are wrong about geology, he might as well tell us that the guy who wrote the constitution is wrong about what the constitution means.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,07:13

      Another juicy quote from an article explaining (from an evolutionists perspective) the terms "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution." ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In the late 1970's, Stephen J. Gould challenged the synthesis model of evolution, and proposed a punctuated equilibrium model, whereby major evolutionary changes took place in limited gene pools after radical climate changes. He said, "I well remember how the synthetic theory [of evolution] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution.....I have been reluctant to admit it — since beguiling is often forever — but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Paleobiology, Vol.6, 1980, p. 120).
      < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      IOW ... Mayr's synthesis of Darwinism is dead, so we need a new one ... (Drum roll) ... I offer you Punctuated Equilibrium.

      Poor guy ... too bad he didn't pick up a copy of Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood as so many other scientists did back in the 60's ...

      What he should have said was "Mayr's synthesis of Darwinism is dead, so we need a new one ... (Drum roll) ... I offer you Scientific Creationism ala Morris and Whitcomb."

      Diogenes ... Dawkins continues on p. 229 ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ... has delighted creationists.  Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.  One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.  If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading.   blah blah blah
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      How far do I have to go to convince you I'm not quote mining?

      Diogenes, I know it's disappointing to realize you are wrong about the fossil record and how it supposedly supports evolution.  But the best thing you can do for yourself is face the facts, then begin asking some questions you never have before.

      I do not say you are stupid for being unaware of this (even though you called me a 'loki';).  We all are unaware of many things in life and get by just fine.  Gould above says he was 'beguiled" by the Mayr synthesis and he is a smart man.  But now that you have been made aware of this, shouldn't you act upon this and ask some more hard questions about ToE?
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,07:22

      QUOTES SHOWING THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GRADUAL EVOLUTION



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
      p. 132
      “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”
      p. 132
      “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
      p. 133
      “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

      Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
      p. 6
      “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

      Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
      p. 360
      “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

      Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
      p. 229-230
      “"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Tell me, Aftershave and Diogenes, how adding the rest of the Dawkins paragraph changes anything WRT supporting my bolded assertion above?

      And then if you cannot, why don't you be honest and publicly retract your claim that I quote mined?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,07:24

      Dave, your quote mining is really tiresome. Aren't Christians supposed to be truthful?

      Of course, you don't know you're quote-mining, because you're just picking pre-quote-mined passages from AiG:

       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,11:40)
      Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
      p. 229
      Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that [Gould and Eldredge] had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example  the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no differences whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists.' Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation for the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      And the interesting thing, Dave, is that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over at least 10 million years, which is over two thousand times longer than the "Noachian Explosion" that your ridiculous "hypothesis" proposes. You still haven't answered how both of these statements can be  true:

      • 4.5 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence;
      • 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence.

      You say you you have an answer for this; what is that answer?
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,07:27



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I couldn't help thinking of < Dave Hood > when I read this. My kid loved the Dave Hood "There goes a..." series when he was 3 or 4.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave Hood created, wrote and starred in the There Goes a... videotape series, a set of children's videos which aimed to be both informative and entertaining... Each one featured a different kind of vehicle, as in There Goes a Train or There Goes a Monster Truck. He played a bumbling, overenthusiastic guy named Dave, whose title changed for the format of the episode, usually introduced this way:

      Hello, kids, I'm Racecar Driver Dave...well, I'm not a real racecar driver, but the real drivers have let me pretend for the day, so I can show you all about race cars
      The specifics, of course, changed for each tape.

      His catch phrase was "I shouldn'ta done that!", as he caused one disaster after another while trying to do the jobs of the drivers of the given vehicles.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,07:33

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,12:22)
      Tell me, Aftershave and Diogenes, how adding the rest of the Dawkins paragraph changes anything WRT supporting my bolded assertion above?

      And then if you cannot, why don't you be honest and publicly retract your claim that I quote mined?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Simple, Dave. It blows your claim completely away. Dawkins says that Eldredge and Gould both accept that the sudden appearance of diverse forms in the Cambrian without visible antecedents in the fossil record is at least partially due to the imperfection of the fossil record.

      I know you're too dumb to notice, but that pretty much annihilates your claim.

      And I don't understand why you think "punk-eek" helps your claim that evolution has been falsified. Punctuated equilibrium has been part of standard theories of evolution for 35 years now. Why do you think punctuated equilibrium somehow falsifies evolution?

      As usual, just like your misinterpretation of Denton's chart, you come up with a widely accepted idea that you think falsifies evolution, and everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows they confirm evolution.

      And yet another question I predict will go unanswered indefinitely: what's your definition of a "transitional form," Dave? Do you even have one?
      Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 09 2006,07:33

      Anyone want to see more of the George Gaylord Simpson quote?

      "In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

      "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

      Funny that AFDave, champion not-quote-miner, chose not to include the previous paragraph.  Of course, I'm sure that's because whatever website he copied his quote mine from (I'm certainly not going to credit him with the time and dedication needed to come up with FRESH quote mines) didn't want to show that paragraph either.

      So.  AFDave.  What do you think we mean when we call you a "quote miner"?  And why do you think you aren't?

      There is nothing but NOTHING more intellectually dishonest than quote mining.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,07:35

      My kid loved the Dave Hood "There goes a..." series when he was 3 or 4. We always referred to them as "the Dave movies".

      ericmurphy:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      You say you you have an answer for this; what is that answer?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Eric - you're thinking of last week's video, "There Goes a Scientist".

      This week it's "There Goes an Investigative Science Reporter". ISR's don't answer questions. They report actual scientists' answers - and judge their truthfulness.

      Dave: "you shouldn'ta done that".
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 09 2006,07:37

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
      ...Why is it that YOUR non-verifiable things can be discussed, but MINE cannot be?  


      ...It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      1) Because you are truly stupid.
      2) Revisionist? Dave did you win that debate about the founders when I wasn't looking? (again)



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      BWE...  
      Quote
      Mike PSS,
      Dave claimed victory in the portuguese debate without ever making a single point/counterpoint. Nada.
      Don't forget to tell him that I claimed victory over Rilke's Granddaughter, not you.  I never intended to debate you because I had already debated her.  Pretty spiffy "truth-twist" there, BWE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      jeBus Crike Dave,
      < your first post about portuguese >afdave (Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,22:21
      < my first post >BWE(Permalink)  Posted: May 19 2006,14:22
      < a few posts later >BWE  (Permalink)   Posted: May 19 2006,17:06 With a beautiful quote if I do say so myself:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And for anyone who harbored a doubt that Davey-dog was as fantastically stupid as he appears,...Well, I will continue to provide evidence to the contrary :)

      OK Davey-dog, how come the Appalachians are low and the Himalayas are high?

      Please tell me that you can prove that god made them that way.

      By the way, forget what these other guys say, you are probably right on the portuguese thing. I am afraid that I will lose the bet I so foolishly made and you will be writing a post for my blog.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So "truth twisting" might not be the best turn of the phrase there cuckoo bird.

      I am the only person besides Steve Story who took your bet. So how exactly is it that you claim victory over rilke's GD?

      I hope you don't operate heavy equipment.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 09 2006,07:37



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In the late 1970's, Stephen J. Gould challenged the synthesis model of evolution, and proposed a punctuated equilibrium model...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      The challenges to the modern synthesis have been overstated, and  by Gould himself (see Ridley for a discussion on this topic).
      Nowhere in the equations it appears that morphological changes (that define species in paleontology) must evolve at a constant rate. On the contrary, it is well know that strong selection and founder effect (drift) can accelerate the fixation of new alleles.
      And Gould's model is based on Mayr's ideas, specifically peripatric speciation.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,07:40

      Russell--  Shame. Shame.  People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.

      Eric-- Don't persist in saying I quote mined unless you can SHOW how it is a quote mine.

      Here's the PREVIOUS paragraph in Dawkins' book ... also quite interesting ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The American palaeontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, when they first proposed their theory of  punctuated equilibria in 1972, made what has since been represented as a very different suggestion.  They suggested that, actually, the fossil record may not be as imperfect as we thought.  Maybe the 'gaps' are a true reflection of what really happened, rather than being the annoying but inevitable consequences of an imperfect fossil record.  Maybe, they suggested, evolution really did in some sense go in sudden bursts, punctuating long periods of 'stasis', when no evolutionary change took place in a given lineage.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       Yes, Mr. Dawkins, 'evolution' did in fact happen in 'Sudden Bursts.'  You can read about those 'sudden bursts' in the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 09 2006,07:44

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,12:40)
      Yes, Mr. Dawkins, 'evolution' did in fact happen in 'Sudden Bursts.'  You can read about those 'sudden bursts' in the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      :D
      Does the Book of Genesis indicate the strata where fossils are expected to be found?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,07:47

      What Jeannot says:

       
      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 09 2006,12:37)
         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In the late 1970's, Stephen J. Gould challenged the synthesis model of evolution, and proposed a punctuated equilibrium model...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      The challenges to the modern synthesis have been overstated, and  by Gould himself (see Ridley for a discussion on this topic).
      Nowhere in the equations it appears that morphological changes (that define species in paleontology) must evolve at a constant rate. On the contrary, it is well know that strong selection and founder effect (drift) can accelerate the fixation of new alleles.
      And Gould's model is based on Mayr's ideas, specifically peripatric speciation.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      What Dave hears:

       
      Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 09 2006,12:37)
         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      In the late 1970's, Stephen J. Gould challenged the synthesis model of evolution, and proposed a punctuated equilibrium model...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      blah blah blah blah blah blah overstated, and  by Gould himself blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah  morphological changes blah blah blah blah blah blah blah must evolve at a constant rate. On the contrary, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah  can accelerate blah blah blah blah blah blah Gould's model blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,07:47

      Jeannot:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      it is well know that strong selection and founder effect (drift) can accelerate the fixation of new alleles.
      And Gould model is based on Mayr's ideas, specifically peripatric speciation.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Yes, well, surely being honest and thorough, Investigative Science Reporter Dave will have explained these concepts at "Truth4Kids". Could you supply us with the links to said explanations, Dave, so that we can peer-review them for you?

      It's all for The Kids, after all.



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell--  Shame. Shame.  People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      What "facts" can I not "refute"? Have you in fact provided the predictions - either yours or Whitcomb's or Morris's or anyone else's - I challenged you to? The caricaturing is all of your own doing. I can't help it if you remind me of Dave Hood.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,07:52

      thurdl01...Quote the whole book if you like ... it doesn't change the fact that he said this  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      See that word 'MOST'?  See that phrase 'NOT LED UP TO BY KNOWN, GRADUAL, COMPLETELY TRANSITIONAL SEQUENCES.'??

      You guys have a very odd idea of 'quote mining.'

      And here's another good one ...

      In November 1980 a conference of some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, billed as ‘historic’, was held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of ‘macroevolution’. Reporting on the conference in the journal Science, Roger Lewin wrote:

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

      Lewin, R., Evolutionary theory under fire, Science 210 (4472): 883–887, 1980.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Russell ... What facts?  Try defending ToE in the face of all the authorities I have just quoted this morning for starters.
      Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 09 2006,07:56

      So the answer is apparently that you are so intellectually dishonest, so tied up in this whole thing, that you are going to actively defend mined quotes even when presented with their context?  And you expect us to have even the slightest bit of respect for your methodologies as a debater?  You are a sad, sad individual.

      I'm curious if you'll share your source for your quotes, because I know you aren't mining all of these on your own, as that would require you to read the entire articles and contexts.  If that were the case, you would know that you are quoting sentences out of context with the express purpose of making the authority in question appear to take up a position contrary to the one he is (my definition of quote mining).  So.  Cough it up, lie-boy.  Where are you getting your quotes from?  Which "in their own words" book did you get your hands on?  Do you even care that the book or site has lied to you?

      No.  Of course you don't.  Because it has facilitated your lies to others, and you see that as the higher calling here.

      You make me sick.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,07:56

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,12:40)
      Eric-- Don't persist in saying I quote mined unless you can SHOW how it is a quote mine.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, read my freaking posts. I (and Occam's Aftershave) showed exactly which parts of the Dawkins quote you left out, and exactly how that deletion amounted to a quote mine, because the part you left out completely demolished your argument.

      If you don't think it's a quote mine, explain to me exactly how imperfections in the fossil record don't serve to undermine your argument. Can you do that, Dave?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Yes, Mr. Dawkins, 'evolution' did in fact happen in 'Sudden Bursts.'  You can read about those 'sudden bursts' in the Book of Genesis, Chapters 1 & 2.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, Genesis says nothing at all about "sudden bursts" of evolution. It says nothing at all about evolution, and claims that animals and plants just appeared on the planet fully-formed 6,000 years ago, then 99.9999999% of them were wiped out in a flood, and anywhere from a minimum of 5 million to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million species have evolved (without anyone actually seeing it) in less than 5,000 years. You don't think that presents a problem for your "hypothesis"?

      What is Genesis's explanation for the fossil record? Oh, wait, I already know:

      MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
      BURIED IN WATER-LAID SEDIMENT
      ALL OVER THE WORLD.

      Yep, that sure does explain it, Dave.
      Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 09 2006,07:59

      Hey AFdave are you familair with Joseph D.
      Renick of the intelligent design network?  Looks like you and he have a lot in common.

      < http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/people.htm >
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,07:59



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell ... What facts?  Try defending ToE in the face of all the authorities I have just quoted this morning for starters.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      If you've read these authorities in context, you'll know that they themselves defend ToE just fine, thank you very much.

      I'd be glad to take on any specific challenge (as opposed to "defend ToE against grape-shot quote-mining) after you've dealt with my specifics. Remember? Thylacine wolves and mouse/rat vs. human/chimp sequence similarities.

      And, by the way, what names are you accusing me of calling you?
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 09 2006,08:00

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 09 2006,12:56)
      Dave, read my freaking posts. I (and Occam's Aftershave) showed exactly which parts of the Dawkins quote you left out, and exactly how that deletion amounted to a quote mine, because the part you left out completely demolished your argument.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Forget it Eric, you can put an elephant just before Dave's eyes, he won't see it if he doesn't want to.
      Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 09 2006,08:03



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Cedric ... one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ... note the recurring phrase "these are the 'toledoths' of ...", a 'toledoth' being a family history.  See my blog article here ...  http://airdave.blogspot.com
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      So, if Ian Fleming claimed that his novels were the real deal but only the names had been changed. then....?
      You'd trust his books as real history???
      What say you on the Book of Mormon?
      That claims to be divinely inspired and has all sorts of wierd things about a bronze-age civilization in America long before Columbus.  Willing to trust that?
      (insert shiver of disbelief here)
      As for quote-mining stuff about "there ain't no transtional fossils", please, give it up now.  It didn't work a hundred years ago, it sure as heck won't work now! ???
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,08:10



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell--  Shame. Shame.  People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Just out of curiosity, do you guys get some kind of formal training in this gambit? I mean the "deflect unanswerable criticism by accusing your opponents of avoiding unanswerable criticism by name-calling (in other words, by deploying name-calling yourself)" gambit.

      It's so universally used, and so elegantly Lewis-Carrollian, I find it hard to believe it was independently invented by every verbose creationist on the planet.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,08:11

      I hear people saying "Look, here's the whole paragraph, you quote miner."  

      ... but then no one can explain HOW it is a quote mine

      ... no one can specifically explain WHY the parts not included change the support for my position.

      Russell-- I didn't say you called me names.  I said  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,08:17

      [Double post, deleting]
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,08:17



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell-- I didn't say you called me names.  I said    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       
      People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, my mistake! I thought that somehow these observations were supposed to apply to me. Perhaps it was that "context" thing we seem to be having trouble with. As you recall, the actual quote was  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell--  Shame. Shame.  People who cannot refute facts...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      See, that led me to think that, somehow, that what followed applied to me in some negative way. Silly me. I guess I'm just too thin-skinned.

      Dave, if I call you "dishonest", it's not "name-calling" - it's a simple observation.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,08:21

      hahahahahahahahahahahaha

      Lies 4 kids AFD shoots himself in the foot again

      AFD WHEN WAS THE CAMRIAN EXPLOSION ?

      YOU say it didn't happen, so how can that be evidence for YEAR ZERO being 6000 years ago?????


      Come on LIES4KIDS AFD we are all waiting.


      And as far a dragging out the stinking corpses of past creo pouters, why bother?

      They ALL HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED ALREADY that is why they are on AIG.

      Produce your evidence not that old claptrap and hogwash.

      If you can't produce the evidence how about a prediction

      Here are some for free.

      Creationism is true
      1. Therefore rabbit fossils will be found in pre-Cambrian sediment ALL OF WHICH can be radio dated at less than 6000 years old.

      --By the way that prediction has been proven wrong already but you get the idea.
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,08:22

      Dave, let me explain a little about my background.  I grew up in a fundamentalist family.  I studied the Bible intently for 20 years.  I always had problems with parts of the bible though.  I thought if I studied it enough I'd figure out what was wrong with my way of thinking.  All my friends and family had managed too, so surely I could.  I gave consideration to becoming a minister even.  But after years and years of studying the bible, not with an open mind, but with a mind already certain that the bible was true, I could not reconcile the bible with the world around me.  Studying the bible is what made me an atheist.

      You may be thinking that I attached myself to "darwinism" as a form of life raft, but that isn't how it happened.  My mind was already filled with the strawman evolution I was taught about by bible teachers, so I believed it was a weak scientific theory with very little factual backing.  "It's just a theory", "the missing link is still missing", "a finch is still a finch", were what my basis for understanding evolution.  I stumbled back into evolution by accident, but this time I'd see people pick out a long standing creationist canard, and I'd see someone else completely dismantle it.  Time and again I'd see the strawman evolution proposed by a creationist, and I'd see a rational response of "that's not what evolution says, here is what evolution actually says, and here is the scientific evidence to support this position".  This prompted me to actually study evolution for the first time (I took biology in a christian school, we kind of just skipped over it).  What I found amazed me.  Apparently scientists aren't half wits who can't see what is plainly evident to a 4 year old, and apparently they aren't part of an evil cabal dedicated to converting people to their "religion".  Understanding what the dual nested hierarchy actually means was somewhat revolutionary for me.

      So you see, I have studied the bible in great detail, and I have studied evolution (to a much lesser degree), and even starting with a massive bias towards excepting the bible and rejecting evolution I ended up on the side of evolution.  So you'll have to forgive me if I laugh when you say things like "there are no transitional forms" or "species with similar morphologies have similar DNA", as I find those arguments amusing.  Could someone who's been on the thread since it's beginning let me know if we got to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Information Cannot be Created yet, those are my favories.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,08:22

      hah. StupidDave quote-mining again?
      It's easier to do that than to say where you got your definition of "macroevolution" --- or say how it was that those egyptians didn't die in that biblical flood, eh, Stupid? Dawkins' overall attitude towards puntuated equilibrium is threefold: 1) So what?
      2). Darwin predicted RELATIVELY rapid bursts, too, as did Mayr, who Gould & Eldridge barely acknowledged
      3) "Rapid" even for Gould, is tens of thousands of years...generally about 50,000, as he acknowledged. ("I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years…Stephen J. Gould as quoted in Lewin, R., "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science Vol 210:883-887.)"Geologically rapid" doesn't mean "overnight," stupid.

      You should note that Phil thurtle wrote this about the Gould, Lewontin, Eldridge v. Dawkins issues:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      One thing we can be sure of--we should never expect nor want Gould and Dawkins to agree. For a successful scientific discipline should not be measured by the amount of agreement among its members, but the total number of questions that the discipline allows to be asked.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Now, How's about answering some of the questions put to you, instead of quote-mining, Stupid?
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,08:25

      Holy WTF AFD, someone became an atheist and it wasn't Dawkins fault?

      Wow you better round up all the bibles and burn them before that gets out. <snicker>
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,08:33

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:11)
      I hear people saying "Look, here's the whole paragraph, you quote miner."  

      ... but then no one can explain HOW it is a quote mine

      ... no one can specifically explain WHY the parts not included change the support for my position.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      How about this, Dave? Does this explain it to you? Or is your head so far up the elephant's ass you can't see it?

       
      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 09 2006,12:33)
         
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,12:22)
      Tell me, Aftershave and Diogenes, how adding the rest of the Dawkins paragraph changes anything WRT supporting my bolded assertion above?

      And then if you cannot, why don't you be honest and publicly retract your claim that I quote mined?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Simple, Dave. It blows your claim completely away. Dawkins says that Eldredge and Gould both accept that the sudden appearance of diverse forms in the Cambrian without visible antecedents in the fossil record is at least partially due to the imperfection of the fossil record.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      But this is that part that really makes you look like a moron, Dave. You claim that the Cambrian Explosion somehow invalidates the Theory of Evolution, when it's relatively easily subsumed within evolutionary theory without requiring any impossibilities. The imperfection the fossil record isn't just not hard to explain, it's to be expected when you're talking about fossils from half a billion years ago.

      By contrast, your "hypothesis" has an absolutely fatal defect that rules it out of contention in its entirety. Your "hypothesis" requires massive, accelerated evolution far beyond anything ever witnessed in the natural world, evolution that would require a minimum of a thousand new species to evolve every single year, which has been totally ruled out of the realm of possibility.

      How do you deal with this fatal flaw? By ignoring it completely. You claimed days ago you have an explanation for this hyper-mega-macroevolution: what is it?

      Yet you continue in your stupid pecking at minor points of evolutionary theory that are at best a bone of contention among evolutionary biologists, and don't even begin to rise to the level of a serious problem with the theory.

      Your "hypothesis" isn't just taking on water, Dave. It's been moldering at the bottom of the sea for a century and a half.
      Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 09 2006,08:37



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:11)
      I hear people saying "Look, here's the whole paragraph, you quote miner."  

      ... but then no one can explain HOW it is a quote mine

      ... no one can specifically explain WHY the parts not included change the support for my position.

      Russell-- I didn't say you called me names.  I said      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Quote
      I'm going to make a prediction.   I've never read The Blind Watchmaker, but given that you used a Richard Dawkins quote to back up a creationist position, I'm guessing that's a quote mine.  Further on in that same paragraph (and most likely the very next sentance) will explain what he really means.  Any with a copy of the book care to quote the full paragraph?


      You win.  Here is the whole Dawkins quote in context, with SFBDave's quote mined part in bold


      "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "

      Of course, predicting that AFDave Hawkins has been dishonest again is as tough as falling out of a boat and hitting water.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      The paragraph before yours points out that the data is subject to misinterpretation:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and after:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You quote mined by taking it out of this context. :p
      Honestly, I can't make it any simpler than that.  Even your kids (who I trust are still reading this) will understand why everyone is laughing at you.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 09 2006,08:47

      And just to pour salt into SFBDave's sucking chest wound..

      In the years since Dawkins wrote the piece you quote mined, there have been many Precambrian fossils found

      < Precambrian fauna >
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,08:51

      Dave could you please give your definition of macroevolution.  You have said earlier that your definition differs from the scientific usage of the term.  If we want to continue discussing it shouldn't we at least have a working definition for the word?  In your hypothesis you have single Kinds (another term that you haven't defined) of animals rapidly degrading into other forms.  This requires speciations, and gross morphological changes, and it requires that it happens very very fast (insanely fast compared to the theory of evolutions time table).  Usually this would be called macroevolution, but since you believe this occured but don't believe in macroevolution then i'm really at a loss as to what your definition for macroevolution could possibly be.  Furthermore, how many Kinds of apes were on the Ark? how many Kinds of beetle?  What evidence (inside or outside the bible) do you have for this?  Does the hyper-rapid speciations and gross morphological changes that caused the Kinds to become the millions of current species still occur today, or did it stop at some point in the past?  What predictions could we make given either of these positions?  If it is still occuring today would we expect to see creation of new species within a 10 year period of time?  Have we seen this?  If the hyper-rapid change stopped at some point in the past, at what point did it stop?  What evidence do we have of when it stopped?   Since all modern species are descended from specific small sets of ancestors, what would we expect of the DNA similarities between species inside of the same kind?  outside of the same kind?  Did this hyper-rapid change occur because of mutation + natural selection? mutation + artificial (God) selection? or by some other mechanism?  If by some other mechanism, what was this mechanism?

      You keep coming back to the theory of evolution, but I'd like to hear more about your theory Dave.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 09 2006,08:53

      Quote (BWE @ Oct. 09 2006,12:37)
       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:10)
      ...Why is it that YOUR non-verifiable things can be discussed, but MINE cannot be?  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Because you are truly stupid.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ...It's because you label mine "religious" and yours as "non-religious" or "scientific" and then wrap yourself in your revisionist idea of the establishment of religion clause.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Revisionist? Dave did you win that debate about the founders when I wasn't looking? (again)

      Afdave

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      BWE...  


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Mike PSS,
      Dave claimed victory in the portuguese debate without ever making a single point/counterpoint. Nada.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Don't forget to tell him that I claimed victory over Rilke's Granddaughter, not you.  I never intended to debate you because I had already debated her.  Pretty spiffy "truth-twist" there, BWE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      jeBus Crike Dave,
      < your first post about portuguese >afdave (Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,22:21
      < my first post > BWE(Permalink)  Posted: May 19 2006,14:22
      < a few posts later > BWE  (Permalink)   Posted: May 19 2006,17:06 With a beautiful quote if I do say so myself:    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And for anyone who harbored a doubt that Davey-dog was as fantastically stupid as he appears,...Well, I will continue to provide evidence to the contrary :)...

      By the way, forget what these other guys say, you are probably right on the portuguese thing. I am afraid that I will lose the bet I so foolishly made and you will be writing a post for my blog.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So "truth twisting" might not be the best turn of the phrase there cuckoo bird.

      I am the only person besides Steve Story who took your bet. So how exactly is it that you claim victory over rilke's GD?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell-- I didn't say you called me names.  I said      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       
      People who cannot refute facts presented to them which contradict their position often resort to caricatures and name calling.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Russell  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Oh, my mistake! I thought that somehow these observations were supposed to apply to me. Perhaps it was that "context" thing we seem to be having trouble with. As you recall, the actual quote was    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell--  Shame. Shame.  People who cannot refute facts...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      See, that led me to think that, somehow, that what followed applied to me in some negative way. Silly me. I guess I'm just too thin-skinned.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Hahahahahaha!

      So Dave,

      Did you win a debate on the framers? Why don't you include me in these things? We're friends, right? I even offered to take either side. Remember? Or is that the part that bothers you? Ok I'll only take the smart side...

      PS I'm still waiting for the portuguese debate.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,08:57

      AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'

      Again, Point C in my Hypothesis ...

      C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

      OK.  Here it is ... are you ready?

      CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

      Wonderful ... so Cory has my definition of a Created Kind.  Now how does this relate to present day species?  Well, obviously, the Created Kinds have diversified into the present species by dispersal, geographic isolation, and natural selection.

      First of all, how many species (not kinds ... species) are there living today?  This from Wikipedia ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      As a soft guide, however, the numbers of currently identified species can be broken down as follows[3]:

      287,655 plants, including: [breaks them down]
      74,000-120,000 fungi[1];
      10,000 lichens;
      1,250,000 animals, including:
       1,190,200 invertebrates:
         950,000 insects,
         70,000 molluscs,
         40,000 crustaceans,
         130,200 others;
       58,808 vertebrates:
         29,300 fish,
         5,743 amphibians,
         8,240 reptiles,
         9,934 birds,
         5,416 mammals.

      However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

      5-10 million bacteria[2];
      1.5 million fungi[1];

      Definitions of species
      A species is a reproductively isolated population that shares a common gene pool and a common niche. This definition defines a species reproductively, genetically, and ecologically...

      The definition of a species given above as taken partly from Mayr, is somewhat idealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      So what we have now is a picture of modern species and a definition of a Created Kind ...

      Tomorrow we will draw some diagrams showing both the ToE model and the Creation model.  Then we will dive in further and see how far we get.  Some obvious questions are "How did this many species arise in the 4300 years since the Flood?" and "Can you identify the original kinds?" and so on.


      ***************************************

      Chris Hyland...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFD...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      We have no reason to believe that "living fossils" should have significantly different sequence data than their "ancient" counterparts, other than the ASSUMPTION of ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No not the ToE, the assumption that there is a significant amount of time between the two.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh yes.  I remember, you did say that you know it's 400 MY because of RM Dating.  However, RM Dating is "calibrated" with fossils of "known" age.  As I have pointed out many times, RM Dates are all over the map and "correct" ones are selected by fossils associated with them.  Again ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The Dating Game
      Appendix to Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, 1st ed.), pp. 247–266*

      by Marvin Lubenow

      [THE MYTH THAT RM DATING PROVIDES INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION]
      A very popular myth is that the radioactive dating methods are an independent confirmation of the geologic time scale and the concept of human evolution. This myth includes the idea that the various dating methods are independent of one another and hence act as controls. The methods appear so impressive that many creationists have accepted them as evidence that the earth is very old. Perhaps the best way to expose this myth for what it is—science fiction—is to present a case study of the dating of the East African KBS Tuff strata and the famous fossil KNM-ER 1470, as recorded in the scientific journals, especially the British journal Nature. [NOTE TO RUSSELL:  Do you not consider this journal a "real world" source?] ...

      [Snip story of fossil discovery]

      ["DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE FOSSILS ... HAS TO BE EXTRANEOUS ARGON]
      ... In their report in Nature,1 Fitch and Miller first commented on the many possible sources of error in dating. “One of the most intractable of these,” they said, “is the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.”2 To check for this extraneous argon, they first dated the raw rocks as they were originally submitted by Leakey. Their analysis gave dates from 212 to 230 million years of age. “From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present … .”3

      The first question an outside observer would ask is, How did they know? The answer is that the associated fossils told them so. In spite of our being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be “acceptable.” Based on their alleged evolution, the australopithecine and other mammalian fossils found beneath the KBS Tuff had determined that the rocks should be somewhere between two and five million years old. Anything beyond that was obviously the result of extraneous argon.
      < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp >

      Notes
      F. J. Fitch and J. A. Miller, “Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site,” Nature 226 (18 April 1970): 226–28. Return to text.
      Fitch and Miller, 226. Return to text.
      Fitch and Miller, 226. Return to text.
      Fitch and Miller, 226. Return to text.
      Fitch and Miller, 228. Return to text.
      Detroit Free Press, November 10, 1972. Return to text.
      R. E. F. Leakey, “Evidence for an Advanced Plio-Pleistocene Hominid from East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 242 (13 April 1973): 447. Return to text.
      Vincent J. Maglio, “Vertebrate Faunas and Chronology of Hominid-bearing Sediments East of Lake Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 239 (13 October 1972): 379–85. Return to text.
      A. Brock and G. Ll. Isaac, “Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and chronology of hominid-bearing sediments east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 247 (8 February 1974): 344–48. Return to text.
      Brock and Isaac, 347. Return to text.
      Brock and Isaac, 344. Return to text.
      Brock and Isaac, 347–48. Return to text.
      Brock and Isaac, 346. Return to text.
      Anthony J. Hurford, “Fission track dating of a vitric tuff from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature 249 (17 May 1974): 236. Return to text.
      Frank J. Fitch, Ian C. Findlater, Ronald T. Watkins, and J. A. Miller, “Dating of a rock succession containing fossil hominids at East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 251 (20 September 1974): 214. Return to text.
      Richard E. Leakey, “Skull 1470,” National Geographic, June 1973: 819. Return to text.
      G. H. Curtis, Drake, T. Cerling and Hampel, “Age of KBS Tuff in Koobi Fora Formation, East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 258 (4 December 1975): 395. Return to text.
      Curtis et al., 398. Return to text.
      Curtis et al., 396. Return to text.
      F. J. Fitch, P. J. Hooker, and J. A. Miller, “40Ar/39Ar dating of the KBS Tuff in Koobi Fora Formation, East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 263 (28 October 1976): 741. Return to text.
      Fitch, Hooker, and Miller, 742. Return to text.
      Fitch, Hooker, and Miller, 740. Return to text.
      Anthony J. Hurford, A. J. W. Gleadow, and C. W. Naeser, “Fission-track dating of pumice from the KBS Tuff, East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 263 (28 October 1976): 738–39. Return to text.
      Hurford, Gleadow, and Naeser, 739. Return to text.
      G. A. Wagner, letter, Nature 267 (16 June 1977): 649. Return to text.
      Naeser, Hurford, and Gleadow, letter, Nature 267 (16 June 1977): 649. Return to text.
      Hurford, Gleadow, and Naeser, 739. Return to text.
      J. W. Hillhouse, J. W. M. Ndombi, A. Cox, and A. Brock, “Additional results on palaeomagnetic stratigraphy of the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana (Lake Rudolf), Kenya,” Nature 265 (3 February 1977): 411. Return to text.
      Hillhouse et al., 414. Return to text.
      Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 240. Bracketed material added for clarity. Return to text.
      H. B. S. Cooke, “Suid Evolution and Correlation of African Hominid Localities: An Alternative Taxonomy,” Science 201 (4 August 1978): 460–63. Return to text.
      T. D. White and J. M. Harris, “Suid Evolution and Correlation of African Hominid Localities,” Science 198 (7 October 1977): 13–21. Return to text.
      Cooke, 460. Return to text.
      A. J. W. Gleadow, “Fission track age of the KBS Tuff and associated hominid remains in northern Kenya,” Nature 284 (20 March 1980): 229. Return to text.
      Gleadow, 230. Return to text.
      Ian McDougall, Robyn Maier, P. Sutherland-Hawkes, and A. J. W. Gleadow, “K-Ar age estimate for the KBS Tuff, East Turkana, Kenya,” Nature 284 (20 March 1980): 230–31. Return to text.
      McDougall et al., 231. Return to text.
      McDougall et al., 232. Emphasis added. Return to text.
      Ian McDougall, “40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation,” Nature 294 (12 November 1981): 123. Return to text.
      McDougall, 124. Return to text.
      Naeser, Hurford, and Gleadow, letter, Nature 267 (16 June 1977): 649. Return to text.
      Chapters 9 and 10 of Roger Lewin’s Bones of Contention contain his account of the ten-year history of dating the KBS Tuff. Since my account was written independently of his, it would be an enlightening experience to read his account also. By omitting many of the details that I have included, he is able to make the affair a graphic victory for the dating methods. Accounts like his explain why many people continue to put almost unlimited faith in the dating.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      If they, on the other hand, list references to the reality-based community, feel free to share those here. I'll be glad to check them out.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      There you go, Russell ... I would hope that Nature qualifies for you as the "reality-based community."

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      That's basically true except (1) I've never heard of "squidlike" ancestors being part of our lineage.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Fine.  I'll drop the squids.  I've never been too clear if they were part of the deal or not.

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And how, pray tell, is cutting and pasting someone else's suspect critique of a book that none of us has read "insightful"? Is it because it's critical of Dawkins? If I cut and paste a review of Dawkins that is neutral, or even favorable, is that necessarily not "insightful"?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No.  It could be quite insightful as well.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      He also ignored people who pointed out that different bacteria species have sequences that are more than 70% different.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh really?  Don't think so, Cory. On Oct. 04 2006,10:38, I said ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I would like to learn more about bacteria and see some sequence comparisons of Cytochrome C among bacteria.  Anyone have free accessto an online atlas? (like the Dayhoff one referred to already).  My guess is that there is much greater variation than we find between, say, dogs and mice.  Why?  Not sure, but a really wild, layman guess would be that any two different species of bacteria are far more different fundamentally (in both form and function) from each other than dogs and mice.  Dogs and mice are actually quite similar in both form and function when you really think about it.  Now I don't know how this impacts either the Creationist view or the Naturalistic view, but that's what I am here for ... to investigate this.  But I do know this ... you can whack off the bacteria part of Denton's chart and still have a fatal problem for ToE.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I acknowledge that bacteria have great variation and I have a layman's theory as to why.  I would like to investigate this further, not run from it.  Creationists don't run from things (at least not this one).  As I have pointed out many times, there are many things we don't have the answers for yet, and we can only answer so many questions given our time limitations, but we do not run from things.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, this argument has already failed, and you should stop using it. We have presented ample evidence that morphological similarity != genetic similarity, and there is no pattern between the degree of morphological similarity and the degree of genetic similarity.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh but there most definitely is.  You haven't been paying attention, I guess.

      Eric...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      If each organism is specially created, there's no reason to assume that there should be any pattern to cytochrome amino acid sequences based on common descent.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      There is pattern similarity because of a Common Designer, not common descent.

      Cory...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      For that matter, how do you know that lungfish are not like bacteria alone, whose sequences can be more than 70% different from each other?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I don't KNOW for sure, but I am quite confident that they are.  It is becoming quite clear to me that single-celled organisms (comparing bacteria for example) can have great sequence difference, but in every case that I have seen (the examples from Dayhoff) the multi-celled organisms which are similar in form and function have similar sequences.  In short, the old pre-evolutionary typological organization of life has been vindicated by molecular studies.  Why would I expect anything different if I compared modern lungfish?  Do YOU expect that they are very different?

      Deadman...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The information we have on cichlids is a perfect data set to show Stupid is wrong on all counts. The geologic data shows when the East African lakes formed, the fossil data shows when the cichlids began to appear, the genetic data shows the differences between known  species.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Care to explain all this?

      Jeannot...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      When we compare similar modern organisms, guess what we find ...??  (drum roll) SIMILAR SEQUENCES!!!

      But according to you, that's precisely what the ToE predicts, isn't it? So darwinism is confirmed. Thank you Dave for your help.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Of course, but as I have said many times, it is also what Creationism predicts.  Similar Organisms >> Similar Sequences can be explained by Common Descent OR a Common Designer.  This phenomenon is not determinative between the two views.




      Mike PSS...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

      Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.

      Diogenes ... there is no doubt that you are correct about some creationists building "strawman" version of ToE which they can easily burn.  But I try very hard NOT to be one of those.  I freely admit that my understanding of ToE is not yet complete, and that I have had some erroneous ideas about ToE advocates. Example-- I was only made aware of Zuckerkandl's theory of ancient and modern forms being the same by people here--this is one reason why I AM here--I want to know the truth--and if the truth is ToE, then so be it ... I'll go teach it to kids at K4T.   But I am working hard to rectify any false notions I have of ToE.  I think my record here proves this.  That being said, I have not seen anything very convincing that makes me believe ToE is true.  These latest quotes supporting the paucity of the fossil record don't help.

      Also, you should explain specifically WHY you think I quote mined if you still think I did.  Otherwise, please retract your claim.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 09 2006,09:06

      Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)
      CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      and now for the $64,000 question:

      Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

      ETA:  Here Dave, I'm sure you'll be wanting some of these  :p




      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Aluminium Portagoal Wheels

      Easily moved by four adults. Simply flip all four 260mm diameter pneumatic wheels over into position and wheel goal to required location.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,09:07

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)

      Deadman...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The information we have on cichlids is a perfect data set to show Stupid is wrong on all counts. The geologic data shows when the East African lakes formed, the fossil data shows when the cichlids began to appear, the genetic data shows the differences between known  species.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Care to explain all this?


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hahahaha. Didn't you say you KNEW evolutionary theory better than others here? Bwahahaha. Fraud .
      I love Occam's question there. What "group" does a hyena belong to? How about a glyptodont? What "group" is a hyrax (tiny guinea-pig-sized thing) in if its closest genetic relative is an elephant? Your "kinds" have no definition, except a vague hand-waving
      Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 09 2006,09:12

      Re "Second Law of Thermodynamics"

      That "argument" has so many different ways of refuting it that I have to write them down to count 'em.  :p
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,09:24

      Plants?.......AFD...... well I'm glad you brought those up.

      Because acording to your fairy story THERE SHOULD BE NO PLANTS ON EARTH d*ck head.

      40 days under water would kill every single land plant

      Now if you are going to say some survived....... then you are lying because the bible is right..right?
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,09:25

      Oh, and I'm going to say this one more time so it sinks in, Stupid: Virtually every single person involved in the Koobi Fora dating problem are still alive. NONE of them, none of the DOZENS of people...agree with your "take" on it, least of all that fossils DETERMINE radiometric dates. You were given lots of radiometric dates that had no associated fossils at all, and you ran from those, too, as you do any difficulty...which would explain a lot about your Air Farce career.

      Here's an example, along with a major geologist involved in Koobi Fora...it was HIS dating that was later modified...why don't you e-mail him and see if he agrees with your nonsense, stupid?
      Jack Miller still teaches at Cambridge. His General information: Assistant Director of Research
      Telephone: +44 (0) 1223 337 184 FAX: +44 (0) 1223 360 779 E-mail address: mailto:jam2@esc.cam.ac.uk .
      Fitch and Miller assigned an age of 2.61 + 0.26 million years to the KBS tuff, using the K/Ar method. F. J. Fitch and J. A. Miller (1970) “Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site,” Nature 226: 226-28
      In 1976, Fitch and Miller revised the age of the tuff to 2.42 + 0.01 million years, by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, while another group, at Berkley, obtained 1.82 + 0.04 million years by the K/Ar method. The controversy raged on for several years, produced several books and considerable ill will, as well as two other paleontologists who re-examined all the fossil data and eventually came to the same conclusion as  Basil Cooke: the KBS tuff could not be more than two million years old. In 1985 Ian MacDougall, at the Australian National University, published an age of 1.88 + 0.02 million years for the tuff, and in 1987 a laboratory at Berne obtained an age of 1.87 + 0.04 million years from the residue of the original sample used by Fitch and Miller. This provided confirmation of the age obtained at Berkley and of the paleontology of Cooke, but no explanation of the 2.42 million year age obtained over and over again at Cambridge was ***then*** available.
      I am informed by Dr. Cooke that that the anomalous radiometric ages come from two groups of feldspars, one derived from the wall rocks and incorporated into the tuff along with the other, which was a part of the magma that produced the tuff.
      MacDougall is also still alive, he refutes your claims entirely, too.  http://www.in-cites.com/scientists/DrIanMcDougall.html
      Posted by: Bing on Oct. 09 2006,09:26

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)
      AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
      • All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.
      • My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      • Who was it that G*d gave syphilis to, Adam or Eve?  For it to get on Noah's Ark and then on to us it had to come from somewhere.
      • Evidence please, and not from some wacky creo-wingnut site.  Please account for the energy required to move continents at more than 145 mph.

      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2006,09:30

      Quote (k.e @ Oct. 09 2006,15:24)
      Plants?.......AFD...... well I'm glad you brought those up.

      Because acording to your fairy story THERE SHOULD BE NO PLANTS ON EARTH d*ck head.

      40 days under water would kill every single land plant

      Now if you are going to say some survived....... then you are lying because the bible is right..right?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hmm...how can I be sure that no plants would have survived 40 straight days of alternating water and lava tsunamis...

      ...oh yeah, because I have a brain!
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,09:33

      Yeah deadman I thought AFD's long list of sciency looking references was a bold move on his part.

      As always he hoped no one would actually check to see if he was lying about what those authors actually said...

      AFD I'll take back calling you a liar...you are worse...you are  pathological liar and a coward for putting words in peoples mouths behind their backs.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,09:41

      AFD I'm still waiting on your proof that YEAR ZERO was 6000 years ago something like Jesus died in year 4000 would be good, that would be in the bible right?
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 09 2006,09:43



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      What the heII does that mean? They had more than two alleles per locus?

      I find your mixture bible+genetics quite amusing.  :D
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 09 2006,09:44

      Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)

      CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Dave, here is a recent study (2005) of Afrotherian (of African-origin) animals that shows conclusively not only that they all descended from the same ancestral gene pool, but also the relationship between the groups created by the divergence.

      < A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny >





      These must all be of the same kind, right?
      Posted by: Ved on Oct. 09 2006,09:45

      Quote (afdave @ ,regarding definition of kinds)
      OK.  Here it is ... are you ready?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      hehehehe...

      /checks calendar...

      Hold on! I'm not ready yet!!!!!
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 09 2006,09:49

      Soory- OT. I was just going through some of dave's zingers and I found this one by our very own moderator:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      stevestory Posted: May 22 2006,12:12  
      I haven't seen AFDave be right about anything. And I think he's lost some confidence lately, from being shown to be so wrong, so frequently.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      < permalink >

      hmmm.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,09:55

      AFD did you know god didn't create water? It's not in genesis.

      And another thing if you are saying that evolution managed to produce millions of different species in 2000 years after dog waved his big hairy arms and created millipedes to mastodans, why weren't all the millipedes squashed on the ark.

      No that was a trick question don't answer it, why do we not see new species generated every day under this accelerated evolution you propose?

      Oh and how long did it take for Noah to collect all the insects, to put on the ark?

      What did they live on after the flud when the flud killed all the land plants?

      Humming birds AFD..... how did Noah feed his humming birds?

      Koalas AFD ....where did Noah get the special eucalytus leaves (that only grow in Australia) they need to live on?

      Come on bible boy .....prove that the bible is not a fairy tale.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,09:58

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)
      AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'

      OK.  Here it is ... are you ready?

      CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, this "definition" is worthless, because you have no way of determining if two organisms are descended from the same gene pool or not.

      Are cats and dogs descended from the same gene pool? Are softshell crabs and barnacles descended from the same gene pool? Are lungfish and coelacanths descended from the same gene pool? Are seals and raccoons descended from the same gene pool? How about chimps and humans? How about bacteria and yeast? Horses and cows?

      The truth of the matter is that all organisms alive today are descended from the same gene pool. So is there only one "created kind"?

      And this "definition" gets you nowhere with explaining how a minimum of ten million species have diversified from a maximum of a few tens of thousands of "kinds" in only 4,500 years, Dave. Are you going to claim you've "answered" this question merely by coming up some sort of bullshit definition of "kind" which doesn't even allow you say whether two organisms alive today are descended from the same "kind"?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Wonderful ... so Cory has my definition of a Created Kind.  Now how does this relate to present day species?  Well, obviously, the Created Kinds have diversified into the present species by dispersal, geographic isolation, and natural selection.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Oh, really? In 4,500 years? How did redwoods end up diversifying from pine trees in the last 4,500 years, when some redwoods are almost that old?



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So what we have now is a picture of modern species and a definition of a Created Kind ...
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No. We have a definition of a modern species. Your "definition" of a "created kind" isn't a "definition" of anything. You can't even come up with an estimate of the number of "created kinds" within a factor of a hundred!


       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Tomorrow we will draw some diagrams showing both the ToE model and the Creation model.  Then we will dive in further and see how far we get.  Some obvious questions are "How did this many species arise in the 4300 years since the Flood?" and "Can you identify the original kinds?" and so on.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      These aren't exactly new questions, Dave. You've been ducking them for five solid months.
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave, this argument has already failed, and you should stop using it. We have presented ample evidence that morphological similarity != genetic similarity, and there is no pattern between the degree of morphological similarity and the degree of genetic similarity.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh but there most definitely is.  You haven't been paying attention, I guess.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      No, Dave, you haven't been paying attention. We've shown you two "similar" organisms—yeast and bacteria—that are very far apart, and two "different" organisms—whales and guinea pigs—that are close together. We've shown you two organisms that are closely related—lungfish and coelacanths—that are very different genetically. What did you do with those examples? Nothing.

      So there most definitely is not. What, do you think we can't go back and look where you've got your arguments wrong? Do you think we have the attention span of a mayfly?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Eric...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      If each organism is specially created, there's no reason to assume that there should be any pattern to cytochrome amino acid sequences based on common descent.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      There is pattern similarity because of a Common Designer, not common descent.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Then why is it, Dave, that we see no sign of organisms that are not in nested hierarchies but which have similar metabolisms that have very similar cytochrome? What's your explanation for that? Common descent explains interrelationships of cytochrome very well; common design explains it not at all.

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      It is becoming quite clear to me that single-celled organisms (comparing bacteria for example) can have great sequence difference, but in every case that I have seen (the examples from Dayhoff) the multi-celled organisms which are similar in form and function have similar sequences.  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Except for the numerous counterexamples we've shown you. Other than those, you mean.
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 09 2006,10:13



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There you go, Russell ... I would hope that Nature qualifies for you as the "reality-based community."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Very good! Yes, it does. Now, what specifically is stated in those articles that you think any of us have trouble with?

       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Russell...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And how, pray tell, is cutting and pasting someone else's suspect critique of a book that none of us has read "insightful"? Is it because it's critical of Dawkins? If I cut and paste a review of Dawkins that is neutral, or even favorable, is that necessarily not "insightful"?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       
      No.  It could be quite insightful as well.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Great! < Here's > my entry for the coveted "Dave Considers it Insightful" award.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      No, Dave, you haven't been paying attention. We've shown you two "similar" organisms—yeast and bacteria—
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Oh, and have I mentioned thylacine wolves?
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 09 2006,10:16

      < Google Notebook I made of the portuguese thing because it's too hard to do in here. >

      Dave,
      You are a liar. That is a bad thing.

      If you want to claim victory, you've got to ride the horse.
      Does it make your head hurt?

      You tried to say that I was twisting the truth... I was not. You have to be uncomfortable with all those bibles shoved up your nether regions so I will give you a second chance. Do you want to debate whether portuguese is a mixture of spanish and french? You haven't started yet. Nor have I.

      < Debate link here. >

      Your failure to reply will hurt your overall grade in the class.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2006,10:17

      Quote (BWE @ Oct. 09 2006,15:49)
      Soory- OT. I was just going through some of dave's zingers and I found this one by our very own moderator:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      stevestory Posted: May 22 2006,12:12  
      I haven't seen AFDave be right about anything. And I think he's lost some confidence lately, from being shown to be so wrong, so frequently.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      < permalink >

      hmmm.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I know, I saw that myself the first time I downloaded the whole thread as one file. My opinion frequently oscillates from "AFDave's feeling beleagured" to "AFDave still hasn't one iota of how bad he's losing", just depending on what mood I'm in.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 09 2006,10:19

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
      My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      What exactly is the point of this particluar statement?
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,10:34


      Here are photos of people, elephant, hyrax and a manatee, Stupid. Did the hyrax SHRINK from an elephant size or did the elephant GROW from the hyrax size...in 6000 years? HOW? What caused this? Remember, not even Gould would allow for this kind of insanely rapid speciation, but the fossils, anatomy and genetics all agree, the hyrax is most closely related to elephants. 'Splain that, stupid.

      How did the "obviously elephantlike" ( that's sarcasm, Stupid) manatee lose it's trunk? or is an elephant a walking manatee? Which one evolved from the original "kind"? Don't tell me manatees can live in floods that deposit BILLIONS of tons of debris amidst flying continents that would boil the oceans, either. Why are dugongs found in Africa/Asia/Australia and Manatees in the New World? Why were Steller's sea cows up in the Bering Sea, if they're all the same "kind?' that split off and evolved from elephants?

      Better put on your special Snoopy flight helmet, AirHead, you're in for another crash landing.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,10:49

      Quote (improvius @ Oct. 09 2006,15:19)
       
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
      My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      What exactly is the point of this particluar statement?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      How much evolution do you expect to see in 1,500 years, Dave? Why do you need a single supercontinent to explain not very much evolution in 1,500 years? How much evolution do you think the standard theories expect to see in 1,500 years?

      Or did you just put this in your "hypothesis" to make it sound "sciency"?

      Dave's own theory of evolution has natural selection accomplishing in a few millennia what the real theory says took billions of years. But Dave says he doesn't believe in Macroevolution…
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 09 2006,10:52

      Silly Deadman, < this > is how the elephant got his trunk. Sheesh. Everyone knows that.
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 09 2006,10:54

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,11:40)
      Diogenes ... you must not be aware of the writings of many establishment scientists ... let me fill you in ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
      p. 132
      “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”
      p. 132
      “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
      p. 133
      “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

      Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
      p. 6
      “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

      Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
      p. 360
      “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

      Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
      p. 229
      “ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Yup, Mr. Dawkins, it has.

      Diogenes ... you were saying ...?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      The reason I called quote mine on the dawkins quote (even before reading the paragraph it was taken from) is because it fits a form that is often used when quote mining.  Look at your lead in sentence.  The basic premise is that there are leading scientists that disagree with my position (evolution) and therefore agree with your position (creationism).

      Richard Dawkins is pretty much the poster boy for atheism.  So much so that his opposition now refers to him as a "militant atheist" or "evangelical atheist".  So when Dawkins ends a sentance with "Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." the natural response is to wait for the "but..." that will soon follow.  Many quote mines take this form.  A scientist starts with something like "Here is an oft misunderstood concept" and ends with "and here is why it is incorrect".  If you cut the quote in the middle so you only get the misunderstood part, and not the explanation part, it's considered a quote mine.

      Now I'm not suggesting that you were being dishonest, in fact I would guess that you got this quote from another source and haven't read the context it was written of.  In fact it looks likely that this was your source: < http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/critical.shtml > (or possiblely their source, or someone quoting them).  I say this because someone has added a comment in brackets that isn't in the source, and doesn't appear in most versions of the quote online.  You seem to be aware that there are some fairly dishonest creationists out there, that do in fact quote mine often, and quotes taken from creationists sources should probably be read in the original source to fully understand what is being said.  If you want to avoid situations like this in the future it would be better to quote the full paragraph the quote is taken from and highlight the section that you are using to make your point.

      Finally I'd like to thank you for a few things.  Sourcing the quotes makes it possible for people to read them in context, which helps understanding the actual positions being put forward by the quoter.  Secondly I'd like to thank you for getting back to your theory, this thread rapidly degrades into a tangental mish-mash of ideas and name calling, so I'm looking forward to see your discussion of Kind and the degradation into modern species.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,10:57



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Oh, that IS hilarious..basically El Stupido Grande is saying allopatric speciation is kept to a minimum (while sympatry is emphasized, stupid?)...which is quite a hoot, considering he claims to "know" about evolutionary theory.
      He has no clue about how wrong his "hypotheses" are, and he IS trying to sugar coat the bitter truth of his ignorance in "science-y" terms.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2006,11:05



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Silly Deadman, this is how the elephant got his trunk. Sheesh. Everyone knows that.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Okay, Mr. Smarty-Pants, what about the heffalump   Or the dreaded snuffleupagus?
      Huh? HUH!?!?! Science can't account for THIS!!
      Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 09 2006,11:22

      Time to delurk...

      This weekend, I read Joan Bakewell's review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (< here >).  I was struck by this passage:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Believers wrongly accuse Dawkins of being himself a fundamentalist, a fundamentalist atheist. He argues the difference: that given proof he was wrong he would at once change his opinions, whereas the true fundamentalist clings to his faith whatever the challenge.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Is anyone else reminded of someone?  Someone, say, who's now been on the receiving end of almost 230 pages of "proof he was wrong"?  Without shifting his position by a nanometre?  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you afdave: the fundy's fundy.

      But let's give credit where it's due.  Thanks to True Fundamentalist Dave, I can now speak Portuguese.  
      Mas cerveza, s'il vous plait.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2006,12:45

      Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 09 2006,17:22)
      Time to delurk...

      This weekend, I read Joan Bakewell's review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (< here >).  I was struck by this passage:
       

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Believers wrongly accuse Dawkins of being himself a fundamentalist, a fundamentalist atheist. He argues the difference: that given proof he was wrong he would at once change his opinions, whereas the true fundamentalist clings to his faith whatever the challenge.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Is anyone else reminded of someone?  Someone, say, who's now been on the receiving end of almost 230 pages of "proof he was wrong"?  Without shifting his position by a nanometre?  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you afdave: the fundy's fundy.

      But let's give credit where it's due.  Thanks to True Fundamentalist Dave, I can now speak Portuguese.  
      Mas cerveza, s'il vous plait.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Oui! Yo tengo soufflé.
      Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 09 2006,15:37

      Re "how did Noah feed his humming birds?"

      And why couldn't he manage to teach them the lyrics so they wouldn't have to hum? :)

      Henry
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 09 2006,17:18

      Since I am a EE, I got a kick out of this from UD ...

      Science And Engineering
      by DaveScot on October 5th, 2006 · 12 Comments
      Scientist says: Science is the discovery of how things in the natural world work. Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery.

      Engineer says: Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is simply reverse engineering.

      So you see, it’s really all engineering. You either take something that already exists and reverse engineer it (that’s science) or you take the knowledge gained from reverse engineering and create something that doesn’t already exist with it.

      Filed Under: Intelligent Design
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 09 2006,17:44

      Good Dave, I see you're still here sniffing around

      Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

      Second time asking.
      Posted by: k.e on Oct. 09 2006,17:55



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      So you see, it’s really all engineering. You either take something that already exists and reverse engineer it (that’s science) or you take the knowledge gained from reverse engineering and create something that doesn’t already exist with it.


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      Right so mobile phones are just reverse engineering the method dog used to to send Moses his stone tablets.

      Any day now we will have mobile phones that can send and receive pizza.

      AFD thankyou for proving religion makes people insane to literally lose ones mind.

      Actually that's in the bible AFD did you know ? "He who god wants to destroy he first causes to lose their minds." Exodus from memory.

      AFD thankyou for proving religion is dangerous.

      AFD thankyou for proving religion causes people to lie.

      AFD thankyou for proving religion deserves ridicule.

      AFD...... Dawkins could not hope to have a greater ally than you.
      Posted by: clamboy on Oct. 09 2006,18:01

      afdave, you are a very bad man.
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 09 2006,19:48

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,22:18)
      Since I am a EE, I got a kick out of this from UD ...

      Science And Engineering
      by DaveScot on October 5th, 2006 · 12 Comments
      Scientist says: Science is the discovery of how things in the natural world work. Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery.

      Engineer says: Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is simply reverse engineering.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, would you like to take a stab at how, e.g., superstring theory is "reverse engineering"?

      But only after you explain how 10,000 "kinds" became 10,000,000 species in less than 5,000 years.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 09 2006,20:09

      Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 10 2006,01:48)
      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,22:18)
      Since I am a EE, I got a kick out of this from UD ...

      Science And Engineering
      by DaveScot on October 5th, 2006 · 12 Comments
      Scientist says: Science is the discovery of how things in the natural world work. Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery.

      Engineer says: Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is simply reverse engineering.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Dave, would you like to take a stab at how, e.g., superstring theory is "reverse engineering"?

      But only after you explain how 10,000 "kinds" became 10,000,000 species in less than 5,000 years.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      You can call science reverse engineering, and you can call engineering reverse science. Davetard tries to give himself cred by therefore equating science with engineering.

      I can ride a motorcycle 100 mph. Does that mean I can ride it in reverse? No. It's a whole nother skill.
      Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 09 2006,21:30

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,10:58)
      I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Hmm,

      Dave says elsewhere,



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I AM a scientist who has used my science in business to become quite wealthy. Believe me, I know the difference.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I don’t believe I have ever said that science is a religion. I practice science and apply it in my business.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Our own Radical Diletantte Dave The Taxi Driver has spun so many lies he can't keep track of them any more.

      Davey Bickle/Travis Hawkins has made so many claims about why he's here, while taunting us that we have have no clue why he's here, that it's hilarious.

      But hey, it's just a witch hunt.

      RDDTTD are you a witch?

      Questions RDDTTD has avoided to be added to the list.

      Orogeny of the Saint Francois/Ozark/Ouachita Mountain Complex.

      Beautifully preserved Perman insect fossils in Elmo Kansas, no evidence of a flud here!

      Tuff deposts in the Nebraska Ashfall beds.

      Paleosol/loess deposts one on top of the other in Missouri and neighboring states with rock solid dating.

      Buy an Estwing rock hammer and a loupe and get out and investigate some of these sites close to your home Dave. Fieldwork will set you free.

      In the mean time stop lying to children like David Koresh did.
      Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 09 2006,22:30



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Hmm...how can I be sure that no plants would have survived 40 straight days of alternating water and lava tsunamis...
      ...oh yeah, because I have a brain!
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Plants?
      Oh, thats easy.  They were all just little baby seeds that went onto the Ark.  Two of each "kind".
      Flower ''kind" and "tree" kind.  Probably would have taken up as much room as a matchbox.  Four seeds in total.  No need for spares, since God's plan after the flood would have guaranteed germination.  But what about mushrooms, you ask?
      Simple!  Fungii of all sorts were protected by natural floating logs that had stuff growing inside them.  A forest's naturally made life-boat.
      Also coconuts float on the sea for months, SO THERE!

      Somebody else here has mentioned syphillis.  Who in the family had it?
      It was the donkey "kind", (the male actually!;) ).
      Not a human member of the Noah family at all.
      Venereal diseases of all kinds were originally borne only by donkeys for most of human history.
      But then...many decades after the Fludde...a lonely donkey seller decided to get himself a piece of ass and... :(
      Posted by: Russell on Oct. 10 2006,03:15

      So now afd, rather than explaining:

      why 4,500,000,000 years is not enough time for macroevolution under "Darwinism", but 4500 is plenty for macroevolution under Davism

      what Davism predicts about thylacine wolf DNA

      what Davism predicts about mouse/rat vs. human/chimp DNA similarities

      what Davism predicts about anything at all

      afd cuts and pastes a quote from [drum-roll, accompanied by kazoo fanfare]... DaveScot. I didn't think afd could do worse than AiG for credibility, but I stand corrected.

      How... insightful.
      Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 10 2006,03:44

      This thread moves way to fast to keep up with.  I'd like to put a limiter on you guys.  Not much time today, but Dave when you talk about atheism in the classroom under the guise of Darwinism you've got to remember that atheismisn't exclusive to Darwinism.  Just because Dawkins has taken up Huxley's cross doesn't mean the two must go hand in hand.  There are many courses in which atheism can be injected.  I remember undergrad P-chem and I had a professor introduce quantum mechanics as the theory otherwise known as "Why there is no God".  It all comes down to the teacher and their particular agenda or beliefs.  Conversely, if you have a conservative christian teacher then the tone of instruction changes accordingly.  Ultimately, the spiritual instruction of children is not the responsibility of public education but it remains up to parents and clergy and that is where it should remain.

      Also, k.e. be careful on your assumptions concerning my salvation, for one thing I would not burn in #### as my #### is a cold one, ala Dante.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 10 2006,06:17

      Dave,
      2 questions:

      1) Did you recognize that I took your bet and debate the portuguese thing with me?
      1a) Did I lose?

      2) Do core samples prove your 6000 year old Earth?
      2a) If they provided strong evidence that Earth is more than 6000 years old, would you have to ammend your theory?

      I would appreciate a reply.
      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 10 2006,09:03

      I'M REALLY NOT GETTING A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS REALLY THINK

      Maybe some of you can help me ... a few days ago I quoted Lynn Margulis who talked about Neo-Darwinism being ultimately judged as a "minor twentieth-century religious sect" but then it was pointed out to me that she's still a Darwinist. Now I find this quote from 24 years ago! ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Perlas, Nicky, “Neo-Darwinism Challenged at AAAS Annual Meeting,” Towards, vol. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 29-31.
      p. 29
      “The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not only suffering from an identity crisis but may also be radically transformed to account for the growing number of scientific anomalies that continue to plague it. These were the underlying themes that could be inferred from presentations made by prominent scientists in the recently concluded symposium entitle, ‘What Happened to Darwinism Between the Two Darwin Centennials, 1959-1982?’ The symposium was convened under the auspices of the 148th Annual Meeting of the prestigious [AAAS] held from January 3, 1982 to January 8, 1982 at Washington, D.C.”
      p. 30
      “The symposium was a disappointment to the true believers of neo-Darwinism. Implicit in their counter-offensive to stamp out creationism was the recognition that they had to contain and mend the fissures that were increasingly undermining the scientific foundation of their own neo-Darwinist position. To their dismay, the Provine symposium aggravated and deepened the fissures.”
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Help me!  Help me! ... As BWE says, "My head hurts!"  Can someone explain this to me?  Help me sort out all the terms:  Evolutionist, Darwinist, neo-Darwinist, Punk-Eke, etc. etc.

      What exactly do you guys REALLY believe?

      MORE ON SPECIATION, KINDS AND SEQUENCE SIMILARITIES

      We begin this with a question from Diogenes ...

      Diogenes...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dave could you please give your definition of macroevolution.  You have said earlier that your definition differs from the scientific usage of the term.  If we want to continue discussing it shouldn't we at least have a working definition for the word?  In your hypothesis you have single Kinds (another term that you haven't defined) of animals rapidly degrading into other forms.  This requires speciations, and gross morphological changes, and it requires that it happens very very fast (insanely fast compared to the theory of evolutions time table).  Usually this would be called macroevolution, but since you believe this occured but don't believe in macroevolution then i'm really at a loss as to what your definition for macroevolution could possibly be.  Furthermore, how many Kinds of apes were on the Ark? how many Kinds of beetle?  What evidence (inside or outside the bible) do you have for this?  Does the hyper-rapid speciations and gross morphological changes that caused the Kinds to become the millions of current species still occur today, or did it stop at some point in the past?  What predictions could we make given either of these positions?  If it is still occuring today would we expect to see creation of new species within a 10 year period of time?  Have we seen this?  If the hyper-rapid change stopped at some point in the past, at what point did it stop?  What evidence do we have of when it stopped?   Since all modern species are descended from specific small sets of ancestors, what would we expect of the DNA similarities between species inside of the same kind?  outside of the same kind?  Did this hyper-rapid change occur because of mutation + natural selection? mutation + artificial (God) selection? or by some other mechanism?  If by some other mechanism, what was this mechanism?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Not going to get to all of these today, but let's at least get a definition of "Macroevolution" and "Created Kind."

      CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This is a definition suggested by AIG, but there has been further refinement of this here ...< http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf >

      MACROEVOLUTION:  I have not done a rigorous study of this, but I think I am OK with this definition from "Berzerkeley" ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. < http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48 >
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Now here is an Evolution "Tree" from Wikipedia compared to a tree which I drew, which I think represents ToE more accurately ...



      Now the reasons I say my chart on the right is better are several ...

      1)  There truly is a sense in which mankind should be represented on a ToE chart as the most highly evolved, hence the upward slope to the line with increasing time to the right  -- I understand that you say there is no such thing as "upward evolution" but for the purpose of understanding your theory, this convention makes the most sense to me.  As far as I know a bacterium cannot drive a car, drive a nail with a hammer, play a Mozart concerto or speak Swahili.  A human CAN do all these things, hence my convention.  (I can hear you now ... "You just think you're superior ... just think of all those things a bacterium can do that YOU can't, you arrogant pig!!  It can divide in half!  It can get in some pretty tight spaces!  It can ... it can ...!!!" ... OK, OK)

      2) The horizontal lines are a good representation of ... well ... no more evolution.  It's clear that bacteria have always been around and there is no evidence that they were dramatically different as a group if they did in fact live 3 billion years ago.  Ditto for lungfish except the supposed time scale is 400 million years.  Ditto for 'possums, ditto for cockroaches.  There are just a lot of organisms that just don't appear to have changed very much at all.  Now you all have speculated  that our friend the lungfish that supposedly lived 400 MYA would have FAR different sequences  that a similar-looking modern species.  But as we have seen, this is only based on the assumption that 400 MY has in fact passed, AND the assumption that the non-coding sequences have changed (obviously the coding sequences have NOT changed because the critter looks the same.)  Well, sorry, but I don't buy that because nothing in our laboratory experiments which compare sequences of similar organisms would possibly lead us to believe this preposterous notion (remember, guys, you want ToE to be scientific, right?).  So we have horizontal lines.

      3) Every node in the tree on the right represents a real live "critter" of some sort -- not hypothetical -- he's real.  If ToE is true, then there existed some creature at every node on that diagram and a good guess as to what he looked like is on the far right (according to your theory).  You may not subscribe to this view now, but the fact is, many school children have been taught to think like this.  It was intersting to me to note the severe reluctance of Eric and Grey Wolf to name some real ancestors that supposedly exist in my family tree.  And of course this is where Michael Denton comes in with his observation that sequence data provided no comfort to Darwinists, but rather vindicated the old, pre-Darwin typological view of nature.  If ToE really did happen, then the sequence data should have been "transitional" in nature, for example,worms vs. fish would have less sequence differences than say fish vs. bacteria, and far less less than human vs. bacteria.

      THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION



      I had to make time vertical instead of horizontal, but you get the idea.  Also note that there were many more created original kinds than what I have represented in the diagram.  Also, this same situation would have been repeated for all air-breathing creatures which were on Noah's ark.

      Now of course, this doesn't answer all of Diogenes questions yet, but we are getting there.  

      More tomorrow!

      ************************************

      SUPPOSED QUOTE MINE TURNS OUT ... WELL ... NOT TO BE ONE (AS USUAL)

      (The reason he thought mine was is because he thought I was saying all these leading scientists agreed with my position--creationism ... Hah!  In my dreams!;)

      Russell...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Because ours make predictions, and yours don't. Why don't you prove me wrong?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      AFD...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.  I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything.  As I have said many times, I am more of an investigator who is very interested in finding out if there is anything scientific about the claims of establishment scientists WRT Origins--you claim to be one of these.  So you are missing the boat to say "I can make predictions ... and you, Dave, cannot."  Great.  You're a scientist.  I'm not.  I'm more of a science journalist.  Science journalists--which is a fair label for someone like me, considering my work at Kids4Truth--don't make scientific predictions.  Science journalists read the published works of scientists and report on their findings.  And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Diogenes ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      *clap* *clap* *clap*

      Dave finally went to "No transitional forms".  Anyone who has spent longer than 12 seconds in the creation/evolution debate understands how idiotic this claim is, so I can only come to one conclusion.  Dave is a loki.  Not just any loki though, Dave is the greatest loki of all time.  Looking at the 250 pages of content, at the all caps, bolded text, at the survey of creationist claims, at the inability to admit incorrectness against a massive body of evidence to the contary, it brings a tear to my eye.

      Bravo Dave, you are a true icon of your artform.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      AFD...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Diogenes ... you must not be aware of the writings of many establishment scientists ... let me fill you in ...      

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       
      Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
      p. 132
      “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”
      p. 132
      “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
      p. 133
      “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

      Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
      p. 6
      “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

      Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
      p. 360
      “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

      Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
      p. 229
      “ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      Yup, Mr. Dawkins, it has.

      Diogenes ... you were saying ...?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Diogenes...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      The reason I called quote mine on the dawkins quote (even before reading the paragraph it was taken from) is because it fits a form that is often used when quote mining.  Look at your lead in sentence.  The basic premise is that there are leading scientists that disagree with my position (evolution) and therefore agree with your position (creationism).
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      No.  The basic premise is that there are leading scientists who agree that the fossil record does not support the notion of gradual evolution.  Nothing in any of my statements could possibly be taken to mean "there are leading scientists who agree with creationism."  

      Diogenes...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Richard Dawkins is pretty much the poster boy for atheism.  So much so that his opposition now refers to him as a "militant atheist" or "evangelical atheist".  So when Dawkins ends a sentance with "Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." the natural response is to wait for the "but..." that will soon follow.  Many quote mines take this form.  A scientist starts with something like "Here is an oft misunderstood concept" and ends with "and here is why it is incorrect".  If you cut the quote in the middle so you only get the misunderstood part, and not the explanation part, it's considered a quote mine.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I agree that this would be dishonest.  I try very hard not to do this.  You will also notice that if I ever DO quote someone and I am shown that the quote does not support the conclusion which I drew, I will publicly withdraw my assertion.  I recently did this with a Lynn Margulis quote.

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Now I'm not suggesting that you were being dishonest, in fact I would guess that you got this quote from another source and haven't read the context it was written of.  In fact it looks likely that this was your source: < http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/critical.shtml > (or possiblely their source, or someone quoting them).  I say this because someone has added a comment in brackets that isn't in the source, and doesn't appear in most versions of the quote online.  You seem to be aware that there are some fairly dishonest creationists out there, that do in fact quote mine often, and quotes taken from creationists sources should probably be read in the original source to fully understand what is being said.  If you want to avoid situations like this in the future it would be better to quote the full paragraph the quote is taken from and highlight the section that you are using to make your point.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Like I said, I always try my best to represent authors accurately.

         

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Finally I'd like to thank you for a few things.  Sourcing the quotes makes it possible for people to read them in context, which helps understanding the actual positions being put forward by the quoter.  Secondly I'd like to thank you for getting back to your theory, this thread rapidly degrades into a tangental mish-mash of ideas and name calling, so I'm looking forward to see your discussion of Kind and the degradation into modern species.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       Yes, it does.  I think I will post a copy of the Forum Rules here in the hopes that Steve Story will begin deleting comments that violate the rules.  I personally don't mind getting insulted, but all the childish nonsense makes for a lot of scrolling for everyone just to get to the good, thoughtful comments ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Antievolution.org Discussion Board Rules
      No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.
      Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s).
      Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as "ignorance") is *not* an attack.
      Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
      Each user is requested to consider the quantity and quality of his/her messages. One specific item to be aware of is that repetition of the same quoted material at a frequency greater than once per month is considered annoying.
      Science makes no claim to be a source for all truth, i.e. events and activities which are unobservable and/or untestable are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Religious beliefs that are outside the limits of science may be true or not; science is silent on the issue.
      *Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.
      Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.
      :Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion.Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.
      :Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 10 2006,09:13

      Deadman...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Here's an example, along with a major geologist involved in Koobi Fora...it was HIS dating that was later modified...why don't you e-mail him and see if he agrees with your nonsense, stupid?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Bright idea, Deadman.  I'm sure this guy's going to agree that RM Dating is **ahem** calibrated **ahem** by fossils.  But thanks for the tip!  Remember, this quote comes from Nature so it's not tainted by us "evil, lying creationists."  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ... In their report in Nature,1 Fitch and Miller first commented on the many possible sources of error in dating. “One of the most intractable of these,” they said, “is the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.”2 To check for this extraneous argon, they first dated the raw rocks as they were originally submitted by Leakey. Their analysis gave dates from 212 to 230 million years of age. “From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present … .”3
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      RM Dating is so "busted" by this example that it's pathetic, yet you are too proud to admit it.

      Jeannot...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve What the heII does that mean?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      I defined this a while ago.  Do a search of the thread with "genetically rich" and you'll find it.  I'm surprised that someone with your education would not understand this.

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      AFD...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      There you go, Russell ... I would hope that Nature qualifies for you as the "reality-based community."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Very good! Yes, it does. Now, what specifically is stated in those articles that you think any of us have trouble with?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      What you SHOULD have trouble with is the fact that Fitch and Miller "calibrated" their dates by the fossils found in the neighboring strata.  This is a clear example of how RM Dating is NOT an independent confirmation of other methods, the idea that is sold to the public.  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      ... In their report in Nature,1 Fitch and Miller first commented on the many possible sources of error in dating. “One of the most intractable of these,” they said, “is the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.”2 To check for this extraneous argon, they first dated the raw rocks as they were originally submitted by Leakey. Their analysis gave dates from 212 to 230 million years of age. “From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present … .”3
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Improvius ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.

      What exactly is the point of this particluar statement?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      The point is simply that AFTER the Flood, there were separate continents and other isolating / separating mechanisms which would have caused much greater specialization and diversification.


      Aftershave ...  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And just to pour salt into SFBDave's sucking chest wound.

      In the years since Dawkins wrote the piece you quote mined, there have been many Precambrian fossils found

      Precambrian fauna
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      There is no sucking chest wound.  There was no quote mine.  And your link says this ...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Learning About the Vendian Animals
      What was life like 560 million years ago? The Vendian marks the first appearance of a group of large fossils collectively known as the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything livingtoday. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Vendian rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud. The Vendian rocks thus give us, and YOU through our virtual museum, a good look at the first animals to live on Earth.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

       Where does it say anything at your site about these fossils being found AFTER Dawkins wrote "Blind Watchmaker"???

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Actual "science journalists", like scientists themselves, have to subject their work to peer review: editors, educated readers, people who can assess their summaries and explanations and pass on their merit. Who can vouch for the merit of your work, Dave?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      Mmm hmmm ... that's where you come in.  All of you here are assessing my claims and giving your opinions.  My published work gets reviewed and edited by many people before it goes public.

      Russell...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      And yet, you have thus far (1) failed to identify a single "lie" told in the name of Darwin and (2) you have ignored the many lies we've documented for your benefit told by AIG in the name of Jesus.

      Exhibit A: chromosome fusions. Did you ever follow up on what you yourself finally acknowledged was just plain wrong, but AIG continues to peddle as The Truth? Did you get them to correct or at least acknowledge their error?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

      That's easy ... it's a lie to say for sure that the earth is billions of years old.  You really don't know.  Want some more?  How about naming one of my lies?

      thurdl01...

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Anyone want to see more of the George Gaylord Simpson quote?

      "In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.

      "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      How in the world is this quote mining?  Simpson confirms my bolded quote both BEFORE (admits controlled extrapolation and statistical sampling to infer transitions), and AFTER (admits that the discovery of a complete transition is unlikely).  Not to mention that the bolded statement BY ITSELF is a remarkable admission.

      Thurdl01 ... I think you are just a whiner.  If you think my quote misrepresents the truth about the actual fossil record, then why don't you show me ONE fossil that you think is transitional, then explain to me in detail how it is transitional.

      BWE ... I had the Portuguese argument with Rilke and won handily.  Why waste the time debating you?
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 10 2006,09:13


      Man this is deep.  :D
      You do undesrtand that your tree doesn't include most of the organisms on Earth, and that it's broadly consistent with the tree of life.

      You do also realize that this tree involves a common descent for man and other species.
      Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 10 2006,09:16

      Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Dave.  I missed it first time round:



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Finally, a testable prediction.  And it's falsified (see < here > for starters).  So I guess we're done.
      Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 10 2006,09:21

      Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

      Third time asking.
      Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 10 2006,09:24

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,15:03)
      I think I will post a copy of the Forum Rules here in the hopes that Steve Story will begin deleting comments that violate the rules.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      For a thread where creationists and evolutionists do battle, this one is remarkably well-behaved and polite and informative. Go read some of the long threads on PT if you don't believe me. There has been too much name calling, and too much insulting, I'll give you that. But those things aren't drowning out discussion of the science. Anyway Dave, your portrait of scientists as deluded idiots is pretty insulting to begin with.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2006,09:56



      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      SUPPOSED QUOTE MINE TURNS OUT ... WELL ... NOT TO BE ONE (AS USUAL)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Except that I can point out where you have used false/faked/quotemined quotes half a dozen times, and I'm sure there are more. For instance, your last post...quoting Ager:  Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.

      The person who began using this quote-mine was, naturally, Duane Gish. He and Morris were the most prolific quote-miners.

      Note what you CLAIM the quote says: “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”


      The complete sentence reads, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"

      The point being this: You never read that article. You are parroting what you read on creationist websites. None of what you post is original. You don't check sources, so you perpetuate quotemines.

      And lest you say that it's not important, read what Ager has to say on how he was quotemined:


      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      I get rather tired of these things...Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Posted by: afdave on Oct. 10 2006,10:18

      Jeannot--  You must think that the tree on the right is "my tree" ... no.  It is a tree which more accurately represents the data for a ToE interpretation OF that data.  And neither tree has all organisms on earth.  That would be tough.  MY tree is the one with the "Original Created Kinds" on it.

      Steve Story ... Don't tell me ... tell all that to Diogenes ... he was the one complaining that "this thread rapidly degrades into a tangental mish-mash of ideas and name calling."

      Deadman ... I'll look into that one ... got any more?
      Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 10 2006,10:21

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)
      Help me!  Help me! ... As BWE says, "My head hurts!"  Can someone explain this to me?  Help me sort out all the terms:  Evolutionist, Darwinist, neo-Darwinist, Punk-Eke, etc. etc.

      What exactly do you guys REALLY believe?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Christian, Baptist, Catholoic, Reform, Republican, Lutheran, Fundie, Protestant, Biblethumper...

      What exactly do YOU guys really believe?

      See what happens when you don't understand the terms and labels you apply (or even who applies them when)?

      The rest you're on your own for. I'm done holding your hand and trying to get you into the ballpark of accurate claims regarding evolutionary theory.

      Hint: your chart and 1-3 following it have no resemblance to the ToE. Furthermore, you don't get to redefine an entire scientific theory under the pretext of "what makes the most sense" to you just so you can attack it (there's a term for that...). If that were allowed, Quantum Mechanics would not exist. ####, Newtonian Mechanics wouldn't exist (heavy things falling faster makes more "sense"!;). Nice try, Dave.
      Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2006,10:30

      I posted this on the previous page, stupid:  

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Dawkins' overall attitude towards puntuated equilibrium is threefold:
      1) So what?
      2). Darwin predicted RELATIVELY rapid bursts, too, as did Mayr, who Gould & Eldridge barely acknowledged
      3) "Rapid" even for Gould, is tens of thousands of years...generally about 50,000, as he acknowledged. ("I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years…Stephen J. Gould as quoted in Lewin, R., "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science Vol 210:883-887.)"Geologically rapid" doesn't mean "overnight," stupid.

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      The mere fact that there was a debate in the 70's and onwards about the tempo and mode of evolution...doesn't help you a bit, stupid. As cited above, 50,000 years is a lot more than you even think the earth existed, let alone for the speciation of one organism.

      Your use of "macroevolution" now depends on a citation from a Berkeley site.
      The site claims that "macro" refers to "evolution above the species level."
      So...here's a question, stupid. We know that speciation occurs. Is it then "microevolution?" And don't say that speciation does not occur, I gave you several examples previously, which you did not refute, except to say "did the fireweed become a redwood?" and similar nonsense. when populations genetically related no longer/cannot interbreed, this is by definition, speciation.

      As far as your quotemining is concerned, sure I have lots of them. Want me to list them so you can try to whine?
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 10 2006,10:36

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,15:03)
      I'M REALLY NOT GETTING A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS REALLY THINK

      Maybe some of you can help me ... a few days ago I quoted Lynn Margulis who talked about Neo-Darwinism being ultimately judged as a "minor twentieth-century religious sect" but then it was pointed out to me that she's still a Darwinist. Now I find this quote from 24 years ago! ...    

      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      Perlas, Nicky, “Neo-Darwinism Challenged at AAAS Annual Meeting,” Towards, vol. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 29-31.
      p. 29
      “The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not only suffering from an identity crisis but may also be radically transformed to account for the growing number of scientific anomalies that continue to plague it. These were the underlying themes that could be inferred from presentations made by prominent scientists in the recently concluded symposium entitle, ‘What Happened to Darwinism Between the Two Darwin Centennials, 1959-1982?’ The symposium was convened under the auspices of the 148th Annual Meeting of the prestigious [AAAS] held from January 3, 1982 to January 8, 1982 at Washington, D.C.”
      p. 30
      “The symposium was a disappointment to the true believers of neo-Darwinism. Implicit in their counter-offensive to stamp out creationism was the recognition that they had to contain and mend the fissures that were increasingly undermining the scientific foundation of their own neo-Darwinist position. To their dismay, the Provine symposium aggravated and deepened the fissures.”
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      Help me!  Help me! ... As BWE says, "My head hurts!"  Can someone explain this to me?  
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      I can.  The problem is that you're looking for scientific information in a spiritualist magazine.
      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 10 2006,10:49

      Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,15:18)
      Jeannot--  You must think that the tree on the right is "my tree" ... no.  It is a tree which more accurately represents the data for a ToE interpretation OF that data.  And neither tree has all organisms on earth.  That would be tough.  MY tree is the one with the "Original Created Kinds" on it.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Whether it's your tree or not doesn't change much.
      The left tree doesn't has all species on earth indeed, not only it would be tough, it would be pointless. We don't need to put 10 species of animals in the tree of life, we already know they belong to same group: the tiny branch you see on the right, next to the fungi.
      The tree on the right doesn't even show plants nor fungi.

      "More accurately"? Another claim you don't care to backup.
      "Wormlike" is very accurate indeed. :D Does it refer to nematodes or annelids? ??? But if we leave this "detail" aside, you apparently don't realise that this tree is compatible with the tree of life as it is shown. Thus your claim is just stupid, as always.

      It's even more stupid coming from a Middle Age creationist. If those taxa don't have a common ancestor, both trees are equally wrong.
      Posted by: improvius on Oct. 10 2006,10:58

      I almost missed this.  Dave seems to be addicted to imaginary data.  He's posted another chart of comlpetely made-up data points:


      Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 10 2006,11:05


      Yeah Dave, where are humans and chimps on these, huh, trees?
      Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 10 2006,11:07

      Dave, I'm trying to summarize your current position, please correct any mistakes in my characterization of your position.

      1) Creatures evolve by a mechanism of random mutation + natural selection

      2) Speciation events have occured in the past (and are continuing to occur today?)

      3) Large scale evolutionary changes (what would often be considered macroevolution, but with limits on the high end) occur (occured? or ongoing?) in short periods of time (on the order of 1000's of years)

      4) Modern creatures descened from common ancestors, going back to certain Kinds, which were specially created.

      If the above is correct, then more succinctly, you believe in all of evolution except common descent beyond some level (Kinds are roughly equivalent to the Genus level? Family? Order?), and that evolution occurs at a much faster rate than biologists currently believe.  Furthermore abiogenesis occured in the form of special creation of fully formed complex creatures.
      Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 10 2006,11:08

      < >
      i dont think it's trees, I think it's runes.
      Daveys gone all mystick on us :)
      Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 10 2006,11:29

      Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 10 2006,16:08)
      < >
      i dont think it's trees, I think it's runes.
      Daveys gone all mystick on us :)
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


      Portuguese runes.
      Posted by: BWE on Oct. 10 2006,11:35

      Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2006,11:17)
      Dave,
      2 questions:

      1) Did you recognize that I took your bet and debate the portuguese thing with me?
      1a) Did I lose?

      2) Do core samples prove your 6000 year old Earth?
      2a) If they provided strong evidence that Earth is more than 6000 years old, would you have to ammend your theory?

      I would appreciate a reply.
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
      BWE ... I had the Portuguese argument with Rilke and won handily.  Why waste the time debating you?
      ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



      So, um... I had 2 questions.

      In terms of portuguese, I can find your quotes and work from there?
      Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 10 2006,13:30

      Gee, Dave, all those big long posts, and you still didn't even address the two biggest problems your "tree of life" presents:

      1) How did tens of thousands (at most) of "kinds" diversify into tens of millions of species in less than 5,000 years?

      2) How can both of these statements be true?

      • 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time for life to have diversified into the tens of millions of species alive today; and
      • 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified into the tens of millions of species alive today.

        And Dave, you still haven't addressed the fact that lungfish have < evolved significantly > since they diversified away from coelacanths 400 million years ago. As usual, you ignore evidence you can't find a rejoinder to on AiG.

        One more thing, Dave. You're having a hard time figuring out the current consensus opinions in evolutionary biology because you're mixing up sources from 40 and 50 years ago with current sources. Unlike the Bible, which hasn't changed significantly in thousands of years, and gets more wrong every year, science is contingent by its nature, and theories are refined as additional evidence becomes available. This is what as known as "progress," Dave, and it's a notion utterly alien to the religious state of mind. Your Bible hasn't made any "progress" since it was first written down.
        Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 10 2006,13:35

        Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

        Fourth time asking.
        Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 10 2006,13:37

        Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:13)
        BWE ... I had the Portuguese argument with Rilke and won handily.  Why waste the time debating you?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Dave, you didn't "win" the argument with Rilke; you got obliterated. You didn't even frame an argument, let alone win one. You presented not a single smidgen of linguistic evidence in support of a linguistic argument.

        Okay, a show of hands: who thinks Dave "won" his "Portuguese" argument with anyone?
        Posted by: Russell on Oct. 10 2006,15:48



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Oh geez. Round and round we go. Are you seriously going to tell us that you're still claiming to believe that, in light of < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >,< this >, all of which I pulled up from the first 3 pages of a Google search for "transitional fossils"? See, whether that's the result of pathological [lack of] thinking, or calculated dishonesty is no longer of interest to me. It is a lie.
           

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        If you don't know by now that Gould and Eldredge don't claim an absence of transitional fossils in light of < this >    

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Since we [Gould and Eldredge] proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        once again that level of ignorance has to be intentional. Hence, another lie. I'm still waiting for one prediction that Davism makes. If you still contend that "there are no transitional fossils" in light of what I've just shown you, you're just lying. There's no other way to say it.   

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        What you SHOULD have trouble with is the fact that Fitch and Miller "calibrated" their dates by the fossils found in the neighboring strata.  This is a clear example of how RM Dating is NOT an independent confirmation of other methods, the idea that is sold to the public.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I haven't read the original articles yet, so I can't comment. I take it that you have?
           

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        And yet, you have thus far (1) failed to identify a single "lie" told in the name of Darwin and (2) you have ignored the many lies we've documented for your benefit told by AIG in the name of Jesus.
        Exhibit A: chromosome fusions. Did you ever follow up on what you yourself finally acknowledged was just plain wrong, but AIG continues to peddle as The Truth? Did you get them to correct or at least acknowledge their error?    

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        That's easy ... it's a lie to say for sure that the earth is billions of years old.  You really don't know.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Are you serious?!?!? I mean, really?!? Do you really believe that constitutes a "lie"? Look: if I tell students that polio is caused by a virus, how do I "know" that? It's from putting a lot of data together, which together make a pretty airtight case for a virus causing polio. Same with the ancient earth. It is not a "lie" to dismiss your objections any more than it is a "lie" to say that polio is caused by a virus, despite the lack of agreement among witch-doctors and followers of Mary Baker Eddy.    

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Want some more?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I'm still waiting for one      

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        How about naming one of my lies?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Well, in this particular case, I was talking about creationists in general, rather than you in particular. I brought up the chromosome fusion story on AiG. Here's a case where misinformation is touted as evidence against evolution. We showed you, and you finally recognized, that it is, in fact, dead wrong. Yet it's still there, isn't it? Do they not know it's wrong? I don't believe that. If no one else told them, surely you did, no? But if you want examples of what I consider your personal lies, see above.

        Now I've shown you how what you call "lies", clearly are not (or do you believe "polio is caused by a virus" is a lie?!?). I've shown you how you and your colleagues are peddling misinformation that you either know is false, or have no excuse for not knowing is false. If you insist on pursuing this discussion at this level at this level of denial/dishonesty/perversity, I just have to conclude that you have never advanced beyond the mental age of 7.

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Okay, a show of hands: who thinks Dave "won" his "Portuguese" argument with anyone?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        On the internet, you can't tell, but my hand is not raised.
        Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 10 2006,16:07



        uh, Dave makes a graph out of a stand of pussy willows?
        Posted by: Ved on Oct. 10 2006,17:12



        Wouldn't an imaginary tree shaped like this better fit Dave's creation model? One giant continent and God's blessing of perfection constraining diversity, then catastrophe!!! Millions of dead things buried in massive layers of rock, you know. Surely Noah failed to save the trilobite and the tyranosaurus, am I wrong? Then after being distributed around the globe and subjected to the isolation of fragmented continents, God's curse, and decay, millions of species evolved.
        Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 10 2006,17:16

        Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
        AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
        {big, mondo snip}
        Mike PSS...          

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

        Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Dave,
        Here's your original question that I answered in my < response > you quoted above.  Compare the bolded statements and tell me where I got your claim wrong WHEN I RETYPED YOUR RESPONSE QUESTION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD.  The only words missing are "Deep Timers cannot prove" and I've told you time and again that I'm not discussing time.  I've also avoided the words "prove/proven" and "truth/truthiness" because in my eyes they are loaded statements.    
        Quote (afdave @ (Oct. 06 2006 @ 23:40))

        Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

        "Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

        You fill in the blank.

        Or ...

        "Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



        Moving on from another Portuguese moment.....

        Before I made my summary on page 7 of this thread, I read ALL the references you cited with Arndts and Overn.  I then read Dalrymples five point rebuttal.  Then I read Arndts and Overns reply to Dalrymples rebuttal.  I then searched my textbooks, the web, and one other source (which I shall remain quite about for now) to find cross-referenced sources for both sides of the claim.  I then prepared my summary after researching ALL (both sides) of the information.

        I answered Arndts and Overns mixing claim in my < summary > and expanded on this information with a < reply > to clarify some questions you had.  My summary and reply (click on those underlined words for the Permalink) are a DIRECT REFUTATION of Arndts and Overns WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON CLAIMS.

        Dave, I know this whole Isochron thing is WAYYYYYY in the past (started at least two weeks ago, long time on this thread) but the only response I've got from you is sidestep and obfuscation when I meet your stated format.

        If you don't understand the material in my summary and replies then please ask directly.  I am answerring the claims of Arndts and Overn dealing with whole rock Isochrons, you just may not recognize it if you don't understand all the material I presented.

        At least we are making progress and your positon with Mineral Isochrons is clear.  I think I can work with this, but give me a day or so.

        Mike PSS
        Posted by: BWE on Oct. 10 2006,20:37

        < notebook2 >

        Google notebook is sooooo cool.

        SFBDave,

        Since any point is the same with you... Whole rock isochrons.. LUCA Vitamin C Portuguese
        kinds, sheesh, Kinds? The water in the rocks in your head will make them explode. That's because your On Fire baby! Stupider than the average penis.

        So the flood was 5000 years ago, the few "Kinds" on board Noahs dinghy nearly instantaneously evolved into the countless species we have today. I say nearly instantaneously because it was obviously before Moses or he would have written about the massive changing of all the species, right?

        YOu never responded whether my graph was accurate.

        PS You lost the portuguese debate. I offered to take either side because I thought you might feel like you had worn out the side you lost. But if you really think you won then I must assume you consider your answers (included in my notebooks) to be your argument?

        If so, you'd better get ready to post my article on your blog.



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        OK ... brace yourselves ... the branch is coming down ... everybody got your body padding on?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        -SFBDave



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Quote
        Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.Portuguese and French


        Of course if you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian influence beginning with the influx of thousands of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  [Oh ... by the way ... I guess I'd better fill you in that Burgundy is in France ... small detail].  Anyway, Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Rilke's other favorite source, Encyclopedia Brittanica.  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  I hope I'm not moving too fast for anyone.

        Hmmm ... let's think now ... a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese.

        Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average Joe (or Rilke).  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

        And if you think and are honest (I'm finding this to be a slightly scarce combo here), instead of just shoot your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

        phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)

        RRRRRRR ... CREEEEK ... (noise of branch breaking) ... (whistling sound as branch accelerates toward ground) ... (screams of terror) ... WUMP! (branch loaded with arrogant evolutionists hits ground)

        OK.  So now you have a choice.  You can get up, brush yourself off, wipe the egg off your face and go back to trying to make reasonable arguments in favor of evolution, which is what I would recommend if you want to help the "Evolution Cause"

        OR ...

        You can somehow try to weasel out of the fact that you've been had.  

        Either choice you make, I'm going to take this thread back to it's intended content and expand it a bit.  I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.

        (And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)

        (Oh ... don't forget to thank Rilke for leading you into this mess!
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        -SFBDave

        THat was it. That was your entire argument. You got into some word comparisons on another thread IIRC but this was the meat. Is there more you wish to add?
        Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 10 2006,21:26

        Thanks BWE for re-posting AFDave's Portugese moment.
        Even after all this time, it never fails to amuse me.
        Dave, please keep going with this.
        Let's see...AF Dave is right and every single professional linguist (including the ones from Portugal and France :D  ) are wrong.  Ah, the wonder of it all.
        Oh, does this tie into the evolutionist "Deep Time" conspiracy with all the geologists and geneticists etc.? Just curious.
        Posted by: Russell on Oct. 11 2006,01:30



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Dave, please keep going with this.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        And with Truth4Kids. I have as little interest in seeing that enterprise abandoned as I have in seeing Denny Hastert resign. Both are splendid beacons, to anyone with a functioning brain, of where not to go.
        Posted by: k.e on Oct. 11 2006,03:28



        AFD Your Xmas trees are missing their biblical roots
        Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,04:43



        Diogenes seems to be making an honest attempt to understand my postion ...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Dave, I'm trying to summarize your current position, please correct any mistakes in my characterization of your position.

        1) Creatures evolve by a mechanism of random mutation + natural selection

        2) Speciation events have occured in the past (and are continuing to occur today?)

        3) Large scale evolutionary changes (what would often be considered macroevolution, but with limits on the high end) occur (occured? or ongoing?) in short periods of time (on the order of 1000's of years)

        4) Modern creatures descened from common ancestors, going back to certain Kinds, which were specially created.

        If the above is correct, then more succinctly, you believe in all of evolution except common descent beyond some level (Kinds are roughly equivalent to the Genus level? Family? Order?), and that evolution occurs at a much faster rate than biologists currently believe.  Furthermore abiogenesis occured in the form of special creation of fully formed complex creatures.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Close.  Very good.  Thank you for being honest and forthright.  For the most part, you are a good example to the others here.  I would revise it as follows ...

        1) An unknown number of organisms were spoken into existence by God during the Creation Week: Plants on Day 3, Water creatures on Day 5, Man and land animals on Day 6, etc.  Similarly, an unknown number of air-breathing organisms and possibly seeds and other organisms were carried on the Ark of Noah to restart that portion of life on earth which could not survive the Flood.

        2) Rapid diversification and speciation occurred after the Flood due to many factors: separated continents, foraging needs, massive climate change, to name a few.  Similar diversification and speciation may have occurred after the Fall and Curse recorded in Genesis 3, but this is not of immediate interest to us because so many of the original organisms were wiped out during the Flood.  It is much more relevant to our present situation today to consider what happened after the Flood.  I may adjust the points in my Hypothesis to reflect this.

        3) Creatures adapt by natural and artificial selection of pre-existing genetic information.  I believe that God endowed the original creatures with a large enough amount of genetic information to allow them to adapt and form new species (species being defined as reproductive isolation).    

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
        p. 58
        “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
        p. 59
        “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
        p. 63
        “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
        p. 64
        “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
        “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        However, the only kind of adaptation that I am aware of are small changes:  i.e. changes in length or size of the organism, changes in body color, resistance to pesticide, changes in amount of hair, etc.  In short, changes in DEGREE of pre-existing structures and functions.  I am not aware of any organism that has "evolved" if this is to mean something like, for example, a legless worm growing legs, a whale whose flippers turn into legs, etc.

        4) Random mutation, as far as I can tell, does not create new features or functions such as eyes where ther were no eyes, legs where there were no legs, etc.  Random mutation has been well known for a long time, however, to be mostly HARMFUL to organisms.    

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Wills, Christopher, “Genetic Load,” Scientific American, vol. 222 (March 1970), pp. 98-107.

        “Some mutations are ‘beneficial,’ that is, the individual in whom they are expressed is better able to adapt to a given set of environmental circumstances. The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H. J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.”
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



        Hopefully this answers Diogenes and others' questions.

        I do see that Jeannot had some confusion over the two 'Evolution trees' I posted, so I will post them again with some clarification ...



        Jeannot asked where the plants are.  Plants are not included for clarity on my "Improved ToE Tree" on the right.  In fact MANY organisms are not included so as not to clutter up the chart unnecessarily.  You will notice that I have only included organisms which I think that ToE proposes to be in the lineage of modern man.

        Possibly I should change "Bacterium" to "Unknown Unicellular Creature" (UUC) as we discussed before.  In this case, fungi, archea and plants would have their own horizontal lines originating with this UUC.

        Again, the point of redrawing the tree is to make it more consistent with what we really find in nature.  I have no problem with people advocating ToE.  Everone has that right.  I just think the usual "ToE Trees" (such as the on depicted on the left from Wikipedia) do not give a full accurate picture of what ToE advocates truly believe.  For example, the tree on the left does not have any time scale and it does not represent increasing organism complexity in any graphical fashion.  My chart on the right does both and also illustrates graphically that many organism have not "evolved" at all and that there should be a "transitional" nature in sequence data, just as Michael Denton has asserted there should be IF ToE were true.  

        ***************************************

        CHALLENGE TO DEADMAN ... SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF GISH AND MORRIS (AND ME) OR RETRACT THEM

        Deadman claims that I quote mined and he is making an unsupported assertion that Gish and Morris were prolific quote miners.

        You should prove it or retract it, Deadman.

        The truth is that my Ager quotes means EXACTLY what I thought they meant, and Deadman is wrong.  Derek Ager is clearly on record with this and several other similar quotes ...

        “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

        Do you hear that?  "WE DO NOT FIND GRADUAL EVOLUTION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD."  Case Closed.

        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Except that I can point out where you have used false/faked/quotemined quotes half a dozen times, and I'm sure there are more. For instance, your last post...quoting Ager:  Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.

        The person who began using this quote-mine was, naturally, Duane Gish. He and Morris were the most prolific quote-miners.

        Note what you CLAIM the quote says: “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student  have now been ‘debunked.’”


        The complete sentence reads, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"

        The point being this: You never read that article. You are parroting what you read on creationist websites. None of what you post is original. You don't check sources, so you perpetuate quotemines.

        And lest you say that it's not important, read what Ager has to say on how he was quotemined:
        Quote  
        I get rather tired of these things...Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me  
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



        There is no difference in meaning if the middle clause is removed, especially considering ALL the quotes in the same article as follows ...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
        p. 132
        “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been ‘debunked.’”
        p. 132
        “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
        p. 133
        “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I have discovered that when I copy a quote from a CD source and place it into Notepad before posting (how I do most of my posts), Notepad strangely removes elipses (...).  There is an elipsis in my source where this middle clause.  You can see that Notepad did this by noting that there are two spaces between "student" and "have now been debunked" in my original quote.  Notepad inserted a space for an elipsis. I have manually reinserted the elipsis above.

        Furthermore, infidels.org makes a false statement regarding this supposed quote mine here ...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.
        < http://www.infidels.org/library....n2.html >
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        No, he was not.  He was referring to evolution stories which have now been debunked, from from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei.  This is quite clear from the 4 Ager quotes I gave.  Then there is another quote from Ager which confirms it even more.

         

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        "One thing which has struck me very forcibly through they years is that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days, such as Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the plethora of palaeontological information we now have available, there seems to be very little to put in their place. In twenty years’ work on the Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few if any evolving lineages." (Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 1981, p. 20)
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



        Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...

        “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

        How much more clear can you get, guys?  Can you explain how this is not clear to you? And shame on you for spreading lies about Gish and Morris.  These guys are careful, honest scholars.

        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        I posted this on the previous page, stupid:   Quote  
        Dawkins' overall attitude towards puntuated equilibrium is threefold:
        1) So what?
        2). Darwin predicted RELATIVELY rapid bursts, too, as did Mayr, who Gould & Eldridge barely acknowledged
        3) "Rapid" even for Gould, is tens of thousands of years...generally about 50,000, as he acknowledged. ("I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years…Stephen J. Gould as quoted in Lewin, R., "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science Vol 210:883-887.)"Geologically rapid" doesn't mean "overnight," stupid.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I realize this.  I never said anything about "overnight."  Stop misrepresenting me.  However, it has been acknowledged here on this forum that "Evolutionists NEED Deep Time" ... sorry, but 50,000 years doesn't qualify as Deep Time.  You need a lot more than that even to make relatively minor changes.  Example:  You say that it took 5 million years just to get from the last Gorilla/Human LCA to a modern human!!  

        50,000 years doesn't cut it for ToE.


        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        The mere fact that there was a debate in the 70's and onwards about the tempo and mode of evolution...doesn't help you a bit, stupid. As cited above, 50,000 years is a lot more than you even think the earth existed, let alone for the speciation of one organism.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Sure it does.  It helps me a lot.  Of course I have no illusions that any of the folks I quoted will come to the CORRECT conclusion from all this debate, but the debate does show that the whole Darwinian establishment is in disarray and they really have no explanations for Macroevolution, other than 'magic', then they turn right around and accuse Creationists of invoking magic.  The truth is, BOTH sides have to invoke magic, if 'magic' is meant to be "processes which we do not presently understand."

        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Your use of "macroevolution" now depends on a citation from a Berkeley site. The site claims that "macro" refers to "evolution above the species level." So...here's a question, stupid. We know that speciation occurs. Is it then "microevolution?" And don't say that speciation does not occur, I gave you several examples previously, which you did not refute, except to say "did the fireweed become a redwood?" and similar nonsense. when populations genetically related no longer/cannot interbreed, this is by definition, speciation.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        When did I ever say speciation doesn't occur?  Of course it occurs. "Above the species level" can mean "well above" or directly above.  No one can say for sure how to demarcate the original created kinds.  Just like with ToE, no one can really say what the LCA at each node might have looked like.  All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.

        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        As far as your quotemining is concerned, sure I have lots of them. Want me to list them so you can try to whine?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        These latest accusations of quote mining have back fired.  So sure ... bring on as many as you like.  But only if can explain in detail why you think they are quote mines and then support your assertions.

        Deadman...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.

        Oh, that IS hilarious..basically El Stupido Grande is saying allopatric speciation is kept to a minimum (while sympatry is emphasized, stupid?)...which is quite a hoot, considering he claims to "know" about evolutionary theory.
        He has no clue about how wrong his "hypotheses" are, and he IS trying to sugar coat the bitter truth of his ignorance in "science-y" terms.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I have only claimed to know enough about ToE to know that it is implausible.  Obviously, there are many details of "Cinderella", "The Wizard of Oz" and ToE that I do not know.  What exactly, is stupid about my statement?  You shouldn't call people's statements stupid unless you can explain HOW it is stupid.

        OA...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way.  There are probably other ways which are not clear to me.  If you are looking for me to be able to classify every living organism on earth according to original created kinds, I cannot.  This is no more possible that you can describe every supposed Common Ancestor of every living organism on earth.  I think the best that either theory--ToE or Creationism--can hope for is to propose viable hypotheses that do not contradict any known data.  As far as I know, Creationism does not contradict any known data, but ToE does ... in spades, your loud protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

        Steve Story...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        You can call science reverse engineering, and you can call engineering reverse science. Davetard tries to give himself cred by therefore equating science with engineering.

        I can ride a motorcycle 100 mph. Does that mean I can ride it in reverse? No. It's a whole nother skill.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Steve, you are a master at making inapplicable analogies.  This is like the 3rd or 4th one I think.  Surely you have heard of "reverse engineering" and surely you don't think it in any way resembles riding a motorcycle backwards?  Reverse engineering WRT living organisms even has a formal name ... I think it's biomimetics.  God is the Ultimate Engineer.  Mankind routinely copies his designs in nature to create new technology.

        JohnW...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Dave.  I missed it first time round:

        Quote  
        Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.


        Finally, a testable prediction.  And it's falsified (see here for starters).  So I guess we're done.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        You AND Talk Origins are proven wrong with the numerous quotes already given.  Talk Origins has proven to be a very unreliable source if you've been following this thread.  I actually now look forward to people trying to refute me by referring to T.O. because most of the time, their arguments or flawed.

        Now ... why don't YOU take up my challenge of showing me ONE truly transitional fossil and explaining why you think it's transitional (as opposed to just telling me over and over again about OTHERS who supposedly SAY there are transitional fossils.)

        Russell...  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        And yet, you have thus far (1) failed to identify a single "lie" told in the name of Darwin and (2) you have ignored the many lies we've documented for your benefit told by AIG in the name of Jesus.

        Exhibit A: chromosome fusions. Did you ever follow up on what you yourself finally acknowledged was just plain wrong, but AIG continues to peddle as The Truth? Did you get them to correct or at least acknowledge their error?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Oops!  Forgot to answer the second part of this about the chromosome fusions.  No.  I had forgotten to follow up with AIG, but I did yesterday and I linked to the thread where we discussed it.  Thx for the reminder.  Why do you mischaracterize AIG as a sort of "lie peddler"??  Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic?  Do you ever make mistakes?  Would you like it if someone took one of your mistakes and trumpeted to the world that you are now a "lie peddler"??  How many kids do you think will be misled by this error?  I don't know many kids who even know what a chromosome is, much less understand chromosome fusion, much less read this AIG article.

        Come on, Russell.  Where is your sense of fair play?  I never accuse ToE advocates of "evil" or "conspiracy" or any such thing (even though Improvius has been trying for a long time to characterize me this way).  I think they are honest, intelligent, hard working people who just happen to be wrong about ToE, much as many scientists were wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system.

        BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  The best that Arden Chatfield--the resident linguist--and Faid were able to do was tell me that both Portuguese and Spanish were descended from Latin.  But I already agreed with that.  How does this refute anything I said?  Answer:  It doesn't.  This is just as vacuous as all these bogus quote mining charges.  It seems that you guys sure do whine a lot.  I hear a lot of "Quoteminer!" (when it isn't) and "Liar!" (when in reality it's just a different opinion) and "Evil loki child abuser!" (when in reality it is ToE advocates who are telling half-truths to our public school kids).
        Posted by: improvius on Oct. 11 2006,05:18

        Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,10:43)

        Just like with ToE, no one can really say what the LCA at each node might have looked like.  All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        But you can, Dave, using the fossil record.

        Let's go back to your chart for a moment.  This represents 1 of 2 things:
        1) Actual data.
        2) Hypothetical data.

        Now, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't represent actual data.  Otherwise, you probably would have labeled it.  So let's go with #2.

        Your hypothetical chart, then, represents a prediction.  It precits that, over a given period of time, many new "sub-kinds" have, um, micro-evolved from a much smaller set of "base-kinds".  Now, examing the fossil record, we should see a pattern developing in which, over the last 5,000 years, the amouont of sub-kinds increases at a dramatic rate.  Actually, we should see the number of "sub-kinds" double roughly every 500 years.

        Now here is your chance to test your hypothesis.  Using any scientific dating methodology you prefer, examine the last 5000 years of fossils and tell me if you see this pattern.  I'll open it up even further, Dave.  Can you find any evidence from any source that shows the doubling of "sub-kinds" every 500 years?
        Posted by: k.e on Oct. 11 2006,05:23

        AFD ....looks like you've blown your biblical boiler there boy.

        Have you considered prozac?

        the REALLY amusing thing is that your "tree line" reminds me of an old joke.

        An Englishman asks an Irish mathmatician what a 1/3 of 100 is.
        The mathmatician draws 3 trees on the white board and some other stuff with equals 100 at the end of the line and says "there's your answer".
        The confused Englishman asks for an explantaion.
        The mathmatician says "Dirty Tree and a Turd plus Dirty Tree and a Turd plus Dirty Tree and a Turd equals 100"


        That's about as close as you get to reality AFD
        Posted by: improvius on Oct. 11 2006,05:25

        Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,10:43)
        BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  The best that Arden Chatfield--the resident linguist--and Faid were able to do was tell me that both Portuguese and Spanish were descended from Latin.  But I already agreed with that.  How does this refute anything I said?  Answer:  It doesn't.  This is just as vacuous as all these bogus quote mining charges.  It seems that you guys sure do whine a lot.  I hear a lot of "Quoteminer!" (when it isn't) and "Liar!" (when in reality it's just a different opinion) and "Evil loki child abuser!" (when in reality it is ToE advocates who are telling half-truths to our public school kids).
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        It looks like the < Portuguese > Wikipedia page has been updated quite a bit recently.  It's worth a look if anyone is still interested in this, um, "debate".



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Ela fecha sempre a janela antes de jantar. (Portuguese)
        Ela fecha sempre a fiestra antes de cear. (Galician)
        Ella cierra siempre la ventana antes de cenar. (Spanish)
        Ella tanca sempre la finestra abans de sopar. (Catalan)
        Lei chiude sempre la finestra prima di cenare. (Italian)
        Ea închide întodeauna fereastra înainte de a cina. (Romanian)
        Elle ferme toujours la fenêtre avant de dîner. (French)
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,05:29



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Jeannot asked where the plants are.  Plants are not included for clarity on my "Improved ToE Tree" on the right.  In fact MANY organisms are not included so as not to clutter up the chart unnecessarily.  You will notice that I have only included organisms which I think that ToE proposes to be in the lineage of modern man.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        So is it your tree or is it not?
        You decided not to include organisms "out of our lineage" (and this expression proves that you have not understood the concept yet), fine. But in this case, you are comparing two different things. Your tree may be just a part of the tree of life.
        And you still have to justify why it's more accurate. I can also claim that James Bond is more accurate than the Bible.
        For one thing, the upper branch leading to humans (-200 kyears) is not coherent. Where is the branching point?
        And you are confused, since both are supposed to be completely wrong how can your tree be more accurate?
        Posted by: Russell on Oct. 11 2006,05:29



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I am completely mystified as to how you think I pretend anything at all about what Ager believes,since I have no idea who he is.


        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Oops!  Forgot to answer the second part of this about the chromosome fusions.  No.  I had forgotten to follow up with AIG, but I did yesterday and I linked to the thread where we discussed it.  Thx for the reminder.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I, and others, have reminded you about this many times. Many, many times. If you "forgot" to follow up, it was extremely low on your list of priorities.

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         Why do you mischaracterize AIG as a sort of "lie peddler"??  Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic?
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I thought I made it clear: if correcting known mistakes is, shall we say, "extremely low on your list of priorities", I really don't see any practical distinction between that and other flavors of lie. And while you have "forgotten" to follow up on this particular glaring misinformation, I don't believe for a moment that the Wieland and AiG remain uninformed about it.  But please! By all means - keep us abreast of AiG's response to your feedback!  

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Do you ever make mistakes?  Would you like it if someone took one of your mistakes and trumpeted to the world that you are now a "lie peddler"??
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I make mistakes all the time. I try to correct them whenever they're brought to my attention. Are you aware of any I should correct?


        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        How many kids do you think will be misled by this error?  I don't know many kids who even know what a chromosome is, much less understand chromosome fusion, much less read this AIG article.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Very revealing, dave. I'm going to save this one.  "Hey! What's the big deal? No one will be able to call us on it; I mean, who the h3ll even knows what a chromosome is? No need to get it right; just throw in lots of authoritative sounding sciency words and tell them it's all consistent with christian fundamentalism."

        Fortunately, I know plenty of kids who know what a chromosome is. But your assessment of the state of the public understanding of these matters is all the more you and AiG should be ashamed of your attitude.


        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        Come on, Russell.  Where is your sense of fair play?  I never accuse ToE advocates of "evil" or "conspiracy" or any such thing...
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        Hold it right there. You give hypocrisy a bad name. Here, let me remind you:

        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

        I see. Not "evil" or "conspiracy" - just criminal, large-scale (which would have to be coordinated, no?) lying.
        Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,05:33

        Improvius ... I am finding that there is evidence that organisms can speciate quite rapidly (not evolve ... not macroevolution ... I said speciate).  I will furnish some quotes soon.  As for the fossil record, this data fits the Global Flood much better than ToE.

        Is there any particular reason why you quote my entire long post only to make a comment about the last paragraph?  I mean, I don't mind the extra exposure to my views and all, but isn't it a bit wasteful of space?
        Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 11 2006,05:59



        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
        And shame on you for spreading lies about Gish and Morris.  These guys are careful, honest scholars.
        ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



        Best laugh I've had all month.  Thank you.
        Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,05:59

        Dave, do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or not? Do you believe evolution happens, or not?

        Your chart, the one on the left, lists times going back to three billion years ago (of course, your time of divergence of humans and other apes is bullshit). What's up with that? If that tree represents what you think actually happened, why does it list any dates more than six thousand years ago? If you think the earth is only six thousand years old, then how is the "tree" on the left any more consistent with the "evidence" than the tree on the right? Further, you obviously don't know this, but your tree on the left is functionally identical to the tree on the right. Sure, it's less informative, and reveals some fundamental misunderstandings, such as the notion that organisms stop evolving as soon as they appear in the fossil record. And even that can be accommodated into your tree, if one assumes that the total amount of evolution each organism listed has undergone is interpreted as the lengths of the lines connecting it back to the origin! The only real difference between the two is the orientation, so I don't know why you think the tree on the right is somehow more "accurate" than the tree on the left.

        The truth of the matter is, Dave, the tree you've drawn pretty much contradicts everything you say you believe. Your tree agrees with common descent, which you claim you don't believe in, and it agrees with an ancient earth, which you also say you don't believe in. Is it possible you copied this tree from an ID site where the designer of the tree accepts common descent and an ancient earth?

        In fact, if your tree is a representation of what you really believe (which I doubt), it can only lead to the conclusion that you believe there was only one "created kind," since your tree clearly shows all of the organisms listed to have derived from a common gene pool, and therefore by your definition are all of the same "kind." What's up with that?

        The only other explanation I can think of is that you don't even know what you believe. What other explanation is there for why you even included this tree? Why do you think your tree is more "accurate" than the consensus phylogenetic tree when a) it's the same tree, and b) it contradicts your entire "hypothesis"?

        And you still haven't answered my two questions:

        How did life diversify from ten thousand "kinds" to ten million species in less than 4,500 years, without anyone noticing?

        How is it that both of these statements can be true:

        • 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today;
        • 4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,06:17

          [deleted—double-post]
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,06:17

          Russell...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Quote  
          Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...
          I am completely mystified as to how you think I pretend anything at all about what Ager believes,since I have no idea who he is.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Here ... let me help your knowledge gap.  Derek Ager is a past president of the British Geological Association.  Also ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
               
          Google Advanced Scholar Search
          Scholar  All articles  Recent articles  Results 1 - 19 of 19 for author:Ager, author:Derek. (0.05 seconds)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If you "forgot" to follow up, it was extremely low on your list of priorities.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          True.  I don't generally place a high priority on arcane topics.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I don't believe for a moment that the Wieland and AiG remain uninformed about it.  But please! By all means - keep us abreast of AiG's response to your feedback!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          We'll see about that and I will keep you informed.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I make mistakes all the time. I try to correct them whenever they're brought to my attention. Are you aware of any I should correct?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Good, you are honest then.  I might find some of yours if I looked, but I don't care to spend the time.  I would simply ask you to extend some courtesy to AIG and "assume they are innocent until proven guilty" which is what you would like someone to do for you.  This was a founding principle in my country ... what about yours?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Very revealing, dave. I'm going to save this one.  "Hey! What's the big deal? No one will be able to call us on it; I mean, who the h3ll even knows what a chromosome is? No need to get it right; just throw in lots of authoritative sounding sciency words and tell them it's all consistent with christian fundamentalism."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          This is gross exaggeration and mischaracterization.  You have shown me ONE incorrect statement which AIG made out of how many thousands of articles they write??!!  I'd say that is a pretty good record.  I would bet large money that they wrote that article and very few read it and probably no one caught the mistake.  You seem to really be imagining "creationist bogeymen" behind every tree.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fortunately, I know plenty of kids who know what a chromosome is. But your assessment of the state of the public understanding of these matters is all the more you and AiG should be ashamed of your attitude.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          When I say kids, I mean elementary school kids, which is who K4T writes materials for.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Hold it right there. You give hypocrisy a bad name. Here, let me remind you: Quote  
          And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
          I see. Not "evil" or "conspiracy" - just criminal, large-scale (which would have to be coordinated, no?) lying.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Have you ever heard of involuntary manslaughter?  Similar deal in the sense that we are talking about a "crime" that is committed out of ignorance, not premeditation.  And I say "crime" tongue in cheek.  I do not advocate putting this one on the books and prosecuting people.

          *************************************

          Go ahead and laugh, thurdl ... then stop laughing and start explaining in detail WHY you believe Gish and Morris are quote miners, as Diogenes has done.

          You are nothing but a troll if you cannot back up your assertions.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,06:27

          CORRECTION:  Go ahead and laugh, thurdl ... then stop laughing and start explaining in detail WHY you believe Gish and Morris are quote miners, as Diogenes has done ... UNSUCCESSFULLY.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 11 2006,06:38

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:17)
          Go ahead and laugh, thurdl ... then stop laughing and start explaining in detail WHY you believe Gish and Morris are quote miners, as Diogenes has done.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          For starters, you're conflating gradualism with evolution.  And you know you're doing it.  So do Gish and Morris.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 11 2006,06:38

          [quote=afdave,Oct. 11 2006,09:43][/quote]
          afdave:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          2) Rapid diversification and speciation occurred after the Flood due to many factors: separated continents, foraging needs, massive climate change, to name a few.  Similar diversification and speciation may have occurred after the Fall and Curse recorded in Genesis 3, but this is not of immediate interest to us because so many of the original organisms were wiped out during the Flood.  It is much more relevant to our present situation today to consider what happened after the Flood.  I may adjust the points in my Hypothesis to reflect this.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And a couple of thousand years is long enough for this process?  If you are making this claim, why do you also claim that evolution needs millions of years?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          4) Random mutation, as far as I can tell, does not create new features or functions such as eyes where ther were no eyes, legs where there were no legs, etc.  Random mutation has been well known for a long time, however, to be mostly HARMFUL to organisms.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Mostly harmful, Dave.  Mostly.  Not always.  Mostly.  Mostlymostlymostly.  But sometimes, we get mutations which convey a survival advantage.  And then what happens?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          My chart on the right does both and also illustrates graphically that many organism have not "evolved" at all and that there should be a "transitional" nature in sequence data, just as Michael Denton has asserted there should be IF ToE were true.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Good grief.  It's the Great Chain of Being.  Dave, I know you have to quote-mine 40-year-old articles to lend support to your assertions, but you're going to struggle with this one - I think you'll need to start at about 140 years and work backwards.  Dave, all organisms have evolved and are continuing to evolve.  Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.  Do you really think there have been no new fish species since the Devonian?  Do you think any scientist would say this?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          When did I ever say speciation doesn't occur?  Of course it occurs. "Above the species level" can mean "well above" or directly above.  No one can say for sure how to demarcate the original created kinds.  Just like with ToE, no one can really say what the LCA at each node might have looked like.  All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (My italics.)  Good.  Let's see this here evidence, then.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          JohnW...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Dave.  I missed it first time round:

          Quote  
          Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.


          Finally, a testable prediction.  And it's falsified (see here for starters).  So I guess we're done.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You AND Talk Origins are proven wrong with the numerous quotes already given.  Talk Origins has proven to be a very unreliable source if you've been following this thread.  I actually now look forward to people trying to refute me by referring to T.O. because most of the time, their arguments or flawed..)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes, I've been following the thread.  Please show me where "Talk Origins has been proven to be a very unreliable source".



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now ... why don't YOU take up my challenge of showing me ONE truly transitional fossil and explaining why you think it's transitional (as opposed to just telling me over and over again about OTHERS who supposedly SAY there are transitional fossils.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, if my field was paleontology or comparative anatomy, I could do some original research and send you a summary.  As it's not, I could rewrite some of the existing material in my own words, but it would just be a paraphrase of the work of others.  I can do this if you like, but what would be the point?  

          Anyway, although we can't definitively identify a particular fossil as the ancestor of a modern group, we can certainly identify fossils which are at the very least close relatives of those ancestors, based on features which are intermediate between earlier organisms and later ones.  Off the top of my head, two well-studied examples are Hyracotherium -> Equus and of course Australopithecus -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens.
          Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 11 2006,06:40

          Aha, but what you said that I laughed at was that Duane Gish is an honest researcher, when really, he shows about the same level of intellectual honesty as you do.  But then, you would thus have to support him as honest or else annoint yourself and dishonest, so I suppose I should not be surprised to hear you say so.  And, naturally, anything that I now say will be either ignored by you, or brushed aside as "nuh-UH," as has been your practice anytime you have been shown wrong in this debate.

          So what I do now I do for any lurkers that are unaware of the history of Duane Gish's reputation and how it stands up against claims of him being an honest researcher.  I care not if AFDave disagrees with me, because I know he will, because he has to.

          Duane Gish makes his reputation by travelling the country and trying to set up debates with scientists.  This is, at the first, a dishonest practice, because this is not how science is done.  Science is done through a process of expirimentation, peer review, and publication, a process that Gish abandoned when he left the Upjohn company in the 1970s.  Before that, he actually spent a decade doing legitimate scientific work, and being published in legitimate scientific journals, so he does have a demonstrated history of knowing how science is meant to be conducted.  He just seems to choose not to.

          Instead, as I said, he tries to set up debates.  Which is not science.  Debates are, instead, showmanship and PR, both of which seem to be what creationists try to fall back on, since science is not an option.  His debates are set up so that usually he is setting the rules, so that he is often not actually debating biological scientists (which isn't entirely his fault I will conceed, as most serious academic types know who he is, and know why debating him is a danger) and even so that he can set the audience, which is often bussed in from area churches to present him with a sympathetic ear.

          And then...the Gish Gallop begins.  He uses a scattershot approach where, for 45-60 minutes, he will throw out as many possible topics as he can, knowing full well that something it takes him 10 seconds to say could very well take 10 minutes to refute, and that's if the scienist he has duped into debating knows to come prepared for that refutation.  He has a history of making and repeating claims that he has been shown to be wrong.  For example, he has long claimed that paleontology has not come up with a viable evolutionary lineage for Triceratops, though one does exist, and it has been shown to him.

          If anyone is legitimately curious about Gish, they can read up on his methods < here >. and a response to Gish's rebuttal of that article < here >.

          Of course, I fully expect that AFDave will not accept any of this, and that he will stand by Gish being the paradigm of intellectual honesty.  The fun thing is, I don't care what he says.  Someone who is willing to stand up for quote mining as a practice is someone who's opinion is not worth considering in any intellectual situation.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,06:48

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,09:43)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So, speciation never occurred? You are confused here, Davey boy.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,06:55

          Jeannot...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So is it your tree or is it not?
          You decided not to include organisms "out of our lineage" (and this expression proves that you have not understood the concept yet), fine. But in this case, you are comparing two different things. Your tree may be just a part of the tree of life.
          And you still have to justify why it's more accurate. I can also claim that James Bond is more accurate than the Bible.
          For one thing, the upper branch leading to humans (-200 kyears) is not coherent. Where is the branching point?
          And you are confused, since both are supposed to be completely wrong how can your tree be more accurate?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It is not "my" tree.  In my opinion, it is better representation of the ToE regarding human evolution.  I pointed out already two key reasons why this is so.  Please re-read. As for the 200 ky, I simply take numbers I am given in evolutionary publications.

          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or not? Do you believe evolution happens, or not?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          a) Yes. b) Micro-evo yes.  Macro-evo no.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (of course, your time of divergence of humans and other apes is bullshit). What's up with that?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh really?  I got it from EB 2006 version.  Go look it up yourself then if you don't like it.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If that tree represents what you think actually happened, why does it list any dates more than six thousand years ago?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          One more time ... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe, not what I believe.  IOW I'm helping you understand the true nature of your theory in the hopes that you will see that it is implausible.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How did life diversify from ten thousand "kinds" to ten million species in less than 4,500 years, without anyone noticing?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Do you ask questions which have just been asked by someone else TODAY and have already been answered just to be annoying?  Or what?  Did you not read Improvius' post and my response?

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Improvius ... I am finding that there is evidence that organisms can speciate quite rapidly (not evolve ... not macroevolution ... I said speciate).  I will furnish some quotes soon.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Is it possible you copied this tree from an ID site where the designer of the tree accepts common descent and an ancient earth?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  I drew it myself in Photoshop.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How is it that both of these statements can be true:
          4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today;
          4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Simple.  4,500,000,000,000 billion years would not be enough time to make MACRO-evolution happen as Dembski and Co. are seeking to show mathematically.  4500 years is plenty of time for species which ALREADY HAVE a huge potential for variablitiy to diversify.  Did you not read Ayala's quote I gave you earlier? ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 11 2006,07:09



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          One more time ... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe, not what I believe.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No.  That chart is a strawman.  And an especially blatent one at that.  What you are presenting is the theory of evolution as how you want it.  And I can understand why.  The theory of evolution, as you keep presenting it, is quite laughable and probably quite easy to debate against.  Of course, that's why they're called "strawmen."  Instead of debating actual evolution, you've built a effigy out of straw, put a sign reading "evolution" around it's neck, and you now want to kick the #### out of it.  Worse yet, you seem to expect your opponents in this debate to support your version of evolution instead of the actual one.

          I've stated this before, the last time you tried to redefine evolution for your own purposes: Unfortunately for you, you do not get to define what evolution is.  Science has already done so.  And that is the definition that is being used in this debate.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,07:44

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,11:55)
          Jeannot...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So is it your tree or is it not?
          You decided not to include organisms "out of our lineage" (and this expression proves that you have not understood the concept yet), fine. But in this case, you are comparing two different things. Your tree may be just a part of the tree of life.
          And you still have to justify why it's more accurate. I can also claim that James Bond is more accurate than the Bible.
          For one thing, the upper branch leading to humans (-200 kyears) is not coherent. Where is the branching point?
          And you are confused, since both are supposed to be completely wrong how can your tree be more accurate?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It is not "my" tree.  In my opinion, it is better representation of the ToE regarding human evolution.  I pointed out already two key reasons why this is so.  Please re-read. As for the 200 ky, I simply take numbers I am given in evolutionary publications.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So a Middle-Age creationist like you is going to show scientists how their phylogenetic trees should look like, with the taxa "wormlike, fishlike...". Excuse me while I laugh to death.  :D
          I didn't know that the tree of life should be focussed specifically on our lineage.

          Mmmmh, I think that the Raelians' ideas are more accurate that the book of genesis regarding creation. You know, they precisely describe the close encounter with extraterrestrials, and the eye-witness (I know it's very important to you) is still alive. Duh.

          And I am not contesting the date, I said that there is no branching point at -200 kyears. I assume you forgot to draw a branch leading to other Homo.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,07:48

          Dave, earlier you accused me of "reluctance" in naming some ancestors in the "human lineage." That you even wanted me to do so is indicative of your deficient understanding of how evolution works.

          Now, I know you think humans and chimps aren't even related, but you're wrong about that, so bear with me for a second. If humans and chimps are actually related, this is what their relationship looks like:



          Now, what's the name of this LCA, Dave? Does anyone know? No. Is that surprising? No. Why should it be? What are the chances that this particular organism would be represented in the fossil record? Pretty close to zero. As you are no doubt fond of pointing out, there are not very many known hominid fossils. I'm not sure of the actual number, but it's certainly less than five hundred. Now, how many hominids have actually lived over the last few million years? The chances that the actual last common ancestor of humans and chimps, or even a relative in the same species, was ever fossilized, is essentially zero. And even if it was fossilized, even if everything that ever lived was fossilized, there would be no way to know for certain if any particular individual organism were the literal last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

          Let's look at Australopithecus for a moment. There are several different species in this genus, and one of them may, or may not, be an ancestor of humans and various other now-extinct hominids.

          Here's one possible phylogenetic tree:



          Is it accurate? I think the current consensus would say no. Most paleoanthropologists probably believe that no species of Australopithecus is directly ancestral to Homo sapiens. Most would probably agree with a tree that looks like this:



          In any event, the chances that any particular Australopithecus fossil is directly ancestral to living humans, even if it turns out that some species of Australopithecus are directly ancestral to humans, is essentially nil.

          Think about it, Dave. Think of all the humans living on earth 60,000 years ago. If one of them happens to become fossilized, what are the chances that it's directly ancestral to both you and me? Wouldn't you agree that those chances are essentially zero?

          Lets look at Archaeopteryx for a moment. This critter definitely has both dinosaurian and avian features. Is it an ancestor of modern birds? Maybe, maybe not. How would it be possible, even in principle, to know? Is the fossil of a particular Archaeopteryx the remains of an organism directly ancestral to any living birds? Almost certainly not. We don't even know if that particular individual left any descendants!

          You express surprise that I can't give you the names, addresses, and social security numbers of organisms that are directly ancestral to humans, Dave, but that's just because you haven't thought things through. It's also an artifact of your conception of the relatedness of life being some sort of ladder, with bacteria or something simpler at the bottom and humans at the top. You've been given more than adequate information to correct that misconception at this point, so I can only assume that you're uneducable on the matter.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,07:59

          Dave BRINGING UP chromosome fusion back in May:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle.
          (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave on the (apparently "arcane") issue in question:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Another layman question ... what's the meaning of 5' and 3' ... what do the numbers designate and what do the single quote marks indicate?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Jeannot on the issue in question:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Although the process of genetic coding and codons and transcription and 5'-3' orientation can be unknown or forgotten to an MD (heck, I hardly remembered any of it), arguing against centric fusions and Robertsonian translocations as an impossibility can not be attributed to ignorance. It's standard textbook genetics, and highschool material
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave in reply:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Might have been high school material for you ... I must have been sleeping in that class!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave on the nature of the mistake:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apparently, we have +1 for the "Evos " and -1 for the "Yecs."  So for all of you that like to keep score, you have my hearty congratulations!  I'm looking forward to having that hard conversation with Dr. Carl Wieland from AIG about why he is a medical doctor and yet made such an elementary mistake.  I will post that result here for you all to see, as I believe in rewarding everyone fairly for honest victories, whether they agree with my worldview or not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave now:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I don't generally place a high priority on arcane topics.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, when did this topic of chromosome fusion -- which you brought up as an "insurmountable obstacle" for evolution -- go from "elmentary" to "arcane", hmm? If it was so esoteric that no one understands it, why did you you present it as a supposedly meaningful problem for evolution (one of the first you brought up, and the first I responded to)? Why did Wieland present it as such?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,07:59

          JohnW...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?  Why did lungfish stop evolving?  Ditto for coelecanths?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.

          (My italics.)  Good.  Let's see this here evidence, then.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I gave some to you already.  Again, a great example is reproductively isolated species.  They cannot reproduce together.  This is an example of an inviolable boundary.

          John...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Anyway, although we can't definitively identify a particular fossil as the ancestor of a modern group, we can certainly identify fossils which are at the very least close relatives of those ancestors, based on features which are intermediate between earlier organisms and later ones.  Off the top of my head, two well-studied examples are Hyracotherium -> Equus and of course Australopithecus -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Speculation.  You really do not know those ancestral relationships.  You are simply finding some fossils that look similar, then applying massive quantities of wishful thinking.

          thurdl ... Why did evolutionists accept Gish's debate challenges for so many years if they agree with you that "he's doing bad science"?  They should have said "Nope.  Not debating you.  That would be a miscarriage of good science."  I note that they won't debate him any more generally.  Why?  Did they suddenly discover that "debating is bad science"?  No.  I say they discovered that Gish was bad for the public image of their "pretend science."  

          Who said Gish was pretending to "do science" in these debates?  My guess is he simply wants to alert the public to the travesty of science called Darwinism.  This calls for extreme action such as debates, popular books, news articles, web sites, blog sites and more.  Then you complain about Gish's debating style.  Why could not his opponents adopt the same approach and win?  Do not both have a level playing field in the debate?  Are you somehow saying Gish "rigs" these debates?

          Please explain all this or else retract your derogatory assertions about Gish and Morris.

          BTW ... are you going to explain your accusation of me supposedly quote mining?  If not, you need to retract that, too.

          ***************************

          Improvius ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          For starters, you're conflating gradualism with evolution.  And you know you're doing it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Are you telling me that gradualism is not a fundamental tenet of ToE?  How else do you get macroevolution, but with gradual changes over millions of years? Yes, I am conflating it.  Why should I not?  Just because there are other theories out there?  Like Punc-Eq?  And Hopeful Monster and Saltation?    The mere EXISTENCE of theories like these show that Darwin's General Theory is in big trouble.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,08:06

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, when did this topic of chromosome fusion -- which you brought up as an "insurmountable obstacle" for evolution -- go from "elmentary" to "arcane", hmm?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I parroted the "elementary" label tongue in cheek because someone sarcastically remarked that "this should be elementary for an MD like Carl Wieland" or something like that.  To me it is quite arcane.  Go back and search and you will find that. Remember ... don't quote mine! :-)
          Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 11 2006,08:08



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Google notebook is sooooo cool.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          hmm.  indeed!

          learn somethin' new every day.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,08:16

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,13:06)
          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, when did this topic of chromosome fusion -- which you brought up as an "insurmountable obstacle" for evolution -- go from "elmentary" to "arcane", hmm?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I parroted the "elementary" label tongue in cheek because someone sarcastically remarked that "this should be elementary for an MD like Carl Wieland" or something like that.  To me it is quite arcane.  Go back and search and you will find that. Remember ... don't quote mine! :-)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          If you acknowledge that the topic is arcane to you, then why did you bring it up, Dave? You started an entire bloody thread on the assumption that "evolutionists" were making grievous errors in biology. If supposed mistakes in an "arcane" topic were such a high pirority then, why are they "low priority" now, hmm? There's a word for that. It's not "arcane".
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,08:24

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,11:55)
          Eric...        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or not? Do you believe evolution happens, or not?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          a) Yes. b) Micro-evo yes.  Macro-evo no.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Then why do you even bother posting a "tree of life" that clearly demonstrates macroevolution over billions of years, in flat-out contradiction of your own beliefs, and somehow claim it's "more accurate" than the consensus tree, when it's essentially the same tree? In what way is your "tree" more accurate than the consensus tree?
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (of course, your time of divergence of humans and other apes is bullshit). What's up with that?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh really?  I got it from EB 2006 version.  Go look it up yourself then if you don't like it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You think EB says humans diverged from other apes 100 million years ago, Dave? Go re-read your source, because I guarantee you the EB does not claim humans and other apes diverged 100 million years ago, which is what your chart says.

          By the way, your chart doesn't indicate what humans diverged from 200 thousand years ago, if you think that's what it indicates.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If that tree represents what you think actually happened, why does it list any dates more than six thousand years ago?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          One more time ... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe, not what I believe.  IOW I'm helping you understand the true nature of your theory in the hopes that you will see that it is implausible.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Jesus Christ, Dave, where do you get off presuming to know what I believe? You don't have a remotely accurate idea of what I believe! Your colossal arrogance is just mind-blowing. Where the fuck do you get off making up some strawman about what my actual beliefs are, and then tell me I'm wrong when I say I believe something completely different? What kind of egomaniac are you?

          This is the ultimate strawman argument, Dave. I tell you what I believe is true, then you tell me that's not really what I believe, it's this other thing that you believe I believe, and tell me that thing is implausible! Give me a fucking break!

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How did life diversify from ten thousand "kinds" to ten million species in less than 4,500 years, without anyone noticing?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Do you ask questions which have just been asked by someone else TODAY and have already been answered just to be annoying?  Or what?  Did you not read Improvius' post and my response?        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Improvius ... I am finding that there is evidence that organisms can speciate quite rapidly (not evolve ... not macroevolution ... I said speciate).  I will furnish some quotes soon.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You think that's some sort of an answer? How many "kinds" do you think there were on the ark, Dave? If there were, say, 10,000 "kinds" on the ark, there should be ten thousand genera, or possibly families, today, since you don't believe in macroevolution (or at least claim you don't). There aren't. There are millions of genera out there, and probably hundreds of thousands of families. These all "speciated" in less than 5,000 years?

          Changing the definition of "macroevolution" to "speciation" doesn't help your argument in the slightest. Did southern pines and sequoia redwoods "speciate" in less than 5,000 years when some sequoias are almost that old?

          I ask the same questions over and over again until you answer them, Dave. Not until you pretend to answer them; until you actually answer them. Saying you have evidence of "rapid speciation" does not answer the question of how 4,500 years is plenty of time for a few thousand "kinds" to have radiated into tens of millions of species today, and it certainly doesn't answer the question of how that's somehow more plausible than the exact same thing happening over billions of years.

          Answer the question, Dave. Don't just claim to have answered it.

               

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Is it possible you copied this tree from an ID site where the designer of the tree accepts common descent and an ancient earth?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  I drew it myself in Photoshop.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Another question you claim to have answered without answering it. I wasn't asking if you literally copied and pasted it. What is it based on? Your "belief," if that term even has meaning anymore, or someone else's? It certainly isn't based on my beliefs, and it's staggering that you would think to claim it is.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How is it that both of these statements can be true:
          4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today;
          4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified to the tens of millions of species we see today
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Simple.  4,500,000,000,000 billion years would not be enough time to make MACRO-evolution happen as Dembski and Co. are seeking to show mathematically.  4500 years is plenty of time for species which ALREADY HAVE a huge potential for variablitiy to diversify.  Did you not read Ayala's quote I gave you earlier?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Again, that doesn't answer the question, Dave. First, don't you think someone would have noticed if there were several thousand new species occurring every year? A new species of monkey every 17 years? Why haven't historians noticed an immense increase in biodiversity over human history, since essentially all "speciations" have occurred during that time? There should have been a doubling of biodiversity every few centuries if your "hypothesis" is true. In fact, biodiversity over the past few centuries has likely decreased, and a few centuries would be a significant fraction of the age of the universe under your "hypothesis."

          And where does this huge variability come from, Dave? Do you understand the concept of alleles? Do you understand that no single human can ever have had alleles for blue, green, brown, grey, black, and violet eyes?

          And just out of curiosity, Dave: where's your evidence for this sort of impossible "genetic richness" in every single organism on Noah's ark?

          It's not simple, Dave. It's impossible. It's impossible for the kind of diversification you're claim could have happened in less than five millennia, and you know it. You don't get from 10,000 "kinds" to up to a hundred million species in less than billions of years. Creationists need "deep time" as much as anyone does.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 11 2006,08:32

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?  Why did lungfish stop evolving?  Ditto for coelecanths?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you dishonest sack of sh*t. Were you then when gawd handed down the 10 commandments? Or told Noah to build the ark? etc etc
          How can you ask for such things WHEN YOU ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO SUPPLY THEM YOURSELF!
          what proof can you supply if your comfort blanket of a book is taken away?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creationists did not stop evolving (in the "can think straight" sense)?  Why did Ken Ham stop evolving?  Ditto for Dumbski?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,08:33

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
          Jeannot on the issue in question:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Although the process of genetic coding and codons and... [snip]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Mmm, that wasn't me.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,08:37

          Cory ... this is not hard to figure out unless you are predisposed to "see an evil creationist behind every bush."

          Somebody ELSE brought up chimp chromosomes to me as a supposed "proof" of common descent.  I did not bring it up.  I started the thread in response to someone else bringing it up.  I didn't even know how many chromosomes a chimp has until I came here.  That's how arcane this topic was to me (and still is to most people).  But when it was brought up, I put "chimp chromosome" in the handy dandy search box at AIG and Voila!  ... up came Wieland's article.  I began the new thread with that article and was told about the error, which I promptly acknowledged.  I got busy on new topics and flat didn't get around to notifying AIG until Russell reminded me yesterday.  Now it's done.

          If this is so important to you and Russell (Help! Help! The sky is falling because AIG made a mistake about a topic that 1 in 10 bazillion people even care about!;), why did you not beat me to it and notify AIG yourselves?  You seem all high and mighty about how concerned about the truth you are and yet you could just as easily have notified them.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,08:46

          Oldman...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you dishonest sack of sh*t. Were you then when gawd handed down the 10 commandments? Or told Noah to build the ark? etc etc
          How can you ask for such things WHEN YOU ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO SUPPLY THEM YOURSELF!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  I have historical records claimed to be written by eyewitnesses and we have no reason to doubt these eyewitnesses because of a century or more of archaeological confirmation.

          You have only speculation.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,08:46



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Speculation.  You really do not know those ancestral relationships.  You are simply finding some fossils that look similar, then applying massive quantities of wishful thinking.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          We don't have to prove common descent anymore, it's a scientific fact (see talkorigins for a set of evidence). Based on that principle, the fossil record and phylogenetic relationships, we can make safe inferences. You were told many times to do your homework, Davey boy.

          And since Eric issued an excellent post about our recent lineage, I'd like to hear you on our ancestors. Do you still maintain that fossils homininae (Autralopithecus, etc) are just mingled chimp and human bones?
          Did Homo erectus exist? Was it our ancestor or another created "kind"?
          Justify your position with facts (not your biblic fantasies), thanks.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 11 2006,08:52

          afdave:
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          JohnW...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Really?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Are you sure?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How do you know this?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The fossil record and DNA studies.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Using "proof" in the sense of "overwhelming evidence which creationists have failed to falsify", yes.  Let's take "fish" as an example.  Earliest fossils of a few teleost groups (from   < Tree of Life >):
          Osteoglossomorpha: Late Jurassic
          Ostariophysi: Early Cretaceous
          Characiformes: Cretaceous
          After the Devonian, yes?  So millions of years after the last common ancestor of tetrapods and telesosts, yes?  So teleost fish did not stop evolving.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Why did lungfish stop evolving?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          They didn't.  Seen any Cretaceous fossils of modern lungfish?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Cockroaches?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          They didn't.  Seen any Cretaceous fossils of modern cockroaches?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Opossums?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          They didn't.  Seen any Cretaceous fossils of modern opossums?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Many others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          They didn't.  Seen any Cretaceous fossils of modern anything?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.

          (My italics.)  Good.  Let's see this here evidence, then.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I gave some to you already.  Again, a great example is reproductively isolated species.  They cannot reproduce together.  This is an example of an inviolable boundary.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          As no biologist thinks that evolution takes place through the interbreeding of separate species, how is that relevant?

          Where's your evidence for "inviolable boundaries" to evolution, Dave?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Anyway, although we can't definitively identify a particular fossil as the ancestor of a modern group, we can certainly identify fossils which are at the very least close relatives of those ancestors, based on features which are intermediate between earlier organisms and later ones.  Off the top of my head, two well-studied examples are Hyracotherium -> Equus and of course Australopithecus -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Speculation.  You really do not know those ancestral relationships.  You are simply finding some fossils that look similar, then applying massive quantities of wishful thinking.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The "You've never been to Portugal, so how do you know Portugal exists?" argument.
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 11 2006,08:53



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Why did lungfish stop evolving?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Wha..?
          AFDAve, listen up.  There is no "off-switch" to evolution.
          A species doesn't go "Oooo, I like the way I look now.  That tail of mine is just perfect now! I think I'll stop evolving". That's not the way it works.
          Evolution is an endless 'arm-race' for survival.  Survival against the ever-changing elements and other animals that want to either take over your habitat or make you the next item on the menu.
          There is no touch down, no finishing line, no step ladder of "progress".  The rule is "whatever works baby".
          Take legs for example.  Seriously, think about this for a second, OK?
          Are legs better or worse than no legs?  Is a creature with legs "more evolved" or "less evolved" than a creature without legs?
          If you can figure this one out then you might just begin to have a glimmer of understanding what evolution is all about.  The strawman version of evolution you've got is just born of ignorance.
          I can't wait for you to say "If Man came from monkeys, then why are there STILL monkeys???"
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 11 2006,09:03



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          3) Creatures adapt by natural and artificial selection of pre-existing genetic information.  I believe that God endowed the original creatures with a large enough amount of genetic information to allow them to adapt and form new species (species being defined as reproductive isolation).      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
          p. 58
          “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
          p. 59
          “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          However, the only kind of adaptation that I am aware of are small changes:  i.e. changes in length or size of the organism, changes in body color, resistance to pesticide, changes in amount of hair, etc.  In short, changes in DEGREE of pre-existing structures and functions.  I am not aware of any organism that has "evolved" if this is to mean something like, for example, a legless worm growing legs, a whale whose flippers turn into legs, etc.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I don't think scientists would disagree with any of the qutoes from this section, although they would draw different conclusions from them than you do.  It appears to be an common misconception that people have that mutations occur in response to selective pressure, that when climate change, or introduction of a new predator, or introduction to a new  resource occurs some lucky mutant will just so happen to get the right mutation at the right time.  This is of course not how it works.  Instead mutations are always occuring.  They provide the raw materials for much evolution occurs.  So the small set of descendants with a rare mutation are already in the population with the change occurs that takes a neutral mutation and turns it into a positive mutation.  From there allele frequencies are changed over time (one of the common definitions of evolution), which causes this mutant to become a dominant gene.

          You may think the odds of this happening are vanishingly low but let's look at a real world situations.  The average human has around 100 point mutations per individual per generation.  Their are roughly 6 billion humans, and the human genome is around 3 billion base pairs in size.  So in the current human populace we have 600 billion mutations to the 3 billion base pairs.  This leads us to believe that in all likelyhood every single base pair in the human genome is mutated in at least 1 human somewhere.  This is on top of all the genetic variation existing in our ancestors, and all the small enclaves of previously mutated genes that exist.  So even if 99.99% of all mutations are selectively neutral, and 99.99% of all non-neutral mutations are negative, we still have 6,000 positive mutations in the human genome right now.  Not to mention the huge amount of neutral mutations that if a change to the environment were to occur could become positive.

          Also, you are mostly correct in you assessment concerning "small" changed (most scientists wouldn't consider these small changes, they would consider them macroevolution).  Evolution can only use the raw materials provided to it.  This is why when you look at animals their "design" is haphazard.  No engineer would build a machine this way.  The closest thing that comes to mind for me is a Rube Goldberg device.  Sure the little ball makes it all the way to the cup, but it takes the most improbable of paths to do so.  Carnivores have 4 limbs and a tail, Aves have 4 limbs and a tail (though their forelimbs have become modified into wings, and their tail has become more useful for flight), Primates have 4 limbs an a tail (even the "tail-less" apes have the remnants of a tail that doesn't break the surface of the skin).  Evolution uses existing parts and modified them to take advantage of new ecological niches.  If you look at the Primates (feel free to exclude humans, i'm still fuzzy on how you would categorize those in your system), how different is a south american monkey, from an african great ape?  Are Primates all of the same Kind? are the size change, and color differential of all modern primates just examples of microevolution under your system?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          4) Random mutation, as far as I can tell, does not create new features or functions such as eyes where ther were no eyes, legs where there were no legs, etc.  Random mutation has been well known for a long time, however, to be mostly HARMFUL to organisms.      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Wills, Christopher, “Genetic Load,” Scientific American, vol. 222 (March 1970), pp. 98-107.

          “Some mutations are ‘beneficial,’ that is, the individual in whom they are expressed is better able to adapt to a given set of environmental circumstances. The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H. J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, there's a reason using 36 year old science data is dangerous.  In 1970 when this article was published the Neutral Theory was brand new.  Neutral Theory in a nutshell simply states that their are a large number of neutral mutations.  After we had a better understanding of molecular evolution this became fairly self evident.  

          Codon's code for amino acids, but there is more than 1 codon that codes for each amino acid.  For example UCU, UCC, UCA, and UCG all code for the amino acid Serine.  CU* codes for Leucine, GU* codes for Valine, GC* codes for Alanine, etc.  You'll notice a pattern here.  The third nucleotide in a codon is often irrelevant.  This means that any point mutations to that nucleotide will be silent (will have no phenotypic change to the organism).  Furthermore many amino acides in a protein are interchangable (for example sometimes any hydrophobic amino acid will do).  Other amino acids do not alter the way a protein is folded, and have no effect on the finished protein.  After that, there are a large amount changes that could occur that are not positively or negatively selected via natural selection, they are simply different.  That is what happens if the mutation lands in a coding region, but there are huge swaths of non-coding dna in our genome.  There is junk in the form of long repeating sequence, there are pseudo-genes, and there are retrovirus remnants.  If a mutation occurs in these areas it won't effect the organism at all.  Adding all these together the Neutral Theory posits that the vast majority of mutations are selectively neutral.  

          The Wills quote above would still be correct if you added the words "easily visible" before mutations.  Of the changes that are detectable at all negative changes are much more likely to be detected.  Negative changes tend to be dramatic, often fatal.  Those types of changes are immediately identified.  Since the person's life may be in danger they are studied intently.  On the other hand a positive mutation may occur in a human without anyone ever noticing.  For example, there is a mutation in humans that causes tetrachormatic vision.  Instead of having cones that detect 3 different wavelengths of light, they have 4, given them better color differentiation than other humans.  A person could go through their whole life without realizing they have this mildly benefitical mutation.

          [Note: I am a layment.  Any person who actually studies this for a living feel free to correct anything I said above]
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,09:16

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
          JohnW...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?  Why did lungfish stop evolving?  Ditto for coelecanths?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I've already < shown > you how we know this:

           
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 07 2006,21:22)
          And speaking of Mr. Dawkins (who most certainly should not be confused with Mr. Hawkins), here's a quote from The Ancestor's Tale about, of all things, the lungfish:

                 

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Although the anatomies, and presumably ways of life, of these living fossils have changed rather little, their DNA texts have not stopped evolving. We cousins of lungfish have changed massively during the hundreds of millions of years since we branched apart. But although lungfish bodies stagnated during that time, you wouldn't guess it if you looked at the speed of evolution of their DNA.

          The ray-finned fish (familiar fish, such as trout or perch) during this time have produced an amazing variety of forms. So, more familiarly, have the tetrapods—we glorified lobe-finned fish who moved out onto the land. The bodies of the lobefins themselves have evolved extremely slowly. Yet at the same time—here is the point this whole tale is leading up to—their genetic molecules seem not to have stuck to this same slow pace. If they had, the DNA sequences of lungfish and coelacanths would be much more similar to each other (and presumably to ancient ancestors) that they are to us, and to ray-finned fish. Yet they are not.

          We know from fossils the approximate timings of the ancestral splits between lungfish, coelacanths, ourselves and the ray finned fish. The first split, at about 440 million years ago, is that between the ray-finned fish and all the rest of us. The next to split off were the coelacanths, about 425 million years ago. That left the lungfish and all the rest of us. About 5 or 10 million years later still, the lungfish split off, leaving the rest of us, now called tetrapods, to make our own evolutionary way. As evolutionary time goes, all three of those splits occurred at pretty nearly the same time, at least compared to the long time over which all four lineages have been evolving ever since.

          While working on a different problem, Rafael Zardoya of Spain and Axel Meyer of Germany drew the evolutionary tree:



          for the DNA of various species. The length of each branch is drawn to reflect the amount of evolutionary change, in mitochondrial DNA, along it.

          If the DNA evolved at a constant rate, regardless of the species, then we would expect all the branches to finish lined up at the right-hand edge. This clearly isn't the case. Bur neither do the organisms that show the least morphological change have the shortest branches. The DNA seems to have evolved at about the same rate in the lungfish and the coelacanth as in the ray-finned fish. The vertebrates that colonised the land experienced a faster rate of DNA evolution, but even this is not obviously linked to morphological change. The winner and the runner-up of this molecular caucus race are the platypus and the alligator, neither of which have evolved morphologically as fast as, say, the blue whale or (vanity can't help whispering to us) us.

          The diagram illustrates an important fact. The rate of DNA evolution is not always constant, but neither is it obviously correlated with morphological change.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          —Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004, pg. 322—324.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You don't know this, because you don't read things you don't have a ready-to-C&P-from-AiG response to.

          There's more to evolution than "speciation," Dave. And how do you know that the lungfish of 400 million years ago is the same species as the living lungfish? Do you think they're interfertile? They may not even have the same number of chromosomes!

          As usual, you're trying to take down a strawman.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.

          (My italics.)  Good.  Let's see this here evidence, then.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I gave some to you already.  Again, a great example is reproductively isolated species.  They cannot reproduce together.  This is an example of an inviolable boundary.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, this is one of those things you say that periodically reveal just how utterly clueless you are about the theory of evolution—the real theory, not your misunderstanding of it. Reproductive isolation is an "inviolable boundary" to macroevolution? It's a cause of it, you idiot. Statements like this are definitely in the "not even wrong category. They don't even make any sense! How can "reproductive isolation" be an "inviolable boundary" to macroevolution?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          John...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Anyway, although we can't definitively identify a particular fossil as the ancestor of a modern group, we can certainly identify fossils which are at the very least close relatives of those ancestors, based on features which are intermediate between earlier organisms and later ones.  Off the top of my head, two well-studied examples are Hyracotherium -> Equus and of course Australopithecus -> Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Speculation.  You really do not know those ancestral relationships.  You are simply finding some fossils that look similar, then applying massive quantities of wishful thinking.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And I've explained exactly why it's impossible to know for sure if a particular fossil is a direct ancestor of any other fossil, or of anything alive today. "Speculation"? Of course not. Far less speculative than your claim that every single genetic permutation in existence today was already present in the genes of several tens of thousands of "kinds" present on Noah's ark. That's not "speculation"; it's an impossibility.

          Amazing how much lower your standard of proof for your own assertions is than for the assertions of others vastly more knowledgeable than yourself.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Improvius ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          For starters, you're conflating gradualism with evolution.  And you know you're doing it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Are you telling me that gradualism is not a fundamental tenet of ToE?  How else do you get macroevolution, but with gradual changes over millions of years? Yes, I am conflating it.  Why should I not?  Just because there are other theories out there?  Like Punc-Eq?  And Hopeful Monster and Saltation?    The mere EXISTENCE of theories like these show that Darwin's General Theory is in big trouble.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you still don't get the concept that the theory of evolution has itself evolved over time. You can't get over this notion that scientific theories change to account for new evidence. Your own "hypothesis" will never change, no matter how orthogonal to the evidence it becomes. Your young-earth creationism is the same now as it was 5,000 years ago. It will never change, no matter what new evidence comes to life.

          Is the current theory of evolution "in big trouble"? In your dreams, Dave.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 11 2006,09:17

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,13:46)
          Oldman...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you dishonest sack of sh*t. Were you then when gawd handed down the 10 commandments? Or told Noah to build the ark? etc etc
          How can you ask for such things WHEN YOU ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO SUPPLY THEM YOURSELF!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  I have historical records claimed to be written by eyewitnesses and we have no reason to doubt these eyewitnesses because of a century or more of archaeological confirmation.

          You have only speculation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          no, I also have the previous post. Makes a whole lot more sense then almost all of your just so stories.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 11 2006,09:34



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          OA:Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave:Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way.  There are probably other ways which are not clear to me.  If you are looking for me to be able to classify every living organism on earth according to original created kinds, I cannot.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Great! So you finally admit that the Creationists have no objective way of determining whether two creatures are the same ‘kind’.  You can’t even tell us how many ‘kinds’ there were originally.  I’m sure you won’t mind if I remind you of these facts the next time you bring up ‘kinds’.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave:This is no more possible that you can describe every supposed Common Ancestor of every living organism on earth.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ToE doesn’t have to describe every last single one to support the hypothesis.  ToE only needs evidence of enough examples which it has in spades that show the pattern over time.  You, OTOH, can’t show evidence of any single ‘kind’.  You can’t even define ‘kind’ in a scientifically meaningful way.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave: I think the best that either theory--ToE or Creationism--can hope for is to propose viable hypotheses that do not contradict any known data. As far as I know, Creationism does not contradict any known data
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So when will you tell us how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration data that extend back over 50,000 years that I showed you?

          Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone?

          Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict that Chinese 500’ deep limestone canyon buried under 17000’ of sediment?

          Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the genetic study of the Afrotherian animals I showed you?

          You can lie to yourself all you want Dave, and it won’t bother me a bit.  It’s your continued pattern of lying to others that’s so unchristian and disturbing.

          Oh, I just couldn't pass this gem by


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave:No.  I have historical records claimed to be written by eyewitnesses and we have no reason to doubt these eyewitnesses because of a century or more of archaeological confirmation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Who was the eyewitness to the continents zooming around at over 100 mph during the break-up of Pangaea Dave?  Was Noah up on deck that day playing shuffleboard and catching some rays?
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 11 2006,09:47

          Quote (afdave @ ,)
          Why do you mischaracterize AIG as a sort of "lie peddler"??  Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic?  Do you ever make mistakes?  Would you like it if someone took one of your mistakes and trumpeted to the world that you are now a "lie peddler"??
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          The reason you think that this is just "a mistake", singular, is because this is the SINGLE significant concession you've made in this debate of over 300 pages.

          Remember the running score at the time? Someone just reposted it. You said    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          we have +1 for the "Evos " and -1 for the "Yecs."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I wonder what the total stands at now?? Is it perhaps:

          Evos: 1
          Yecs: -1

          ???

          Since you haven't budged a smegging inch on any subject since then, of course you don't understand that AIG is ALL LIES. Every last sciency article is most likely a lie.

          Some people here were interested in having YOU contact them about their error that you recognized, because they want you to see AIG's reaction to the news for yourself. I'm pretty sure everyone here expects AIG to do absolutely nothing about their mistake. This is one case where you really could prove us wrong.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 11 2006,09:50

          Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Oct. 11 2006,13:53)
          The rule is "whatever works baby".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Can I be so bold as to amend that to read

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The rule is "whatever works for the moment baby".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          ?

          Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 11 2006,14:34)
          It’s your continued pattern of lying to others that’s so unchristian and disturbing.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Oh, I don't know OA.  From what I can tell lately, that's VERY christian and disturbing.
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 11 2006,09:51

          Re "The "You've never been to Portugal, so how do you know Portugal exists?" argument."

          Well, another BB I frequent used to have a regular poster who was from Portugal - therefore the place exists.

          Also, if it didn't exist, then Spanish and French couldn't have been mixed to form Portugese but Portugese does exist, so by reducto ad absurdity, it exists.

          Henry
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,09:56

          Dave, as Jeannot pointed out, "common descent" is a fact. If you'd ever actually < read this thing > as you've been asked countless times, you'd realize that there is simply no debating common descent. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's a fact.

          So your problem is to account for common descent through your "hypothesis" of massive, unprecedented evolution from created "kinds" (which you cannot define, cannot identify, and cannot even tell which modern organisms are descended from the same "kind").

          Modern evolutionary theory (not "Darwin's General theory"; Darwin wasn't even aware of the existence of genes, for crying out loud) provides a comprehensive explanation for nested hierarchies and the common descent that is the only conceivable accounting for nested hierarchies.

          By way of contrast, what does your "hypothesis" explain, Dave? You cannot even segregate organisms out into descendants of "created kinds"! Are dogs and cats from the same "kinds"? What about mussels and brachiopods? What about crabs and horseshoe crabs? What about jellyfish and squid? What about otters and weasels? What about humans and chimps? And if you say species "A" and species "B" are descended from the same "kind," what can you tell us about when in time those two species diverged from their common ancestral "kind"? It has to be less than 4,500 years ago; was it 3,000 years ago? 500 years ago? Six weeks ago? How long ago did seals and sea-lions diverge into separate species of pinnipeds? During the Middle Ages?

          And if your theory is better than mine, Dave, then why does it take me less than two minutes to find seals and sea lions on the Tree of Life webpage? If you think the tree of life is bogus, then why does it work so well? How long would it take you to find them on your little "ladder of life" that you think is a more "accurate" reflection of my beliefs?

          It still beggars belief that you think your "hypothesis" is somehow a better explanation for the world around us than the standard theories, when as far as I can tell your "hypothesis" can't explain anything. Organisms "spoken into existence"? That's supposed to "explain" something?

          God, what millennium are you from, Dave?
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 11 2006,09:58

          < Oh, Lookie Here >!

          A newly discovered species of bird.  One more to add to your list of critters to be squeezed into the ark, Davey.

          Appropriately enough, it's a new kind of finch.

          :D
          Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2006,10:24

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 11 2006,14:16)
           
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:59)
          JohnW...          

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fish didn't stop evolving after the first tetrapods hit the beach, amphibians didn't stop evolving after eggs started to be laid on land, and so on for every point on your right-hand graphic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Really?  Are you sure?  How do you know this?  Can you supply me proof that these creatures did not stop evolving (in the "macro" sense)?  Why did lungfish stop evolving?  Ditto for coelecanths?  Cockroaches?  Opossums?  Many others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I've already < shown > you how we know this:

               
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 07 2006,21:22)
          And speaking of Mr. Dawkins (who most certainly should not be confused with Mr. Hawkins), here's a quote from The Ancestor's Tale about, of all things, the lungfish:

                     

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Although the anatomies, and presumably ways of life, of these living fossils have changed rather little, their DNA texts have not stopped evolving. We cousins of lungfish have changed massively during the hundreds of millions of years since we branched apart. But although lungfish bodies stagnated during that time, you wouldn't guess it if you looked at the speed of evolution of their DNA.

          The ray-finned fish (familiar fish, such as trout or perch) during this time have produced an amazing variety of forms. So, more familiarly, have the tetrapods—we glorified lobe-finned fish who moved out onto the land. The bodies of the lobefins themselves have evolved extremely slowly. Yet at the same time—here is the point this whole tale is leading up to—their genetic molecules seem not to have stuck to this same slow pace. If they had, the DNA sequences of lungfish and coelacanths would be much more similar to each other (and presumably to ancient ancestors) that they are to us, and to ray-finned fish. Yet they are not.

          We know from fossils the approximate timings of the ancestral splits between lungfish, coelacanths, ourselves and the ray finned fish. The first split, at about 440 million years ago, is that between the ray-finned fish and all the rest of us. The next to split off were the coelacanths, about 425 million years ago. That left the lungfish and all the rest of us. About 5 or 10 million years later still, the lungfish split off, leaving the rest of us, now called tetrapods, to make our own evolutionary way. As evolutionary time goes, all three of those splits occurred at pretty nearly the same time, at least compared to the long time over which all four lineages have been evolving ever since.

          While working on a different problem, Rafael Zardoya of Spain and Axel Meyer of Germany drew the evolutionary tree:



          for the DNA of various species. The length of each branch is drawn to reflect the amount of evolutionary change, in mitochondrial DNA, along it.

          If the DNA evolved at a constant rate, regardless of the species, then we would expect all the branches to finish lined up at the right-hand edge. This clearly isn't the case. Bur neither do the organisms that show the least morphological change have the shortest branches. The DNA seems to have evolved at about the same rate in the lungfish and the coelacanth as in the ray-finned fish. The vertebrates that colonised the land experienced a faster rate of DNA evolution, but even this is not obviously linked to morphological change. The winner and the runner-up of this molecular caucus race are the platypus and the alligator, neither of which have evolved morphologically as fast as, say, the blue whale or (vanity can't help whispering to us) us.

          The diagram illustrates an important fact. The rate of DNA evolution is not always constant, but neither is it obviously correlated with morphological change.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          —Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004, pg. 322—324.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You don't know this, because you don't read things you don't have a ready-to-C&P-from-AiG response to.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          C'mon, Eric, showing a cherry-picked phylogeny from weasel Dawkins is not a great way to show the "scholarship" of evos vis-à-vis creos. Dawkins is pretending that these relationships are better known than they really are.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 11 2006,10:30

          Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 11 2006,14:58)
          < Oh, Lookie Here >!

          A newly discovered species of bird.  One more to add to your list of critters to be squeezed into the ark, Davey.

          Appropriately enough, it's a new kind of finch.

          :D
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          More evidence for Dave's "4.5 billion years isn't enough time for evolution, but 4.5 thousand years is plenty" hypothesis.  This finch evolved last Tuesday.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 11 2006,10:51



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You have shown me ONE incorrect statement which AIG made out of how many thousands of articles they write??!!  I'd say that is a pretty good record.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I'm focusing on this one, because it's the only one I know you have acknowledged is incorrect.

          In fact, I'd be rather surprised if you can show me a single AiG article, of the many they write that have any pretensions to molecular biology, where I will not be able to point out inaccurate statements. I'll let you choose, though, so you know I'm not "cherry-picking" the exceptions.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Come on, Russell.  Where is your sense of fair play?  I never accuse ToE advocates of "evil" or "conspiracy" or any such thing
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Davy, davy, davy. You really are a piece of work, aren't you? Please quote me anything I wrote about AiG that comes as close to "evil" as what you accuse "evolutionists" of. Let me refresh your memory:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And when a crime has been committed, an investigator gets involved.  From my perspective, a crime has been committed.  What is the crime?  Large scale lying to kids in the name of Darwin.  So an even better description of someone like me might be "Investigative Science Reporter."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Just to be clear: I do think that when AiG, or you, show so little disregard for accuracy as to let known falsehoods stand uncorrected indefinitely in the cause of discrediting honest science, supposedly for your Jesus, that that is lying. But I believe "peddling lies" is your phrase not mine. Again, what did I write that shows less "sense of fair play" than your talk of "criminal large-scale lying to kids"?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Have you ever heard of involuntary manslaughter?  Similar deal in the sense that we are talking about a "crime" that is committed out of ignorance, not premeditation.  And I say "crime" tongue in cheek.  I do not advocate putting this one on the books and prosecuting people.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You know, probably the most profound piece of advice I've given to my son is "mean what you say, and say what you mean; when you don't, you are responsible for the consequences". Now here, you're whining that people are accusing creationists of "lying" (which has, in fact, been pretty well documented here), but you accuse others of "criminal large-scale lying to kids", only to redefine "lying" as "ignorance", which, in turn, you redefine as "disagreeing with Dave's (thoroughly discredited) biblical literalism". Oh, and about that "criminal" - that was just a little joke - heh heh.  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I do not advocate putting this one on the books and prosecuting people.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You know, I seriously believe you would if you could.

          Now - I told you exactly what dishonesty I'm talking about, and gave you a concrete example. I'm still waiting for you to

          back up your vile accusation that someone is "lying to kids in the name of Darwin",

          defend your contention that transitional fossils have never been identified, in light of all the links I supplied you,

          tell me whether "polio is caused by a virus" is more or less dishonest than "the earth is billions of years old"

          make a prediction, based on Davism, about the DNA of thylacine wolves,

          make a prediction, based on Davism, about the relative similarities of mouse/rat vs. human/chimp DNA

          make any prediction at all, based on Davism (you said "that's easy" - and offered "no transitional fossils" - to which I can only reply "you can't be serious")

          In summary, do you begin to comprehend what a powerful negative advertisement for your faith you present?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,10:55

          Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 11 2006,15:24)
          C'mon, Eric, showing a cherry-picked phylogeny from weasel Dawkins is not a great way to show the "scholarship" of evos vis-à-vis creos. Dawkins is pretending that these relationships are better known than they really are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Read the text, Bill. The research isn't Dawkins.

          Where does the cherry-picking come in? Dave contends that lungfish have not evolved at all in 400 million years. I show data that demonstrate that lungfish have evolved significantly since they diverged from coelacanths.

          I show Dave actual research—you know, the kind that guys in labcoats perform in labs—that shows the differences in mitochondrial DNA between different organisms. You come back with, Well if Dawkins cites it, then it's suspect, and those organisms aren't related anyway. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

          And you have yet to show me a single reason why I should doubt that those relationships are exactly as shown. Do you deny that lungfish and coelacanths are related? On what basis is that denial founded?
          Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 11 2006,11:21

          Eric, having come late to this party, would you please repost the lungfish - coelacanth data?  I apologize for the inconvienence.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,11:28

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,13:37)
          Cory ... this is not hard to figure out unless you are predisposed to "see an evil creationist behind every bush."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Realllyyy, Dave? Okie dokie. Let's take a closer look at what you saying now versus what you said < then >. That should help us figure out what was lying in wait behind this particular bush and who was jumping at shadows, eh?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Somebody ELSE brought up chimp chromosomes to me as a supposed "proof" of common descent.  I did not bring it up.  I started the thread in response to someone else bringing it up.  I didn't even know how many chromosomes a chimp has until I came here. That's how arcane this topic was to me (and still is to most people).  But when it was brought up, I put "chimp chromosome" in the handy dandy search box at AIG and Voila!  ... up came Wieland's article.  I began the new thread with that article and was told about the error, which I promptly acknowledged.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Okay, so you just had questions about the "arcane" biology of chromosomes as it pertains to ape and human evolution. No problem. Except, right at the top of that post:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          HUMAN-CHIMP CHROMOSOME NUMBER PREDICTION

          This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution, but as is so often the case, this appears to be wishful thinking on the part of Neo-Darwinists. There are two major problems that I see with this Neo-Darwinist assertion, which they most recently displayed in the Dover case ...  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Looks like you jumped pretty high at the thought of a "wishful-thinking" Darwinist behind that bush, eh Dave? Armed with Wieland's article, you felt that the topic was no longer "arcane" to you, but instead one in which you could identify "problems".

          Furthermore, was it EVER an arcane topic? You just introduced it as a "common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution" -- one that was (only most recently, no less) "displayed in the Dover case". Dave, how would you classify the words "common" and "displayed" in relation to the word "arcane"? Because I classify them as direct opposites.

          Next, you now say:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I got busy on new topics and flat didn't get around to notifying AIG until Russell reminded me yesterday.  Now it's done.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And yet:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'm looking forward to having that hard conversation with Dr. Carl Wieland from AIG about why he is a medical doctor and yet made such an elementary mistake.  I will post that result here for you all to see, as I believe in rewarding everyone fairly for honest victories, whether they agree with my worldview or not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So, I'd say it's pretty strange that you simply "didn't get around to this", especially since you not only claimed to be "looking forward" to doing exactly that back in May, but also considered it necessary for "rewarding everyone fairly for honest victories". Guess you don't believe in your own moral obligations quite as much as you thought, eh Dave?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If this is so important to you and Russell (Help! Help! The sky is falling because AIG made a mistake about a topic that 1 in 10 bazillion people even care about!;), why did you not beat me to it and notify AIG yourselves?  You seem all high and mighty about how concerned about the truth you are and yet you could just as easily have notified them.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Hmm...Dave, I think you and I differ in our estimates of the number of factually incorrect statements made by AIG that I would need to notify them about (and the amount of time doing so would require). Furthermore, I never explicitly claimed that I would do so. Finally, when did a "common" topic displayed at a very prominent recent trial become a matter that only "one in a bazillion people even care about"? Somewhere around the time you realized it didn't help your cause, I suppose?

          So, to make a long story short, Dave, what was actually hiding behind the bush when it came to chromosome fusion:

          1. A pair of misinformed Creationists (you and Wieland) who may indeed be "evil" if they persist in advancing the "a fused chromosome would be read backwards" bullshit despite knowing better (lying is evil)?

          2. A "wishful-thinking" Darwinist hiding "problems" for the theory of evolution?

          One was real; one was a (contrived?) shadow. Which one was which, Davey?

          You're spinning faster than a propeller, but you aren't getting anywhere.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,12:13

          Cory--  You are chasing shadows.  Are you going to spend the next 3 pages trying to prove how dastardly I am for taking so long to contact AIG?  Anybody that really wants to know the truth and do the research can download all the threads and see for themselves.  

          Or are you going to try to answer some of the real problems I have posed for ToE?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,12:19

          Also, Cory.  Why didn't YOU contact AIG if it is such a big deal to you?
          Posted by: creeky belly on Oct. 11 2006,12:21



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Or are you going to try to answer some of the real problems I have posed for ToE?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Let me know when you're going to start. You're certainly posing some good questions for AFDavian Evolution.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,12:23

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,17:13)
          Cory--  You are chasing shadows.  Are you going to spend the next 3 pages trying to prove how dastardly I am for taking so long to contact AIG?  Anybody that really wants to know the truth and do the research can download all the threads and see for themselves.  

          Or are you going to try to answer some of the real problems I have posed for ToE?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          "Real" problems? As opposed to the ones that get trashed and thereby become "arcane"? Because THAT (your latest hilarious spin on the chromosome matter) was the point, Dave. I couldn't care less whether you contact AIG or not. I merely pointed out that doing so was necessary for your own honesty (you said you would do so) and also for your own definition of "fairplay".

          But okay, "real" problems it is, then. Please present them when you get around to it, Dave. Give us some actual data (hints: (1) if you're using drawing tools in Photoshop, you're not presenting a "real" problem; (2) if you have to presume to tell us what the ToE "actually says", you aren't presenting a "real" problem). I'm VERY bored with you at the moment, Dave. So please do present us with a "real" problem.

          And did you really just tell us that anybody who wants to know the truth can do the research? You are amusing even when you're boring, Dave.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,12:29

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,17:19)
          Also, Cory.  Why didn't YOU contact AIG if it is such a big deal to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Sure thing, Dave. Notifying AIG that they have glaring scientific errors in their articles is now next on my to-do list. First, however, I have to notify some ursids that they are defecating in forested areas.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 11 2006,12:42



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also, Cory.  Why didn't YOU contact AIG if it is such a big deal to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Did you miss this part, Dave?  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Hmm...Dave, I think you and I differ in our estimates of the number of factually incorrect statements made by AIG that I would need to notify them about (and the amount of time doing so would require). Furthermore, I never explicitly claimed that I would do so.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You seem to have missed the point entirely, despite it's being spelled out for you. Let me try my hand at it.

          You see, I believe AiG is a dishonest enterprise. All of their articles are geared toward the same dishonest enterprise as you are engaged in: convincing people (perhaps yourselves first) that plain old workaday scientists, such as myself, are actually engaged in trying to deceive everybody - especially kids, of course - about the nature of reality. All "in the name of Darwin". To correct this one "error" on their part would be like trying to reverse global warming by removing one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere.

          Since I know you're going to hold their feet to the fire on this particular case, I encourage you to take me up on my challenge to look at another AiG article, chosen by you as most likely to stand scrutiny*. If I happen to find any inaccuracies (ya think?) I promise to contact them and let you know how they respond.

          But don't forget the other half-dozen or so challenges with which I ended my last message.

          added in edit:
          *I forgot to specify "... stand scrutiny in molecular biology." I'll leave the geology and nuclear physics to those more thoroughly versed in those areas.
          Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 11 2006,13:23



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 11 2006,15:24)
          C'mon, Eric, showing a cherry-picked phylogeny from weasel Dawkins is not a great way to show the "scholarship" of evos vis-à-vis creos. Dawkins is pretending that these relationships are better known than they really are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Read the text, Bill. The research isn't Dawkins.

          Where does the cherry-picking come in? Dave contends that lungfish have not evolved at all in 400 million years. I show data that demonstrate that lungfish have evolved significantly since they diverged from coelacanths.

          I show Dave actual research—you know, the kind that guys in labcoats perform in labs—that shows the differences in mitochondrial DNA between different organisms. You come back with, Well if Dawkins cites it, then it's suspect, and those organisms aren't related anyway. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

          And you have yet to show me a single reason why I should doubt that those relationships are exactly as shown. Do you deny that lungfish and coelacanths are related? On what basis is that denial founded?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here's < one. > See < this diagram in particular. > They can't even agree on the placement of coelacanths:

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          To summarize, in the phylogenetic analysis of the 44 (42, 41) nuclear loci, either separately or as concatenated sequences, only the NJ method appears to resolve the relationship of tetrapod, lungfish, and coelacanth lineages unambiguously in that it favors consistently and with high bootstrap probabilities a sister-group relationship between lungfishes and coelacanths (Tree 3, table 1). The MP and ML methods also favor this relationship in most cases but mostly with low bootstrap probability, whereas in other cases, depending on the taxa included in the analysis, they favor lungfish as the closest relative of tetrapods (Tree 1). Position-by-position analysis of the sequences, combined with computer simulation (table 2), reveals the unambiguous support of the Tree 3 phylogeny by the NJ method to be an artifact. Analysis of positions with phylogenetically informative configurations reveals them to support nearly equally Trees 1, 2, and 3. In other words, it supports the interpretation that the likely mode of divergence of the tetrapod, lungfish, and coelacanth lineages was close to multifurcation (i.e., Tree 4). There was an excess of three PICs that support each of the three possible trees topologies for coelacanth, lungfish, and tetrapod (Trees 1, 2, and 3) in the data, compared with those expected under the JTT model of amino acid substitution. The search for an evolutionary model that could explain the observed results by comparing them with the results of computer simulations under different input assumptions suggests that a small fraction of the amino acid positions (nucleotide sites) has suffered multiple hits in excess of those expected under the JTT model (tables 3 and 4). As the hits affect nearly equally the three types of positions favoring the three different bifurcating trees (table 5), for stochastic reasons sequences encoded in genes at different loci favor different trees and the overall effect is an unresolved phylogeny.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes, they attempt to explain why the trees don't resolve, but:

          1) This recent paper demonstrates that the issue is not as clear-cut as Dawkins would have it;

          2) The evos are forced to use evolutionary axioms to determine phylogenetic relationships, which is circular reasoning no matter how you slice it.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,14:02

          Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 11 2006,18:23)
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 11 2006,15:24)
          C'mon, Eric, showing a cherry-picked phylogeny from weasel Dawkins is not a great way to show the "scholarship" of evos vis-à-vis creos. Dawkins is pretending that these relationships are better known than they really are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Read the text, Bill. The research isn't Dawkins.

          Where does the cherry-picking come in? Dave contends that lungfish have not evolved at all in 400 million years. I show data that demonstrate that lungfish have evolved significantly since they diverged from coelacanths.

          I show Dave actual research—you know, the kind that guys in labcoats perform in labs—that shows the differences in mitochondrial DNA between different organisms. You come back with, Well if Dawkins cites it, then it's suspect, and those organisms aren't related anyway. You're going to have to do a little better than that.

          And you have yet to show me a single reason why I should doubt that those relationships are exactly as shown. Do you deny that lungfish and coelacanths are related? On what basis is that denial founded?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here's < one. > See < this diagram in particular. > They can't even agree on the placement of coelacanths:
          Yes, they attempt to explain why the trees don't resolve, but:

          1) This recent paper demonstrates that the issue is not as clear-cut as Dawkins would have it;

          2) The evos are forced to use evolutionary axioms to determine phylogenetic relationships, which is circular reasoning no matter how you slice it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Bill, you're wasting your and my time with this kind of ridiculousness. You think you're poking serious holes in the theory of evolution because coelacanths might have split off from tetrapods before or after lungfish did? How many of those diagrams pair coelacanths with mollusks? Or insects? Or Blue whales?

          How much controversy is there in the phylogeny of reptiles and amphibians? Tetrapods and teleosts? Horses and bears? Even dogs and cats?

          Do you have any idea how minor these disagreements are, Bill? Out of the 10E38 different possible phylogenetic trees just for orders and above, you're going to quibble over whether tetrapods and coelacanths diverged a few million years before lungfish and coelacanths, or a few million years after?

          Give me a break. This is like showing up disputes as to whether the Higgs boson is going to end up massing 250 GeV or 265 GeV as evidence that the Standard Model is in trouble.

          Talk about missing the forest for the trees. We're talking about organisms that diverged nearly half a billion years ago. Should we be able to pinpoint, from half a billion years away, whether species A & B diverged 10 million years before A & C, or after? Is that what your standard of proof is?

          So no. You have not shown me a single reason why I should doubt the accuracy of the consensus phylogenetic tree. For one thing, every single one of those trees you linked to shows lungfish as related to coelacanths.

          If your geocentric model were held to same standard of inerrancy you expect phylogenetic trees to adhere to, you'd have abandoned it decades ago.

          And if evolutionists use circular logic to derive phylogenetic relationships, then why is that there is broad agreement in trees derived from multiple, independent lines of evidence, as you and I discussed a year ago?

          And in the meantime, what's your explanation for nested hierarchies? "Created kinds"?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,14:25

          I'd just like to add, for everyone's benefit (including yours, Dave, although I can't imagine you'd actually benefit from it), that it's totally worth checking out the < links > Bill provided that he evidently thinks present a problem from the consensus phylogenetic tree. Look at those trees he linked to, and see the level of concordance to them. Especially scrutinize the one he says to look at "in particular." After a quick glance, one could be forgiven for thinking all seven trees are identical. Keep in mind that all of these organisms are thought to have diverged within a period of approximately 25 million years, half a billion years ago.

          Somehow Bill thinks he's found a problem for evolutionary theory. Like Dave with his Michael Denton diagram, I would counter that he's presented a rather spectacular confirmation of the theory.

          Opinions?

          Also, none of this disputes in any way my original point, which is that lungfish have evolved significantly since they diverged from coelacanths, despite Dave's evidence-free claim that they haven't evolved at all in almost half a billion years.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 11 2006,14:48

          Also, while I don't have a copy of Dawkins's book handy, I read it, and I don't recall Dawkins being all committed to one extremely detailed phylogeny as compared with a slightly different one. Perhaps GoP will enlighten us as to why he says Dawkins would have us believe it's more clear-cut than it is.

          But then, perhaps not.  Perhaps looking for help resolving the details of scientific consensus from someone who thinks geocentrism is still an open question would be a waste of time.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,15:31

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 11 2006,19:48)
          Also, while I don't have a copy of Dawkins's book handy, I read it, and I don't recall Dawkins being all committed to one extremely detailed phylogeny as compared with a slightly different one. Perhaps GoP will enlighten us as to why he says Dawkins would have us believe it's more clear-cut than it is.

          But then, perhaps not.  Perhaps looking for help resolving the details of scientific consensus from someone who thinks geocentrism is still an open question would be a waste of time.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It's amazing how creationists will find these extremely fine details of standard theories that are controversial, and try to amplify these extremely minor controversies into evidence that the entire theory is in trouble. Meanwhile, Dave's UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis" has so many fatal flaws in it that it would be difficult to compile a comprehensive list that wouldn't bring down the entire discussion board.

          The simplest questions stump Dave. Like (to pull up an old chestnut), how do 5,000 feet of water lay down 5,000 (or 17,000) feet of sediment?

          Ever gonna come up with an answer for that one, Dave? Because I could keep it up all day.

          Note also that Bill's objections regarding whether lungfish diverged from coelacanths before or after they diverged from tetrapods changes nothing about how much evolution they've undergone since diverging from coelacanths, and hence doesn't have any effect whatsoever on my argument with Dave. It's a completely separate (and microscopically minor) issue.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,15:40

          Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 11 2006,16:21)
          Eric, having come late to this party, would you please repost the lungfish - coelacanth data?  I apologize for the inconvienence.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Look at the top of this page. Bill quotes it.
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 11 2006,15:48



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also, Cory.  Why didn't YOU contact AIG if it is such a big deal to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Let's be honest about this shall we?
          You're not going to hold AIG's feet to the fire, are you?
          They've lied, obfusticated, made a boo-boo (yeah, yeah whatever).
          You're not going to call them to task about it.
          Why on earth not?
          I mean they're Christians aren't they? So are you!
          If you point out the error of their ways they'll do the right thing and correct their article on their web-site in double-quick time...right?
          Because a real Christian does not bear false witness, right?
          Because a real Christian fights the good fight with facts and 100% TOTAL HONESTY, right?
          Only the 'bad guys' play dirty pool.
          BUT...you're not going to contact them.
          And we both know why...
          ;)
          ..'Cause then you would have to deal with the reality of them totally ignoring you and merrily continuing to post the error/lie on their web-site.
          So, a week or so after you've sent your ever-so polite e-mail about the error/lie, it'll  dawn upon you that the folks at AIG don't give a toss about honesty or fair dealing.
          Which then means that....(...well, you can guess the rest...)
          Don't contact them AFDave!
          A brush with reality with one of your own lot would probably be too painful.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,16:01

          Cedric ... I already contacted them and linked to the relevant thread.  Does this thread move too fast for you?

          Now, why don't you and Cory and Russell do as I have done and contact all the thousands of organizations out there that are lying about Common Descent being a proven fact and tricking poor guys like Eric and Jeannot who believe this nonsense.  OK?  Thanks.  Please report back to me with their response. :-)

          I've noticed a strange silence from Deadman on his quote mine accusation ... Hello Deadman!  Are you there?  How about a public retraction, huh?

          Russell ... I gave you everything you asked for on the Koobi Fora date *ahem* calibration *ahem* ... a respectable magazine and everything ... are you not the least concerned to find out from Nature that dates are ... er ... selected by the fossils contained in neighboring rocks?

          And who was it that was trying to tell me that there is such a thing as a transitional fossil?  Still waiting for someone to show me one.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 11 2006,16:29

          Quote (SFBDave @ Oct. 11 2006,21:01)

          And who was it that was trying to tell me that there is such a thing as a transitional fossil?  Still waiting for someone to show me one.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Why ShitForBrains, so you can cry "AHA!  That's not a transitional, it's a whole fossil!!"

          How about < whales? >

          or < horses? >


          There are dozens of other series we can look at Davie-poo IF you're not too much of a

          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 11 2006,16:50

          OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?  Any explanations for HOW they are transitional and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?

          BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously.
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 11 2006,17:01

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,19:50)
          OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?  Any explanations for HOW they are transitional and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?

          BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Psst, follow the links...
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 11 2006,17:02

          Dave, if you really want to learn about transitional fossils, you can find a great deal of information < here >. Not only does this site give many, many examples, but it explains carefully what a "transitional fossil" is and what a "transitional fossil" isn't. Please pay close attention to these definitions. If you don't, you're going to find yourself arguing against a straw man.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,17:07

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,21:01)
          Cedric ... I already contacted them and linked to the relevant thread.  Does this thread move too fast for you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          When did you do this, Dave? Today? Because as of this afternoon you admitted you hadn't contacted AiG about Wieland's error.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now, why don't you and Cory and Russell do as I have done and contact all the thousands of organizations out there that are lying about Common Descent being a proven fact and tricking poor guys like Eric and Jeannot who believe this nonsense.  OK?  Thanks.  Please report back to me with their response. :-)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No one's lying about common descent being a fact, Dave. Common descent is a fact, and there's no legitimate dispute about it. I've given you countless invitations to find a single factual error in the Theobald paper, linked to it at least half a dozen times, and the best you could come up with was, "it's lame." That's pretty persuasive.

          Meanwhile, your own "hypothesis" has no explanation whatsoever for the nested hierarchies observed in living organisms. "Common design" doesn't cut it, because organisms which inhabit similar environments with similar habits often have wildly different genotypes and features. What kind of sense does that make coming from a "designer"?

          You were shown in detail exactly where Wieland's argument was wrong. Can you show us exactly where Theobald's argument was wrong? Or do you think "it's lame" does the trick?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And who was it that was trying to tell me that there is such a thing as a transitional fossil?  Still waiting for someone to show me one.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Maybe this quote from Russell will refresh your memory?
           
          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 10 2006,20:48)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh geez. Round and round we go. Are you seriously going to tell us that you're still claiming to believe that, in light of < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >, < this >,< this >, all of which I pulled up from the first 3 pages of a Google search for "transitional fossils"? See, whether that's the result of pathological [lack of] thinking, or calculated dishonesty is no longer of interest to me. It is a lie.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Would you care to explain why none of these fossils are "transitional," assuming you even know what the term means?
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 11 2006,17:18

          AFDave,
          Still waiting for you to address my < post > on whole rock Isochrons.

          Let's prime the physics discussion a little.  I'm glad you agree (you stated this in a past post) that present measurements of radioactive decay are factual.  But did you know this about radioactive decay?
          < http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html >    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The half-life is independent of the physical state (solid, liquid, gas), temperature, pressure, the chemical compound in which the nucleus finds itself, and essentially any other outside influence. It is independent of the chemistry of the atomic surface, and independent of the ordinary physical factors of the outside world. The only thing which can alter the half-life is direct nuclear interaction with a particle from outside, e.g., a high energy collision in an accelerator.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Even AIG < admits this point > but wants to argue about differences in electron capture decay rate as a problem for all types of radioactive decay rates.  There are other < people who disagree with AIG > in the radiometric field but who would probably be invited to an AIG Sunday brunch.

          Anyway, on to your present Black Knight incident.
          Dave, dive deeper into the "kinds" discussion.  Why don't you dive into Baramin Theory.  I noticed you gave a reference to < Baraminology > but when I read it the authors of that paper didn't answer many questions.  I searched the site and found they did agree on a number of items
          < http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/ >
          The Baramin Study Group also had plans for the future including    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          4)  We would like to initiate a pro-active attempt to teach
             baraminology methods to the larger community of creation
             biologists via a baraminology workshop in June or July
             of 1999.  The timetable for that workshop is as follows:

             a)  Pray for funding for at least the registration,
                 materials, room, and board for their stay at the
                 workshop and its follow-up.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I'm adding this line item to all my project proposals from now on.

          Mike PSS
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,17:29

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,21:50)
          OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You gotta be kidding me, Dave.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 11 2006,17:40

          From Mike's link to the Baraminology Study Group (well isn't that special):



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Historical note: The BSG did not meet in Spring of 1998 or at the ICC in the summer of 1998 as planned. The 1999 workshop became Baraminology'99, but the workbook did not become a textbook. Due in part to the fire at Bryan College in February of 2000, the follow-up workshop was never held.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Alright, I've got an alibi for that date. What about the rest of you church/college-burnin' ebola boys?  :D
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 11 2006,18:00

          Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 11 2006,22:18)
          Anyway, on to your present Black Knight incident.
          Dave, dive deeper into the "kinds" discussion.  Why don't you dive into Baramin Theory.  I noticed you gave a reference to < Baraminology > but when I read it the authors of that paper didn't answer many questions.  I searched the site and found they did agree on a number of items
          < http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/bsg97/ >
          The Baramin Study Group also had plans for the future including        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          4)  We would like to initiate a pro-active attempt to teach
             baraminology methods to the larger community of creation
             biologists via a baraminology workshop in June or July
             of 1999.  The timetable for that workshop is as follows:

             a)  Pray for funding for at least the registration,
                 materials, room, and board for their stay at the
                 workshop and its follow-up.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I'm adding this line item to all my project proposals from now on.

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Interesting that a paper that attempts to define what a "kind" is cannot even give a list of "kinds."

          Dave is constantly telling us that his "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation that the existing scientific theories. But real science has an < extensive and detailed > description of the interrelationships among organisms. Regardless of whether there are controversies over the exact placement of this or that organism, at least the structure exists. Dave cannot even tell us how he can tell if two organisms are descended from a "created kind," nor which organisms are descended from which "created kinds." He certainly doesn't have a list of the original "created kinds" anywhere, or even know how many "created kinds" there were.

          I tell ya, Dave sure has a strange concept of the term "better."
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 11 2006,18:27



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ShitForBrainsDave: OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          As was already pointed out, all you need to do is follow the links provided to find actual photos of the fossils themselves like this almost complete Dorudon

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ShitForBrainsDave: Any explanations for HOW they are transitional
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          They show a time sequential morphological change in closely related species from land dwelling creatures to fully aquatic mammals
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ShitForBrainsDave: and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Random genetic variations in the animals that provided a small but significant survival advantage accumulated over many generations, resulting in a slow morphological change from legs to fins as the animals spent more time in an aquatic environment.  It's called EVOLUTION, ShitForBrains.  You really should read up on it sometime.
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ShitForBrainsDave: Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You mean the ones you dishonestly quote mined, then lied about?  The ones who really said there was a scarcity of transitional forms, NOT a complete lack?  Those scientists, ShitForBrains?
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ShitForBrainsDave: BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          LOL! You mean like you helped your credibility by getting caught repeatedly lying (about contacting AIG with corrections, and not knowing about Glenn Morton as just two of many instances), and posting fraudulent data you concocted yourself, and refusing to answer all those scientific questions that make you look stupid?

          Do tell us about credibility Mr. Hawkins.   :p
          Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 11 2006,19:06



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          C'mon, Eric, showing a cherry-picked phylogeny from weasel Dawkins is not a great way to show the "scholarship" of evos vis-à-vis creos. Dawkins is pretending that these relationships are better known than they really are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          actually, gawp, you're not arguing with Dawkins here, you're arguing with Axel Meyer, who has spent far more time than Dawkins researching phylogenetic relationships.  Dawkins is simply using the generalized relationship tree developed by Meyer et. al.

          How do I know this?  Because Axel was a friend of mine, and he was in my frickin' lab for 3 years.  I watched him work with Alan Wilson in the advanced genetics and PCR labs developing cutting edge techniques for using PCR to examine phyogentic relationsips within Cichlid clades.

          It's YOU who haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about wrt to phylogenetic relationships, as you have shown on PT over and over and over again.

          random knocking of relationship data isn't helping your arguments any, no more than your incorrect but more specific attacks did in those other threads.

          don't you ever tire of being wrong?
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 11 2006,21:09

          AFDave said : "Cedric ... I already contacted them and linked to the relevant thread.  Does this thread move too fast for you?"

          No doubt, no doubt it moves too fast.
          So exactly when did you contact them?
          Enlighten me please.

          (and now for the BIG question, boys and girls)

          Did AIG actually remove the article? Yes or No?

          Actions speak louder than words, AFDave.

          AFDave said :"Now, why don't you and Cory and Russell do as I have done and contact all the thousands of organizations out there that are lying about Common Descent being a proven fact and tricking poor guys like Eric and Jeannot who believe this nonsense.  OK?  Thanks.  Please report back to me with their response. :-)"

          Sure, just as soon as you present scientific evidence on how all these thousands (millions??) of organisations are lying.
          So far, all that you have presented on this thread is a staggering display of willfull ignorance that is matched only by you arrogance and pride.
          No doubt you'll have me sending e-mails off to NASA telling them how they're a bunch of liars..And of course  every single oil company in the world... Plus every single science department in every single university across the planet...And all those pesky DNA specialists, and all those glaciologists...and all those physicists etc.  (The Grand "Deep Time" Conspiracy and all that.)
          I dunno, AFDave.  Call me lazy but it seems a lot to ask of me.
          All that work just because you 'supposedly' sent off one lonely e-mail to AIG.
          AIG lied/erred and EVEN YOU had to admit it.
          Will you hold their feet to the fire?
          When they brush you off, (and of course they will) what will you conclude?
          Do you seriously believe that a true Christian must be guileless and not bear false witness?
          You talk the talk, WALK THE WALK! :angry:
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 11 2006,21:42



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says, "How about naming one of my lies?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You've got to be kidding!



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says, "I do not pretend to be a scientific researcher with plans to publish research papers with detailed predictions of anything."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Hmm, already covered this,



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says elsewhere, "I AM a scientist who has used my science in business to become quite wealthy. Believe me, I know the difference."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says, "I don’t believe I have ever said that science is a religion. I practice science and apply it in my business."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says, "I agree that this would be dishonest.  I try very hard not to do this.  You will also notice that if I ever DO quote someone and I am shown that the quote does not support the conclusion which I drew, I will publicly withdraw my assertion."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RDDTTD says, "I'm more of a science journalist."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Come on RadicalDiletantteDave! Can you show me how none of the above quotes are yours or how they've been taken out of context?

          As far as I can tell, you ain't none of the above except a cowardly, willfully ignorant liar!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 11 2006,22:50

          Transitional fossils?


          (and this diagram is not up to date)

          H. erectus is transitional between H. habilis and H. sapiens.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 12 2006,03:08


          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 12 2006,03:21

          Thanks, ericmurphy and Edmund. I was just about to retype - yet again - the tip of the iceberg of data on transitional fossils freely available to anyone who has not glued his eyelids shut with Jesus-glue.

          Afd: your continued claim that transitional fossils don't exist, while ignoring the evidence your nose is being rubbed in, constitutes, yes, another lie.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Russell ... I gave you everything you asked for on the Koobi Fora date *ahem* calibration *ahem* ... a respectable magazine and everything ... are you not the least concerned to find out from Nature that dates are ... er ... selected by the fossils contained in neighboring rocks?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh, I am! It's just that those articles are 30 years old, and my access to the library is a bit limited just at the moment.

          Where were you able to find them? I mean, surely you did read them, right? Surely, you're not just listing references that you haven't read from some source whose credibility even you must admit is dodgy at best?  

          Meanwhile, is there some reason < this article > does not answer your concerns? It looks like folks with more expertise than I have in the relevant disciplines have addressed exactly the questions you raised.

          But what I asked you for is an AiG article, of your choosing, with molecular biological evidence. It's my prediction that it won't stand up to scrutiny.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 12 2006,03:27

          Oh, and Davey

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'm still waiting for you to

          back up your vile accusation that someone is "lying to kids in the name of Darwin",

          defend your contention that transitional fossils have never been identified, in light of all the links I supplied you,

          tell me whether "polio is caused by a virus" is more or less dishonest than "the earth is billions of years old"

          make a prediction, based on Davism, about the DNA of thylacine wolves,

          make a prediction, based on Davism, about the relative similarities of mouse/rat vs. human/chimp DNA

          make any prediction at all, based on Davism (you said "that's easy" - and offered "no transitional fossils" - to which I can only reply "you can't be serious")
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 12 2006,07:13

          While waiting for Dave to respond any of the pending challenges, I moseyed over to the site he's always touting, to see if there was any glaringly false propaganda they could be called on. I have to say, I didn't find any challenges to evolution at all, unless you go out of your way to interpret their "creation" cartoon animation literally. And of course there's the standard fundamentalist creed:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          God's Word: We believe in the full Divine inspiration and inerrancy of every word of the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments; that revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament; and that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          but with no attempt to carp about any of the specific areas where there appear to problems with that view (e.g. science).

          Does anyone know of anything Dave has actually written for kids that contains inaccuracies that should be addressed?
          Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 12 2006,10:58

          Jean, I noticed you mentioned that the diagram was out of date and I may be missing the context it was used in as I don't have time to go back and read all the pages of this thread, but I thought I recalled that links between sapien and neanderthal were not distinct and the direct line between habilis and sapien wasn't fully supported.  maybe Deadman can shed a little light on this diagram or offer one that is up to date.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 12 2006,12:04

          H. neanderthalensis and sapiens are descended from H. erectus.
          H. habilis may not be our direct ancestor, be it's certainly a close relative.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2006,14:02

          Here's what Dave thinks the creationist phylogenetic tree looks like:
             
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)
          THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But as anyone can tell, it's completely wrong. For one thing, his diagram shows about 20 "created kinds," and only about 29 currently-existing species. Assume he's only drawn every thousandth "created kind" for clarity. Then he should have drawn in about ten thousand currently-existing species, rather than 29. He's understating the required pace of evolution by a factor of about 300.

          So I took a stab at a more accurate "Dave-Tree." Of course, I don't draw in every "created kind" either, but I put in more than Dave does, because obviously there were way more than 20, or even 2,000, "created kinds." I also left out any organisms (like the dodo) that have become extinct since the "flood." But I have shown a lot of organisms (such as trilobites) that became extinct during or shortly after the flood (keep in mind, Dave, that the number of fossils of currently-existing organisms is tiny compared to the total number of fossils, implying that the vast majority of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct). And, of course, I couldn't draw in branches leading to the ten million currently-existing species, so the branches start to look kind of like solid black.

          My "Dave-Tree" looks like this:



          Now, I'm sure Dave will yell at me for presuming to tell him what he believes. After all, turn-about is fair play. But I'm inviting him to explain to me why the "Dave-Tree" he drew is more consonant with his own stated beliefs about the relationships among organisms than my "Dave-Tree" is.
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 12 2006,14:31

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,19:02)
          Here's what Dave thinks the creationist phylogenetic tree looks like:
               
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)
          THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But as anyone can tell, it's completely wrong. For one thing, his diagram shows about 20 "created kinds," and only about 29 currently-existing species. Assume he's only drawn every thousandth "created kind" for clarity. Then he should have drawn in about ten thousand currently-existing species, rather than 29. He's understating the required pace of evolution by a factor of about 300.

          [snip]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp >, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2006,14:44

          Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,19:31)
          To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp >, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Interesting. Our little Dave has all kinds of little tricks. But didn't he once say that there were supposedly 12 languages right after the Tower of Babel? There are six thousand now. Same problem; the number of new languages appearing every year would have to be huge, and it's known that there are even more extinct languages. Dave's Tower of Babel "hypothesis" requires the same sort of hyper-accelerated evolution in languages that his flood "hypothesis" requires with living organisms.

          It's like history on methamphetamine, or something.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 12 2006,16:16

          Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,20:31)
           
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,19:02)
          Here's what Dave thinks the creationist phylogenetic tree looks like:
                   
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,14:03)
          THE CREATIONIST VIEW OF SPECIATION


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But as anyone can tell, it's completely wrong. For one thing, his diagram shows about 20 "created kinds," and only about 29 currently-existing species. Assume he's only drawn every thousandth "created kind" for clarity. Then he should have drawn in about ten thousand currently-existing species, rather than 29. He's understating the required pace of evolution by a factor of about 300.

          [snip]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp >, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I know its a bit presumptuous, but I wonder if Arden would do a quick smackdown of this AIG article about languages.  I think an executive summary format would work since AFDave likes this so much.  I was reading through it and found so many erroneous statements and (what I think are) errors that a resident expert on this board could point out more of AIG's lies and deciet.  I've read Diamond's books and know that a lot of the AIG claims are egregiously false because they ignore any scientific investigation into languages.

          I figure that every person commenting could take one AIG article that addresses a field they feel comfortable with and write-up a quick smackdown.  Our resident copy/paste expert would then have to address our smackdowns if he uses the articles for references in the future.  I'll look around for one in the engineering field (or chemistry or physics) and try my hand at a quick debunk soon.

          Mike PSS
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 12 2006,16:20

          NOT MUCH TIME ... HERE'S SOME QUICKIES ... LOTS MORE MONDAY

          * Oh Deadman!!  Where are you?  Are you going to apologize for your naughty accusation of me quote mining after I proved you wrong?

          * Diogenes ... I agree with you that recent sources are best ... I had that 1970 quote about harmful mutations and I went ahead and posted it because I don't think anything has changed in this regard.  I do know a little about Neutral Theory, but I think that no one really knows for sure if all that genetic material is TRULY neutral or not.  Isn't there a controversy right now about "pseudogenes may not be pseudogenes after all" or something.  I will look into this more.

          * Eric--  you are welcome to redraw my chart if you like as long as you stop whining about me redrawing yours.  AIG uses that chart for both language and kinds.  See the "kinds" use of the chart here
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831 >
          ... there is also a good article explaining this "baramin" concept here
          < http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html >

          * Cory-- You should study up on the difference in meaning between "artist renderings" and "diagrams" ... both Evos and Creos need diagrams.  But it is Evos who seem to always give you an artist's rendering when you ask for a picture of a fossil.

          Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You should read the whole article here ...
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834 >

          * And finally, Eric ... Fast Speciation ... yes, I need it for my theory and I think it's possible especially in a situation as there would have been right after the Flood ... note this quote in 1982 by Meyer ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mayr, Ernst, “Speciation and Macroevolution,” Evolution, vol. 36 (November 1982), pp. 1119-1132.
          p. 1122
          “The fundamental fact on which my theory was based is the empirical fact that when in a superspecies or species group there is a highly divergent population or taxon, it is invariably found in a peripherally isolated location.”
          p. 1122
          “My conclusion was that any drastic reorganization of the gene pool is far more easily accomplished in a small founder population than in any other kind of population.”
          p. 1129
          “It is ironical that the punctuational appearance of speeded up evolution during peripatric speciation, is likewise an artifact of the incompleteness of the fossil record. If all founder populations, which are exceedingly small, local, and of short duration, were preserved in the fossil record, they would surely document the gradual nature of the changes.”
          p. 1129
          “More precisely, evidence has been steadily accumulating that, other factors being equal, rate of speciation is inversely correlated with population size. This is why speciation can be so rapid in founder populations, while widespread populous species may be totally inert evolutionarily.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I believe there are some observed cases of rapid speciation documented in modern times.  I will research this.

          Hasta manana!
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 12 2006,17:11

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
          Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You should read the whole article here ...
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 12 2006,17:39

          Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2006,20:11)
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
          Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You should read the whole article here ...
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Actually, that one might not be mined.  It's from 1962!
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 12 2006,17:46

          Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 12 2006,23:39)
          Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2006,20:11)
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
          Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You should read the whole article here ...
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Actually, that one might not be mined.  It's from 1962!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          "Aforementioned land animals" != "any land animals".
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 12 2006,17:46

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,21:20)
          * Oh Deadman!!  Where are you?  Are you going to apologize for your naughty accusation of me quote mining after I proved you wrong?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, why are you under the impression that Deadman owes you an apology? He caught you red-handed in a quote-mine, pointed out exactly why it was a quote-mine, and that was the end of it. Half the posters here have caught you quote-mining. I've caught you quote-mining. I've caught you quote-mining yourself.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Eric--  you are welcome to redraw my chart if you like as long as you stop whining about me redrawing yours.  AIG uses that chart for both language and kinds.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, that's not the point, Dave, and you know it. I told you exactly why I objected to your redrawing the phylogenetic tree to reflect your wrong, broken misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I invited you to explain how my chart misrepresents your "hypothesis." You did not do so. Does that mean you have no objection to my correcting your wrong, broken tree? If not, do you see why my redrawing of your tree to reflect your actual belief shows the fatal flaws in your argument?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           See the "kinds" use of the chart here
          < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831 >
          ... there is also a good article explaining this "baramin" concept here
          < http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yet another discussion of "created kinds" without any mention of the number of "kinds," or even a listing of what they are. Not a very useful method of classification, is it, Dave? You cannot even tell me if two organisms, e.g., hermit crabs and horseshoe crabs, are of the same "kind." What about lungfish and coelacanths, to mention two old favorites? Same "kind" or different "kinds," and how do you tell? (fifth time asked?)

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * And finally, Eric ... Fast Speciation ... yes, I need it for my theory and I think it's possible especially in a situation as there would have been right after the Flood ... note this quote in 1982 by Meyer ...    

          I believe there are some observed cases of rapid speciation documented in modern times.  I will research this.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, what you're talking about and what Meyer are talking about have nothing to do with each other. Meyer is talking about rapid speciation taking place over thousands of years. You're talking about rapid speciation taking place in a matter of months.

          Let's give your "hypothesis" the benefit of the doubt and assume that biodiversity since the "flood" increased geometrically. It would take eight doublings of diversity to get from the (relatively large) estimate of 35,000 kinds present on the ark to the (relatively small) estimate of 10,000,000 currently existing species. This means that the number of species would have to double about once every 700 years. And that's assuming that all this massively-accelerated macroevolution continues up to the present. If most of this massively-accelerated macroevolution occurred safely in the past, the number would be doubling every 400, or 200, years. Yet we know this has not happened. How do we know? Because there is no written record anywhere, not even in your Bible, of massively-accelerated macroevolution happening on that sort of scale.

          If you assume a linear increase in diversity, things only get worse for you. So if you think quoting Ernst Meyer gets you anywhere, you're wrong. You still believe in massively-accelerated macroevolution, far beyond anything proposed by evolutionary theory, Dave. There's simply no way to get from less than a hundred thousand species to ten million species or more in less than 5,000 years, regardless of how "genetically rich" the denizens of the ark were. And there's no way that sort of massively-accelerated macroevolution could have gone unnoticed by every literate civilization on the planet.

          You're not talking "rapid" speciation. You're talking "instantaneous" speciation.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 12 2006,18:09

          Quote (ShitForBrainsDave @ Oct. 12 2006,21:20)
          Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No ShitForBrains.  I only posted one picture to this board to save bandwidth, but I gave you links to a whole lot more at places like Dr Hans Thewissen’s Cetacean Research lab.

          No one ever lost money by underestimating your intelligence, have they Davie-poo.

               

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...
               

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Holy f*ck Dave, that quote is from 1962.   Nineteen hundred and sixty two Dave.  That's forty four years ago, you ShitForBrains moron.  Do you think no research was done or no discoveries have been made in the last forty four years?!?!

          Why don't you tell me in your own words why those examples I provided should NOT be considered transitional species?

          Better yet, why don't you tell me what you think a transitional species should look like?
          Posted by: Ichthyic on Oct. 12 2006,18:37

          If Dave essentially thinks baraminology is "correct", the answer would be there are no transitional "species", nor could there be, yes?

          you can't make a cat out of a dog, after all...

          or was that a dog out of a cat?
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 12 2006,19:31

          Hey boys and girls!  Let’s all play the SFBDave Hawkins game of

          Argument by Ancient Quotation!

          Look Dave, I can prove you were lying about flying an airplane!
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          …and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island never happened!
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "there's not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable." - Albert Einstein, 1932
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          …and no one needs more computer RAM!
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "640K of memory should be enough for anybody" – Bill Gates, Microsoft founder, 1981
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You really have no clue about just how blindingly stupid you look, do you Davie-poo?
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 12 2006,22:05

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,22:46)
          And there's no way that sort of massively-accelerated macroevolution could have gone unnoticed by every literate civilization on the planet.

          You're not talking "rapid" speciation. You're talking "instantaneous" speciation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          exactly. Dave, dont you think that people would notice and write down the fact that there seemed to be more and more animals appearing year by year, moment by moment?

          You talk about rapid speciation being caused by seperation, do you really think this would be true in every single case? What about critters in the sea? Did somebody put some glass partitions in to "speed up dem evolving".

          Dave, there's so many problems with the rubbish you spout, do yourself a favour and stop relying on AIG - it only makes you look foolish as every single word on their website has been proved false.
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 12 2006,23:18



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Argument by Ancient Quotation!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          #### but that's funny!
          (applause)

          So, AFDave...about this 'supposed' e-mail you sent to those fine, upstanding Christians down at AIG?
          When did you send it, pray tell?
          And did they remove the article?
          Yes or no?
          Just thought I'd ask again, in case this thread is moving too fast for you. :)
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 13 2006,02:41

          HA! afdave scoffs at gradualism and considers himself a catastrophist. His AIG tree sure doesn't look very, ahem, catastrophic. If anything, for languages it shows time from Babel onwards, or for living things it seems to show time from just after the flood. I think ericmurphy has the right idea. His afdave tree looks pretty similar to mine:


          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 13 2006,02:50

          Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,19:31)
          To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp >, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Langugages?! WTF, Dave? Shouldn't you "correct" this "diagram"?




          Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 13 2006,03:18

          Wish I could say that's the first time I've seen someone try to conflate linguistic and biological evolution.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 13 2006,04:17



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Langugages?! WTF, Dave? Shouldn't you "correct" this "diagram"?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Big LOL!  Another coffee-spewing moment from ATBC  :D  :D  :D  :D
          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 13 2006,04:38

          Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 12 2006,08:08)

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          We've missed you, Lou.  :)
          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 13 2006,05:56



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I know its a bit presumptuous, but I wonder if Arden would do a quick smackdown of this AIG article about languages.  I think an executive summary format would work since AFDave likes this so much.  I was reading through it and found so many erroneous statements and (what I think are) errors that a resident expert on this board could point out more of AIG's lies and deciet.  I've read Diamond's books and know that a lot of the AIG claims are egregiously false because they ignore any scientific investigation into languages.

          I figure that every person commenting could take one AIG article that addresses a field they feel comfortable with and write-up a quick smackdown.  Our resident copy/paste expert would then have to address our smackdowns if he uses the articles for references in the future.  I'll look around for one in the engineering field (or chemistry or physics) and try my hand at a quick debunk soon.

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I don't normally look at this thread anymore, but Lou alerted me that my name had come up...

          Yeesh, where to begin...

          Well, the article starts with the Tower of Babel myth, which is of course a load of shit, but for a while after that the author plays it safe and doesn't make too many errors. Fundies have to concede that language change does happen simply because the visible-right-now-for-you-to-look-at-it evidence is too overwhelming. So his elementary 'Dutch looks like it's in the middle between English and German' is not too far off from the truth. But of course, this doesn't last:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Comparing a lot of words for common things can show us the ‘relatedness’ between various languages. Those like Italian, Spanish, and French are obviously closer to each other (and to ancient Latin) than any of them are to, say, German, English, or Danish. Nevertheless, even this limited sample shows the inter-relatedness of all the languages in the above columns (except Hungarian), which are all of the Indo-European language family. (Note: Greek and Russian have different alphabets, so we have turned these into approximate English equivalents.) Interestingly, as seen in the last column, despite being spoken by a nation in continental Europe, Hungarian is not an Indo-European language. Basque, the language of a group of people in present-day Spain, is from another language family altogether. Each language is totally unrelated to any outside of its group. This is consistent with the idea that all the languages in each group arose from one of the ‘stem’ languages of Babel.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          This is a completely asinine statement, since that situation is ALSO consistent with the idea that languages have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, and that if there ever were connections between Indo-European, Finno-Ugric (the family Hungarian is in) and Basque, time would have easily erased them to the point where they were undetectible.

          I braced myself for some big stupid when I saw this:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Do languages therefore evolve?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And sure enough, I was not disappointed:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Though languages clearly change, and more than one language can arise by divergence from a ‘common ancestor,’ there the similarity with ideas of grand-scale biological evolution ends.
          In fact, I think it is misleading to talk about any ‘evolution of language.’ Changes in language come about mostly from humanity’s inventiveness, innate creativity, and flexibility,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Wrong. There are basic, pretty-well understood grammatical, cognitive, and acoustic phonetic reasons why languages change. Airy-fairy notions like 'inventiveness' have nothing to do with it.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          not from random genetic mutations filtered by selection.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Strawman. No one ever said language change was 'random mutations filtered by selection'. That he should think this is what linguists say says a lot about how knowledgeable he is about real linguistics

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And languages studied today in the process of change appear mostly to be getting simpler, not more complex.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          A vast oversimplification. Languages get grammatically simpler over time when they are in contact situations, especially when they're being learned by large numbers of people who speak something else as a first language. This is quite well understood. And of course 'acquired by large numbers of new speakers switching from a different first language' describes the history of many of the world's biggest, most important languages, such as English, Mandarin Chinese, modern Arabic, Hindi, modern Romance, Farsi, all Creoles, and many other big languages.

          However, when a language goes a long time (like thousands of years) being spoken by no one except people who acquire it as children and who mostly don't speak any other language, they tend to stay complex or even become more complex. Such languages have not had the 'interrupted transmission' that so blatantly characterizes English, Mandarin, etc.
           
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Some of the most ‘primitive’ tribes speak languages with extremely complex grammar.5
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Basically true, but note that the reference he cites here is a non-linguistic text from 1955.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Perhaps ‘devolution’ of language would be a better term.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Um, no.

          He then drags out his family tree diagrams. *GULP*.

          Next strawman:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evolutionary belief about languages—all probably derived from one primitive early language, which evolved from animal grunts.
          (B) Language Lawn
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No linguists say that language 'evolved from animal grunts', and linguists do not say whether modern languages all evolved from one language. There's no compelling evidence either way for the second statement.

          Then he gets to his main point, which is pretty boring when all's said and done:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          After the Flood (we are not given any information about pre-Flood language diversification) the only language was that spoken by Noah’s family. At Babel, the family groups were each programmed suddenly and supernaturally with a different language. Each of these created languages has gone on to diversify into many separate languages, which are all related to each other—each group has a ‘common ancestor’ language.
          Note that these same three diagrams also apply to the changes in living things. Evolutionary belief (A) has all species arising from one common ancestor. The misconception (B) has every species in the world separately created and unchanged through time. The biblical reality © has each kind separately created, with variation and diversification within that kind (no new information, hence no evolution), including after the Flood. Thus wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc. have all arisen from an ancestral ‘dog kind’ population descended from that population which was on the Ark.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So basically, all he's saying is that the modern languages we see now are not all individually evolved from the Tower of Babel (i.e., when the Tower got smoted, there were not suddenly invented speakers of Bulgarian, Polish, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, Russian, Macedonian, Ukrainian, Serbo-Croatian, etc., etc., etc.), but that the smoting created X-number of 'kinds', from which all modern language diversity developed over the last 6,000 years. He's saying this to dispose of the embarrassingly unsupportable theory that all the thousands of languages of the world were all present at once when Yahweh got pissed off that one afternoon.

          Then he gifts us with another example of the kind of boneheaded argumentation that Creationists specialize in:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          A prediction from all of this would be that, given the large number of languages in the world today, it should be possible to group them together into ‘families’ like the Indo-European family of languages. But there should be no links between one ‘family’ and another. That is because, on this model, each distinct language family is the offshoot of an original Babel ‘stem language’ which did not arise by change from a previous ancestral language.
          This actually fits what we observe. For instance, the Sino-Asiatic language family, which includes Chinese, Japanese and Korean,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          THERE IS NO "Sino-Asiatic language family", and Chinese is NOT RELATED to Japanese and Korean.

          Anyway, continued:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          gives no evidence that it descended from a ‘common ancestor’ language with any of the Indo-European ones—or any other language from another family.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Ho ho ho, Creationism and biblical literalism has 'testable predictions'. Okay, yes, linguists cannot demonstrate that say, Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European, Japanese, Uralic, etc. are related, but that's also quite happily explained by the fact that languages have been diverging from each other for hundreds of thousands of years, and that even after, say, 5-8 thousand years, connections between two related languages can become quite difficult to detect, especially if one or both of the languages are in a heavy contact situation and changing rapidly. Give two languages eight to 12 thousand years to diverge from each other and the two languages can change so much that the similarities between them can essentially become undetectible. This causes problems all the time in linguistics in trying to define language families, especially in languages where there are no ancient records. There are plenty of examples in linguistics of hypothetical language families, where linguists think that a certain group of languages are probably related, yet it's not QUITE provable to everyone's satisfaction. This is just what happens when the time depth of a language family begins to approach the limit to where shared inherited commonalities start to become difficult to detect, and difficult to distinguish from accidental similarities and borrowing. This is what historical linguists wrestle with all the time.

          The identification of Indo-European was helped immensely by ancient records of languages like Greek, Sanskrit, and Latin. Take a family with only a few members, that split up several thousand years ago, and with no old records (most language families in the world), and the task of relating languages becomes much harder.

          Of course, this buffoon has to ram all of the whole world's language evolution into the last 6,000 years, so it's not surprising that he ignores the last hundred and fifty years of historical linguistics.

          Moving on, with his worst howler:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Languages are becoming extinct, and many have never been studied by linguists. Thus, estimates of the number of different ‘language families’ vary, and are difficult. But they are generally in the vicinity of some 8 to 20 (commonly 12 or 13). That fits very comfortably with the descriptions in Genesis.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Wrong. There are well over a hundred fundamental, unrelatable language families in the world, NOT 'some 8 to 20'. This is possibly the most linguistically ignorant statement in his essay, and it's significant that he gives no source for it.

          Funnily enough, there's an evangelical Christian linguistics site (http://www.ethnologue.com/) that actually could have given him a MUCH more accurate picture of how many language families there are in the world, but clearly the author here didn't see the need for anything resembling real-life research.

          And he goes out on a characteristically boneheaded note:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evolutionists
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No, linguists. Does he not see the difference?

          Or does he call ALL scientists who don't work within the book of Genesis 'evolutionists', as some kind of all-purpose boogeyman?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          have tried hard to ‘link’
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Why the scare quotes?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          the various language families so that they in turn point back to a common ancestor. I.e., to show that the original Indo-European and Sino-Asiatic languages
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Again, there's no such family as 'Sino-Asiatic'.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          themselves arose from some previous language. But their efforts have been without success.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes, and no. The consensus in linguistics is that there is a core of language families that cannot be proved to be related. Most linguists believe that (a) it's a waste of time to try and prove that all language families drive from one proto-family, as it's basically unprovable, and (b) it's not even necessarily true.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The evidence is wonderfully consistent with the notion that a small number of languages, separately created at Babel, has diversified into the huge variety of languages we have today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And I would call this wonderfully dishonest, in that he makes no mention of the actual explanation of the world's linguistic diversity that virtually all linguists agree on: again, that languages have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, and that if the world's language families are related, the time depth is now such that the similarities are undetectible. This theory is 'wonderfully consistent' with the notion that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.

          So basically, this essay is to real linguistics what any AIG essay on biology is to actual real evolutionary biological research -- basically an ignorant, dishonest parody.

          Does that answer people's questions? Was Dave trying to claim that this essay supports a Young Earth?
          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 13 2006,06:36

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 12 2006,19:44)
          Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 12 2006,19:31)
          To be fair, it's not Dave's tree, it's AIG's tree < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/towering_change.asp >, and it's actually a tree of language evolution after Babel (although they mention that it's just as applicable to evolution from created kinds), which explains the limited number of "created kind" and "species".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Interesting. Our little Dave has all kinds of little tricks. But didn't he once say that there were supposedly 12 languages right after the Tower of Babel? There are six thousand now. Same problem; the number of new languages appearing every year would have to be huge, and it's known that there are even more extinct languages. Dave's Tower of Babel "hypothesis" requires the same sort of hyper-accelerated evolution in languages that his flood "hypothesis" requires with living organisms.

          It's like history on methamphetamine, or something.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes, AFD's 'theory' demands at least one new language appearing every year. And as you say, that ignores the thousands of extinct languages we don't know anything about.

          Even if there were the slightest thread of truth to the Tower of Babel, 8-12 languages could never develop into the world's observed linguistic diversity over the last 6,000 years.
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 13 2006,08:40

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,21:20)
          (snip)
          * Diogenes ... I agree with you that recent sources are best ... I had that 1970 quote about harmful mutations and I went ahead and posted it because I don't think anything has changed in this regard.  I do know a little about Neutral Theory, but I think that no one really knows for sure if all that genetic material is TRULY neutral or not.  Isn't there a controversy right now about "pseudogenes may not be pseudogenes after all" or something.  I will look into this more.
          (snip)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You thought nothing had changed in the study of molecular evolution in the last 36 years?  You may want to check a few modern sources of information and catch up.

          As for "no one really knows for sure", that's pretty much the entire basis of science.  You'll notice that scientists don't use to term "proof", they use the term "evidence".  So how does a scientist know they are correct? by making predictions.  They look at the theory and develop a set of hypotheses.  These hypotheses should make predictions.  These predictions should make claims that are not easily achievable by random chance, and gives results distinguishable from other competing theories.  

          Since you like to call your set of ideas a hypothesis, how about you generate a prediction.  Just start with 1, on any of your varied hypotheses.  Then everyone on the board can develop a test for this prediction, perform it, and check the results.  Real, honest to god science.

          Shinji Hirotsune, et al, publishes a paper (An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene) in Nature. 2003 May 1;423(6935):26-8 that contended that a certain psuedogene had regulator functions.  This is contested by Todd Gray, et al (The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans) in PNAS, August 8, 2006, vol. 103, no. 32, 12039-12044.  Like normal, both of these scientists are "evolutionists", none of this supports "a theory in crisis" like some like to point out every time scientists disagree about a position.  It's just scientists doing what scientists normally do, figuring out the details.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 13 2006,09:12

          I just got back from a 3 hr meeting on Design of Eperiments and how our reports are going to have to look as we implement a new system. I caught myself chuckling over and over and thinking of AFDave as I listened.

          SFBDavey, didn't you have to design experiments in engineering? Just understanding the methodology of experimental data butchers your hypothesis.

          I really am looking forward to core samples.

          Question: If it is demonstrable that Earth is over 6000 years old, does that prove you wrong?

          Question: If it is demonstrable that Earth is over 6000 years old, does that prove you wrong?

          Question: If it is demonstrable that Earth is over 6000 years old, does that prove you wrong?

          Question: If it is demonstrable that Earth is over 6000 years old, does that prove you wrong?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 13 2006,09:40



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Oh Deadman!! Where are you? Are you going to apologize for your naughty accusation of me quote mining after I proved you wrong?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Stupid cited this:
          “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been ‘debunked.’” Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.

          The correct citation is Derek V. Ager. 1976. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 87:131-160.

          This and the other factors mentioned here shows that you didn't READ that paper, you just copied it verbatim from some creationist website ..as it was quote-mined by Gish, originally.

          the complete sentence reads: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"

          Your quote makes it sound like evolution wholesale has been debunked...further , when the terms for the organisms are removed, it sounds far worse. IN short, you quote-mined.
          Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is an oyster-like bivalve mollusc, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken. This in no way indicts all of evolution, but it does show quote-mining and how it is perpetuated by shiteheads like AFarceDave.

          Quote mining is looking through large amounts of material for quotes that can be taken out of context or otherwise distorted. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining > . Entire books of quotes have been written by creationists, such as Henry Morris ' "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them " Henry Morris' and Gish's lies can easily be found in the sites you were previously given by others here, thus you perpetuate their lies.

          You were caught using multiple quote-mined claims, AirHead, and even a cursory search using those terms on your previous thread...shows that.
          ******************************************************

          For instance, you quote-mined the Encyclopedia Britannica to shore up your weak claims on "Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish" see: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20346 >

          Your "explanation" was this:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Faid- The quote I used from EB has the same meaning whether you include the context or not. This is not a dishonest quote mine. Let me say this about the Portuguese thing and many similar items ... You scientists are so detail oriented (a good thing in many contexts) that you sometimes get hung up on my generalizations. Saying that 'Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish' is a GENERALIZATION, like 'The sky is blue' or 'the grass is green.' You could legitimately argue that those two statements are not accurate, but who would be so obnoxious as to do so?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ***********************************************************************
          Another example of your use of quote-mining can be seen here: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27081 > < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27270 >  Where you used a faked quote by R.H. Rastall to claim that geologists were "arguing in a circle"  This is the quote you used, Liar:
          “It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain”
          The FULL citation is found at < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html > and includes these words: " ."Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced..."
          ***********************************************************************
          This also contains Dave quotemining by saying  "I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils. But this article says you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically."
          after I told you to quit using that quote-mined lie about me. Which you then CONTINUED to use 3 more times. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
          ***********************************************************************
          You used a quote from H.S. Gladwin, a former stockbroker who is not an archaeologist, not a dendro expert, but had a long history of being a crank that thought african PYGMIES populated the Americas, despised dendro in general and was NINETY THREE when he wrote the cited article in which he claims three things: (1)bristlecone and (2)juniper dendrochronology is unreliable and (3)deciduous trees can't be used for dendro. Was this a faked quote? Yes. Especially since it was well known even at the time that deciduous trees CAN be used.
          This reflects a particular KIND of quote-mining...the citation of claims from decades ago that have no validity....like your claims on sedimentation behind a dam being "proof" that layered varves can be created in a short span of time....like your citation of a Corps of Engineers paper on the Mississippi done in 1948 or whatever it was ...like your dated claims on radiometrics, like your dated claims drawn from the "world book" , like your ancient claims on MULTIPLE topics that relied on books written in the 1940's, or even earlier. Yeah, that's quote-mining, too.
          *********************************************************************
          You cited a quote where you claimed the pope "slammed" evolution...and he didn't...again, selectively twisting words to suit your purposes. This was your citation:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Vatican: pope slams evolution 'Accounts about Man don't add up without God' says pontiff (ANSA) - Regensburg, September 12 - Pope Benedict XVI on Monday issued his strongest criticism yet of evolutionary theory, calling it "unreasonable" . Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable" .
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The actual quote doesn't mention either Darwin or any slam on evolution at all.
          ***********************************************************************
          Using culled quotations or quotes out of context or quotes that are dated in terms of content, using quotes that are not checked against original material to see if they have been modified or distorted in order to assert the validity of your view is quote-mining, period. It is intellectual fraud. You were caught not just perpetuating quote-mines, but also you created some of your own...as with your claim that a poll showed that british students  rejected evolution...when it showed the opposite of what you claimed. You quote-mined people HERE, as if they wouldn't notice, you quote-mined YOURSELF by altering your previous claims to suit new arguments you were making..changing your stance from a previously held position.

          I don't have time every day to point out each and every one of your lies and fallacies and quote-mining, liardave, but I sure as #### can back up my claims that you're BOTH a Liar and a quote-miner. Now what, Liar?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,10:14

          I hope you enjoyed Deadman's "apology," Dave. But you can't say you didn't ask for it…
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 13 2006,11:32

          In light of "Ghost of Paley"'s coming clean, I'm reluctant to waste more time on the likes of AFDave, perhaps only to learn months from now it was all just a drawn-out joke.

          I will, however, note that Deadman's clear demonstration of AFDave's quotemining ways (whether in service of Jesus, or for the fun of "punking" scientists) reinforces my suspicions that AFD has never read those Nature articles he has been citing to lend credence to his Koobi Fora story.

          Have you, dave?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 13 2006,11:55

          I've been suspecting GoP of trolling for a few months, but I'm convinced that AFDave is an authentic YEC. He completely fits the model of the typical brainwashed fundie that I saw several times on TV. And some are even worse. Some people at AIG claim that, in Eden, where everybody lived in peace and harmony, dinosaurs couldn't possibly be carnivorous. Those with sharp claws and teeth use them to open hard fruits.  :D

          What do you think of that, Dave?
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 13 2006,13:26



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Some people at AIG claim that, in Eden, where everybody lived in peace and harmony, dinosaurs couldn't possibly be carnivorous. Those with sharp claws and teeth use them to open hard fruits.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Indeed. It's hilarious proposals like this that lead me to question whether it makes any difference whether the holder of such opinions is an intentional or an unintentional comedian.

          The only reason I engage in this sort of discussion is that here in the USA, the clowns in control of the government seem to take this insanity seriously. That is - no exaggeration - the scariest development I've witnessed in my not so young life.

          I am hopeful that this upcoming election shows a significant awakening of the post-enlightenment sector of the electorate.
          Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 13 2006,13:42

          so we can replace the current clowns with clowns of a slightly different variety?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 13 2006,14:23



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          so we can replace the current clowns with clowns of a slightly different variety?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Clowns less cavalier about taking lives would be preferable, in my view.
          And habilis is still considered Homo by most people, although there are (as always) some contrarians, who, in this case, view it as australopith. Paleoanth always has feuding parties and camps, or at the very least, crankish individuals.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 13 2006,14:50

          < This made me think of the oxymoron of creation science.  Plus it was really funny. >

          Science shows the danger is everywhere!
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 13 2006,15:18

          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 13 2006,19:50)
          < This made me think of the oxymoron of creation science.  Plus it was really funny. >

          Science shows the danger is everywhere!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I looked at that site, and I couldn't find a single statement that appeared to be factually incorrect. The statements thereon were much better supported than what you typically read at AiG's site. Which in my opinion makes it much better science than AFDave's brand of Creation "Science."
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 13 2006,15:30

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 13 2006,21:18)
          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 13 2006,19:50)
          < This made me think of the oxymoron of creation science.  Plus it was really funny. >

          Science shows the danger is everywhere!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I looked at that site, and I couldn't find a single statement that appeared to be factually incorrect. The statements thereon were much better supported than what you typically read at AiG's site. Which in my opinion makes it much better science than AFDave's brand of Creation "Science."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          "many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler...until it was too late.

          Many will be in comfortable oblivion about DHMO...until it is too late."

          (BTW...has Dave ever realized why a couple people keep quoting him on this?)
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 13 2006,15:51



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          so we can replace the current clowns with clowns of a slightly different variety?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Your point being...?

          That all politicians are corrupt, and therefore equally to be shunned? That voting at all is a fool's errand?

          Somehow, I'm not surprised that this sort of flatus emanates from the guy that thinks that evolution and its critics are on equal evidential ground, because posers like Dembski say they are.

          No... I'd like to replace the current clowns with some that don't refer sneeringly to < "reality-based community" >". I'd like to see a group of clowns who don't regard "secular" and "liberal" as dirty words. I'd like to see a group of clowns who recognize the concept of church-state separation; who regard religion as a private, personal affair, rather than a political force to harnessed and manipulated. I'd like to see folks like afdave, if he is indeed real, returned to the category of "harmless kook", rather than "core constituency of the ruling party".

          Also I'm hoping the upcoming election acquaints the currently reigning clowns with the concept of "accountability".
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 13 2006,17:21

          Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 13 2006,11:56)
          I don't normally look at this thread anymore, but Lou alerted me that my name had come up...

          Yeesh, where to begin...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Thank you Arden.
          It is enlightening to get commentary on a subject from one with proven knowledge and training.  You looked at the subject in ways I didn't even understand until I read your summary.

          Like...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          THERE IS NO "Sino-Asiatic language family", and Chinese is NOT RELATED to Japanese and Korean.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          An item like that gets lost in the word salad put up by AIG.  I can understand more and more the Gish Gallop that some of these authors use.

          Mike PSS

          p.s.  Conjugate the verb "to smote"
          smote
          smitten
          smoted
          smoting
          smotes
          ???
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 14 2006,02:24

          Well, not much time again today ... more on Monday.  Just a quickie ...

          It appears that my latest quotes from "real scientists" (as opposed to those fake Creationist ones) has struck a nerve.

          Good.

          Deadman has apparently been transformed from a guy who once made positive claims for ToE and attempted to support them with lots of scientific papers that at least gave the appearance of support

          ... to a guy who now says nothing but ...

          "Liar.  Quoteminer.  Stupid."  ... and the like.

          This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about ToE from the words of the scientists themselves!

          Wow!
          Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 14 2006,02:56

          Er, I must have missed the post that showed quotes from scientists that prove any of your points. Could someone point me to them, preferably quotes form the past couple of years.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2006,05:27

          1. StupidDave "challenges" me to show where he quotemined
          So I show him WHERE and WHEN and HOW he quotemined, so AirHead says:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman has apparently been transformed from a guy who once made positive claims for ToE and attempted to support them with lots of scientific papers that at least gave the appearance of support. ... to a guy who now says nothing but ... "Liar.  Quoteminer.  Stupid."  ... and the like.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Bwahahaha, how weak and transparently frantic can you get,Stupid? I've been insulting you for a LONG time now, ever since I ASKED you to stop your petty insult games and you couldn't seem to manage it. YOU are not a "victim."

          YOU asked for me to cite where you quotemined.
          YOU refused to drop your little insult games long ago.
          YOU decided to LIE about multiple topics ( want to challenge me on that, TOO, Stupid?). Now you whine about it?

          Bwahahaha. What a truly spineless, stupid ball of scum you are, little AFarceDave. You challenge me to show where you quotemined -- and you can't come up with ANYTHING better than that as a response when I DO show your blatant dishonesty?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2006,06:29

          Here's a few facts for you to ponder, Stupid:
          1. This Discussion Board is mentioned in multiple Creationist and ID sites.
          2. This discussion board is mentioned by MULTIPLE adherents of creationism and ID who post at their sites.
          3. On any given day, you can find numerous examples of anonymous users reading this discussion board and threads.
          4. The fact is that NO ONE has bothered to "de-lurk" and back your stupid claims, Stupid.

          Now, you may want to ask why this is. I think it's not because specific lurkers don't AGREE with SOME of what you are saying...on the contrary, I'm sure MANY of them DO agree with SOME of what you are posting, week after week.
          I think it's because even THEY would take note of your tactics, and SEE that you are one lying, stupid, sick little pseudo-Christian.
          THAT is why no one has seen fit to "de-lurk" and support you, I'd wager. Like Hovind, you give a bad name even to the nutcases you (theoretically) represent.

          And on that note, allow me to point at you, Dave Hawkins and make a very secure and provable set of claims:
          You are a liar.
          You invoke fallacies virtually every day that you post. You use "mined" quotes.
          You cannot and will not ever back your overall assertions concerning your "hypothesis that is better than any other" because you have nothing, not even the Bible, to support you in your over-reaching literalism.
          You claim to pursue the truth, yet employ every underhanded means possible to TRY to avoid the same.

          All of the claims that I just made...I can prove by your own statements here, ALiarDave.
          Whether or not you "believe" I can do it is irrelevant to me. What counts to ME, is that YOU cannot say the same things about ME and show it. That is also a fact, Stupid.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 14 2006,06:33

          Oh no! Afd has unleashed the creationists' ultimate weapon! vacuous puerile goading! Run for your lives!
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 14 2006,06:35

          ShitForBrainsDave sez
               

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman has apparently been transformed from a guy who once made positive claims for ToE and attempted to support them with lots of scientific papers that at least gave the appearance of support

          ... to a guy who now says nothing but ...

          "Liar.  Quoteminer.  Stupid."  ... and the like.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          But Dave, you are a proven liar.  And you are a proven quote-miner.  And you have been proven to be the most stupid fukkwit to come through here in ages.  Why are you mad at Deadman for pointing out the obvious?  If you don't like being seen as a stupid lying quote-miner then stop being a stupid lying quote-miner.  Simple, n'est pas?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about ToE from the words of the scientists themselves!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          But Dave, you haven't commented on this quote that shows you were lying about flying an airplane
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           "heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Do you know who Lord Kelvin was?  He's one of the most famous scientists of all time Davie-poo.  Go look up his accomplishments, especially his work on thermodynamics.  This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about heavier-than-air flight from the words of the scientists themselves!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,07:03

          I don't think Dave is mad at Deadman for anything. As always, he just doesn't have anything to add so he's taunting one of us into losing his cool with an outrageous comment.

          -Show me where I quote-mined.
          -Here and there, you stupid.
          -Now Deadman says nothing but "Quoteminer, stupid..."

          The sad thing is that AFDave succeeds.  :(

          AFDave, why don't you tell us how you determine that two organisms come from the same "ancestral gene pool"?
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 14 2006,07:21

          There has been enough name-calling in this thread to last a lifetime. Future instances may be met with summary deletion.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 14 2006,07:32

          Poopyhead.. er.. Does that count?

          PS Deadman, your smackdown was beautiful.

          One more creationist caught being dishonest. Let me see...

          That makes... Hmmm... Well... Yep.... Goodness! Yes it does, That makes all of them! Wow.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 14 2006,08:20

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 14 2006,07:24)
          This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about ToE from the words of the scientists themselves!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you've failed utterly to find a single word from a single evolutionary biologist that casts the slightest doubt on the totality of the theory. Oh, you think you have, but that's because you don't have the slightest concept of the breadth and scope of the theory. You're comparing a theory made up of hundreds of thousands of papers and millions of words to a "theory" made up of 800 words.

          And why should Deadman make any positive claims for the theory of evolution? Why are we even discussing the theory of evolution, Dave? We're supposedly here to discuss your "hypothesis," something you've spent almost no time even discussing, let alone trying to provide evidence for.

          I sent you a link to the Theobald paper on the evidence supporting common descent back in May. You've yet to make a single substantive criticism of the paper. I doubt you've ever even more than skimmed the first few paragraphs of it. So if you think you've give anyone here the slightest reason to doubt evolutionary theory, you're hallucinating.

          Of course, you also hallucinated a "win" in your "Portuguese" argument, so that's hardly susprising.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 14 2006,09:19

          Hmm..since the *current* discussion of "name-calling" has arisen following a couple of my posts, I'd like to say this:
          I have no problem with NOT using perjoratives, insults or cursing, or slang for that matter. I just don't view "cursing" as a sign of weakness or of emotionalism, neccessarily. I also don't think you can tell if one has "lost his cool" via the use of profanity (particularly in text) -- I personally view "cursing" as an emphasizer, for the most part, much as bold or capital letters , etc. However...if that is agreed to be verboten, fine, I have no problem with that. Insults sans "profanity" will merely result in lengthier posts on my part, and increased use of "acceptable" emphasizers. No big deal.
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 14 2006,09:38

          While I don't remember who exactly has said it, I do seem to recall most folks have said that they only continue to respond to Dave in order to offer sound scientific reasoning to the lurkers. While, I have not necessarily been silent on this thread, I am not necessarily all that different than the lurkers. My science education was limited to what got me through the first year or so of engineering school, which was chemistry and basic physics.  I have learned alot of new things on this thread and I can state, unreservedly, that insults, profane or otherwise, contribute nothing to the persuasiveness of the arguments.  

          If you truly remain engaged in the thread in order to help the lurkers, then put aside the profanity, insults, and cute names for Dave, because it doesn't help.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 14 2006,09:56

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2006,15:38)
          While I don't remember who exactly has said it, I do seem to recall most folks have said that they only continue to respond to Dave in order to offer sound scientific reasoning to the lurkers. While, I have not necessarily been silent on this thread, I am not necessarily all that different than the lurkers. My science education was limited to what got me through the first year or so of engineering school, which was chemistry and basic physics.  I have learned alot of new things on this thread and I can state, unreservedly, that insults, profane or otherwise, contribute nothing to the persuasiveness of the arguments.  

          If you truly remain engaged in the thread in order to help the lurkers, then put aside the profanity, insults, and cute names for Dave, because it doesn't help.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I am in much the same position--ignorant and learning much from this thread--but I do believe the "venting" done by many who respond to Dave's blather IS helpful.

          If Dave's continuously inane posts were treated as if they had any substantive value, the utter stupidity of many of his arguments would be lost on the uninformed (like me.)

          When I see the responses to Dave punctuated by words like “stupid” and “air head” they serve to show just how far removed from reality Dave’s arguments lie (intended).
          Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 14 2006,10:07

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 13 2006,16:32)
          In light of "Ghost of Paley"'s coming clean, I'm reluctant to waste more time on the likes of AFDave, perhaps only to learn months from now it was all just a drawn-out joke.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          OK, I have been away, and have had no luck searching  :D

          Link?
          Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 14 2006,10:20

          Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 14 2006,15:07)
          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 13 2006,16:32)
          In light of "Ghost of Paley"'s coming clean, I'm reluctant to waste more time on the likes of AFDave, perhaps only to learn months from now it was all just a drawn-out joke.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          OK, I have been away, and have had no luck searching  :D

          Link?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          See < this > post from the < "LUCA" > thread.
          Posted by: MidnightVoice on Oct. 14 2006,10:53

          Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2006,15:20)
          Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 14 2006,15:07)
           
          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 13 2006,16:32)
          In light of "Ghost of Paley"'s coming clean, I'm reluctant to waste more time on the likes of AFDave, perhaps only to learn months from now it was all just a drawn-out joke.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          OK, I have been away, and have had no luck searching  :D

          Link?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          See < this > post from the < "LUCA" > thread.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Thankee, kind sir.  I didn't want to plough through everything in sight  :D
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 14 2006,12:20

          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 14 2006,14:56)
          When I see the responses to Dave punctuated by words like “stupid” and “air head” they serve to show just how far removed from reality Dave’s arguments lie (intended).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          While you and I may be learning alot from this discussion, the real target audience are those lurkers who come here not predisposed to accept scientific reason over biblical literalism.  For those folks, it is important that Dave's arguments and logic are challenged in a direct, understandable and, yes, forceful manner.  But, there is a big difference in attacking the argument and attacking the person.  When one goes from saying "that argument is nonsensical" to saying "you are an idiot", they are playing right into his hands. He'll never win the argument on substance, but by baiting folks into acting with petulance he doesn't have to.  The minute someone in a debate loses control, they have lost. And, Deadman, you may not have really lost control, but to an outsider (even one predisposed to accept your expertise), it sure looks that way.

          So, if you feel his arguments are so inane that they don't deserve a civil response, don't respond at all.  But, if you can tear them to shreds without attacking him personally (and it has been done), have at it.  Dave has said as much that your personal derision validates him.  And a certain ex-associate professor from Vermont says the same thing. Think about it.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 14 2006,12:48

          Not to mention that AFDave really wants to be insulted.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 14 2006,13:03

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2006,18:20)
           
          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 14 2006,14:56)
          When I see the responses to Dave punctuated by words like “stupid” and “air head” they serve to show just how far removed from reality Dave’s arguments lie (intended).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          While you and I may be learning alot from this discussion, the real target audience are those lurkers who come here not predisposed to accept scientific reason over biblical literalism.  For those folks, it is important that Dave's arguments and logic are challenged in a direct, understandable and, yes, forceful manner.  But, there is a big difference in attacking the argument and attacking the person.  When one goes from saying "that argument is nonsensical" to saying "you are an idiot", they are playing right into his hands. He'll never win the argument on substance, but by baiting folks into acting with petulance he doesn't have to.  The minute someone in a debate loses control, they have lost. And, Deadman, you may not have really lost control, but to an outsider (even one predisposed to accept your expertise), it sure looks that way.

          So, if you feel his arguments are so inane that they don't deserve a civil response, don't respond at all.  But, if you can tear them to shreds without attacking him personally (and it has been done), have at it.  Dave has said as much that your personal derision validates him.  And a certain ex-associate professor from Vermont says the same thing. Think about it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Carlsonjok,

          I agree there are those who will be offended by the ad hominem, and your argument makes sense.  Maybe the attacks are too strong and are out of place.

          Point well taken.

          I’m not sure those who are pre-disposed to believe Biblical literalism will be persuaded by this thread whether or not it has the aforementioned insults.

          After 30 years of dealing with fundys I believe they fall into three groups:

          * Those who are "true believers" and will drink the kool-aid no matter what anyone else will tell them

          *  Those who are open to other ideas, but psychologically are not prepared to face the consequence of those ideas so when presented with mountains of fact simply cannot allow themselves to see it

          * Those who have the intellectual and spiritual strength/honesty to be able to accept new ideas and then integrate them into their belief system (or not)

          The first group will likely use the verbal barrage on Dave as evidence of the utter evil of AI.  The second group, again, cannot fathom life outside of their card-house of faith.

          The third group are those who come here knowing their beliefs could be mistaken.  They are willing to weigh their beliefs versus the new information they encounter here.  I suspect most of them will find the information they need despite the personal attacks, but I could be wrong.

          I don't think Dave believes he is lying.  I don't believe most YEC's or OEC's believe they are lying.  I think most are true believers who are regurgitating the pabulum they were raised on.

          I do, however, believe there are many leaders in the YEC/OEC camps who simply MUST know they are lying, but are willing to do so anyway--either for the sake of ego, power, money or some other hidden motive.  That they have deceived so completely Dave and his ilk is immoral.  That they do so in the name of Christianity is obscene.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 14 2006,13:57

          C'mon guys - after the first 5 pages AFDave's "Hypothesis" turned out to be the same old tired crap we've seen from every e-Creationist since the www sprang up.

          Face it, there are better places than this site for serious scientific debate on evolutionary issues.  The only reason for following this thread is for the entertainment value, a large part of which is the creative insults lobbed at our Fundy Davie.  I tell ya, I go through a can of monitor cleaner a week after seeing what the fertile minds of the church burnin' ebola boys come up with :D

          And it's not like SFBDave doesn't earn every last ad hom directed his way.  If he keeps asking for it, we are honor bound to let him have it. Ridicule the controversy! I say.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 14 2006,15:17

          This morning I had to run, so my post was kind of brief. Just to elaborate a bit: nothing in particular is banned. No particular word will get your post deleted. But the turpentine and vinegar tone of some of the posts is annoying and unpleasant and lowers the property values around here.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2006,03:14

          In another thread a while ago, I had told stevestory that I had no problem whatsoever with his deleting any of my posts.  So anything I have to say now has nothing to do with his or Wes' views on moderation.

          I have no difficulties with being subject to moderation rules. In fact, I just stated in the previous page that I had no problem with eliminating all insults from my posts. Thus I considered further comments to be gratuitous. Yet, I'm a bit mystified at the responses from other posters here, however, given that I had already agreed to toning down my comments and given that my "insults" amounted to using terms that I view as rather mild.

          In fact,the harshest term I used in my previous post was "spineless scumball." which is pretty sophomoric but incredibly weak in terms of what has been used by insulters from Rome to Shakespeare and Parliament and beyond.  

          My general feeling is that criticism of posters holding similar positions should be done in private, rather than public, but...I'm curious as to the motives and aims of those who saw fit to continue criticism of my views. If I am being used as an exemplar of the kind of posts one finds offensive, there are alternatives available. One is to simply not read offensive posts. Another is to notify the poster of one's feelings in private. Another is to notify the moderator.

          Yes, because AFDave has shown his position to be intractable, and that he is NOT in fact amenable to rational persuasion and logical arguments, the end goal should be dismantling his positions as they arise and doing so in a fashion that MIGHT sway borderline YECs and others. However, this is not a formal debate. Perhaps I just don't take whole thing, OR my particular powers of persuasion  as seriously as others do.

          To say that one cannot use insult in an INFORMAL setting...well...that's sort of  amusing to me, given that the critics of my language use here...have also insulted "Dave" in various ways and at varying degrees of directness. So... I'm assuming some find **indirect** insult favorable to directly saying "I consider you , Dave, to be a liar"  Where would the cut-off line be, while recalling that my posts in question have NOT been RELATIVELY excessive? This is directed not to actual moderators but those that have commented on this.

          Should I also feel encouraged to directly and publicly criticize posters who "offend" me by using **indirect** insult?

          Should I feel obliged to say that insult inevitably equals "loss of control" on the part of a poster or speak for "outsiders" feeling this way? How about if it's indirect? I find much of this to be just sort of silly. This is typing. Using bolding or underlines or caps or insults =/= actual anger.

          Or is it that my last two posts to Dave simply is being used a a proxy to publicly criticise ALL others who use terms and language deemed offensive by some?

          Again, I have never publicly criticized any poster here other than Dave and GoP, both of whom held positions antithetical to mine, and in fact, I feel uneasy about being perceived as doing so now. But I am genuinely curious about the motives of  people.

          Oh, and on a final point. I agree SOMEWHAT that excessively "vulgar" wording can DISTRACT from the thrust of an argument, yet at the same time, I tend to believe that people with a brain in their heads don't  negate the entirety of an argument simply because it ends with language seen as "profane" or insulting. Those people that are incapable of  dealing with the use of "idiot, liar, quoteminer", or even "shitehead" etc. in the midst of a supported argument, or at the END of it -- in an INFORMAL setting...might not have the cognitive processes needed to appreciate such arguments anyway.

          My feelings on this matter are not intended to evoke any kind of hard feelings. I don't feel "insulted," just curious and rather amused. What I would hope is that agreement can be hammered out about WHAT constitutes "offensive" insulting and effective persuasiveness. A discussion thread may be in order, but I don't know that I'll take part in it, given that I had already agreed to terms.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 15 2006,04:51

          Well, my two cents, because and only because it's been explicitly asked for:

          AFD's positions are so, frankly, ridiculous that I can't get terribly exercised about their being ridiculed. I honestly have not ruled out the possibility that he is in fact, as GoP finally admitted to, striving for outrageousness, fishing for insults (i.e. trolling).

          That said, probably the most effective dismantling of his absurd contentions would be a dispassionate one, not rising to his bait. If one were to approach this in a disciplined fashion, I suppose one would simply respond to all his recycled arguments with citations of the relevant literature that have shown those arguments to be baseless in the past. Then again, would it be worth anyone's time to work out a "disciplined approach" to watching "South Park"?

          Now, that said, I do think that it is neither gratuitous insult nor unseemly foaming at the mouth to point out that repetition of errors that one has every reason to know are errors is, in fact, indistinguishable from LYING. It's not an "honest mistake", it's not a "different perspective", it's not lack of formal education and it's not an honest exercise of faith. It's LYING, and we're well past the point in this discussion where there can be any doubt about that.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 15 2006,08:11

          I'd just like to add that calling Dave a "liar" isn't an insult; it's an observation. There can be no question at this point that Dave has repeatedly lied, either explicitly or by omission, on countless occasions. Dave will no doubt dispute this, but when Dave claims not to be a liar, he is, in fact, lying.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 15 2006,08:44

          I don't have anything against Dave being called "liar, dishonnest, coward, lazy, brainwashed, jocker or even stupid", because that's what he is.
          But IMO, "di€khead, a$$hole, s€umbag" and the like don't serve our cause. They give the impression that the poster can't provide new arguments and that, in a sens, Dave is winning. Seeing him responding calmly (almost like a robot) while someone is tossing insults at him makes me uneasy. Because that's exactly what he looks for.
          Personnaly, I'd love to see Dave losing his calm, but he won't. He's a complete brainwashed fundy.
          Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 15 2006,09:03

          Eric:

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'd just like to add that calling Dave a "liar" isn't an insult; it's an observation. There can be no question at this point that Dave has repeatedly lied, either explicitly or by omission, on countless occasions. Dave will no doubt dispute this, but when Dave claims not to be a liar, he is, in fact, lying.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I appreciate the irony of someone like me making this point, but I think even calling someone a "liar" is counterproductive. The best strategy IMHO is to document the oppenent's distortions and abuses of the literature, and let the lurker discover the truth for himself. One of my favorites in this regard is < Jim Foley. > His debate with < Richard Milton > remains one of the most effective demolitions I have ever witnessed.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 15 2006,09:51

          Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,14:03)
          I appreciate the irony of someone like me making this point, but I think even calling someone a "liar" is counterproductive. The best strategy IMHO is to document the oppenent's distortions and abuses of the literature, and let the lurker discover the truth for himself.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Normally I'd agree, but in Dave's case it doesn't matter. His lies have been pointed out again and again, documented to the point of stupidity, but that doesn't change Dave's faith in his own rectitude. His claims of winning the < "Tyre" argument > are a prime example of his lies being extensively documented, which had zero effect on Dave's delusions. Same thing with this "Portuguese" argument, which has spawned a new term on this board: having a "Portuguese moment."

          It probably does the lurkers some good, though.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 15 2006,10:35

          I said that I had no doubt regarding the authenticity of Dave's YEC, but I since GoP's confession, I may "add some water in my wine" as we say in French.
          There's one thing I find impressive with AFDave: his intellectual dishonesty. I would have expected a YEC placed in front of his contradictions (Tyre, Portuguese...) to run away.
          Only a troll could be that dishonest.  :O
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 15 2006,10:46

          having known a few people as hyperignorant as AFDave, I don't think he's dishonest at all. He thinks he must be winning, since he's arguing on behalf of The Truth.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2006,11:02

          I think Air..er..Dave..is a true believer, yes. How he reconciles his tactics/statements with his belief is somewhat interesting to me. I think he views non-believers and others as somewhat less than equally human...I suggest that was apparent in how he viewed my ancestors as "devolved."
          Gah, I should add this: I do think he's inherently dishonest. Let me give an example...suppose I claimed to "know" that Dave was a rapist, for instance...while never having met Dave and being unable to substantiate my assertion of "knowing" this in any real way. Would that be a lie on my part? If I assert this publicly, and my claim is shown false why should I NOT be called a known liar?  
          Dave claimed to "know" things about me..that he could not and did not know, nor has he met me. Nor could he "know " these things in any real way or substantiate his claims. This can ALWAYS be "excused" ...after all, there are always excuses -- varying in believability-- for any statement or act. Yet he has never responded to my objection in that, showing that he KNEW his statements were inherently false.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 15 2006,11:24

          I've read maybe 5% of the words AFDave's written in the last year (and about 5% of Paley's words and about 80% of everyone else's) so I don't mean to say he's never lied. I probably wouldn't know if he had. When I say I think he's not lying, what I mean is about the basic gist of, you know, does he think that his scientific notions are correct, evolution is wrong, geology is wrong, astrophysics is wrong, etc etc etc. I think he actually believes those things.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 15 2006,11:31

          Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2006,15:46)
          having known a few people as hyperignorant as AFDave, I don't think he's dishonest at all. He thinks he must be winning, since he's arguing on behalf of The Truth.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I'd put it this way: Dave is, in fact, a liar. That much is really beyond dispute. That Dave does not believe he's a liar, i.e., he believes what he says is true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doesn't really change things much from anyone else's perspective.

          When someone believes the island of Tyre is currently a barren rock, after being shown photographs proving otherwise, how is one to characterize such a belief?
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 15 2006,11:40

          A word like delusional or insane is a much better descriptor than liar, if the person in question believes what they're saying.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 15 2006,11:59

          I'll go along with "delusional/insane" in those things. I think the reason I've never been able to grasp his fundamentalist view is that I've never been so taken with any one notion that I was willing to suborn reason/logic to it, although this opens me up to the charge that I hold reason and logic as "idols," I suppose.
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 15 2006,12:26

          IMO, there are a couple of problems with calling AFDave names, whether they are deserved or not. First, insults tend to distract from the facts and logic at hand. And, since defenders of evolution have the overwhelming advantage when it comes to facts and logic, why distract anyone from them?

          Second, abuse of any sort, as others have noticed, validates AFDave's mythology-- of himself as a Christian hero, maligned but persevering, and of evolutionists as hateful, mean people.

          Evangelicals in general place a high premium on politeness and kindness, just as scientists place a high premium on factual accuracy. Insults are very likely to rub Christian lurkers the wrong way, and tip their sympathies toward AFDave. Indeed, I'd say that many folks outside the science community are likely to be swayed more by manners than by facts. An anti-creationist who is more polite than the creationists has the capacity to really flummox creationists. I've often wished that anti-creationists were more tactically wise in this regard.

          That said, I don't wish to denigrate those of you who have been correcting AFDave on this thread. I only visit from time to time, and his brazen ignorance has moved me to scorn more than once. Those of you in the trenches may, IMO, be forgiven for frustration, exasperation, and the blowing off of a little spleen. By continually engaging AFDave's stubborn smugness, you're already showing more patience than I've personally got. Demanding that you be constantly gracious and polite, too, is more than anyone can ask.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 15 2006,12:39



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I appreciate the irony of someone like me making this point, but I think even calling someone a "liar" is counterproductive.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I won't argue against that. You'll notice I identified what I call "lying" and why; it may be a subtle distinction (possibly even one without a difference), but I'm not so comfortable with the word "liar".

          See, though St. Richard of Dawkins (peace be upon him) has been widely vilified for this quote, even by "evolutionists" who think he's being unnecessarily combative, I have to admit I agree with it entirely. Here's the quote, most uncharacteristically, in < context >:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ...[N]early half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).  If that gives you offense, I'm sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 15 2006,13:37

          Dave is a maroon, and the more he ought to have learned from the many correct and interesting things he has been shown here, the maroonier he forces himself to become.   There is zero point in reading anything further that he says, unless--as to my discredit I sometimes am--you are one of those odd people who finds maroonity entertaining.

          However, much of the rest of what is said here in opposition to (and in indifference to) Dave is interesting in and of itself.

          I couldn't care less what people call Dave.  Dave is simply the  null point around which this thread revolves.
          Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 16 2006,08:17

          Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 15 2006,14:03)
          Eric:

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'd just like to add that calling Dave a "liar" isn't an insult; it's an observation. There can be no question at this point that Dave has repeatedly lied, either explicitly or by omission, on countless occasions. Dave will no doubt dispute this, but when Dave claims not to be a liar, he is, in fact, lying.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I appreciate the irony of someone like me making this point, but I think even calling someone a "liar" is counterproductive. The best strategy IMHO is to document the oppenent's distortions and abuses of the literature, and let the lurker discover the truth for himself. One of my favorites in this regard is < Jim Foley. > His debate with < Richard Milton > remains one of the most effective demolitions I have ever witnessed.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Paley,  How ironic that you use Columbo as your avatar…a stumbling, mumbling, disheveled detective who gave the impression that he was easy to deceive….And you with all your supposed worldly knowledge, and education…..

          Just makes me smile...ear to ear.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 16 2006,09:05



          HOW CAN CREATIONISTS SAY THAT 4500 YEARS IS ENOUGH TIME, BUT 4.5 BILLION YEARS ISN'T ??? !!!  WHAT'S GOING ON HERE??

          A fair question to be sure.  And, like most truth searches, there is a cloud of confusion surrounding this issue.  One point of confusion is that Evolutionists do not understand the Creationists position.  So let's clear that up right now.  Again, here is what I have already said ...

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          1) An unknown number of organisms were spoken into existence by God during the Creation Week: Plants on Day 3, Water creatures on Day 5, Man and land animals on Day 6, etc.  Similarly, an unknown number of air-breathing organisms and possibly seeds and other organisms were carried on the Ark of Noah to restart that portion of life on earth which could not survive the Flood.

          2) Rapid diversification and speciation occurred after the Flood due to many factors: separated continents, foraging needs, massive climate change, to name a few.  Similar diversification and speciation may have occurred after the Fall and Curse recorded in Genesis 3, but this is not of immediate interest to us because so many of the original organisms were wiped out during the Flood.  It is much more relevant to our present situation today to consider what happened after the Flood.  I may adjust the points in my Hypothesis to reflect this.

          3) Creatures adapt by natural and artificial selection of pre-existing genetic information.  I believe that God endowed the original creatures with a large enough amount of genetic information to allow them to adapt and form new species (species being defined as reproductive isolation).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

           

          Another obvious problem for evolutionists is "How can you say 4500 years (the approximate time since the Flood) is enough time to get the many modern species? ... Yet you say 4.5 BY is not enough time for evolution to occur."

          The difference is simply the difference between MACRO-evolution (which has never been observed) and MICRO-evolution (which occurs all the time.)

          MACRO-evo cannot happen if given 4,500,000 billion years.  Yet MICRO-evo can happen very rapidly.  Here's two quotes for you, one quite recent (2000) ...

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And we have Ernst Mayr telling us that rate of speciation is inversely correlated with population size ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mayr, Ernst, “Speciation and Macroevolution,” Evolution, vol. 36 (November 1982), pp. 1119-1132.
          p. 1122
          “The fundamental fact on which my theory was based is the empirical fact that when in a superspecies or species group there is a highly divergent population or taxon, it is invariably found in a peripherally isolated location.”
          p. 1122
          “My conclusion was that any drastic reorganization of the gene pool is far more easily accomplished in a small founder population than in any other kind of population.”
          p. 1129
          “More precisely, evidence has been steadily accumulating that, other factors being equal, rate of speciation is inversely correlated with population size. This is why speciation can be so rapid in founder populations, while widespread populous species may be totally inert evolutionarily.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          How rapid is "rapid"?  Looks like 13 generations for this salmon experiment ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon
          Science 20 October 2000
          Andrew P. Hendry,1* John K. Wenburg,2 Paul Bentzen,23 Eric C. Volk,4 Thomas P. Quinn3

          Colonization of new environments should promote rapid speciation as a by-product of adaptation to divergent selective regimes. Although this process of ecological speciation is known to have occurred over millennia or centuries, nothing is known about how quickly reproductive isolation actually evolves when new environments are first colonized. Using DNA microsatellites, population-specific natural tags, and phenotypic variation, we tested for reproductive isolation between two adjacent salmon populations of a common ancestry that colonized divergent reproductive environments (a river and a lake beach). We found evidence for the evolution of reproductive isolation after fewer than 13 generations.

          < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5491/516 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now Talk Origins has an article on speciation which I have not investigated fully which also relates information about rapid speciation.  

          < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html >

          I suppose they posted this thinking it somehow refutes creationism ... boy are they wrong!  A flour beetle is still a flour beetle.  A fruit fly is still a fruit fly.  And salmon are still salmon!  No MACRO-Evo as far as I can tell!

          **************************************************************

          EVOLUTIONIST'S DEFINITION OF QUOTE MINING

          Any quote posted by a creationist. PERIOD.


          WANT PROOF? (many could be cited but who wants to waste the effort? )

          AFDAVE says the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual evolution (IOW ... there are no truly transitional forms in the fossil record)

          Support provided ...

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
          p. 132
          “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, [from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei,] have now been ‘debunked.’” [the part in brackets was not included in my original quote, but has no effect on my point ... no quotemine, Deadman]
          p. 132
          “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
          p. 133
          “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Again, infidels.org makes a false statement regarding this supposed quote mine here ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           
          Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.
          < http://www.infidels.org/library....n2.html >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, he was not.  He was referring to evolution stories which have now been debunked, from from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei.  This is quite clear from the 4 Ager quotes I gave.  Then there is another quote from Ager which confirms it even more.
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          "One thing which has struck me very forcibly through they years is that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days, such as Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the plethora of palaeontological information we now have available, there seems to be very little to put in their place. In twenty years’ work on the Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few if any evolving lineages." (Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 1981, p. 20)  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
          "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I suppose Aftershave and Eric stopped reading after the "however" after the part I quoted, and gleefully assumed I quoted mined.  Better read closer, guys, if you really want the truth!

          PS You do really want the truth, don't you?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 16 2006,09:22

          Dave, how do you know that two individuals come from the same ancestral gene pool?
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 16 2006,09:28

          Look SFBDave - you lied, you quote mined, you got caught.  Deal with it.

          Now, how about you get back to the 'sciency stuff' that you mangle so badly?  Tell a few more juicy porkers, or pull some more 'data' out of your ass.  I could use a few more good laughs.  :D
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 16 2006,09:45

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
          "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I suppose Aftershave and Eric stopped reading after the "however" after the part I quoted, and gleefully assumed I quoted mined.  Better read closer, guys, if you really want the truth!

          PS You do really want the truth, don't you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          What point are you trying to make here, Dave?  

          Are you claiming Dawkins is a creationist?  (If so, I suggest you ask him if it's true.  I'd love to hear his reply.)  

          Do you think that, because he's saying the early Cambrian fossils look "as though they were just planted there", that Dawkins thinks that's what actually happened?  Despite his explanation later in the paragraph?  Are you familiar with the word simile, Dave?

          Or do you think that the obvious meaning of the entire paragraph (there are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution) is support for your "hypothesis"?  Something like this?
          1.  There are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution.
          2.  Therefore, the Earth is 6000 years old.
          I see a wee gap in the argument here, Dave...
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 16 2006,09:50

          afdave wrote:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Hi, Dave. I just went back and checked the post in which you originally used the Dawkins quote. You used that quote out of context to support a claim that was, in fact, opposed by the author in question. It is quite clear from the context of the Dawkins quote that Dawkins does not agree with your original claim, and so using his words to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent Dawkins' views.

          Diogenes did not misunderstand you. He is quite correct: you used a quote mine.

          I am sure that you simply lifted this quote from some other site, probably without realizing that you were misrepresenting Dawkins, but if you are in any way sincere about "wanting the truth", you will apologize to Diogenes-- not to mention apologizing to the rest of us, for using misleading sources.
          Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 16 2006,09:56

          Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 16 2006,15:45)
          I see a wee gap in the argument here, Dave...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And that's really where the whole thing falls apart.  The actual response to any mined quote is just to logically think about it for a moment.  Usually we're dealing with people who have made a career of evolutionary biology (they're the most fun to mine quotes from), and the argument that the quote mine tries to make is "here...these 20 words taken out of context completely invalidate the rest of their produced scientific work."  Anyone who thinks about it realizes that's nothing more than manure.  Half a sentence of Ager or Dawkins don't make them creationists, and quoting more of the piece and saying "nuh-uh" doesn't make AFDave not a quote miner.

          So.  Instead of this quixotic attempt to get us to accept quote mines in the place of evidence, why don't you get back to trying to present real evidence.  Not that that's been any more successful, but it might be viewed with a little less burning scorn from all involved.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,09:57

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          HOW CAN CREATIONISTS SAY THAT 4500 YEARS IS ENOUGH TIME, BUT 4.5 BILLION YEARS ISN'T ??? !!!  WHAT'S GOING ON HERE??

          A fair question to be sure.  And, like most truth searches, there is a cloud of confusion surrounding this issue.  One point of confusion is that Evolutionists do not understand the Creationists position.  So let's clear that up right now.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

           
          Dave, I can't believe you don't get this part: you need macroevolution to get from 35,000 "kinds" to ten million species in 4,500 years.

          There is simply no way around this basic, fundamental fact, Dave, and no amount of hand-waving about insect resistance to pesticides and salmon evolving in a handful of generations will help you.

          How many species of freshwater fish are there today, Dave? Does around < 30,000 species > sound right? Do you think they "micro-evolved" in four millennia from a few "kinds," at a rate of about one new species every three months? How many saltwater species? How many species of ants? How many ant "kinds" were on the ark? There are over 11,000 species of ants in existence today. Do you honestly expect us to believe that a new species of ant has appeared every six months for the last four millennia? There are 350,000 species of beetles, Dave. How many beetle "kinds" were on the ark? How many new beetle species a week should we expect to see, Dave?

          Do you see the kinds of numbers you're up against, Dave? Here's the problem: you've got to get from a very small number of "kinds" to a very large number of species in a very short amount of time. You can't change the number of currently-existing species; it's somewhere between five million and a hundred million. So the only thing you can do is change the number of "kinds" on the ark. But the larger you make that number, the more implausible your whole ark "hypothesis" becomes, and you'll never get near enough to make a difference. You're faced with several dozen new species appearing through all sorts of taxa on a weekly basis. And that doesn't even include the vastly larger number of organisms we know are extinct, as the fossil record makes abundantly clear, and it is further confounded by the fact that currently biodiversity is decreasing, not increasing.

          In other words, Dave, your "microevolution hypothesis" is dead in the water, ruled utterly out of contention by the simple observation that we do not observe now, nor has anyone ever observed in the past, and immense increase in biodiversity during historical times. That's the long and short of it.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Another obvious problem for evolutionists is "How can you say 4500 years (the approximate time since the Flood) is enough time to get the many modern species? ... Yet you say 4.5 BY is not enough time for evolution to occur."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Freudian slip, Dave? This isn't a problem for "evoltionists"; it's a problem for creationists. You're still simultaneously claiming two opposite things, both of which cannot possibly be true:

          • 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time to get from a few thousand species to tens of millions of species;
          • 4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few thousand "kinds" to tens of millions of species.

          Quibbling about "genetically-rich kinds" (for which you don't have the tiniest scrap of evidence) and "microevolution" (as if getting from a handful of beetle species to almost half a million species is "microevolution") gets you exactly nowhere.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The difference is simply the difference between MACRO-evolution (which has never been observed) and MICRO-evolution (which occurs all the time.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, galaxy formation has never been observed either. That doesn't mean galaxies don't form. Your stupid repetition that something that happens over millions of years has never been "observed" doesn't make it any more compelling.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          MACRO-evo cannot happen if given 4,500,000 billion years.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And your evidence for this claim is…?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           Yet MICRO-evo can happen very rapidly.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Microevolution won't get you a new species of beetle every week for 5,000 years.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How rapid is "rapid"?  Looks like 13 generations for this salmon experiment ...  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Not even close to good enough, Dave. As I pointed out < days ago, > your "hypothesis" requires a doubling of biodiversity every few centuries, which has been ruled out by observation. We've seen no such thing over the past 4,500 years, which means your claims of massive increases in biodiversity since the flood have been ruled out. END OF STORY.

          I simple cannot believe you're not smart enough to see that current biodiversity is yet another in a long string of fatal flaws in your "hypothesis," any one of which completely kills it. It's amazing what religion can do to one's faculties.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 16 2006,09:58

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,15:05)
          AFDAVE says the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual evolution (IOW ... there are no truly transitional forms in the fossil record)

          Support provided ...

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
          p. 132
          “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, [from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei,] have now been ‘debunked.’” [the part in brackets was not included in my original quote, but has no effect on my point ... no quotemine, Deadman]
          p. 132
          “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
          p. 133
          “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Are you arguing specifically against gradualism, or the grerater (general) theory of evolution?  You are mistakenly using these terms interchangably even after you have been told several times that they are not.  None of the quotes you have provided support an argument against the greater theory of evolution.  But you knew that already, didn't you?
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 16 2006,10:02

          Ah, crap.  The thread is bugged again.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,10:06

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
          "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I suppose Aftershave and Eric stopped reading after the "however" after the part I quoted, and gleefully assumed I quoted mined.  Better read closer, guys, if you really want the truth!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, given that I typed up the rest of the quote by hand out of the book, how likely does it seem that I didn't read past the "however"?

          I'm really beginning to wonder if you even know what "quote-mining" means, Dave. There is absolutely no question that that's exactly what you did in this particular instance, in that the part that you didn't quote completely undermines that point you were trying to make with the part you did quote.

          This is strongly reminiscent of your "Tyre" argument, Dave, where even after it's shown, in detail, by numerous different individuals, exactly where you went wrong, you still persist in believing you were right, to the point of demanding that others apologize for claiming you were wrong.

          We didn't "assume," you quote-mined, Dave. We have proof-positive, right here on the page in black and white, that you have done so, explained in minute detail that that's exactly what you've done, and yet you still persist in declaiming your innocence.

          That's a little bizarre, to say the least.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 16 2006,10:24

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,16:06)
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
          "Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I suppose Aftershave and Eric stopped reading after the "however" after the part I quoted, and gleefully assumed I quoted mined.  Better read closer, guys, if you really want the truth!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, given that I typed up the rest of the quote by hand out of the book, how likely does it seem that I didn't read past the "however"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The real problem is that Dave didn't read past "very large gap in the fossil record".
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 16 2006,11:10

          AFDave
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  This was such a successful prediction that Gould and Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" to try to explain this glaring absence.   You don't know about Creationist predictions because you don't read Creationist publications by your own admission.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Diogenes  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Dave finally went to "No transitional forms".  Anyone who has spent longer than 12 seconds in the creation/evolution debate understands how idiotic this claim is, so I can only come to one conclusion.  Dave is a loki.  Not just any loki though, Dave is the greatest loki of all time.  Looking at the 250 pages of content, at the all caps, bolded text, at the survey of creationist claims, at the inability to admit incorrectness against a massive body of evidence to the contary, it brings a tear to my eye.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AFDave  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Diogenes ... you must not be aware of the writings of many establishment scientists ... let me fill you in ,

          [ cites Dawkins ]

          Yup, Mr. Dawkins, it has.

          Diogenes ... you were saying ...?


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          AFDave  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          QUOTES SHOWING THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GRADUAL EVOLUTION

          [cites full Dawkins quote]

          Tell me, Aftershave and Diogenes, how adding the rest of the Dawkins paragraph changes anything WRT supporting my bolded assertion above?

          And then if you cannot, why don't you be honest and publicly retract your claim that I quote mined?

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It is a quotemine because Dawkins goes on to explain how fossilization became more readily available once hard bodied organisms came about, and thus is not supporting the idea that this is an example of species suddenly coming into existence out of "nothing".

          Also, your use of the Zuckerkandl quote was a quotemine, you deliberately portrayed his statement as being the mainstream opinion at the time, when in fact it was not.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 16 2006,11:10

          JohnW...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What point are you trying to make here, Dave?  

          Are you claiming Dawkins is a creationist?  (If so, I suggest you ask him if it's true.  I'd love to hear his reply.)  

          Do you think that, because he's saying the early Cambrian fossils look "as though they were just planted there", that Dawkins thinks that's what actually happened?  Despite his explanation later in the paragraph?  Are you familiar with the word simile, Dave?

          Or do you think that the obvious meaning of the entire paragraph (there are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution) is support for your "hypothesis"?  Something like this?
          1.  There are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution.
          2.  Therefore, the Earth is 6000 years old.
          I see a wee gap in the argument here, Dave...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It staggers the imagination that someone could not understand what this quote does ...

          No, I'm not contending Dawkins is a creationist.

          It simply shows that the innumerable transitonal forms hoped for by Darwin ...

          SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE

          ... to the delight of Creationists!

          ****************************************

          What I also have begun to show you is that ...

          SPECIATION CAN OCCUR QUITE RAPIDLY

          Now Eric has gone bongo on his math and assumed that I need to go from 35,000 species to 10,000,000 for my theory to work ...

          I will give Eric a small hint and see if he can do some more reasonable math ...

          Think, Eric ... would kinds representing ALL those 10,000,000 modern species have to be represented on the ark?  Does the word "bacteria" mean anything to you?

          **********************************

          ... and yes, I read Dawkins' speculations as to why the gaps exist ...

          ... which only proves once again that ...

          MACROEVOLUTION IS PURE SPECULATION
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 16 2006,11:20

          Dave, one and only one of the following two statements is true, and can be backed up by your citations:

          a) There are gaps in the fossil record.
          b) There are no transitional fossils.

          Now, can you figure out which of those is true, and which is false?  Take your time.  You can have 3 guesses.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 16 2006,11:22

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
          ... to the delight of Creationists!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh God, Darwinism is DOOMED? :O

          Keep dreaming Davey. Call me when you have your theory peer reviewed and taught in public schools.

          Same old, same old....

          Yawn
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,11:46

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)

          No, I'm not contending Dawkins is a creationist.

          It simply shows that the innumerable transitonal forms hoped for by Darwin ...

          SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE

          ... to the delight of Creationists!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, since you have no idea what a transitional form looks like, or what the definition of a "transitional form" is, you have absolutely no grounds for saying there are none. Further, you've been given countless links to examples of transitional forms, which means there is affirmative evidence that your claims of no transitional forms has been falsified. It's impossible to believe that you don't realize this, so it's really hard to know what to make of your protestations to the contrary.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What I also have begun to show you is that ...

          SPECIATION CAN OCCUR QUITE RAPIDLY

          Now Eric has gone bongo on his math and assumed that I need to go from 35,000 species to 10,000,000 for my theory to work ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It's not an assumption, Dave. There are a minimum of 5 million, and could be as many as 100 million, species in existence today. Unless you're claiming that there were several million "kinds" on Noah's ark, you simply do not have enough time, and cannot accelerate "microevolution" nearly enough, to account for the currently-observed bioldiversity appearing in less than five millennia.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I will give Eric a small hint and see if he can do some more reasonable math ...

          Think, Eric ... would kinds representing ALL those 10,000,000 modern species have to be represented on the ark?  Does the word "bacteria" mean anything to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes, Dave, they would, if your claim that everything currently alive today is descended from a "kind" present on the biblical ark. (If you now claim that's not the case, so much for your other claim of biblical inerrancy.) "Bacteria" don't help you, because it's not a matter of nine million bacterial species and a million species of everything else. Further, you're the one who claims that bacteria cannot evolve into anything other than bacteria, so how do you account for the millions of species that are not bacteria? How do you get from a handful of (or even one) beetle "kind(s)" to 350,000 beetle species in five millennia, Dave? "Microevolution"? There were only 200,000 species of beetles when Christ was alive? There are 2,000 new species of beetle now compared to when you were born? Where did all those species of freshwater fish come from? Noah's aquarium? They sure didn't survive the "flood," unless your "flood"waters were fresh water, in which case you need to account for all the saltwater species currently in existence.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ... and yes, I read Dawkins' speculations as to why the gaps exist ...

          ... which only proves once again that ...

          MACROEVOLUTION IS PURE SPECULATION
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But massive, accelerated speciation on a scale never observed anywhere, at any time, and which is absolutely ruled out on observational grounds right now is somehow not speculation? How about your "genetically rich" kinds you claim were available to Noah? In what way are they not "speculative"? In what way is Noah's ark, for which you don't have the tiniest pinprick of evidence, not "speculative"? How is Noah's flood, for which you don't have the merest atom of evidence, not "speculative"?

          Every single element of your "hypothesis" is entirely speculative, Dave, and is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, the evidence for macroevolution is just as < overwhelming > as it's always been, and until you come up with some sort of criticism of that evidence, you're treading water (and not floodwater). Your claim that there's no evidence for macroevolution merely because no one has actually stood around for a few thousand millennia to witness it is utterly, profoundly stupid in the face of the evidence I've provided to you at least a dozen times just from one article. Actually, even if you could find some way of disposing of entire libraries of evidence in favor of macroevolution, you'd still be treading water, because your own "hypothesis," the one that's supposed to be the topic of this thread but about which you've been silent for almost six months now, would be no closer to being demonstrated than it is now.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 16 2006,11:48

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
          No, I'm not contending Dawkins is a creationist.

          It simply shows that the innumerable transitonal forms hoped for by Darwin ...

          SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE

          ... to the delight of Creationists!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          is that the best "proof" you can come up with? The lack of things?

          "It was the absence of a dead body m'laud that lead us to suspect the accused".

          Very monty python.

          and

          < Did you mean: innumerable transitional forms  ? >

          edit: Yeah, perhaps that's the root of his problems - davey's been spelling the words wrong in the search engine!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 16 2006,11:48

          Yeah, I'd like to hear Dave's definition of "genetically rich", for a couple of individuals.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 16 2006,12:12

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
          JohnW...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What point are you trying to make here, Dave?  

          Are you claiming Dawkins is a creationist?  (If so, I suggest you ask him if it's true.  I'd love to hear his reply.)  

          Do you think that, because he's saying the early Cambrian fossils look "as though they were just planted there", that Dawkins thinks that's what actually happened?  Despite his explanation later in the paragraph?  Are you familiar with the word simile, Dave?

          Or do you think that the obvious meaning of the entire paragraph (there are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution) is support for your "hypothesis"?  Something like this?
          1.  There are gaps in the fossil record, which mean we don't have a detailed understanding of Pre-Cambrian evolution.
          2.  Therefore, the Earth is 6000 years old.
          I see a wee gap in the argument here, Dave...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It staggers the imagination that someone could not understand what this quote does ...

          No, I'm not contending Dawkins is a creationist.

          It simply shows that the innumerable transitonal forms hoped for by Darwin ...

          SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE

          ... to the delight of Creationists!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you're going to have to help me here.  I see nothing in the Dawkins quote to support your assertion that there are no transitional fossils.  You're saying it "staggers the imagination that someone could not understand what this quote does", so what I'm going to ask should be easy for you.  

          Talk me through it, Dave.  Show me where and how Dawkins says this.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 16 2006,12:14

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          How rapid is "rapid"?  Looks like 13 generations for this salmon experiment ...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon
          Science 20 October 2000
          Andrew P. Hendry,1* John K. Wenburg,2 Paul Bentzen,23 Eric C. Volk,4 Thomas P. Quinn3

          Colonization of new environments should promote rapid speciation as a by-product of adaptation to divergent selective regimes. Although this process of ecological speciation is known to have occurred over millennia or centuries, nothing is known about how quickly reproductive isolation actually evolves when new environments are first colonized. Using DNA microsatellites, population-specific natural tags, and phenotypic variation, we tested for reproductive isolation between two adjacent salmon populations of a common ancestry that colonized divergent reproductive environments (a river and a lake beach). We found evidence for the evolution of reproductive isolation after fewer than 13 generations.

          < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5491/516 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Bwahahaha! I'm sure Paul and Tom will be delighted to hear that their excellent study on contemporary evolution is being used by Davey as evidence of speciation after Noah's Flood. There will be much beer expelled through nostrils on their next visit here methinks...

          Nice try, Dave. Now be a good little boy and go compare the microsatellite divergence measured by Hendry et al. in these salmon to detect their rapid reproductive isolation (the beginnings of speciation) against that found across the supposedly unchanging lungfish species, mmmkkay?

          As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about as you grasp at straws. But now you've wandered smack-dab into the middle of my neck of the woods (you really couldn't get any closer to my work than the rapid contemporary evolution of salmon species). God help you, Davey.

          So here we go. First question. How many KINDS of salmon were there on the ark, Dave? (Hint: "none" is really not going to work out well for you. I guarantee it. You might want to head for the hills now when it comes to this topic.)
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 16 2006,12:16

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
          Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I did not suggest you purposefully quote mined (in fact I explictly said otherwise), I only suggested that a rational person looking at your statements would consider what you said to be a quotemine.  I've never said that you are a rational person, Dave.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 16 2006,12:22

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,16:10)
          What I also have begun to show you is that ...

          SPECIATION CAN OCCUR QUITE RAPIDLY

          Now Eric has gone bongo on his math and assumed that I need to go from 35,000 species to 10,000,000 for my theory to work ...

          I will give Eric a small hint and see if he can do some more reasonable math ...

          Think, Eric ... would kinds representing ALL those 10,000,000 modern species have to be represented on the ark?  Does the word "bacteria" mean anything to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          We're making progress, Dave.  So there were more than 35,000 "kinds", but less than 10,000,000.  And it looks like the number of bacteria "kinds" was less than that.  How many "kinds", Dave?  Can we rule out 36,000?  How about 9,000,000?  And how many of these were bacteria?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,12:37

          Also, Dave, keep in mind that "species" is a slippery concept when applied to bacteria. What can you say about "reproductive isolation" in the context of bacteria?

          And in case you think bacteria are helping your "hypothesis" more than they're hurting it, you might want to know that there may be as many as a thousand million species of bacteria (whatever a "species" of bacterium turns out to be). Which would go on top of the five to one hundred million species of eukaryotes.

          So how many bacterial "kinds" do you think Noah collected with his beaker? Or did he use tweezers?
          Posted by: Bing on Oct. 16 2006,12:57

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,17:37)
          So how many bacterial "kinds" do you think Noah collected with his beaker? Or did he use tweezers?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          He didn't have to, Noah and his sons were shoveling mountains of E. coli over the side.  Therefore E. coli must be one of the original "created kinds" taken on the Ark as passengers of the passengers.
          Posted by: skeptic on Oct. 16 2006,13:57

          careful what you ask for Jean, the current goal is to have it taught in public schools without ever being peer-reviewed, and on that point how could you peer-review God?  Thoughts to ponder...
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 16 2006,14:24

          Diogenes...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The reason I called quote mine on the dawkins quote (even before reading the paragraph it was taken from) is because it fits a form that is often used when quote mining.  Look at your lead in sentence.  The basic premise is that there are leading scientists that disagree with my position (evolution) and therefore agree with your position (creationism).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Again, you simply made an error, Diogenes.  Same error that JohnW made. My basic premise is NOT what you say.  I in no way think that Dawkins agrees with my position nor have I ever thought this.  It would take a bigger miracle than Creation itself for Dawkins to become a Creationist.  I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could possibly assume I thought this.

          I see we need to do some basic review tomorrow ...

          * Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...
          * Jeannot doesn't understand what "genetically rich" means ...
          * Eric thinks there are 100 million species today ...

          Just 13 generations to produce reproductive isolation in salmon!  I love it!

          Quiz question:  How long is a generation for salmon?
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 16 2006,14:40

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,19:24)
          Diogenes...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The reason I called quote mine on the dawkins quote (even before reading the paragraph it was taken from) is because it fits a form that is often used when quote mining.  Look at your lead in sentence.  The basic premise is that there are leading scientists that disagree with my position (evolution) and therefore agree with your position (creationism).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Again, you simply made an error, Diogenes.  Same error that JohnW made. My basic premise is NOT what you say.  I in no way think that Dawkins agrees with my position nor have I ever thought this.  It would take a bigger miracle than Creation itself for Dawkins to become a Creationist.  I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could possibly assume I thought this.

          I see we need to do some basic review tomorrow ...

          * Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...
          * Jeannot doesn't understand what "genetically rich" means ...
          * Eric thinks there are 100 million species today ...

          Just 13 generations to produce reproductive isolation in salmon!  I love it!

          Quiz question:  How long is a generation for salmon?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, thank you for using an unlabeled snipped version of my comment as proof you don't quote mine.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 16 2006,14:46

          How about I quote the whole thread every time I quote anybody ... just to make sure that eveyone's "quote mine sensitivities" are preserved undamaged?

          Steve Story, do you have the bandwidth for that?
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 16 2006,14:49

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,20:46)
          How about I quote the whole thread every time I quote anybody ... just to make sure that eveyone's "quote mine sensitivities" are preserved undamaged?

          Steve Story, do you have the bandwidth for that?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It's Wes's bandwidth. But quoting their whole paragraph should usually be sufficient.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,14:55

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,19:24)
          Again, you simply made an error, Diogenes.  Same error that JohnW made. My basic premise is NOT what you say.  I in no way think that Dawkins agrees with my position nor have I ever thought this.  It would take a bigger miracle than Creation itself for Dawkins to become a Creationist.  I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could possibly assume I thought this.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, that's not the point. No one cares whether you think Dawkins agrees with you, and that has nothing to do with the accusations of quote-mining. The reason the accusations stick is because you pulled a quote out of Dawkins' book that, taken out of context, appears to support your claim that there are no transitional fossils.

          The full quote, with its accompanying context, completely demolishes your claim. This is why Diogenes accused you of quote-mining, and why everyone else who has read what you initially quoted agrees. It's got nothing to do with whether you think Dawkins is a creationist.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And you think Noah didn't take fish on the ark, Dave? Either your "flood"waters were seawater, in which case all freshwater fish were annihilated, or your "flood"waters were freshwater, in which case all saltwater fish were annihilated. Either way, Noah had to have had fish on the ark. Which ones, how many, and how do you get from a handful of fish to tens of thousands of fish species in five millennia? How many fish species fewer were there forty years ago?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Jeannot doesn't understand what "genetically rich" means ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You don't understand what "genetically rich" means. The term as you appear to be using it not only doesn't have any meaning; it's an impossibility. How many alleles can a particular organism have for a particular gene, Dave? And what evidence do you have that organisms five thousand years ago were any more "genetically rich" than they are today? The same amount of evidence you have for any other half-assed claim you've ever made?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Eric thinks there are 100 million species today ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Maybe. Could be five million. Could be ten million. Could be fifty million. Doesn't matter. The largest figure for "kinds" you can fit on an ark won't get you to the smallest number of species there can possibly be today in less than 5,000 years, Dave. How do you get from a handful of beetles to 350,000 species of beetles in less than 5,000 years?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Quiz question:  How long is a generation for salmon?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Look it up, genius. And in the meantime, let me know how you think you managed 30,000 species of freshwater fish in 5,000 years. How many species of freshwater fish were there 50 years ago? A hundred years ago? Five hundred years ago? A thousand years ago?

          Face it, Dave: you're looking at massively-accelerated macroevolution far beyond anything claimed by evolutionary biologists, in a tiny fraction of the time (may as well be a few weeks as a few thousand years for all the good it will do you), no matter how much handwaving you do about salmon.

          BTW, 13 generations of salmon is a minimum of 20 years. One new species in 20 years ain't gonna get you 30,000 species of fish in 5,000 years now, is it, Dave?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2006,15:15

          I won't even bother responding to the latest assertions.

          The bottom line is that he's still placing a global flood at 2500 BCE...when Egyptians didn't die out, seen in their own WRITTEN records, which are already conceded to be valid.

          The corollary to this is that IF he wishes to change this date, he has to justify it using what is IN the bible, which he claims is infallible in regard to history and archaeology. If he pushes it back, he has to add multiple generations not IN the bible. This means it is flawed in regard to history and archaeology.

          This is a "double-bind"

          End of story.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 16 2006,15:18

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 16 2006,20:15)
          I won't even bother responding to the latest assertions.

          The bottom line is that he's still placing a global flood at 2500 BCE...when Egyptians didn't die out, seen in their own WRITTEN records, which are already conceded to be valid.

          End of story.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Isn't it obvious, the Egyptians quotemined their own history to mislead us.

          Jeez, get with the program!
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,15:26

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 16 2006,20:15)
          I won't even bother responding to the latest assertions.

          The bottom line is that he's still placing a global flood at 2500 BCE...when Egyptians didn't die out, seen in their own WRITTEN records, which are already conceded to be valid.

          The corollary to this is that IF he wishes to change this date, he has to justify it using what is IN the bible, which he claims is infallible in regard to history and archaeology. If he pushes it back, he has to add multiple generations not IN the bible. This means it is flawed in regard to history and archaeology.

          This is a "double-bind"

          End of story.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave's "hypothesis" has so many holes it's basically one big hole.

          It's been pointed out to Dave that his "hypothesis" regarding a 6,000 year-old-earth is ruled out based on simple observations about the world from every conceivable angle. It's even ruled out by reference to his own supposedly-but-not-actually-even-by-his-own-lights "inerrant" Bible. That he still thinks it's a viable "hypothesis" is the clearest example I can think of of the triumph of hope over experience.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 16 2006,15:39

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,20:55)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          * Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And you think Noah didn't take fish on the ark, Dave? Either your "flood"waters were seawater, in which case all freshwater fish were annihilated, or your "flood"waters were freshwater, in which case all saltwater fish were annihilated. Either way, Noah had to have had fish on the ark. Which ones, how many, and how do you get from a handful of fish to tens of thousands of fish species in five millennia? How many fish species fewer were there forty years ago?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Um, weren't the seas boiling from all of the energy expended when the continents zipped apart?  Any fish not on the ark would have been cooked, at the very least.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 16 2006,16:04

          Drew...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It is a quotemine because Dawkins goes on to explain how fossilization became more readily available once hard bodied organisms came about,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You mean ... Dawkins SPECULATES (Synonym for hopes, wishes, dreams, imagines) how fossilization became more readily available once hard bodied organisms came about  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          and thus is not supporting the idea that this is an example of species suddenly coming into existence out of "nothing".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Of course I understand that it was not his intent to support my position ... he did it inadvertently.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also, your use of the Zuckerkandl quote was a quotemine, you deliberately portrayed his statement as being the mainstream opinion at the time, when in fact it was not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't think you know what the mainstream opinion was at the time.  I just subscribed to Science ... should be active sometime this week ... I will be doing some searches to see what the truth is about this.  Also, I recently met someone who maintains contact with Michael Denton.  I hope to ask him how he got his impression that Zuckerkandl's statement was mainstream, among other things.

          I guess I don't have to tell you how influential Michael Denton has been in debunking Darwinism.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,16:17

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,21:04)
          Drew...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It is a quotemine because Dawkins goes on to explain how fossilization became more readily available once hard bodied organisms came about,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You mean ... Dawkins SPECULATES (Synonym for hopes, wishes, dreams, imagines) how fossilization became more readily available once hard bodied organisms came about      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          and thus is not supporting the idea that this is an example of species suddenly coming into existence out of "nothing".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Of course I understand that it was not his intent to support my position ... he did it inadvertently.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, is it "speculation" to state that organisms without hard shells don't fossilize as well as organisms that do? You've got a curiously double standard for what you consider to be "speculation" when others make a claim, as opposed to when you make astronomically more ridiculous claims.

          He didn't support your position "inadvertently," Dave. He didn't support it at all. There's nothing in Dawkins' paragraph (or, indeed, the entire book) which supports your wrong claim that there are no "transitional" fossils.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also, your use of the Zuckerkandl quote was a quotemine, you deliberately portrayed his statement as being the mainstream opinion at the time, when in fact it was not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't think you know what the mainstream opinion was at the time.  I just subscribed to Science ... should be active sometime this week ... I will be doing some searches to see what the truth is about this.  Also, I recently met someone who maintains contact with Michael Denton.  I hope to ask him how he got his impression that Zuckerkandl's statement was mainstream, among other things.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Why the wild goose chase, Dave? Even if Zuckerkandl's 1965 statement were the consensus opinion at the time, how would that help your argument now? It's certainly not the consensus opinion now, which is all that matters. Prior to Kepler, it was believed that planetary orbits were circular. Does pointing that out help a geocentrist's argument today?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I guess I don't have to tell you how influential Michael Denton has been in debunking Darwinism.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Not at all. Your point?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,16:21

          Quote (improvius @ Oct. 16 2006,20:39)
          Um, weren't the seas boiling from all of the energy expended when the continents zipped apart?  Any fish not on the ark would have been cooked, at the very least.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Any fish on the ark would have been cooked, too, along with the rest of Noah's floating menagerie.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 16 2006,16:24

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,21:04)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also, your use of the Zuckerkandl quote was a quotemine, you deliberately portrayed his statement as being the mainstream opinion at the time, when in fact it was not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't think you know what the mainstream opinion was at the time.  I just subscribed to Science ... should be active sometime this week ... I will be doing some searches to see what the truth is about this.  Also, I recently met someone who maintains contact with Michael Denton.  I hope to ask him how he got his impression that Zuckerkandl's statement was mainstream, among other things.

          I guess I don't have to tell you how influential Michael Denton has been in debunking Darwinism.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Frankly, I had never heard of Michael Denton until you brought up his book. But, I am getting my Ph.D. in neuroscience so my field of expertise is not one that Denton involves himself with.

          As for whether Zuckerkandl's statement was the mainstream position, all I needed to do was actually read what he wrote. He not only said in the Scientific American article that his opinion was contraversial but also in reflection that it was his opinion and he only held it for a year. This indicates that his position was not the mainstream. But please, contact Denton and find out what his interpretation is. I would really like to know.

          Finally, I am happy you are subscribing to Science.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 16 2006,16:28

          Sorry, double-post.
          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 16 2006,17:25



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You're lying again, Dave. Lying in a big, big, way. You lost that debate utterly.

          Don't you ever feel bad about being such a brazenly dishonest person? Don't you ever think it just maybe makes a mockery of your supposedly superior morality? Or do you have some idea that as a Christian, Jesus wants you to lie?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 16 2006,17:44



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I guess I don't have to tell you how influential Michael Denton has been in debunking Darwinism.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Given that Denton accepts evolution and speciation, as was posted in this thread...yeah, right. From Denton's "Nature's Destiny:"    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          " Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Another quote from Denton, refuting your view:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century , have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level." p.276
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Denton accepts natural selection and Mayr's "evolution as such". He accepts that speciation has been clearly observed in various ways and that the fossil record is inconsistent with a creationist view.

          And as a final nail in the coffin, in case you want to argue that Denton was dismissing gradualism and supporting saltationist views:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "Surely, such
          transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or probably thousands of transitional species. P.193-4.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 16 2006,18:05

          Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 16 2006,22:25)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You're lying again, Dave. Lying in a big, big, way. You lost that debate utterly.

          Don't you ever feel bad about being such a brazenly dishonest person? Don't you ever think it just maybe makes a mockery of your supposedly superior morality? Or do you have some idea that as a Christian, Jesus wants you to lie?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Jesus, Dave, what kind of an idiot are you? You LOST the Portuguese "debate," everyone knows you lost it, and continuing against all the evidence to claim you "won" it just makes you look like the densest moron ever to learn how to type.
          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 16 2006,19:03



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Okay Dave, I think maybe you need help. What I think is going on here is that you have an overinflated ego and a horror of admitting that you've ever been wrong about anything. But let me tell you, it's not so bad. If I had made a statement like you made and people more knowledgeable than myself had shown me I was wrong, I would say something like:

          "Oh, okay, I guess you're right. I thought Portuguese looked like a cross between French and Spanish, but I guess that was just my impression. I see that's not really going on. Learn something new every day. Interesting!"

          Now, Dave, if you had said THIS last spring, instead of ignoring people's counterarguments, making new erroneous statements, and repeatedly declaring 'victory', the whole subject would have been forgotten long ago, and people would have a much higher opinion of you. Seriously. I don't know what kind of circles you travel in, but in civilized society making a mistake, refusing to admit the mistake, and declaring victory makes you look much more stupid than the original mistake would have. Additionally, this attitude of yours casts your religious beliefs in a very unimpressive light, in that it unfairly makes Christians look stupid.

          I hate to say it, but you should have learned all this many years ago, Dave. But it's not too late.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 16 2006,21:36

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,19:24)
          * Jeannot doesn't understand what "genetically rich" means
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Indeed I don't. Maybe it's because it doesn't make any sense.
          Would you care to explain the concept of "genetic richness" in a single individual, with details, please?

          ???
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 17 2006,00:05

          AFDave, you're a busy man. I appreciate that.
          Working down in the quote-mines all day, looking for those 'special' 40+ year old articles to prop up your bizzare YEC beliefs.
          Just in case you missed my previous posts, I thought I'd repost this for you.... :)

          "So, AFDave...about this 'supposed' e-mail you sent to those fine, upstanding Christians down at AIG?
          When did you send it, pray tell?
          And did they remove the article?
          Yes or No?"
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,02:05

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,19:24)
          * Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          What I said:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So here we go. First question. How many KINDS of salmon were there on the ark, Dave? (Hint: "none" is really not going to work out well for you. I guarantee it. You might want to head for the hills now when it comes to this topic.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Looks like Dave didn't take the hint.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Quiz question:  How long is a generation for salmon?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          What type of salmon, Dave? The answer to your question will depend on species (and genus), life history, geography, and evolutionary history. However, a salmon generation is generally 2-6 years, but there are exceptions.

          Your turn:

          1. How many species of salmon are there?

          2. How many genera of salmon are there?

          3. What is the difference between a salmon and a trout?

          4. How many species of salmonids (combined) are there?

          5. Which ones survived the flood? How?

          6. Is there anything unique about salmon life history that might make it particularly easy for them to become reproductively isolated? Would this make different populations detectably different?

          7. What taxonomy did Hendry et al. come up with for their new "species"? What species was it at the beginning of the study? What species was it at the end?

          6. Exactly how do you think salmon genetics helps your case for 6,000 year-old creation?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,02:39

          Dave, before we go much further, [Edit: Link and a little too much identifying personal information for my own comfort now removed.]
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,03:56

          Hah. One of the most pleasant digs I'd ever been on was "doubling up" with some fish biologists studying arctic grayling and char (a salmonid, Dave, JFYI) in Alaska. On rainy days when the archaeology was slow, it was fun to set nets and catalogue populations -- reminded me of the leisurely earthiness of geology fieldwork. Plus the char wuz some good eats and feisty, too. Sorry, Ichthyic.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,06:04

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2006,08:56)
          Hah. One of the most pleasant digs I'd ever been on was "doubling up" with some fish biologists studying arctic grayling and char (a salmonid, Dave, JFYI) in Alaska. On rainy days when the archaeology was slow, it was fun to set nets and catalogue populations -- reminded me of the leisurely earthiness of geology fieldwork. Plus the char wuz some good eats and feisty, too. Sorry, Ichthyic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ayuh, that's the idyllic end of the spectrum when it comes to field research in fish biology. My vote for the other end would be a very attractive female grad student I knew who served as the NMFS inspector on an Alaskan fishing vessel. For three months at sea, it was nothing but her and a hundred rough-and-tumble mates. Hers is the prettiest face I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 17 2006,06:16

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 17 2006,08:05)

          6. Is there anything unique about salmon life history that might make it particularly easy for them to become reproductively isolated? Would this make different populations detectably different?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In the 1980's my father took myself and my brother on a canoe trip of the < Bowron Lakes > circuit in central B.C.  Geologically parts of the Bowron Lakes were actually the main river channel of what is today the Fraser River.  However, many millions of years ago the river channel changed (and changed course from west-to-east into an east-to-west direction) and stranded some of the Bowron Lakes (and attached lakes draining to them) from fish access to the sea.

          We fished some of these lakes and caught fresh-water salmon, still a pinkish-red meat and the shape of Chinnook (I think, could be wrong, Coho maybe?).  The salmon fry had been stranded in the lakes and for millions of years couldn't migrate to the ocean so they adapted to the fresh water lakes they could access.

          So now to AFDave,
          I guess his explanation would be that the "salmon" were stranded in the Bowron Lakes because as the water receded they found themselves in these lakes.  HOWEVER, we don't find fresh-water salmon in other lakes in the area, only certain lakes.
          What's the UCGH say about this phenomena?

          Mike PSS

          p.s. DAVE, STILL WAITING ON YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT ISOCHRONS.  I'VE REBUTTED EVERYTHING YOU'VE POSTED SO YOU HAVE TO COMMENT ON MY REBUTTAL OR GIVE UP YOUR MIXING POSITION.  RESTATING YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN'T A REBUTTAL.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,07:27



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          HOWEVER, we don't find fresh-water salmon in other lakes in the area, only certain lakes.
          What's the UCGH say about this phenomena?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Allow me, AirHe...er, Dave.
          Millions of dead things
          Buried in layers
          Deposited by water
          All over the Earth

          And
          THE DARWINIAN SHIP IS SINKING
          Explain this quote from the 1947 Li'l Thumper Baptist Encyclopedia by the famous Albanian biologist, Braun Noser :


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          My whole life has been wasted studying science, when all the answers about Tyre and  super-dooper speciation can be found in the BIBLE
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Thus I refute thee!!

          **Note:  This has only been a test. Had this been an actual Dave post, the answers would have been even more inane. We now return you to your regular viewing.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,07:46

          Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 17 2006,11:16)
          In the 1980's my father took myself and my brother on a canoe trip of the < Bowron Lakes > circuit in central B.C.  Geologically parts of the Bowron Lakes were actually the main river channel of what is today the Fraser River.  However, many millions of years ago the river channel changed (and changed course from west-to-east into an east-to-west direction) and stranded some of the Bowron Lakes (and attached lakes draining to them) from fish access to the sea.

          We fished some of these lakes and caught fresh-water salmon, still a pinkish-red meat and the shape of Chinnook (I think, could be wrong, Coho maybe?).  The salmon fry had been stranded in the lakes and for millions of years couldn't migrate to the ocean so they adapted to the fresh water lakes they could access.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Kokanee (landlocked Sockeye), I would wager.

          And the landlocked populations of salmon species (examples from pretty much all the Pacific species, and in Quebec we have the Atlantic "ouaniche") are the last of Dave's worries. (They're still salmon!;) Salmon populations are pretty much reproductively isolated by their very nature. Straying rates are typically less than 1%. Furthermore, genetics can identify the reproductive isolation of stocks with different run times in the same bloody river (e.g., spring/summer/fall/winter run Chinook). Similarly, there's a great deal of reproductive isolation across year classes. That's what high stream fidelity, high run-time fidelity, and conserved generations will give you.

          Which of course raises some serious questions for Dave, the simplest of which is, "So bloody what?!" If there's evidence of a 6,000-year-old creation in salmon evolution, I'd imagine I would have seen it by now. Oh, that's right -- I'm in comfortable oblivion when it comes to salmon/God/Hitler.

          I'd also really like to understand what Dave thinks a "salmon" actually is. Here are the current Salmonidae, Dave. Which is/are the kind(s)? Where do we find the reproductively isolated and rapidly evolved populations (like those in the paper you cite) in this figure? How many of those are there, anyway? (Hint: more than a few, more than a few hundred, more than a few thousand -- and NONE of them are "species".)



          Did Salmo "microevolve" into Oncorhynchus in the past 6,000 years (keeping in mind that it couldn't possibly have done so in the past 15-20 million years ago as we "evolutionists" think)? And what of Eosalmo, a 50 myo fossil? Where does it fit in? Here's a slide from a talk I prepared a few years ago, directly comparing the salmon phylogeny against that of primates for scale.

          [Edit: Image removed]

          Dave, you claimed the left side happened easily in 6,000 years, while even the top 10% of the right side could not have happened in millions. What gives?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,07:54



          HOW MANY "KINDS" WERE ON THE ARK?

          (It seems that Eric is about to blow a gasket crunching numbers of species, so I feel the need to prevent that from happening.)

          If we just grab an easily accesible list (from Wikipedia) we have ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          As a soft guide, however, the numbers of currently identified species can be broken down as follows[3]:

          287,655 plants, including:
           15,000 mosses,
           13,025 ferns,
           980 gymnosperms,
           199,350 dicotyledons,
           59,300 monocotyledons;
          74,000-120,000 fungi[1];
          10,000 lichens;
          1,250,000 animals, including:
           1,190,200 invertebrates:
             950,000 insects,
             70,000 molluscs,
             40,000 crustaceans,
             130,200 others;
           58,808 vertebrates:
             29,300 fish,
             5,743 amphibians,
             8,240 reptiles,
             9,934 birds,
             5,416 mammals.

          However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

          5-10 million bacteria[2];
          1.5 million fungi[1];
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Woodmorappe has written a book studying this question called Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study and the high points of this study (1996) and the previous study in The Genesis Flood (1961) are found here ...
          < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp >

          Mark Isaak has written a rebuttal of Woodmorappe and Morris on Talk Origins, but the rebuttal does not accomplish his purpose of showing the impossibility of the Noah's Ark account. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html >

          Glenn Morton has also written a rebuttal here. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html >

          I have not read Woodmorappe's book or Glenn Morton's rebuttal yet, but I ordered the Woodmorappe book today, and I plan on reading Morton's rebuttal as well.  I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to do likewise.

          The only thing I really know at the moment about this topic is ...

          1) Most of the species listed above would not have to be represented on the ark ... Morris & Whitcomb stated only reptiles, birds and mammals needed representation.  If this is true, then the number of modern species represented would be 8240 + 9934 + 5416 =~ 23,000.  Morton and Isaak say that terrestrial invertebrates like snails would have also needed to be included, but offer no proof, so this is debatable.

          2) As I am beginning to see from my own research, rapid speciation is inversely correlated with population size and that newly isolated founder populations can speciate quite rapidly.  I have referred to one such study on salmon which diversified into two reproductively isolated species in just 13 generations.  There are more examples at Talk Origins and probably elsewhere.  The conditions after the Flood would have created excellent circumstances for geographic isolation of founder populations ... i.e. land bridges between newly separated continents, followed by cutting off of populations by rising sea levels following the Ice Age.

          3) There is some evidence that Noah's cubit could have been much longer than the commonly accepted value of about 18 inches.  The Royal Astronomer for Scotland, who reportedly, with John Herschel, kept Britain off the metric system for many years, writes that Sir Isaac Newton did a rigorous study called Dissertation on Cubits and concluded there was an ancient sacred cubit preserved by the Jews of around 25" (in addition to the 20.68" cubit which is well known).  Contrast this with 18" cubit assumed by most modern Bible scholars who describe the ark.  If this is true, then we have significantly more space in the ark than Woodmorappe proposes.  I have not been able to obtain the Newton paper, but Wikipedia reports various lengths of the cubit through history, some as high as 27 inches. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit >

          Let us take some wild guesses and do some math ... after all, this is what scientists do ... they observe evidence, make some wild initial guesses, then test these guesses, then make a formal theory if the intial wild guesses hold up to scrutiny.

          IF we take an average generation time of 5 years for animals on the ark, and IF we assume an average of 20 generations to produce a new species, and IF we have 50,000 modern species representing the original kinds on the ark (being generous to Morton and Isaak), where does this leave us if we have 4500 years since the Flood?

          Well, let's take Woodmorappe's guess of 16,000 animals on the ark. This probably represents about 7,000? kinds.  Now using "hand grenade math" with the assumptions above, these could theoretically diversify into 14,000 in 5 years, 28,000 in 10 years and 56,000 in 15 years.  Now of course this calculation would only apply if ALL the kinds split into two distinct species every 5 years, and these new species in turn split into two new species, etc.  Obviously this would not happen, but it gives you a feeling for the ease of getting from 7000 distinct kinds to 50,000 distinct species in 4500 years.  Adjust your average generation time to 10 years if you like.  Assume that only 50% of the original kinds speciate into new species if you like.  Assume that many species "terminate" after a certain point and don't speciate any more.  As you can see there is ample room for vast adjustment of the numbers and still have no problem coming up with 50,000 modern species developing in 4500 years from 7000 original kinds on the ark.

          ****************************************

          QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
          Jeannot wants to know what "genetically rich" means.

          ANSWER: Imagine a subset of a population being removed from the parent population and isolated from that parent population.  What will happen?  My understanding is that the smaller group will be more specialized than the parent population because it will not have access to some of the genetic information contained in the original group.  Consider dogs.  All the modern dogs have been domesticated from wild dogs, right?  Now breeders have created many specialized varieties by selecting dogs with desired traits and isolating and breeding them.  Do you think that we could get a Great Dane from a pair of Chihuahuas?  No.  Why?  The chihuahuas don't have the genetic information required to create a Great Dane.  Was there an ancestral pair of dogs (a mutt) that possessed the genetic info for both Great Danes AND Chihuahuas?  Undoubtedly there was.  And this mutt pair would have been more "genetically rich" than either the Great Danes or the Chihuahuas.  This is what I mean by "genetically rich."


          Here's an interesting quote that sheds some light on the salt water issue.  Some have asked how sea creatures could survive going from fresh water to salt water.  I don't know, but here's some info on salmon that could shed some light on this ... Salmon apparently have a system for changing their body chemistry to allow them live in fresh water during their youth and breeding times, and salt water during most of their adulthood ...


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The smolt body chemistry changes, allowing them to live in salt water.
          < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          ********************************************

          PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

          (Posted originally in response to Rilke's Granddaughter who attacked me for making a casual reference to Portuguese being a mixture of Spanish and French)

          (Posted again now because Arden Chatfield apparently is still miffed that his arguments were not as good as mine in spite of the fact that he is a linguist. He lost the debate back then and it was actually one of the few debates at ATBC that I have actually had some agreement from other ATBC members. Also note that Arden claims that people would have respected me if I had simply admitted defeat on this topic.  This is ludicrous and is plainly false simply by examining the threads PRIOR TO the Portuguese debate.  This debate itself was precipitated by a blatant ad hominem by Rilke.  It is quite clear why I am not respected by some people here at ATBC ... I am a creationist.  PERIOD.  End of story.  Need more proof?  Look at the thread started by 'skeptic' called 'Reinventing Evolutionary Theory.'  He simply SMELLED like a creationist and he was immediately and continuously ridiculed.)

          Arden, my advice to you is to read your own post and follow the advice written there ... admit that YOU were the one who was wrong ... not me.  The truth is that I have quite prominently admitted that I have been wrong about certain details when the evidence is clear ... Chimp chromosomes, a study in the UK, maybe a couple other things.  You, on the other hand, have not admitted you have been wrong about anything that I can remember.

          REHASHING THE EVIDENCE
          My original quote from Wikipedia ... (sometime in May or June?)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          April 28, 2006 Version of the "Portuguese" article from Wikipedia ...
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          On the other hand, Portuguese is phonetically closer to French and Catalan than to Spanish in some respects; such as the occurrence of nasalization, palatalization, diphthongization of low-mid stressed vowels, aspiration of /f/, and devoicing of sibilants — all features that are not shared by Spanish. The same can be said of the basic vocabularies: compare e.g. Portuguese bom ("good") with French or Catalan bon and Spanish bueno; or Portuguese filha with French fille, Catalan filla, and Spanish hija.
          < http://en.wikipedia.org/w....0655924 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Many of you probably know that Wikipedia changes all the time.  One can only guess why these paragraphs are no longer in the current version.  Actually, I guess you could research the question if you really wanted to spend the time.

          and...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I believe the 2006 version says the same thing.

          And the local linguist, Arden Chatfield, said that my claim may be true if you can show significant French influence on Portugal (which I did ... keep reading ... it happened in the 12th century).

          If you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian (French) influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  
          (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)

          Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.

          Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
          Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  Remember?  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.

          (Side Note: This was the first major instance of a non-sensical "quote mine" charge, of which now there have been many more, equally non-sensical.  Faid said I quote mined by quoting EB as saying "Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon."  Many hopeful "Creo-snipers" jumped on the bandwagon with Faid.  This is an obviously absurd charge as anyone can see from the full quote above.)

          Hmmm ... let's think now ... Spanish and Portuguese are the same language until 1143 ... then a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese. (And some other factors, admittedly)

          FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
          Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

          Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
          Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
          French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

          < http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm >

          Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person.  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

          And if you think and are honest, instead of just shooting your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

          phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan was the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)

          OK, Arden.  Now you have a choice.  You can admit that you were wrong ... OR ...

          You can do some more weaseling ...  (AGAIN)

          *********************************

          Mike PSS--  Kindly repost your latest argument and my latest rebuttal so I will know where we are ... it's been a long time ago.

          **********************************

          Deadman-- Your quotes of Michael Denton in Nature's Destiny do nothing to change his expose in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  I have already said that he is still an evolutionist in spite of the evidence that he himself has given.  He has not repudiated the evidence.  He merely has no other option but to believe in ToE.  Why?  Because he refuses to accept the truth -- Creationism and the Biblical account.  As I have said many times, scientists really have no other options but ToE or Creationism.  And if they refuse Creationism, then they are left with ToE in spite of the illogical nature of the theory and the required closing of the eyes to the evidence.

          So in short, Denton closes his eyes to the hideous spectacle, holds his nose to avoid the stench, and declares "I believe in Evolution!"

          Amazing!!
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 17 2006,08:11

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
          FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
          Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

          Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
          Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
          French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

          < http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Your childhood misconceptions remain unimpressive.

          (From wikipedia)
          Ela fecha sempre a janela antes de jantar. (Portuguese)
          Ela fecha sempre a fiestra antes de cear. (Galician)
          Ella cierra siempre la ventana antes de cenar. (Spanish)
          Ella tanca sempre la finestra abans de sopar. (Catalan)
          Lei chiude sempre la finestra prima di cenare. (Italian)
          Ea închide întodeauna fereastra înainte de a cina. (Romanian)
          Elle ferme toujours la fenêtre avant de dîner. (French)
          She always shuts the window before dining.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,08:14



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          2) As I am beginning to see from my own research, rapid speciation is inversely correlated with population size and that newly isolated founder populations can speciate quite rapidly.  I have referred to one such study on salmon which diversified into two reproductively isolated species in just 13 generations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Er, Dave...did you READ the paper you cited? Because I assure you, the new "species" you are talking about are both, in fact, sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Just a heads up, big guy, but "evidence of reproductive isolation" and "diversified into two reproductively isolated species" are NOT the same thing. If detectable reproductive isolation using fine-scale genetic markers is our benchmark for establishing "species", your ark just got at lot more populous than the picture (in which I count at most a few dozen species, I note).

          Furthermore, I notice your calculations have ignored: (1) species we have not described yet (as Eric told you, the estimate is 5-100 million EUKARYOTES); (2) species that have gone extinct since Da Flud. Those are two BIG oversights, Davey.

          Oh, and thanks for this:

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Morton and Isaak say that terrestrial invertebrates like snails would have also needed to be included, but offer no proof, so this is debatable.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Best laugh I've had all day.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Well, let's take Woodmorappe's guess of 16,000 animals on the ark. This probably represents about 7,000? kinds.  Now using "hand grenade math" with the assumptions above, these could theoretically diversify into 14,000 in 5 years, 28,000 in 10 years and 56,000 in 15 years.  Now of course this calculation would only apply if ALL the kinds split into two distinct species every 5 years, and these new species in turn split into two new species, etc.  Obviously this would not happen, but it gives you a feeling for the ease of getting from 7000 distinct kinds to 50,000 distinct species in 4500 years.  Adjust your average generation time to 10 years if you like.  Assume that only 50% of the original kinds speciate into new species if you like.  Assume that many species "terminate" after a certain point and don't speciate any more.  As you can see there is ample room for vast adjustment of the numbers and still have no problem coming up with 50,000 modern species developing in 4500 years from 7000 original kinds on the ark.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Given your oversights in the number of species needed, not to mention how utterly biologically impossible your scenario actually is (detectable reproductive isolation of some salmon populations = new species every 20 generations?! you're kidding, right?) and that's just for starters...you've left a lot of species that wouldn't survive a flood off the ark, and even of the ones Noah "saved", all the new species we see today would also have to be "microevolved" from their own kind, with no new "information" added), I'd say your hand grenade math just blew up in your own foxhole, Davey.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Here's an interesting quote that sheds some light on the salt water issue.  Some have asked how sea creatures could survive going from fresh water to salt water.  I don't know, but here's some info on salmon that could shed some light on this ... Salmon apparently have a system for changing their body chemistry to allow them live in fresh water during their youth and breeding times, and salt water during most of their adulthood ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Oh please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, can we talk about how salmon physiology and anadromy makes them equipped to deal with a global flood? That would be so much fun! After all, your contention that fish didn't need to be on the ark depends upon them being just fine in the raging waters, and as you've noted, anadromous species like salmon would probably be the most likely candidates to survive the cataclysm (compared to something like a pupfish, for example). Please do enlighten us on the physiological tolerances (salinity, oxygen, temperature, etc.) of salmon, Davey! I'm all ears!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,08:18



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mark Isaak has written a rebuttal of Woodmorappe and Morris on Talk Origins, but the rebuttal does not accomplish his purpose of showing the impossibility of the Noah's Ark account.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Maybe not in your mind, but the fact that the Egyptians lived through your flood date proves it wrong. So..either the bible is flawed in its allowed time frame or the date you adhere to is wrong. Which is it?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The conditions after the Flood would have created excellent circumstances for geographic isolation of founder populations ... i.e. land bridges between newly separated continents, followed by cutting off of populations by rising sea levels following the Ice Age
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Except that the energy derived from continents flying apart at the rate you claim..would boil water. This would release steam. This would destroy all life. Even your own silly sources can't deal with that except to evoke miracles.
          Speaking of miracles, why can't you respond to Mike PSS? Oh, yeah, that's right, you'd have to evoke yet another miracle.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Some have asked how sea creatures could survive going from fresh water to salt water.  I don't know
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, you don't know, of course not. But you can find out by getting fresh water fish and putting salt in the tank, or putting salt water fish in fresh water. Find out what happens, genius.
          As far as your claims on French and Portuguese, you're forgetting that you originally claimed "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French. " No "other factors in your original claim, you added that later. You'll also notice that the same wikipedia article you point to...shows all of 5 cited french loan words.
          Sounding alike PHONETICALLY, meaning nasality, aspirations,fricatives, etc. is meaningless in showing that Portuguese is somehow descended from French.  American Indian groups as the Na-Dene languages use all the same "phonetic" aspects as Portuguese...the portuguese were in the americas ...should I conclude that Navajo is a "mix " of Dineh and Portuguese? No, that would be stupid.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 17 2006,08:20

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
          Mike PSS--  Kindly repost your latest argument and my latest rebuttal so I will know where we are ... it's been a long time ago.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          You are precious.  Here's one of my latest < posts. >

          On that post at the top click on the word 'post' and go to an earlier post.  In that post read through and click on 'summary' and 'reply' to other questions you had in the past.

          Remember, the summary and reply (and information in the other posts) contain direct refutation of Ardnts and Overn and your claims of mixing (plus some extra special insight into mineral isochrons, and a bonus section introducing physics).

          Please reply, or maybe start commenting on Baraminology.

          I look forward to your further evasions and repetitive requests to repeat my requests :(

          Mike PSS
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 17 2006,08:33

          PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

          Was not your original argument. Not that "+ other factors" really helps you much...
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 17 2006,08:42

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
          Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person.  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          This is probably obvious to everyone, but I'll point it out anyway.  THIS is the source of your misconception.  Your limited childhood data consisted of Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English.  Given only those 4 sets of data, it might be reasonable to place Portuguese in between the other two Romance languages.  Of course, if you'd grown up with Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, you'd probably have done the same thing.  Then this thread would be full of your arguments about how Portuguese = Italian + Spanish, and you'd be scouring the web trying to find examples of Italian influence in medieval Portugal.
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 17 2006,08:50

          See, I remember when "+ other things" came up, because:

          I was the one that suggested it to you Dave, albeit stupidly, thinking that you could grasp a simple concept.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,09:04

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,12:54)
          HOW MANY "KINDS" WERE ON THE ARK?

          (It seems that Eric is about to blow a gasket crunching numbers of species, so I feel the need to prevent that from happening.)

          If we just grab an easily accesible list (from Wikipedia) we have ...    
          As a soft guide, however, the numbers of currently identified species can be broken down as follows:
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (my emph.) What are you talking about, Dave? I'm not talking about the number of currently-known species, which is where your Wikipedia numbers come from. I'm talking about estimates of total numbers of species. No one is claiming less than 5 million total species (probably exclusive of bacteria, which could total as many as a thousand million species, assuming the term "species" has meaning when applied to bacteria), and some estimates are as high as one hundred million species. A reasonable figure is probably around ten million species.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The only thing I really know at the moment about this topic is ...

          1) Most of the species listed above would not have to be represented on the ark ... Morris & Whitcomb stated only reptiles, birds and mammals needed representation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Based on what, Dave? Insects don't need representation? Where did the insects hang out in the year the planet was underwater? There are 350,000 species of beetles in existence today. Where did they come from? Now you're saying they weren't even on the ark? How about 11,000 or so species of ants? Were they doing the backstroke for a year?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If this is true, then the number of modern species represented would be 8240 + 9934 + 5416 =~ 23,000.  Morton and Isaak say that terrestrial invertebrates like snails would have also needed to be included, but offer no proof, so this is debatable.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you're laboring under the misapprehension that anything that lives in water wouldn't need to be on the ark. You're wrong. You have two choices: either your "flood"waters were fresh, in which case the oceans would have been virtually sterilized; or the "flood"waters were seawater, in which case all fresh bodies of water would have been virtually sterilized. Either you come with 30,000 species of freshwater fish in less than five millennia, or you come up with an even larger number of saltwater vertebrates and invertebrates (along with all the plant life) in the same time. Either way, it's impossible, which is why your whole flood "hypothesis" is DOA.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          2) As I am beginning to see from my own research, rapid speciation is inversely correlated with population size and that newly isolated founder populations can speciate quite rapidly.  I have referred to one such study on salmon which diversified into two reproductively isolated species in just 13 generations.  There are more examples at Talk Origins and probably elsewhere.  The conditions after the Flood would have created excellent circumstances for geographic isolation of founder populations ... i.e. land bridges between newly separated continents, followed by cutting off of populations by rising sea levels following the Ice Age.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Geographic isolation will not get you eight doublings of biodiversity in five thousand years, Dave. You have this weird idea that because smaller populations sizes can diversify more quickly than larger populations, that gets you were you need to be. The kind of increases in biodiversity you need cannot possibly have gone unobserved over the past five thousand years.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          3) There is some evidence that Noah's cubit could have been much longer than the commonly accepted value of about 18 inches.  The Royal Astronomer for Scotland, who reportedly, with John Herschel, kept Britain off the metric system for many years, writes that Sir Isaac Newton did a rigorous study called Dissertation on Cubits and concluded there was an ancient sacred cubit preserved by the Jews of around 25" (in addition to the 20.68" cubit which is well known).  Contrast this with 18" cubit assumed by most modern Bible scholars who describe the ark.  If this is true, then we have significantly more space in the ark than Woodmorappe proposes.  I have not been able to obtain the Newton paper, but Wikipedia reports various lengths of the cubit through history, some as high as 27 inches. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Doesn't matter. Noah's ark cannot possibly have been much larger than 300 feet long, which is the longest modern technology can manage. If you want an ark longer than that, you need to resort to the same thing you always need to resort to: miracles.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Let us take some wild guesses and do some math ... after all, this is what scientists do ... they observe evidence, make some wild initial guesses, then test these guesses, then make a formal theory if the intial wild guesses hold up to scrutiny.

          IF we take an average generation time of 5 years for animals on the ark, and IF we assume an average of 20 generations to produce a new species, and IF we have 50,000 modern species representing the original kinds on the ark (being generous to Morton and Isaak), where does this leave us if we have 4500 years since the Flood?

          Well, let's take Woodmorappe's guess of 16,000 animals on the ark. This probably represents about 7,000? kinds.  Now using "hand grenade math" with the assumptions above, these could theoretically diversify into 14,000 in 5 years, 28,000 in 10 years and 56,000 in 15 years.  Now of course this calculation would only apply if ALL the kinds split into two distinct species every 5 years, and these new species in turn split into two new species, etc.  Obviously this would not happen, but it gives you a feeling for the ease of getting from 7000 distinct kinds to 50,000 distinct species in 4500 years.  Adjust your average generation time to 10 years if you like.  Assume that only 50% of the original kinds speciate into new species if you like.  Assume that many species "terminate" after a certain point and don't speciate any more.  As you can see there is ample room for vast adjustment of the numbers and still have no problem coming up with 50,000 modern species developing in 4500 years from 7000 original kinds on the ark.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Where are you getting 50,000 modern species, Dave? That number is preposterously low. There are almost that many species of freshwater fish! And besides, you do realize that you're talking about evolution rates vastly in excess of anything actually observed anywhere, right? You're talking about speciation happening every five or ten years for 4,500 years, which still only gets you 0.5% of where you need to be!

          Dave, your estimates and your assumptions are garbage. You have no justification whatsoever for assuming 7,000 initial "kinds" will get you 50,000 species in fifteen years! That's explosive evolution of a sort never witnessed in the entire history of the world. But even if it were possible, you're nowhere near the numbers of species you need, and again, how do you explain that fact that there's no evidence that biodiversity changed significantly before 4,500 years ago, around 4,500 years ago, or at any time up until the nineteenth century, at which time biodiversity has decreased, not increased.

          You're just pulling numbers out of your ass, without the tiniest speck of justification, which even if true wouldn't get you remotely where you need to be. 350,000 species of beetles alone, Dave. Where did they come from?

          And you think Dawkins is "speculating."

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
          Jeannot wants to know what "genetically rich" means.

          ANSWER: Imagine a subset of a population being removed from the parent population and isolated from that parent population.  What will happen?  My understanding is that the smaller group will be more specialized than the parent population because it will not have access to some of the genetic information contained in the original group.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Where are you going with this, Dave? The smaller group will have less diversity, less "genetic richness" than the larger group. Simple population genetics, Dave. The smaller group will not have all the alleles for all genes the larger group will. So how does this amount to "genetic richness"?

          Your "ark" amounts to a ridiculously tiny "bottleneck" in the genome of every organism in existence at the time. Even if the organisms of the time were more "genetically-rich" that modern organisms (a term I cannot help but point out you have still failed to define), most of that genetic "richness" would have been eliminated by the genetic bottleneck the ark would represent.

          This is another of your statements that isn't even wrong.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           Consider dogs.  All the modern dogs have been domesticated from wild dogs, right?  Now breeders have created many specialized varieties by selecting dogs with desired traits and isolating and breeding them.  Do you think that we could get a Great Dane from a pair of Chihuahuas?  No.  Why?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Wrong. If you want to get Grate Danes from Chihuahuas, do the same thing originally done to get Great Danes in the first place: breed the largest Chihuahuas together, over and over again, providing the same kind of selection natural selection would provide, only more intense. A few hundred generations, and you'll have Great Danes.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           The chihuahuas don't have the genetic information required to create a Great Dane.  Was there an ancestral pair of dogs (a mutt) that possessed the genetic info for both Great Danes AND Chihuahuas?  Undoubtedly there was.  And this mutt pair would have been more "genetically rich" than either the Great Danes or the Chihuahuas.  This is what I mean by "genetically rich."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, this is just stupid. You don't have the slightest understanding of genetics. "Mutts" are no more "genetically rich" than purebreds are. Go back to the drawing board. If by "genetically rich" you mean there's more variability in the population, then the inhabitants of the ark were less "genetically rich" than the populations from which they were culled, by definition. The organisms on the ark were "genetically poor," not "genetically rich."


           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Here's an interesting quote that sheds some light on the salt water issue.  Some have asked how sea creatures could survive going from fresh water to salt water.  I don't know, but here's some info on salmon that could shed some light on this ... Salmon apparently have a system for changing their body chemistry to allow them live in fresh water during their youth and breeding times, and salt water during most of their adulthood ...
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The smolt body chemistry changes, allowing them to live in salt water.
          < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Nope. Not in a year, Dave. Take a swimming pool of sea water, fill it with saltwater fish, and now dilute it 30% with fresh water in a day or two. What will happen to the fish? They'll die. Fish cannot "evolve" to be anadromous in a few months.

          You know, for someone who claims not to believe in evolution, you sure have faith in organisms' ability to evolve to withstand violently changing environmental changes essentially instantaneously. You seem to believe that organisms can speciate five or six times a century, and saltwater fish can "evolve" to be anadromous in a matter of weeks, if not days. But you don't think you're "speculating."

          Right.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

          (Posted originally in response to Rilke's Granddaughter who attacked me for making a casual reference to Portuguese being a mixture of Spanish and French)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          One more time, Dave: you LOST this debate. You didn't provide a single piece of linguistic evidence to support a linguistic claim. You provided a bunch of utterly irrelevant historical data that have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim, and provided not a single cite to a single linguistics authority anywhere in this history of the discipline to back you up. The fact is, Dave, Portuguese is not a mixture of French and Spanish plus other factors. It's no more a mixture of French and Spanish than it is a mixture of Italian and Romanian.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (Posted again now because Arden Chatfield apparently is still miffed that his arguments were not as good as mine in spite of the fact that he is a linguist.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you didn't even have an argument! Where's your linguistic argument? You don't have one. You have a rag-tag collection of historical trivia that in their totality do absolutely nothing to support your claim! I really can't make it any clearer than that.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          He lost the debate back then and it was actually one of the few debates at ATBC that I have actually had some agreement from other ATBC members.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And who might that be, Dave? Who agrees with you that you "won" this debate? Name names. I do not think you can provide the name of a single person here, poster or lurker, who believes you "won" your Portuguese debate. Has it escaped your notice that the whole debacle has generated a new figure of speech? Someone has a "Portuguese moment" when he or she makes a stupid and foolhardy claim which is immediately refuted by multiple other sources, but he or she cannot back down from the claim because he or she cannot admit error.

          That's what a "Portuguese moment" is, Dave.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Also note that Arden claims that people would have respected me if I had simply admitted defeat on this topic.  This is ludicrous and is plainly false simply by examining the threads PRIOR TO the Portuguese debate.  This debate itself was precipitated by a blatant ad hominem by Rilke.  It is quite clear why I am not respected by some people here at ATBC ... I am a creationist.  PERIOD.  End of story.  Need more proof?  Look at the thread started by 'skeptic' called 'Reinventing Evolutionary Theory.'  He simply SMELLED like a creationist and he was immediately and continuously ridiculed.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you're not disrespected because you're a creationist. You're disrespected because of your blatant dishonesty. When you continue to claim you "won" your debate with Rilke in the face of overwhelming evidence that, Black-Knight-style, you were obliterated in the argument, you naturally became the object of scorn. But your "Portuguese moment" was hardly the first example of your blatant dishonesty. That probably would have been when you claimed you were capable of being persuaded that your "hypothesis" is wrong. That became obvious within the first couple of days of this thread.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Arden, my advice to you is to read your own post and follow the advice written there ... admit that YOU were the one who was wrong ... not me.  The truth is that I have quite prominently admitted that I have been wrong about certain details when the evidence is clear ... Chimp chromosomes, a study in the UK, maybe a couple other things.  You, on the other hand, have not admitted you have been wrong about anything that I can remember.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Wow. Fascinating. Dave simply cannot admit he was wrong about this thing. He honestly thinks Arden (and the entire linguistic community) is wrong when he (and they) claim that Portuguese is not simply a mixture of French and Spanish (and other, unnamed factors).

          Dave, if you want to win this argument, it's really quite simple: All you need to do is find a paper by a recognized linguistic authority which states that Portuguese is a "mixture" of French and Spanish (and other factors). If you can do that, then you win. Since you cannot do that, you lose. And everyone here (I think even including you) knows you lose.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,09:05



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Your quotes of Michael Denton in Nature's Destiny do nothing to change his expose in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  I have already said that he is still an evolutionist in spite of the evidence that he himself has given.  He has not repudiated the evidence
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          By reversing his claims on transitionals and saltation, this repudiates the only meaningful aspects of his previous position. Or can you name something significant he has NOT retracted and repudiated in his own previous claims?
          Remember, you said Denton just devastated evolutionary theory with his first book....so...what part of it did he NOT repudiate on his own, having found out better? Show me how what is LEFT..devastates anything?

          I don't believe "wikipedia" is the best source for information on all things. but I will note that it says this in the article you cite:
          Almost 90% of the Portuguese vocabulary is derived from Latin
          These are the FIVE whole french loan words cited that exist in Portuguese:
          French: crochet ¡ú colchete ("crochet"), paletot ¡ú palet¨® ("jacket"), baton ¡ú batom ("lipstick"), filet ¡ú fil¨¦
          ("steak"), mayonnaise ¡ú maionese
          You'll notice that the african/amerindian-derived loanword list is longer

          Remember again, that you claimed that PORTUGUESE WAS A MIXTURE OF FRENCH AND SPANISH.
          Remember that PHONETICS has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of Portuguese
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,09:14



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Let us take some wild guesses and do some math ... after all, this is what scientists do ... they observe evidence, make some wild initial guesses, then test these guesses, then make a formal theory if the intial wild guesses hold up to scrutiny.

          IF we take an average generation time of 5 years for animals on the ark, and IF we assume an average of 20 generations to produce a new species, and IF we have 50,000 modern species representing the original kinds on the ark (being generous to Morton and Isaak), where does this leave us if we have 4500 years since the Flood?

          Well, let's take Woodmorappe's guess of 16,000 animals on the ark. This probably represents about 7,000? kinds.  Now using "hand grenade math" with the assumptions above, these could theoretically diversify into 14,000 in 5 years, 28,000 in 10 years and 56,000 in 15 years.  Now of course this calculation would only apply if ALL the kinds split into two distinct species every 5 years, and these new species in turn split into two new species, etc.  Obviously this would not happen, but it gives you a feeling for the ease of getting from 7000 distinct kinds to 50,000 distinct species in 4500 years.  Adjust your average generation time to 10 years if you like.  Assume that only 50% of the original kinds speciate into new species if you like.  Assume that many species "terminate" after a certain point and don't speciate any more.  As you can see there is ample room for vast adjustment of the numbers and still have no problem coming up with 50,000 modern species developing in 4500 years from 7000 original kinds on the ark.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Oh, and yeah, this is the least of your worries, Dave, but your math is very wrong. It certainly does not at all follow from your stated assumptions:

          1. average generation time of 5 years
          2. average "speciation" time 20 generations

          = speciation every 100 years (not 5)

          So...we go from 7,000 to 14,000 kinds in 100 years (not 5), 14,000 to 28,000 in 200 years (not 10), and 28,000 to 56,000 in 300 years (not 15).

          Duh.
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 17 2006,09:21

          One more time Dave.

          You don't get to use "+other factors" in your argument.

          You never mentioned "other factors" until many days into the incident when I tried to point out that it's stupid and difficult to argue that "[something] is [something]" (implying nothing else).
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,09:29

          Gee, Dave, so far the number of people who think you won your "Portuguese moment" is a very conspicuous zero, while the number of people who think you lost it is equal to the number of people who even mentioned it.

          Still think you "won" the argument? Of course you do. But that's because you're delusional.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,09:29

          Ved-- You are making a big deal of peripheral issues.  Why?  Because you cannot refute the central issue.  I simply conceded to add "and other factors" because that is in fact true and helps my generalization be more accurate.  My line of reasoning is sound, well supported, and well documented.  Those who do not see it are simply blind--unwilling to admit defeat on anything.

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Did Salmo "microevolve" into Oncorhynchus in the past 6,000 years?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I cannot tell you what DID happen with Salmo.  I am honest.  I can only show you evidence of things that ARE HAPPENING today or have been documented to have happened in recent history.  Your own Talk Origins leads me to believe that organisms can speciate quite rapidly (<50 years, actually<<50 years in some organisms) under the conditions that I have proposed in my theory.

          Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...

          1) had no era from which to date events
          2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
          3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
          4) did not designate contemporary dynasties

          ...possibly??

          I am told that Rawlinson put the beginning of Egypt aafter 2350 BC.  Why do you disagree with such an eminent figure?

          Keep in mind also that Chinese historical records only go back to 2205 BC ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The Xia Dynasty (Chinese: Ïij¯; Pinyin: xi¨¤ ch¨¢o; Wade-Giles: hsia-ch'ao), ca. 2205 BC¨C1766 BC, is the first dynasty to be described in Chinese historical records, which record the names of seventeen kings over fourteen generations. However, the Xia Dynasty is considered as legendary because of a lack of evidence. The legendary Three August Ones and Five Emperors are said to have preceded this dynasty, which was followed by the Shang Dynasty.
          < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_Dynasty >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          There is some uncertainty here, but it sure sounds like it helps MY position more than it helps yours.

          Also, remember that my Creation Theory is not harmed in the least by pushing Creation back as far as 8,000 BC with adjustments also being made to the Flood date.  

          You have never seemed to grasp this.

          ****************************

          Eric--  Try reading my post again to see where the 50,000 species comes from.  Bonus: see if you can determine which types of species are included in this figure (Hint: it's not anywhere near all)
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,09:39

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you claimed the left side happened easily in 6,000 years, while even the top 10% of the right side could not have happened in millions. What gives?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          The top right could not happen in millions or even billions because they are separate "baramins."  The left side could have happened in 6000 years because they were likely in the same "baramin."  It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,09:40

          Here's the specific claim you think you supposedly "won" on, Dave. I see the "+ other factors" language is conspicuously absent. Not that it would help you if it were present, but the claim you originally made was that "Portuguese = French + Spanish," not "Portuguese = French + Spanish (+ some other stuff).

          In any event, you lost. Either way.
           
          Quote (afdave @ May 19 2006,05:26)
          Oh really?  How much money do you want to risk that I'm wrong?  Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

          1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

          2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

          How much are you willing to bet?  

          (You need a Paypal account to be eligible)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,09:45



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Cory...
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Did Salmo "microevolve" into Oncorhynchus in the past 6,000 years?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I cannot tell you what DID happen with Salmo.  I am honest.  I can only show you evidence of things that ARE HAPPENING today or have been documented to have happened in recent history.  Your own Talk Origins leads me to believe that organisms can speciate quite rapidly (<50 years, actually<<50 years in some organisms) under the conditions that I have proposed in my theory.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          If you're "honest", you'll address the fact that the Hendry et al. (2000) paper most emphatically did NOT say what you thought it did (as anyone who actually read the paper, or even carefully read the abstract, or read what I posted in response would know). The last true "speciation" of any salmon species (likely the divergence of chum and pink salmon) happened in the vicinity of 5 million years ago.

          If you're equating speciation with detectable evidence of reproductive isolation (and you must have read the Hendry paper, so you of course know that they found partial but detectable isolation), well then, there would then be many, many billions of species alive today (we would need a whole new taxonomy!;). In fact, the forensic geneticists would report -- to our relief, I'm sure -- that your family and mine are almost certainly separate "species" by now.

          Dave, reproductive isolation is necessary for taxonomic speciation -- and the Hendry paper demonstrates that it can happen quickly -- but it IS NOT speciation. There is a meaningful word for reproductively isolated groups of the same species. I've used it many times. Three guesses.

          In any case, I trust you will be "honest" enough to cease in your claim that the paper you cited documented the divergence of two new salmon species in 13 generations. That way, we won't have to get into a debate about "ecological" speciation vs. true "biological" speciation, which you are certainly not prepared for. At the very least, you will stop equating the divergence found in those salmon populations with the divergence required to produce the taxonomic species in your Wikipedia table.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,09:55

          Both in morphology and in syntax, Portuguese represents an organic transformation of Latin without the direct intervention of any foreign language. The sounds, grammatical forms, and syntactical types, with a few exceptions, are derived from Latin, and almost 90% of its vocabulary is still derived from the language of Rome. Some of the changes began during the Empire, others took place later. A few words remained virtually unchanged, like taberna ("tavern"), or even returned to a form close to the original, such as coxa ("thigh").

          The earliest surviving records of a distinctively Portuguese language are administrative documents of the 9th century , still interspersed with many Latin phrases. Today this phase is known as Proto-Portuguese (between the 9th and the 12th century).

          Regressive Nasalization — before [m] or [n] which were elided, or in syllable coda, some vowels became nasal. This happened between the sixth and seventh centuries, possibly influenced by previously spoken Celtic languages. This change produced one of the most striking phonological differences between Portuguese and Spanish. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_vocabulary >

          So...what we have is nasalization (phonetic) preceding the claimed influence of Dave's "French Knights"  Only in French and Portuguese did vowels before a nasal consonant undergo nasalization--compare French main, "hand," with Portuguese mao and Spanish and Italian mano. This nazalization PRECEDES your dates, bubbie. We know that French itself had nothing to do with the ORIGINS of Portuguese, now we see the phonetics of nasalization don't either.

          Any other phonetic similarities that you say derive from French?
          Oh, yeahhhhh...the Portuguese moments keep comin'
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,10:05

          Eric ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          A reasonable figure is probably around ten million species.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          That's about what Wikipedia says.  Why are you griping about my figures?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Based on what, Dave? Insects don't need representation? Where did the insects hang out in the year the planet was underwater? There are 350,000 species of beetles in existence today. Where did they come from? Now you're saying they weren't even on the ark? How about 11,000 or so species of ants? Were they doing the backstroke for a year?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You need to do some reading about how insects survive modern floods, Eric.

          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have adapted to saltwater and vice versa.  I gave you a good example of one that does.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.

          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The kind of increases in biodiversity you need cannot possibly have gone unobserved over the past five thousand years.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Fine.  Prove this to me with evidence.  I am in the process of proving the opposite with evidence.

          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Doesn't matter. Noah's ark cannot possibly have been much larger than 300 feet long, which is the longest modern technology can manage.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Modern scientists cannot understand how the Great Pyramid was made.  Many modern scientists do not realize that the knowledge of PI and the length of the solar year and many other scientific and astronomical facts were known well before Noah's time.  The ancients had very high technology, much of which we cannot even understand.  To imply that Noah was some low tech, backwoods redneck trying to build a boat is so naive, it's pathetic.

          Eric ... More Specialized = Less Genetically Rich ... you might want to fix your gaffe.

          Eric ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Wrong. If you want to get Grate Danes from Chihuahuas, do the same thing originally done to get Great Danes in the first place: breed the largest Chihuahuas together, over and over again, providing the same kind of selection natural selection would provide, only more intense. A few hundred generations, and you'll have Great Danes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh boy!  Tell you what, Eric.  Let's ask a dog breeder if you can get a Great Dane from breeding Chihuahuas ... how about it?  Shall we?

          Eric ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "Mutts" are no more "genetically rich" than purebreds are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh really now??!!  Let's ask our friend the dog breeder.

          ******************************************

          Deadman...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Almost 90% of the Portuguese vocabulary is derived from Latin
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Quite right you are, sir.  What's your point?  This has nothing to do with the debate.

          Deadman...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Both in morphology and in syntax, Portuguese represents an organic transformation of Latin without the direct intervention of any foreign language.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          "Without the direct intervention of any foreign language!"   Ho ho ho.  That's right!  Close your eyes to the evidence, hold your nose to avoid the rotten stench of your bad logic and loudly declare that ...

          AFDave is wrong NO MATTER WHAT!

          (He HAS to be ... he's a Creationist!;)
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 17 2006,10:06



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I simply conceded to add "and other factors" because that is in fact true and helps my generalization be more accurate.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          OK, but see it gets confusing. Ever since people started to disagree with your original argument you started saying. "I already won the debate!"

          P=F+S ... "I already won the debate!"
          P=F+S ... "I already won the debate!"

          later,

          P=F+S+other factors ... "I already won the debate!"
          P=F+S+other factors ... "I already won the debate!"

          When you change your argument and keep saying "I already won" it just doesn't look good. The reason I'm getting bent out of shape about this little "peripheral issue" is because it the one thing you've done with MY words that really gets under my skin.

          I won't ever claim to have an argument about this whole Portuguese deal. I'm not a linguist. I'm not a scientist. But I think that you, afdave, lost the argument. It doesn't have anything to do with you being a creationist. It doesn't have anything to do with not wanting you to win any arguments. You just keep saying that you've won- and it's not even funny anymore.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,10:09

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,14:29)
          Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...

          1) had no era from which to date events
          2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
          3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
          4) did not designate contemporary dynasties

          ...possibly??
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, I think he probably did a little research. Which, if you'd done the same thing, you'd find out that the First Dynasty dates to ~3,100 B.C.:

          < http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptdynasties.html >

          < http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm >

          < http://www.touregypt.net/ehistory.htm >

          < http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/dynasties.htm >

          It really seems to be true that AFDave knows less about more than just about anyone I have ever run across.

          And your claims of biblical inerrancy fail utterly if you push the "flood" back to 8,000 B.C. Of course, since you've already admitted the bible is not inerrant, this isn't exactly news anyway.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric--  Try reading my post again to see where the 50,000 species comes from.  Bonus: see if you can determine which types of species are included in this figure (Hint: it's not anywhere near all)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, what use is your number if it has nothing to do with anything? You don't need to get to 50,000 species. You need to get to several million species. You can't just hand-wave away enormous chunks of biodiversity. If you don't think you need to have the original "kinds" of everything that's alive today present on the ark, then your whole story kind of falls apart, doesn't it?

          If you dump a mile of water onto the earth, and leave it there for a year, whether it's fresh water or seawater, you're going to wipe out virtually everything alive. You don't have to come up with 50,000 species in 5,000 years (not that you could even do that). You need to come up with several million species. Your math is a joke, your assumptions are garbage, and your whole "hypothesis" reeks of special pleading and incessant appeals to miracles.

          And in case you're wondering, Dave: you can't mark off the list as "answered" my original question, which was: how do you get from 35,000 "kinds" to ten million species in less than 5,000 years? You don't remotely have an answer to that question. Your stumbling around in the thickets of biodiversity with your head wedged in a milk-bucket doesn't rate as any sort of an "answer."
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,10:25

          HAHAHAHA. Look at dave's "list" of things he claims is problematic in dating Egyptian works prior to his flood. :  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
          1) had no era from which to date events
          2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
          3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
          4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
          ...possibly??
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now where did Dave get this claim from? Why, he plagiarized it. Note that he didn't give citations. This is where he got it from:
          ”The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves never had any chronology at all,” reports Mr. M. Mariette, the former Director of the Service of Conservation of the Antiquities of Egypt, the British Museum. The Egyptians did not enter into computations of time; they were without the chronological idea, save in a few instances. Chronology is, upon the monuments, almost non-existant. The Egyptians had no era from which to date events. They did not distinguish between the years of a sole reign and those of joint reigns of father and son. They never gave the duration of a dynasty. They did not designate contemporary dynasties. Hence the uncertainty of dates in Egyptian history."

          < http://www.nothingnewpress.com/atta/atta34-35.pdf >

          Now, note that the writer says " MR. M. Mariette." ( so it can't be "monsieur")  The actual name of the guy was AUGUSTE Mariette...and when did he live? why, he DIED in 1881. < http://www.uwm.edu/Course/egypt/0100/discoverersB.html >
          This has to be the DEEPEST OLDEST QUOTEMINE YET FROM DAVE.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,10:41

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,14:39)
          Cory...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you claimed the left side happened easily in 6,000 years, while even the top 10% of the right side could not have happened in millions. What gives?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          The top right could not happen in millions or even billions because they are separate "baramins."  The left side could have happened in 6000 years because they were likely in the same "baramin."  It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Terrific. So you can tell me what salmon "baramins" we're talking about here, right?

          Oops, no you can't.

          You can't even tell me with a straight face (despite implying it in your treatment above) that all salmon are in the same baramin, as you have just recently stated:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I cannot tell you what DID happen with Salmo.  I am honest.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So we can't discuss "baramins" with any rigor, and we can't identify exactly what units God endowed with great potential for variability. Okay, then let's move on to this variability. Obviously, you mis-spoke when you said that "each uniquely created "baramin"" was endowed with such potential, since we already know that lungfish, yeast and bacteria haven't changed at all since the flood, right? So which "baramins" got the "great potential for variability" and which didn't?

          Oops, that would mean knowing what the "baramins" actually were so we could compare them. Can't do that.

          So in the meantime, let's talk about the "inviolable boundaries". At the very least, you must know what these are, right? But we know they can't be found in genetic data (humans vs. chimps, apes vs. salmon for example): the amount and nature of genetic change in getting from an ape ancestor to humans is far, far smaller than that required to get from one type of salmon (or even one type of lungfish) to another. So you obviously aren't talking about "inviolable barriers" that have anything to do with any genetic change that we can, you know, actually measure.

          So you present undefined, immeasurable, completely vaccuous terms such as "genetic richness" -- big surprise that this is your term of choice. But you don't have any real understanding of genetics, so you can't tell us what genetic "richness" is. Any real concept we attempt to identify as possibly in the ballpark as what you're talking about (heterozygosity, polymorphism, and hybrid vigor are some that come to mind) don't behave anything like this "richness" you speak of.

          Moving on, since "genetic difference = morphological difference" (your claim, not mine), we can't be talking about any morphological boundaries. And if we're not talking about humans, you can't scapegoat "writing", "music", "religiosity", and other "non-biological" differences (your argument, not mine).

          Remind me exactly what you've answered here, Davey? I'd accuse you of making this shit up as you go along, but you're not that creative. No, others made this shit up as they went along. It's right about here -- with a planet full of biodiversity waiting to be loaded onto a boat -- that they give up any pretense to "scientific evidence".
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,10:46

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,15:05)
          Eric ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          A reasonable figure is probably around ten million species.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          That's about what Wikipedia says.  Why are you griping about my figures?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Because your figures are crap, Dave. One way or another you have to account for ten million or so species alive today, from a few tens of thousands of species less than five millennia ago. You cannot.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Based on what, Dave? Insects don't need representation? Where did the insects hang out in the year the planet was underwater? There are 350,000 species of beetles in existence today. Where did they come from? Now you're saying they weren't even on the ark? How about 11,000 or so species of ants? Were they doing the backstroke for a year?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You need to do some reading about how insects survive modern floods, Eric.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Modern floods have nothing to do with it. Modern floods don't inundate the planet with a mile-thick layer of water for a year, Dave. So unless you can come with a mechanism for how the vast majority of currently-existing beetle species could have survived for a year with no source of food or, for that matter, oxygen, your "hypothesis" dies. Again.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have adapted to saltwater and vice versa.  I gave you a good example of one that does.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I gave you evidence. Take an aquarium full of freshwater fish, and replace a third of the water with seawater. Tell me what happens.

          And besides, what planet are you from? I don't need to provide evidence that inundating freshwater fish with seawater (or vice versa) will kill them. This is your freaking "hypothesis," Dave. You need to provide me with evidence it won't kill them.

          You've gone from proposing that organisms can evolve at freakishly-accelerated rates over a few decades to proposing that they can evolve in a matter of days, if not hours. You do realize, Dave, that evolution doesn't happen within a single organism's lifetime, don't you?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The kind of increases in biodiversity you need cannot possibly have gone unobserved over the past five thousand years.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Fine.  Prove this to me with evidence.  I am in the process of proving the opposite with evidence.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Get a grip, Dave. Provide you evidence that there's no evidence of increases in diversity? What, are you high? Have you been building model airplanes in your basement again? You need to provide evidence of massive increases in biodiversity over the past five millennia, Dave. It's your "hypothesis," not mine!



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Doesn't matter. Noah's ark cannot possibly have been much larger than 300 feet long, which is the longest modern technology can manage.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Modern scientists cannot understand how the Great Pyramid was made.  Many modern scientists do not realize that the knowledge of PI and the length of the solar year and many other scientific and astronomical facts were known well before Noah's time.  The ancients had very high technology, much of which we cannot even understand.  To imply that Noah was some low tech, backwoods redneck trying to build a boat is so naive, it's pathetic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, you didn't realize these things. If you'd read anything written in the last 50 years, you'd realize this. Scientists have known for decades that the Mayan estimate for the length of the solar year was better than anything the West had until this century.

          But that doesn't change the fact that there's no reason to suppose Noah (or any particular culture of that or any other time) was capable of building a wooden ship more than 300 feet long. Your belief that he was capable of doing so is what is known as "speculation," Dave. It's based on zero evidence.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric ... More Specialized = Less Genetically Rich ... you might want to fix your gaffe.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, any two individual organisms of the same species have exactly the same numbers of genes, and have exactly the same number of alleles for those genes, i.e., two. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that one individual is more "genetically rich" than another. A mutt is no more "genetically rich" than a chichuahua is. Your use of the term "genetically rich" is meaningless when applied to individuals, so if anyone has a "gaffe" to fix here, genius, it's you.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Wrong. If you want to get Grate Danes from Chihuahuas, do the same thing originally done to get Great Danes in the first place: breed the largest Chihuahuas together, over and over again, providing the same kind of selection natural selection would provide, only more intense. A few hundred generations, and you'll have Great Danes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh boy!  Tell you what, Eric.  Let's ask a dog breeder if you can get a Great Dane from breeding Chihuahuas ... how about it?  Shall we?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I have a better idea. Why don't you buy a few hundred chihuahuas, and start selectively breeding for larger dogs. Give it, say, a few hundred to a thousand generations. You're going to tell me that your dogs aren't going to get any bigger? What are you, an idiot?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "Mutts" are no more "genetically rich" than purebreds are.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh really now??!!  Let's ask our friend the dog breeder.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Tell me, Dave. How many genes does a "mutt" have? Is it fewer genes, the same, or more genes, as a "purebred"? Does the mutt have more alleles for a given gene, less, or the same number as a purebred?

          Now, with that in mind, do you still maintain that mutts are more "genetically rich" than purebreds?

          You're confusing the genetics of individuals with the genetics of populations, Dave, and tripping over your own penis in the process. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about one individual organism being more "genetically rich" than another. Two organisms of the same species have exactly the same size genotype, and have the same number of alleles for each gene. In the context of individuals, "genetic richness" is utterly without meaning.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Almost 90% of the Portuguese vocabulary is derived from Latin
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Quite right you are, sir.  What's your point?  This has nothing to do with the debate.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It is the debate, Dave. It's why you lost the debate. How can Portuguese be a "mixture of French and Spanish" when it's basically a dialect of Latin?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,10:52

          Ol' "honest Dave"..paragon of virtue and Christian icon...busted again using not MERELY a quotemine, but plagiarizing as well.
          "Plagiarism is using others’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information." < http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtm >
          "Three acts are plagiarism: (1) failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas, (2) failing to enclose borrowed language in quotation marks and (3) failing to put summaries and paraphrases in your own words." A Pocket Style Manual, 4h ed., 2004 Bedford/St. Martin's, pp 228-30.
          Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 17 2006,10:54

          In Dave's defense, I listened to an interview with Wanderlei Silva and I was struck at how much Portuguese sounds like a blend of French and Spanish. No, that's not linguistic evidence, and yes, Dave is wrong, but nonetheless I see (hear?) where he got the idea from.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,11:00

          Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 17 2006,15:54)
          In Dave's defense, I listened to an interview with Wanderlei Silva and I was struck at how much Portuguese sounds like a blend of French and Spanish. No, that's not linguistic evidence, and yes, Dave is wrong, but nonetheless I see (hear?) where he got the idea from.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          But again, the problem isn't that Dave's wrong (we all say wrong things all the time). The problem is, even after Dave was shown in exasperating detail exactly how and why he's wrong, he still thinks he's right. It's as if it is simply impossible to get Dave to admit he's wrong about this. And he still hasn't backed up his claim that other posters here think he "won" this stupid little debate.
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 17 2006,11:11

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 17 2006,15:46)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have adapted to saltwater and vice versa.  I gave you a good example of one that does.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I gave you evidence. Take an aquarium full of freshwater fish, and replace a third of the water with seawater. Tell me what happens.

          And besides, what planet are you from? I don't need to provide evidence that inundating freshwater fish with seawater (or vice versa) will kill them. This is your freaking "hypothesis," Dave. You need to provide me with evidence it won't kill them.

          You've gone from proposing that organisms can evolve at freakishly-accelerated rates over a few decades to proposing that they can evolve in a matter of days, if not hours. You do realize, Dave, that evolution doesn't happen within a single organism's lifetime, don't you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Fun with burden of proof, evidence, and speculation, afdave style...

          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have learned to breathe air, grown claws,  and clung to the gunwales of the Ark for a year.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.

          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have developed a civilisation, built little tanks with filters, and sheltered there during the flood.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.

          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that fresh water fish could not have fallen through a wormhole in space, and happily passed the year of the flood in the freshwater oceans of the fourth planet of Epsilon Eridani.  Why don't you try to refute me with evidence, not your speculation.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,11:19

          Now that's gooood-tastin' satire.
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 17 2006,11:30

          afdave:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Dave, this is where you are precisely wrong. It does not "appear" as though these baramin exist; it does not "appear" as though modern organisms passed through an extremely narrow bottleneck a few thousand years ago; and it does not "appear" that there are inviolable boundaries between human beings and other primates. You believe that these things are true, but the natural world does not appear as it should if they were true. As many people have pointed out to you, these are assertions on your part, for which there is no supporting evidence.

          There is no natural way that today's species could have gone from a single pair per "kind" a few thousand years ago to the diversity of organisms that we see today. If you want to claim that it happened that way, Dave, you have to abandon all talk of genetically rich organisms and "great potential for variability". Only one force could have accomplished this change, Dave, and that's miracle. The fountains of the deep must have been opened by a miracle, the world's biodiversity survived by a miracle, the continents shifted by another miracle; the water was removed by a miracle, miracles spread out the original "kinds" to their present distribution, miracles allowed millions of species to flower on a barren planet, and-- most  importantly-- miracles scrupulously erased every clue to this miraculous history before modern scientists came along to study it. That is the only possible scenario which can reconcile your beliefs to the physical evidence. Every detail in the history of modern organisms must be paved with miracles; and miracles have vanished that true history away.

          How you will make theological sense of this superabundance of miracles is up to you, but no natural explanations agree with your assertions. You're left with the supernatural.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 17 2006,11:39

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,14:39)
          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you claimed the left side happened easily in 6,000 years, while even the top 10% of the right side could not have happened in millions. What gives?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          The top right could not happen in millions or even billions because they are separate "baramins."  The left side could have happened in 6000 years because they were likely in the same "baramin."  It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          when you say "it appears that God" where exactly are you getting your information from?
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 17 2006,11:51

          Hey Dave, maybe I can ask you a question more in line with your expertise.  Looking at the Bible we find in Genesis 2:7 a systematic presentation of how man was created by God:
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here are my questions:

          1.  How long do you believe God took to go from dust to body to breathing into Adam the Breath of Life?

          2.  How do you believe the animals began--just like man as dirt or did God use some different procedure?

          3.  Do you believe it makes man more noble to be made originally of dirt or of amino acids?

          Since I am asking what you believe, there isn't any "right or wrong"--I'm just interested in how you think about these types of questions.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,11:57

          Homework assignment, Dave:

          1) An estimate for the total number of "baramin." Is it 50? 500? 5,000? 50,000? 50,000,000?

          2) At least a partial list of "baramin." This shouldn't be too difficult; presumably somewhere, someone on the Internet has compiled such a list? What? There isn't one? I thought your "hypothesis" was supposed to be "better" in some way than the existing theories. You don't even have some sort of organizational structure, as it were, for the organisms that exist out there today, to say nothing of the incomparably larger group that is extinct?

          3) A methodology for determining whether two organisms are from the same "baramin" or not. You've been asked this question repeatedly over the past few weeks; surely you've given it some thought. Are dogs and marsupial wolves in the same "baramin"? Are bears and otters? Hermit crabs and horseshoe crabs? Trout and salmon? Ferns and redwoods? Clams and oysters? Lobsters and wasps? Whales and cows? Chihuahuas and Great Danes?

          You're tossing this "baramin" concept as if it has some sort of meaning, Dave, when it's clear it doesn't, not even to you. You're using the stunning ambiguity of the term to sweep all sorts of difficult questions about evolution, biodiversity, and how Noah could have crammed all those critters into one big boat under the rug. It's not going to work.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,12:23

          < More science that's just totally, completely wrong. >



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have snapped the most detailed image ever of a pair of colliding galaxies, known as the Antenna galaxy.
          The galaxies are the nearest merging pair to Earth, and the youngest too: the collision began about 500m years ago. As the two galaxies smash into one another, they create ideal conditions for new stars to be born. And new stars are forming in their billions.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But of course that's obviously wrong, because it "appears" that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, it "appears" that these galaxies didn't even exist 500 million years ago. And, of course, the only reason astronomers say they existed 500 million years ago is so "evolutionists" will have enough time for evolution to have happened (even though 4,500 years is plenty of time for all life on earth to have evolved through "microevolution"). No doubt money was exchanging hands between the "evolutionists" and the astronomers to gull the rest of us into thinking the universe is older than God.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,12:44

          So...more than a week ago, I  < outlined > the barest minimum of standards Dave's definition of kinds would have to meet to even be worth our time:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, I have no wish to surprise you in your upcoming quest to define a “kind” in any meaningful fashion.

          I will therefore lay ALL my cards on the table.

          When it comes to explaining life on this planet, the following is the BARE MINIMUM in explanatory power that is required for your CGH to even enter the same solar system as the ToE. Anything else is a grievous waste of your time and ours.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Let's see how he's doing, shall we?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You will provide a biologically relevant definition of “kind” that will allow us to identify these “kinds” and classify a representative sample of organisms (some of your choice, some of ours) according to comparisons of morphology, biochemistry and/or genetics (e.g., data such as Denton’s table) ON OUR OWN, without the wisdom of your opinion (and we better all arrive at similar conclusions or your criteria SUCK). Only then will we be able to bask in the light of your “Truth”. You have already argued that there should be a strong relationship between morphology, biochemistry and genetics. If this applies to evolutionary clades, it applies to “kinds” as well. Otherwise, you will have to deny such a link, and your days of “arguments against evolution” from Denton's table are worthless.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Er...bad start, Dave. So far we have October 9th's:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Note that Dave has not bothered to answer any questions on how we recognize this ancestral gene pool. And now we have today's difinition:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It appears that God endowed each uniquely created "baramin" with great potential for variability and that this could happen quite rapidly under certain conditions (such as after the Flood).  But there appear to be inviolable boundaries which cannot be crossed no matter how much time is available.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Uh huh. And what does that do to your "argument a la Denton", Dave, where "primitive" species were supposed to be invariable (e.g., lungfish)? Not lookin' good so far, my friend.

          Next up:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You will provide objective, biologically relevant criteria for recognizing these kinds. Any subjective argument of the “looks-like-a-fish/gorilla/retriever to me” sort will be dismissed with disdain unless you explain WHY it looks as such.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Do "same ancestral gene pool", "endowed potential for variability" or "genetic richness" count? No Dave, they don't. At least, not until you tell us how to measure "genetic richness" or identify the "same ancestral gene pool" or estimate "endowed potential".

          Finally:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          At the VERY least, to be consistent with your former claims, your biological criteria for kinds will have to give us a “window” in the amount of permissible “microevolutionary” divergence within a kind (according to whatever biological measure you deem relevant) that is:

          (1) NARROW enough to separate chimps from humans as two separate kinds that could not have emerged via “microevolution”.

          (2) BROAD enough to group bacteria, lungfish, and chimps/gorillas/orangutans/?monkeys? as single “kinds”.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, you haven't even made it far enough to provide such a window. (You have, however, added salmon to the list in (2).) You're still spinning your wheels at square one.

          Criteria for recognizing "same" and "different" kinds. Now. Put up or shut up. Ya gots nothin', bud.
          Posted by: notta_skeptic on Oct. 17 2006,13:23

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
          Let us take some wild guesses and do some math ... after all, this is what scientists do ... they observe evidence, make some wild initial guesses, then test these guesses, then make a formal theory if the intial wild guesses hold up to scrutiny.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          This is Dave's problem in a nutshell (how apropos). He believes everything that's published comes from a "wild guess". The science teacher in me cringes to read something like this from an alleged college graduate.

          And how many species of bacteria are there?? Dave, wikipedia underestimates them by a factor of ten or more. Here's another quote for ya:

          "Brazilian researcher Marcio Lambais and his team from the University of Sao Paulo counted bacteria in the phyllosphere of 9 different tree spezies in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Their calculations indicate that each tree of the forest could harbor anywhere between 95 and 671 different bacterial species. That could amount to 2 million to 13 million different bacterial species for the whole forest.
          Science 30 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5782, p. 1917."

          Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Oct. 17 2006,13:41

          Dave, you're a buffoonish, lying sack of shit with severe delusions of grandeur. I'd urge you to get help.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,13:54

          Although I've agreed not to continue my harsh assaults on Dave's tender sensibilities and those of ALLLLL those lurkers that might be swayed by his martyrdom...I must agree with my colleague, Mr. Chatfield.
          This would be because Dave's claims on EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SUBJECT he has brought up in the last few pages..has been thoroughly refuted and shown false.
          Oh, and he got busted quote-mining and plagiarizing.
          And shown that not even his claims on the phonetics of Portuguese hold up.
          And shown that his claims on "baramins" are empty and false
          And shown that his claims on "genetic richness" are vacuous and false
          And that his claims on "accellerated speciation" are baseless and false
          And that he needs some real psychiatric help
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,14:32

          Arden...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, you're a buffoonish, lying sack of shit with severe delusions of grandeur. I'd urge you to get help.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes, yes ... this is pretty much how MANY of the arguments have gone ...

          1) Very little attempt to refute the individual points
          2) Lots of "Quoteminer!  Wikipedia is unreliable! You don't understand science!  Blah blah blah!" ... and finally
          3) You're a blankety, blank blank with a blankety blank blank !!  

          You're helping Steve's team a lot, Arden, by being so obtuse ... keep up the good work!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,14:39



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Yes, yes ... this is pretty much how MANY of the arguments have gone ...
          1) Very little attempt to refute the individual points
          2) Lots of "Quoteminer!  Wikipedia is unreliable! You don't understand science!  Blah blah blah!" ... and finally
          3) You're a blankety, blank blank with a blankety blank blank !!  
          You're helping Steve's team a lot, Arden, by being so obtuse ... keep up the good work!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Except I showed the origin of your quotemine, and how it was plagiarized by you. That must sting, eh, mr. "I don't quotemine?" you did it DELIBERATELY.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,14:47

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,19:32)
          1) Very little attempt to refute the individual points
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Not so fast, Dave. Please address your citation and subsequent misuse of Hendry et al. (2000) as a demonstration of speciation rates at a taxonomic level (e.g., generation of new Latin binomials, as tallied by your Wikipedia table and used in your ark "calculation") as opposed to the reproductive isolation (and partial isolation at that, though detectable) of two adjacent Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) populations. Thank you.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 17 2006,14:48

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,20:32)
          Yes, yes ... this is pretty much how MANY of the arguments have gone ...

          1) Very little attempt to refute the individual points
          2) Lots of "Quoteminer!  Wikipedia is unreliable! You don't understand science!  Blah blah blah!" ... and finally
          3) You're a blankety, blank blank with a blankety blank blank !!  

          You're helping Steve's team a lot, Arden, by being so obtuse ... keep up the good work!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes, yes ... this is pretty much how MANY of the arguments have gone ...

          1) Dave gets questions he can't answer so he ignores them
          2) Someone finally gets so fed up with his duplicity they break down and call him a  blankety, blank blank with a blankety blank blank !!  ... and finally
          3) Dave declares victory
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 17 2006,14:48



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          a) There are gaps in the fossil record.
          b) There are no transitional fossils.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Of course, if it were true that there weren't any transitional fossils, there'd be no gaps, since a gap has to be between something and something else.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How do you get from a handful of beetles to 350,000 species of beetles in less than 5,000 years?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Not to mention getting the present genetic variety in each of those species.

          Also not to mention that a large fraction of those species are the only food source for a quite a few others, so many (maybe most?) of them would go extinct soon as their neighbors have dinner... ;)



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          when Egyptians didn't die out, seen in their own WRITTEN records, which are already conceded to be valid.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Well, denial floods regularly, so maybe they got really good at treading water? Or maybe the pyramids were a lot taller in those days?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Any fish on the ark would have been cooked, too, along with the rest of Noah's floating menagerie.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Well, so much for the ark's sushi bar.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Does the mutt have more alleles for a given gene, less, or the same number as a purebred?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          That's an interesting question. If I were to guess I'd guess the purebred would have fewer alleles, since maintaining a lineage would presumably involve some degree of inbreeding.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric, you have no evidence whatsoever that [...]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          :lol:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No doubt money was exchanging hands between the "evolutionists" and the astronomers to gull the rest of us into thinking the universe is older than God.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Oh, the shame of it all!!! :)

          Henry
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,14:50

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,19:32)
          Yes, yes ... this is pretty much how MANY of the arguments have gone ...

          1) Very little attempt to refute the individual points
          2) Lots of "Quoteminer!  Wikipedia is unreliable! You don't understand science!  Blah blah blah!" ... and finally
          3) You're a blankety, blank blank with a blankety blank blank !!  

          You're helping Steve's team a lot, Arden, by being so obtuse ... keep up the good work!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, this is not how many (or, indeed, any) of the arguments here have gone. The ad hominems (a symptom of towering frustration at your utter inanity) are in addition to, not instead of, a detailed demolition of your claims.

          Every single claim you have ever advanced in support of your UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis" has been dissassembled in minute detail, leaving not a single element of your "hypothesis" standing above the water table. Even your other claims (Portuguese, anyone?) that have nothing to do with your "hypothesis" have similarly been laid waste.

          The accusations of quote-mining, citing of unreliable sources, accusations of dishonesty, etc. are merely added problems you can't address. The meat of this discussion has been the flaying alive of your arguments, Dave. The sheer fascination of watching the Black Knight getting the living snot kicked out of him every time he states a claim is what keeps me coming back week after week, month after month. The rest of the stuff is a distraction from the real fun.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,14:56

          Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 17 2006,19:48)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Does the mutt have more alleles for a given gene, less, or the same number as a purebred?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          That's an interesting question. If I were to guess I'd guess the purebred would have fewer alleles, since maintaining a lineage would presumably involve some degree of inbreeding.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          More accurately, a purebred is likely to be homozygous for more genes than a mongrel. Every diploid organism alive has two alleles for each gene. In the case of a purebred, more of those alleles are likely to be identical than in the case of a mongrel. But a mongrel is no more "genetically rich" than a purebred; the term has no meaning when discussing individuals, and doesn't mean what Dave thinks it means in the context of populations.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,15:12

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 17 2006,19:56)
          Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 17 2006,19:48)
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Does the mutt have more alleles for a given gene, less, or the same number as a purebred?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          That's an interesting question. If I were to guess I'd guess the purebred would have fewer alleles, since maintaining a lineage would presumably involve some degree of inbreeding.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          More accurately, a purebred is likely to be homozygous for more genes than a mongrel. Every diploid organism alive has two alleles for each gene. In the case of a purebred, more of those alleles are likely to be identical than in the case of a mongrel. But a mongrel is no more "genetically rich" than a purebred; the term has no meaning when discussing individuals, and doesn't mean what Dave thinks it means in the context of populations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Actually, there's a pretty strong correlation between average heterozygosity and individual fitness (e.g., because of both overdominance and the masking of deleterious recessives). Fred Allendorf has done quite a bit of work on this relationship and its implications (e.g., for conservation). Heterozygosity underlies a large portion of the phenomenon of heterosis, or F1 "hybrid vigor". Not that this rescues Dave's "genetic richness" bullshit, of course. (For example, if genetic "richness" was Dave's term for heterozygosity/heterosis, then the greatest case of human "hybrid vigor" would be observed in Cain and Abel, making them -- not their parents -- the genetically "richest" humans to ever exist.)  Oh, and of course the "mutt" would indeed be more genetically rich (by this definition) than the pure breed, as Dave would know IS typically observed, if he had followed his own advice and asked a dog breeder. For chrissake, Dave -- if Adam and Eve (and similar kind originators) were actually front-loaded with all the genetic information of species to come, they would be (by definition) the ultimate "mutts", not "purebreeds".
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,15:12

          Dave seems to like "letting the page turn over" when he's cornered, so I'll wait until that happens before pursuing this SHOCKING issue of deliberate quotemining and plagiarism by a "good christian" like Dave, who ..."doesn't quotemine."  :)
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,15:16

          So, Dave, where'd you get that quote from? Be honest now, God is watching you.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,15:19

          Cory, I wasn't referring to you.  I was referring to Arden.  I have not had a chance to thoroughly read your posts.  Looks like there are some good points that you make.  This topic of rapid speciation is new to me.

          As for Deadman, you are premature on playing your trumpets and announcing a new quote mine discovery.  If you will notice, I don't claim to be an authority on ancient Egypt.  I simply rattled off some problems I have heard about regarding Egyptian chronology and I asked you how you are so sure about your 3150 BC date (or whatever it was).  I truly would like to know how you handle these problems.  I have not studied it yet and would like to know.

          Eric ... how's the Great Dane factory?  Just how many Chihuahuas does it take to make a Great Dane?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,15:21



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If you will notice, I don't claim to be an authority on ancient Egypt.  I simply rattled off some problems I have heard about regarding Egyptian chronology and I asked you how you are so sure about your 3150 BC date (or whatever it was).  I truly would like to know how you handle these problems.  I have not studied it yet and would like to know.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, those were not your words. You took them from another. I can prove this...and you just said again that they were yours and denied quotemining again. Now I will ask you again...where did you get that quoted list?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,15:34

          Actually, I just reread the "mutt" argument and I reversed Dave's contention. IF by "genetic richness" Dave means anything remotely similar to heterozygosity/heterosis, THEN his contention that "richness" would, at first glance, be greater in "mutts" is correct. Is THIS what you mean by "richness", Dave? Are we finally nailing you down on some real, meaningful, measurable terminology we can substitute for your vague, non-standard version?

          If so, do you know what happens in the F2 following the F1 cross? Do the words "outbreeding depression" mean anything to you?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,15:42

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,20:19)
          Eric ... how's the Great Dane factory?  Just how many Chihuahuas does it take to make a Great Dane?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well, Dave, given that it's < estimated > that it would take about 20,000 generations to get from a mouse-sized organism to an elephant-sized organism under undetectable selection, I'm sure you can figure it out.

          Arguendo, I'm assuming you're asking how many generations it would take to get from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane. Most diploid organisms have at most two parents, so your question as phrased is bordering on meaningless.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,15:44

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          For chrissake, Dave -- if Adam and Eve (and similar kind originators) were actually front-loaded with all the genetic information of species to come, they would be (by definition) the ultimate "mutts", not "purebreeds".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Actually, I do think Adam and Eve were the "ultimate mutts."  What's wrong with this idea?  And Cory, what is your opinion on Chihuahuas ... can you breed Great Danes from them?  *cough*

          DM ... I didn't say those were my own words ... I'm sure they came from somewhere ... I just do not have a reference ... yours may well be correct.  You are so feisty that you overlook the fact that I am not claiming authority on this topic ... I simply want you to explain how you deal with these supposed problems.  If you are so sure Egyptian chronology goes back to 3150 BC, great!  Convince me!  Maybe this will be the first topic we actually agree on.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,15:47

          No, Dave, you stole those words. In exact order. And you took them from ONE source available on the web. In short, you plagiarized...and quotemined. And you did it deliberately.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,16:00

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,20:44)
          Cory...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          For chrissake, Dave -- if Adam and Eve (and similar kind originators) were actually front-loaded with all the genetic information of species to come, they would be (by definition) the ultimate "mutts", not "purebreeds".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Actually, I do think Adam and Eve were the "ultimate mutts."  What's wrong with this idea?  And Cory, what is your opinion on Chihuahuas ... can you breed Great Danes from them?  *cough*
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I already acknowledged that this was your actual position, Dave. See above (you may have missed it while posting). And yes, once we exchange your made-up concepts for actual ones in genetics, and if we agree that by "genetic richness" you mean "heterozygosity" and its frequent commensurate improval to fitness, then yes, I agree with you: mutts are generally more heterotic ("genetically rich"?). But there are many complications to drawing any broad inferences regarding heterozygosity that, to be frank, are not worth discussing with you if you can't even "talk the talk" and use standard terminology that everyone can understand and agree upon.

          For example, as Eric has pointed out, you should understand "allele" and "polymorphism", and what these mean for how genetically "rich" any two individuals could be (combined). Then you should compare the combined "richness" of the pair to that currently found in natural populations. Maybe start with MHC (major histocompatabilty complex) loci. These are (generally overdominant) immune-related genes (and respective alleles) where the idea of heterozygosity/"richness" would be relatively easy to explore. Examine the number of MHC alleles in any human population, and try to figure out what it means for the "richness" of the immune "library" in your neighbourhood alone relative to that of Adam and Eve in Eden. You'll find that there's no getting around the fact that this is one easy example of where current populations of organisms must be "richer" than their originating "kind" pregenitors.

          Finally, as for the Great Danes, no, you could not breed them from Chihuahuas. Of course, this is not what Eric meant. Could you breed a large, vaguely Great Danish dog from Chihuahuas given a few thousand years of artificial selection? You bet. Ever wondered how much *coughing* an ancient human might have done if you told him you could get Chihuahuas from wolves?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,16:04

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 17 2006,20:34)
          Actually, I just reread the "mutt" argument and I reversed Dave's contention. IF by "genetic richness" Dave means anything remotely similar to heterozygosity/heterosis, THEN his contention that "richness" would, at first glance, be greater in "mutts" is correct. Is THIS what you mean by "richness", Dave? Are we finally nailing you down on some real, meaningful, measurable terminology we can substitute for your vague, non-standard version?

          If so, do you know what happens in the F2 following the F1 cross? Do the words "outbreeding depression" mean anything to you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Except it doesn't really help Dave's argument at all.

          Let's take as an example a "kind" which was represented on the ark by a single pair of organisms. Let's assume this organism has a genotype with 20,000 genes (approximately the same as humans). Let's further assume that there are ten (or fifty or a hundred; it doesn't matter) different alleles for each gene in this organism at the time of the flood. So what are the maximum and minimum amounts of "genetic richness" this pair could have?

          Minimum "genetic richness": both parents have exactly the same alleles at every single locus. This is essentially impossible, because you need a male and a female to get a breeding couple, but it sets a hypothetical floor as to what the absolute logical minimum "genetic richness" could be.

          Maximum "genetic richness": each of the two organisms is heterozygous for every single gene in its genotype, and there are no duplicate alleles between the two individuals. Therefore, for each gene, the couple contains four alleles, regardless of the number of possible alleles. There could be thousands of possible alleles for each gene in this organism's genotype, but the maximum achievable for a pair of organisms is only four times the absolutely minimum possible "genetic richness."

          Therefore, Dave, there's no way for your "kinds" present on the ark to be appreciably more "genetically rich" that any organism alive today. Even with maximum hybrid vigor, Noah's "genetically rich" specimens are unlikely to have even twice the genetic variability available today.

          So there's no way your "genetic richness" can result in an explosive increase in biodiversity over the past five millennia, and even it could, it didn't, because we would have proof positive of such increases in biodiversity in the written records. We have no such proof; therefore it didn't happen.

          Further, considered as a population, the denizens of Noah's ark are unavoidably less "genetically rich" than any larger pre-existing population. Noah's ark is a genetic bottleneck, no matter how you look at it, which drastically reduces genetic variability, and the larger the number of alleles for a given gene in a given population, the narrower the bottleneck. Starting with any number of organisms of a "kind" on the ark, the available number of alleles for a given gene is 2(number of organisms). Since (number of organisms on ark) is unavoidably < (number of organisms before flood), there's no way for Dave to get the freakishly explosive increase in diversity his "hypothesis" demands through any sort of "genetic richness."
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 17 2006,16:08

          DM ... you are once again showing your vacuity by chasing ghosts.  Do you have anything substantive to say on Genetics or Egypt or not?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 17 2006,16:13

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 17 2006,21:04)
          Except it doesn't really help Dave's argument at all.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh, believe me, I agree, though this is a separate argument. (See my mention of polymorphism and MHC above, where I cite the exact same problem.) I was just commenting that if Dave means heterosis, then his "mutt" argument is correct (and a dog breeder would in fact tell you that mutts display hybrid vigor). Furthermore, the term (if Dave had ever actually defined it as such, which would have saved us all this runaround) WOULD "have meaning when discussing individuals", as I'm sure you'd agree.

          Of course, there are also issues of outbreeding depression, the F2 collapse following hybrid vigor, and MANY examples where heterozygosity is not such a good thing (e.g., I think someone once asked who on the ark was carrying the sickle-cell allele, which is a VERY good question).
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,16:14

          And lest you think I'm going to stop pointing out your theft and quotemining, Dave...let me point out again that
          1) I know where you got that from.
          2) I know the quote's origin. I told you I liked Victorian science and this includes my own field, obviously.
          3) I am quite willing to say you cannot name any other source for the quote -- except one site online. I can name two others. Both are books. You didn't "hear" it and then memorize it word-for-word. You took it and presented it as your own, and denied quotemining. Tsk. Isn't theft a sin?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,16:17

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,21:08)
          DM ... you are once again showing your vacuity by chasing ghosts.  Do you have anything substantive to say on Genetics or Egypt or not?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          What he has said about Egypt is enough to kill your "flood hypothesis." No modern authority claims the Egyptian civilization dates back to only 2,500 B.C. The minimum age is more like 2,900 B.C. Therefore, your "flood" must have happened after the founding of the First Dynasty, which it conspicuously failed to destroy. That fact alone is enough to destroy your "hypothesis," Dave.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 17 2006,16:25

          The Ark was towing several Egyptians in a dingy.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,16:31

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 17 2006,21:13)
           
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 17 2006,21:04)
          Except it doesn't really help Dave's argument at all.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh, believe me, I agree, though this is a separate argument. (See my mention of polymorphism and MHC above, where I cite the exact same problem.) I was just commenting that if Dave means heterosis, then his "mutt" argument is correct (and a dog breeder would in fact tell you that mutts display hybrid vigor). Furthermore, the term (if Dave had ever actually defined it as such, which would have saved us all this runaround) WOULD "have meaning when discussing individuals", as I'm sure you'd agree.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And, of course, all of this is speculative in the extreme, since Dave has yet to provide a rigorous definition of what he means by "genetically rich." Other than to say "mutts" are more "genetically rich" than "purebreds," which definition doesn't remotely help him in his quest to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species in a couple of weeks (or a few thousand years; in this context there really isn't much difference).
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,16:32

          Thanks, eric, and as I stated long ago, It's not just Egypt. It's Sumer, with written records. It's China. It's half a dozen major groups.

          It's also about Dave plagiarizing and quotemining, and being too dishonest and immoral and unethical to deal with it.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 17 2006,16:44

          Man, you guys were right, steve. I've met some delusional people before, including a guy who claims UFO's abducted him, who got smacked in the face by James Randi when the guy basically charged towards him. I've met psychotics. I've met schizophrenics.
          But this..this is beyond my experience. If you guys actually KNEW folks like this back home, growing up, you have my sympathy. It's like trying to teach a chihuahua chinese or something.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,16:47

          Since Dave is going to raise this eventually, I'll just deal with it now:
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,14:29)
          Also, remember that my Creation Theory is not harmed in the least by pushing Creation back as far as 8,000 BC with adjustments also being made to the Flood date.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Why stop at 8,000 B.C., Dave? What's to prevent you from moving it back to 8,000,000 B.C. or 8,000,000,000 B.C.? You have just as much evidence for any of those dates, and any one of them would kill your "biblical inerrancy" claim, if it hadn't already been murdered by your admission that the Bible is not inerrant anyway.

          Since most of your claims depend on the Bible being inerrant, and you've already admitted that you've never read, seen, or even heard about an actually-inerrant Bible, I don't know what grounds you have for your "hypothesis" anyway. There certainly isn't any independent confirmation for any of your claims.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 17 2006,19:58

          You know, there just aren't enough hours in the day to catalogue every single stupid things Dave says, but some things I just have to go back and highlight. Here's a good one:
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,12:54)
          Mark Isaak has written a rebuttal of Woodmorappe and Morris on Talk Origins, but the rebuttal does not accomplish his purpose of showing the impossibility of the Noah's Ark account. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Any rational observer would be able to tell that any single one of the ten sections in Isaak's paper is more than adequate to demonstrate the utter, screaming impossibility of the Noah's ark account. Most elementary schoolchildren are aware of the utter, screaming impossibility of the Noah's ark account. Dave thinks he can dismiss Isaak's entire article by saying it "doesn't accomplish its purpose." Well, of course it doesn't accomplish its "purpose" for Dave, because the standard of proof for anything that conflicts with Dave's worldview is infinitely high, as he has amply demonstrated over the past six months. After all, Dave still believes that 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time to get ten million species of organisms, but 4,500 years is plenty of time to get ten million species of organisms.

          But does he think everyone's just going to take his word for it that Isaak's argument doesn't cut it? Especially considering what Dave's word is worth?
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 17 2006,20:04

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2006,08:56)
          Hah. One of the most pleasant digs I'd ever been on was "doubling up" with some fish biologists studying arctic grayling and char (a salmonid, Dave, JFYI) in Alaska. On rainy days when the archaeology was slow, it was fun to set nets and catalogue populations -- reminded me of the leisurely earthiness of geology fieldwork. Plus the char wuz some good eats and feisty, too. Sorry, Ichthyic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          OT but I have to ask DM, do you know Tim Heaton?
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 17 2006,20:52

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 17 2006,22:44)
          Man, you guys were right, steve. I've met some delusional people before, including a guy who claims UFO's abducted him, who got smacked in the face by James Randi when the guy basically charged towards him. I've met psychotics. I've met schizophrenics.
          But this..this is beyond my experience. If you guys actually KNEW folks like this back home, growing up, you have my sympathy. It's like trying to teach a chihuahua chinese or something.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          On the plus side, it teaches you at an early age that some very confident people have no earthly idea what they're talking about.


          I wrote a bunch of stuff here speculating about the people I've known, and how much they are or aren't like AFDave. But I deleted it because it's just speculation. In truth, I've never before seen something like this thread. I've never seen a guy get thoroughly refuted every day for 5 months. I've seen people be refuted for 4 hours and come out the other side with no loss of confidence, but ~150 consecutive days? Even I'm a little surprised.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 17 2006,21:56

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,21:08)
          DM ... you are once again showing your vacuity by chasing ghosts.  Do you have anything substantive to say on Genetics or Egypt or not?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          LOL.

          I bet you believe in ghosts too dont ya davey?

          Do YOU have anything substantive to say about anything?

          Generics or Egypt? How about bible thumping and mecca? Or evil priests and starving people.

          Davey, if your religion is so great how come your luxury mega church is not sold off and the profits given to the poor? That's what your magic book says aint it? Look after the poor? Perhaps you could suggest that next time you speak to the leaders of your church (or the next time god speaks to you anyway - mention it, see how it goes down).
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 18 2006,00:08

          Steve...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          On the plus side, it teaches you at an early age that some very confident people have no earthly idea what they're talking about.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Yes, it does.  You might be one of them.  Deadman might be also.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I wrote a bunch of stuff here speculating about the people I've known, and how much they are or aren't like AFDave. But I deleted it because it's just speculation. In truth, I've never before seen something like this thread. I've never seen a guy get thoroughly refuted every day for 5 months. I've seen people be refuted for 4 hours and come out the other side with no loss of confidence, but ~150 consecutive days? Even I'm a little surprised.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You assume I've been refuted and yet you cannot name a single topic in which I've been supposedly refuted and explain point by point HOW I've been refuted.  You are just depending on other people (putting your faith in them) and hoping they are right.  

          You have more faith than I do, my friend.
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 18 2006,00:27

          dave,

          how do you explain the existence of trees like these:

          < Prometheus >

          < Methuselah >

          how did they survive your flood?
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 18 2006,01:48

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,05:08)
          Steve...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          On the plus side, it teaches you at an early age that some very confident people have no earthly idea what they're talking about.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Yes, it does.  You might be one of them.  Deadman might be also.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I wrote a bunch of stuff here speculating about the people I've known, and how much they are or aren't like AFDave. But I deleted it because it's just speculation. In truth, I've never before seen something like this thread. I've never seen a guy get thoroughly refuted every day for 5 months. I've seen people be refuted for 4 hours and come out the other side with no loss of confidence, but ~150 consecutive days? Even I'm a little surprised.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You assume I've been refuted and yet you cannot name a single topic in which I've been supposedly refuted and explain point by point HOW I've been refuted.  You are just depending on other people (putting your faith in them) and hoping they are right.  

          You have more faith than I do, my friend.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          you are really an idiot davey. You have been refuted on this very thread mutiple times. Do you want links to it? Just because you say that you have not does not mean we'll believe you! You are already a proven liar, do you really think you can say "i've not been refuted" and people will just believe you? That kind of uncritical gulping down of information might serve you bible thumpers well, but it'll do you no good here.

          Nobody is "Putting their faith" in other peoples claims that they've refuted you. WE CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES ON THIS VERY THREAD THAT YOU'VE BEEN REFUTED OVER AND OVER.

          do you need permalinks to the refutations
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,04:33

          Crabster: I've never met Tim Heaton, but I knew the name sounded familiar and did a search on him, and I kept thinking somewhere in the back of the dank, dark spooky corners of my mind, I've read something by him on cave bears (do they still call them Ursus spelunkus or something?). Anyway, in looking at his site, he seems like a good guy. Archaeology and geology has soooo #### many people in it that it's hard to keep track of names. He seemed to be doing work in B.C. and south Alaska, and i was wayyyy up north, by the arctic circle, looking at how the Inuit interacted with the inland Athabascans.  Cheers!
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 18 2006,05:01

          stevestory:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In truth, I've never before seen something like this thread. I've never seen a guy get thoroughly refuted every day for 5 months. I've seen people be refuted for 4 hours and come out the other side with no loss of confidence, but ~150 consecutive days? Even I'm a little surprised.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I've returned to my original theory that afdave is a spoof. No one can be that oblivious and still be functional.

          I figure "afdave" is either (1) doing his level best to make fundies look ridiculous, and having a little fun in the process, or (2) having fun yanking the chains of folks who take fundies seriously enough to engage them in rational discussion.

          Not to say that's entirely useless, either way. If there are, indeed, any lurkers out there who still think the "afdave" position is anything other than absurd, I doubt there's any better education to be had than reading this thread. Having visited the Institute for Creation Research museum in Santee, California, I'm pretty sure there really are people that believe this kind of nonsense. I just find the "Black Knight" persistence of this guy, and the conspicuous ignoring of contrary evidence repeatedly shoved in his face, a little over the top.

          To challenge my "afdave is a spoof" theory, I continue to solicit any evidence of something written for kids, written by "afdave" (or by a real person named Dave Hawkins whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking), that seriously misrepresents science.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,05:57

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,05:08)
          You assume I've been refuted and yet you cannot name a single topic in which I've been supposedly refuted and explain point by point HOW I've been refuted.  You are just depending on other people (putting your faith in them) and hoping they are right.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, he's not assuming you've been refuted. He's read the thread and witnessed it happen. If you want to see where you've been refuted, Dave, all you have to do is go back and read this and your other threads. You really should do it now and then; it's fascinating reading.

          In the meantime, here's a brief list, off the top of my head, of topics on which your claims have been refuted. If you want to see how they were refuted, I suggest you use [Control]-F on the full threads to find the pertinent topics:

          • Human-chimp-gorilla genetic relatedness
          • Fusion of genes in humans
          • [edit] oops—missed GULO genes in humans and chimps
          • "Biological Machines"
          • "Cosmic Fine Tuning"
          • Portuguese
          • Tyre
          • Radiocarbon dating
          • Fenton Hill zircons
          • Dendrochronology
          • Grand Staircase stratigraphy
          • K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating
          • [edit] oops—forgot isochrons
          • "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis"
          • Genetic distance of eukaryotes and prokaryotes
          • Quote-mining
          • Massive, freakishly explosive macroevolution during historical times

          This is a partial list; I'm sure other posters can think of others.

          A lot of the ways you've been refuted rely on logic and nothing else. No special knowledge required. So Steve doesn't have to place his faith in other people and hope they're right. Even when a little extra knowledge is required, a minimal amount of research will demonstrate how thoroughly wrong you are. Your claims are so obviously wrongheaded that in many cases a sheltered but otherwise bright seven year old can see the flaws in your reasoning.

          In the meantime, I invite you to point to a single argument or claim you've made so far where even one person other than you thinks you've prevailed.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 18 2006,06:24

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,11:57)
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,05:08)
          You assume I've been refuted and yet you cannot name a single topic in which I've been supposedly refuted and explain point by point HOW I've been refuted.  You are just depending on other people (putting your faith in them) and hoping they are right.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, he's not assuming you've been refuted. He's read the thread and witnessed it happen. If you want to see where you've been refuted, Dave, all you have to do is go back and read this and your other threads. You really should do it now and then; it's fascinating reading.

          In the meantime, here's a brief list, off the top of my head, of topics on which your claims have been refuted. If you want to see how they were refuted, I suggest you use [Control]-F on the full threads to find the pertinent topics:

          • Human-chimp-gorilla genetic relatedness
          • Fusion of genes in humans
          • "Biological Machines"
          • "Cosmic Fine Tuning"
          • Portuguese
          • Tyre
          • Radiocarbon dating
          • Fenton Hill zircons
          • Dendrochronology
          • Grand Staircase stratigraphy
          • K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating
          • [edit] oops—forgot isochrons
          • "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis"
          • Genetic distance of eukaryotes and prokaryotes
          • Quote-mining
          • Massive, freakishly explosive macroevolution during historical times

          This is a partial list; I'm sure other posters can think of others.

          A lot of the ways you've been refuted rely on logic and nothing else. No special knowledge required. So Steve doesn't have to place his faith in other people and hope they're right. Even when a little extra knowledge is required, a minimal amount of research will demonstrate how thoroughly wrong you are. Your claims are so obviously wrongheaded that in many cases a sheltered but otherwise bright seven year old can see the flaws in your reasoning.

          In the meantime, I invite you to point to a single argument or claim you've made so far where even one person other than you thinks you've prevailed.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I agree with what you say. I do use a bit of inference, though. I know a little bit about physics, having an undergrad degree in the subject. When AFDave talks about physics, it's completely ignorant. I don't know anything about geology, but JonF and Deadman and such do, and they read his geology stuff and say "That's completely ignorant" and I don't know anything about linguistics, but Arden does, and he reads AFDave's linguistics stuff, and says "That's completely ignorant". So it's pretty easy to make a judgement on AFDave in those subjects.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,07:10

          People wanting to see Dave's "refutation" of my current charges of quotemining and plagiarism can take a gander at the now-closed thread.
          Dave's efforts thus far seem to be really ineffective in discounting the current data that shows the Earth to be older than his claimed 4,000 or 8,000 or 18,0000 or whatever thousand year span he wants to support.
          It seems to me that the issue is pretty well laid out and that Dave should now proceed to support his "hypothesis that is better than any other," given that was his claim.
          But I bet he won't.
          Posted by: Ved on Oct. 18 2006,07:35

          Quote (Russell @ ,)
          To challenge my "afdave is a spoof" theory, I continue to solicit any evidence of something written for kids, written by "afdave" (or by a real person named Dave Hawkins whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking), that seriously misrepresents science.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Have you seen a Dave Hawkins listed in the credits of the Watchmaker "dynamation" at < Kids 4 Truth >?

          IMO afdave is not a loki troll. But if he reveals that he is after a full year of this tripe, like Paley, I'd personally consider him excessively annoying. Not because of his "hypothesis" but because of his tactics and complete lack of logic.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 18 2006,07:36

          "GENETICALLY RICH" EXPLAINED

          I quote an article from 1972 which serves to illustrate how long this concept has been understood.  Admittedly, "genetically rich" may not be a commonly used term, but I think the concept is valid ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The founder principle is "establishment of a new population by a few original founders (in an extreme case, by a single fertilized female) that carry only a small fraction of the total genetic variation of the parental population."  Founder events are inevitably followed by inbreeding for one or several generations.  The populations descended from the founders are then restructured by natural selection, which operates on a changed gene pool and usually in an altered environment.  Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Species of Drosophila," Science 177 (Aug. 25, 1972):667.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Do you see the bolded part?  I am comparing the founder population with the parent population.  It appears to me that the parent population is "genetically richer" than the founder population.  And it seems to me that if the parent population began from two original parents (not sure how this would NOT be the case), then those two original parents would be "genetically richer" than the "founder population parents" would they not?  

          I don't know if this diagram helps anyone else, but it helps me ...



          It came from here ... < http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp >

          and what it tells me is that Adam and Eve together (and also the first dog pair, first cat pair, etc.) would have had to have ALL the possible combinations (i.e. middle of the chart) in their genes.  This is what I mean by "genetically rich."  Again, this is a new topic to me so feel free to set me straight on this and give me the proper terminology.

          *********************************

          Yes, please DO have a gander at the now closed thread ... Deadman was completely refuted on something like 5 or 6 quote mining charges and he has yet to retract any of it.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 18 2006,07:47

          AFDave,
          Did you notice that in that quote, they are referring to populations, not individuals? You were talking about genetically "rich" individuals, not populations.

          I may be wrong, but the reason the parental population has more genetic variation is because it has more individuals then the founder population.

          This does not prove your point, in fact quiet the contrary since a small population (Noah and his family or Adam and Eve) would have less genetic variation than a large one (humanity today at around 6 billion).
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,07:55

          yeah Dave, I asked you to explain the concept of genetically rich individuals. Are you dodging the question or are you just unable to understand it?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 18 2006,07:59

          I see what you are saying ... but how does a "genetically rich" parent population begin if not with two "genetically rich" parents?  Possibly I should modify my terminology to say "parents in the center of the Punnet Square."
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,08:01



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman was completely refuted on something like 5 or 6 quote mining charges and he has yet to retract any of it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Even if that were true,and you weren't redefining what quotemining is... the fact is that you never answered the latest one at all. Stealing is a sin, isn't it? :)
          But of course, you "just happened " to remember that quote from...a "lecture" and recited it word for word...while failing to remember weeks of me asking you to stop quote-mining me about "sedimentary rocks being undatable"
          < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
          < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
          < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
          < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
          < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 18 2006,08:03

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,12:59)
          I see what you are saying ... but how does a "genetically rich" parent population begin if not with two "genetically rich" parents?  Possibly I should modify my terminology to say "parents in the center of the Punnet Square."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It is called mutation. Individuals in a population have slight variations in their genes, the more individuals the more variations.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,08:13

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,12:59)
          I see what you are saying ... but how does a "genetically rich" parent population begin if not with two "genetically rich" parents?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Have you heard of mutations Dave?

          I guess it won't be a problem for you anyway, since  millions of species appeared within a the last 4 thousand years.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,08:24

          < http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen1.htm >
          Population and evolutionary genetics. A primer. By Francisco J. Ayala. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings. xiii + 268 pp., figures, tables, glossary, bibliography, index. $13.95
          A Primer of Population Genetics by Daniel L. Hartl
          Genetics of Populations  by Phillip W. Hedrick

          Try learning about a topic before discounting it.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,08:45

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,12:36)
          "GENETICALLY RICH" EXPLAINED

          I quote an article from 1972 which serves to illustrate how long this concept has been understood.  Admittedly, "genetically rich" may not be a commonly used term, but I think the concept is valid ...    I am comparing the founder population with the parent population.  It appears to me that the parent population is "genetically richer" than the founder population.  And it seems to me that if the parent population began from two original parents (not sure how this would NOT be the case), then those two original parents would be "genetically richer" than the "founder population parents" would they not?  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          God, Dave, you really need to learn a little about genetics before you go off on these totally wrong wild goose chases.

          If you have a population of organisms (let's say the global population of human beings before your "flood") that population is more "genetically rich"(using your non-standard terminology) than the population on the ark (eight individuals), not less.

          You've got a simplistic view of evolution that's tripping you up further. There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings.

          Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius. You've got eight individuals, which means for any gene you've got a maximum of sixteen alleles. There could be hundreds of alleles for each of those genes, but with only eight individuals, you can have at most sixteen alleles for each gene.

          That's the long and short of it, Dave. As individuals, your eight arkonauts were no more or less "genetically rich" than any eight other people, and as a population they were definitely less "genetically rich" than the population from which they were derived.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          and what it tells me is that Adam and Eve together (and also the first dog pair, first cat pair, etc.) would have had to have ALL the possible combinations (i.e. middle of the chart) in their genes.  This is what I mean by "genetically rich."  Again, this is a new topic to me so feel free to set me straight on this and give me the proper terminology.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No. Wrong. An individual organism can have at most two alleles for a given gene, Dave. You cannot have three, or four, or ten alleles for a given gene in an individual. A population can (and typically does) have multiple (i.e., more than two) alleles for a given gene. An individual cannot. This is why no individual can be "genetically rich," other than being either homozygous or heterozygous for a given trait. Is a woman with a blonde allele and a brunette allele more "genetically rich" than a woman with two blonde alleles? Arguably, but is this enough to help your requirement for explosive diversity in a matter of a few thousand years?

          In a word: No.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Yes, please DO have a gander at the now closed thread ... Deadman was completely refuted on something like 5 or 6 quote mining charges and he has yet to retract any of it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Because he doesn't have to. This is the part that is so astonishing about you, Dave, and really make me wonder if you know what "quote-mining" means. You post your original quote, then include the remainder of the quote which completely reverses the meaning of your original quote, and then somehow think that doesn't amount to quote-mining.

          I just don't know what to make of that.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 18 2006,08:52

          W/R/T whether I have to rely on others for my opinion of AFDave, let me add that the 3-4 college biology courses I had leave me quite overqualified to deal with Dave's genetic richness nonsense. Anyone who had AP biology in High School can see that Dave is hopelessly lost on the topic.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,09:08



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I just don't know what to make of that.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Allow me to illustrate


          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,09:11

          You just have to know what "gene" and "allele" mean. Obviously Dave doesn't.

          But it doesn't alter his arrogance.
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 18 2006,09:14

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,13:45)
          You've got a simplistic view of evolution that's tripping you up further. There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings.

          Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius. You've got eight individuals, which means for any gene you've got a maximum of sixteen alleles. There could be hundreds of alleles for each of those genes, but with only eight individuals, you can have at most sixteen alleles for each gene.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Let me admit up front my ignorance.  I took one biology course in college. I core-dumped all that larnin' on the walk from the biology final to my materials science final.  And, frankly, I haven't been reading this thread that closely as it is becoming painful to watch. But, this confused me and points out that perhaps my understanding of evolution is also cartoonish.

          If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,09:26

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:14)
          If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Huh? By "not genetically related", you mean created?

          No, it just means that hundreds of mutations have occurred since the last ancestral allele (the coalescent).
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2006,09:30

          Re "You've got eight individuals, which means for any gene you've got a maximum of sixteen alleles."

          And several of them are close relatives of each other, which cuts down on that maximum somewhat.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,09:33

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:14)
          Let me admit up front my ignorance.  I took one biology course in college. I core-dumped all that larnin' on the walk from the biology final to my materials science final.  And, frankly, I haven't been reading this thread that closely as it is becoming painful to watch. But, this confused me and points out that perhaps my understanding of evolution is also cartoonish.

          If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No. A different allele for a given gene can appear at any point in time. Mutations occur all the time, and it's certainly not necessary that if, say, there are 20 alleles at five different genes controlling, say, eye color, that there must have been 50 common ancestors. It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago (even if, unlike Dave, you believe humans have existed for 200,000 years).

          It's undoubtedly the case that there are alleles for human genes in existence now that did not exist 50 years ago.

          One of the things that trips Dave up repeatedly is his belief that all alleles for all genes currently existing must have existed as long as there have been humans. This belief is predicated on his other, wrong belief that you can't ever get new information into the genotype. This is trivially untrue, as anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds will realize.
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 18 2006,09:50

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 18 2006,14:26)
             
          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:14)
          If there are hundreds of alleles for a specific gene, does that mean there must be hundreds/2 common ancestors that are not genetically related to each other?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Huh? By "not genetically related", you mean created?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No. I don't mean that.  Not even in the slightest.  
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No, it just means that hundreds of mutations have occurred since the last ancestral allele (the coalescent).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I understand, conceptually, random mutation and natural selection and I find it perfectly logical.  I can even understand it as a means of speciation over long periods of time.  But I tend to think of ancestry as individuals growing into populations and this seems to imply something different.  What is tripping me up is the comment that the ark story couldn't possibly be true because it would limit us to 16 alleles.  Let me try it this way.  Today there are 6B or so homo sapiens.  At some point, in the distant past, there were none.  If I was to roll the clock backwards, shouldn't I find a point where there were only a handful of homo sapiens and wouldn't the number of alleles be necessarily limited by that population?  The comment earlier that the ark story can't be true because it would only account for 16 alleles while we know there are far more.

          I realize that this is probably way too basic of a question to distract you from the main event here.  So, don't feel obligated to walk me through it, if there is a basic genetic primer somewhere around.  I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.

          EDIT:  Okay.  Eric's explanation makes sense.  So, the ark being a bottleneck doesn't refer to the limited number of alleles but rather the time needed to mutate into the diversity of alleles we see today from a "starting point" of 16?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,09:55

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,14:33)
          It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago (even if, unlike Dave, you believe humans have existed for 200,000 years).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Interestingly, I read that some human alleles coding for proteins of the HLA system diverged even before humans and chimps did.
          Usually, different alleles can't been maintained that long in a population , one eventually reaches fixation (in 4Ne generations for neutral alleles). In this case, they were maintained in our lineage for millions of years by superdominance (the advantage of heterozygotes).

          I don't know if it's consistent with Dave's hypothesis, though.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,10:02

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,14:50)
          I understand, conceptually, random mutation and natural selection and I find it perfectly logical.  I can even understand it as a means of speciation over long periods of time.  But I tend to think of ancestry as individuals growing into populations and this seems to imply something different.  What is tripping me up is the comment that the ark story couldn't possibly be true because it would limit us to 16 alleles.  Let me try it this way.  Today there are 6B or so homo sapiens.  At some point, in the distant past, there were none.  If I was to roll the clock backwards, shouldn't I find a point where there were only a handful of homo sapiens and wouldn't the number of alleles be necessarily limited by that population?  The comment earlier that the ark story can't be true because it would only account for 16 alleles while we know there are far more.

          I realize that this is probably way too basic of a question to distract you from the main event here.  So, don't feel obligated to walk me through it, if there is a basic genetic primer somewhere around.  I'm perfectly willing to do my own work.

          EDIT:  Okay.  Eric's explanation makes sense.  So, the ark being a bottleneck doesn't refer to the limited number of alleles but rather the time needed to mutate into the diversity of alleles we see today from a "starting point" of 16?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It's better to consider alleles, not individuals. All the alleles for a gene eventualy trace back to a common ancestor, which is the coalescent. This common ancestor (gene) can precede the first members of a given species, or the opposite. See my precedent post for an example.

          Anyway, it could be possible to have our current polymorphism from only 8 individuals at the beginning (assuming imbreeding is not a problem), but it would take a lot more than 4500 years (even for purely demographic reasons).
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,10:08

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 18 2006,14:55)
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,14:33)
          It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago (even if, unlike Dave, you believe humans have existed for 200,000 years).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Interestingly, I read that some human alleles coding for proteins of the HLA system have diverged even before humans and chimps diverged.
          Usually, different alleles can't been maintained that long in a population , one eventually reaches fixation (in 4Ne generations for neutral alleles). In this case, they were maintained in our lineage for millions of years by superdominance (the advantage of heterozygotes).

          I don't know if it's consistent with Dave's hypothesis, though.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yup. Dave, these are part of the MHC complex I told you to look into. HLA-A, HLA-B and HLA-DBR1 are three genes that each have hundreds of alleles in humans. What's more, as jeannot notes, there is a pretty good chance that one, the other, or both of your particular pair of HLA alleles (at any of the above three loci (genes) or other HLA loci) is closer to chimp HLA alleles than the other alleles in the human population. This indicates that these alleles are ancient.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,10:23

          What Eric and Jeannot said.

          Dave, please take your AIG figure (which is obviously designed to deceive individuals like yourself with little understanding of biology into drawing the completely erroneous condclusions that you have drawn).

          Assume that Adam is the "Father" and Eve is the "Mother".

          "Maa" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-A" GENE (do not mix up the "-A" in the gene name with the "a" in the allele name: HLA-A is a gene, represented by "M" in your AIG figure, for which each human has two alleles. They could be two copies of the same allele, but assume, as in your figure, they are different in both parents. For example, as in your figure, the two parents could be Ma/Mb. Or, you could try to help your case by working it out for Adam who is Ma/Mb and Eve who is Mc/Md.

          Similarly, "ma" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-B" GENE (just as above). Adam could be ma/mb and Eve could be mc/md.

          Go ahead and work out the "genetic richness" of the offspring, if you want. Yes, it will be less than or equal to that of the parents.

          But then you have to tell us why human populations actually have Ma through Mhp alleles for the HLA-A gene. (That's once through the alphabet for each allele, a-z, then we start with aa-az, then ba-bz, and so forth until we reach the 250 observed alleles at this locus.)

          Why do human populations actually have ma through msf for the HLA-B gene. (That's 500 alleles.) How genetically rich is our current population at these genes relative to your proposed initial founders?

          If you feel really ambitious, you could work out how close to that we could get from Noah and his family. Remember, start with Noah and his wife (make them as heterozygous as you'd like) and produce the potential genetic richness of his offspring. Pick the richest combinations for his sons, and add completely different heterozygous mothers for their wives. How many alleles do you get in the founding human population that stepped off the ark versus what we have now?

          The HLA genes are extreme examples of polymorphic loci (because, as jeannot says, alleles tend to get fixed without strong selection for heterozygosity), but many, many of our genes have too many alleles to have been produced by two (or 8) "genetically rich" founders that contained them all.

          Don't bother with the read herrings of "but they're just mutations, and YEC's allow for mutations" or "the similarity of human and chimp HLA alleles doesn't prove humans came from chimps". The point is your idea of "genetic richness" contained in the original pairs of created kinds, and it is easily laid to waste.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 18 2006,10:28

          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          God, Dave, you really need to learn a little about genetics before you go off on these totally wrong wild goose chases.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Which God would this be that you are referring to?

          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings. Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Eric, I don't think you are correct.  My understanding is that a couple (Noah and his wife for example) living in a population and not isolated could have easily been on the center of the Punnet diagram (in fact the probability would be much greater than 50% that they WOULD be in the center ... note that the majority of modern humans are concentrated in the center, not the extremeties of the diagram), thus they could easily been the progenitors of all the varied races of humans that we see today, especially if they had a little "help" from God at the Tower of Babel, which was designed to spread the human family over the face of the earth rapidly. See this ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In contrast [to Evolution], creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

          All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now with this in mind what about your supposed "bottleneck"?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,10:30

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 18 2006,15:02)
          Anyway, it could be possible to have our current polymorphism from only 8 individuals at the beginning (assuming imbreeding is not a problem), but it would take a lot more than 4500 years (even for purely demographic reasons).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And of course, the most relevant problem for the current discussion is that beginning with 8 alleles and producing literally hundreds of alleles is directly contrary to Dave's idea of "genetic richness" as he has presented it (i.e., a founding population "richer" than its descendants). That's before we even get into the amount of time it would take to evolve that kind of "genetic richness" in the human population.

          (Dave, read "evolve" in the last sentence as "microevolve from human ancestors" so that you realize this is a problem for YOUR idea, and isn't waved away by invoking it as part of the ToE that you can ignore. You are proposing mutation and selection rates far, far, far in excess of anything an "evolutionist" like me would dare to imagine. And again, this is completely tangential to your claims regarding "genetic richness", which are dead and starting to stink.)
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 18 2006,10:45

          davey. are you saying that the way that genetics operates has changed over time since your "initial creation"? If so, how?

          I mean this in the same way you invoke accelerated nuclear decay - is there a "trick" you think everybody has missed that would convince us all the earth is 6000 years old (you never did say when it's due to flip over to 6001) fer sure?
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 18 2006,10:52

          As a most-of-the-time-lurker, I would just like to thank you guys. Whenever I read these threads, I invariably learn something new (and I have a good chuckle too!;). Of course, one has to have an open mind and humility in order to learn.

          Anyway...

          So, Dave. What about those 5000 year old trees?
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 18 2006,10:58

          Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 18 2006,15:45)
          (you never did say when it's due to flip over to 6001)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You missed it.  Per the Ussher calculations, the Earth became 6001 on October 3, 1997. It was pretty low key but I am surprised you missed it the year before.  Man, I partied like it was 5999!
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 18 2006,11:12

          Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 18 2006,16:52)
          As a most-of-the-time-lurker, I would just like to thank you guys. Whenever I read these threads, I invariably learn something new (and I have a good chuckle too!;). Of course, one has to have an open mind and humility in order to learn.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          What he said  :)
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2006,11:13

          Re "There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended."

          Maybe it was a married mating pair instead of a single one? ;)
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,11:13

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,15:28)
          Eric...        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings. Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Eric, I don't think you are correct.  My understanding is that a couple (Noah and his wife for example) living in a population and not isolated could have easily been on the center of the Punnet diagram (in fact the probability would be much greater than 50% that they WOULD be in the center ... note that the majority of modern humans are concentrated in the center, not the extremeties of the diagram), thus they could easily been the progenitors of all the varied races of humans that we see today, especially if they had a little "help" from God at the Tower of Babel, which was designed to spread the human family over the face of the earth rapidly. See this ...        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In contrast [to Evolution], creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

          All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...        

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now with this in mind what about your supposed "bottleneck"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, Eric is perfectly correct (as are we all). You have been DECEIVED and/or CONFUSED by this (AIG?) paragraph. This is understandable, since it uses some nice slight-of-hand (or complete incomprehension) in equivocating a number of very different things: 1. the number of alleles in an individual at a given locus, which can be homozygous (i.e. 1, since they have two of the same allele) or heterozygous (i.e., 2, since they have two different alleles), which are the ONLY options; with 2. the number of alleles in a population (polymorphism), which can be very high (hundreds of alleles for the HLA loci, for example), and even 3. overall genomic variation in a population (as in the calculation of possible genomes produced by sperm, or possible genomes present in a population, which Ayala discusses).

          Let me make it perfectly clear:

          At the HLA-B locus, a human individual could be any ONE of 125,250 possible combinations of alleles (a-a, a-b, a-c...sf, se, sf from my example above). Adam was ONE of these possible combinations. Eve was another ONE of these possible combinations. Together, they could have produced, AT MOST, FOUR combinations in their direct offspring. WITHOUT ADDING ANY NEW ALLELES THAT WERE NOT PRESENT IN ADAM AND EVE (this requires mutation), the descendants of Adam and Eve could have been one of TEN possible allelic combinations. The other 125,240, or 99.99% of the "genetic richness" of the current human population at this locus, came later and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN present in Adam and Eve or their unmutated descendants.

          The same holds true for ANY polymorphic locus with more than four alleles (i.e., 10 allelic combinations). This includes a HUGE number of loci, Dave. If we find more than FOUR alleles, at least one of them COULD NOT HAVE BEEN in Adam or Eve. (If we find more than 16 alleles -- which we do in a very large number of loci -- at least one of them COULD NOT HAVE BEEN on the Ark.)

          Your "genetic richness" idea is done, Dave.

          Now, if you want to talk about what Ayala was talking about, that's another matter:

          Let's say ONE of the 125,250 HLA-B allelic combinations does something special and noticeable. I dunno, let's say "c-r" puts a big red "TARD" birthmark on the forehead of the unfortunate recipient, and we'll call "c-r" the "TARD" phenotype (i.e., allelic ombination). Now (assuming TARDs aren't selected for or against) of the current human population, 1 in 125,250 individuals (0.00001%) will be a TARD. That's rare to the point of vanishing. But let's suppose you, Dave, are a genuine, 6-in-a-million TARD. And let's say you go on to found your own human population on an island far, far away from the TARD-unfriendly world. Well, Dave, whomever you took for your lucky wife in TARDdom, at least 25% of your kids (and perhaps more) will be TARDS. Suddenly TARDs aren't so rare, eh? Furthermore, 12.5% of their kids will be TARDs. And so on. Hence, as Ayala says, "Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”

          Oh, and there's only a 0.00001% chance that either Adam or Eve was a TARD (and there's only a 0.0001% chance that they contained the "genetic richness" to produce a TARD). However, there's a 0.00003% chance that somebody on the Ark was a TARD. What do you think? When did TARDs emerge?

          In other words, your "understanding" is wrong, TARD. You once said you must have been "sleeping" when they taught the meaning of 5' and 3' in high school. Did you sleep through Punnett squares, too? I mean, c'mon Dave, this isn't rocket science. You can't squeeze 500 letters (alleles) into four slots that hold one letter each. Duh.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 18 2006,11:19

          Ved:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Have you seen a Dave Hawkins listed in the credits of the Watchmaker "dynamation" at Kids 4 Truth?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Yeah, I saw that. But there's nothing in the "dynamation" or for that matter anywhere else on the K4T site that really takes issue with science; it's all just metaphorical, and could be acceptable to any "theistic evolutionist". I.e. what I call "in-some-sense-ists": ("God, in some sense, created everything, but so far as we know, He did it in some  way entirely consistent with the well-established aspects of science, working through the process of evolution").

          I don't see anything on the K4T site that says radioisotope dating is flawed, or that the earth is only thousands, not millions or billions years old, or that molecular biology is inconsistent with Darwin, or any of the sort of loony wing-nut positions you see on this thread.

          I still think our "afdave" may just be an impostor-troll.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 18 2006,11:22

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,16:28)
          More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Now if we take Dave at his word here and disregard the obviously contradictory passage he quotes, he's going all the way back to Adam and Eve with a maximum 4 alleles and disallowing mutations.  So a prediction of this hypothesis is that there will be no more than 4 alleles for any given gene in the human population.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,11:27

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,15:28)
          Eric...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          God, Dave, you really need to learn a little about genetics before you go off on these totally wrong wild goose chases.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Which God would this be that you are referring to?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, how many times do I have to tell you that I take no position on whether God exists? I know for a fact that your god doesn't exist, but that says nothing about whether there is a god.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There simply is no single mating pair of human beings from which all subsequent humans are descended. It just doesn't work that way. And it's also not true (cannot possibly be true) that all possible alleles for all human genes were ever contained in the geneotype of any two humans beings. Noah's ark would be a bottleneck, genius.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Eric, I don't think you are correct.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I am. One individual, two alleles (max) for any given gene. It is physically impossible for a normal (non-supernatural) human being to have more than two alleles (heterozygous) or one (homozygous) for any given gene, Dave. End Of Story.

          You do know what I mean when I say "allele," don't you?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           My understanding is that a couple (Noah and his wife for example) living in a population and not isolated could have easily been on the center of the Punnet diagram (in fact the probability would be much greater than 50% that they WOULD be in the center ... note that the majority of modern humans are concentrated in the center, not the extremeties of the diagram), thus they could easily been the progenitors of all the varied races of humans that we see today, especially if they had a little "help" from God at the Tower of Babel, which was designed to spread the human family over the face of the earth rapidly.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Irrelevant. It doesn't matter where any individual is on the diagram, Dave. You simply cannot have more than two alleles for a given gene, unless you're some sort of triploid, quadraploid, hexaploid etc. monstrosity. This is the part you simply aren't getting.
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          See this ...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In contrast [to Evolution], creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          How, Dave? More "miracles"? Did Adam and Eve (or Noah and his boatmates) had an unusually large number of chromosomes? Did they each have 92 chromosomes, or 184 chromosomes? Where did the extra "genetic richness" come from?
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Where, Dave? Where did this extra information reside? Are you claiming DNA with six strands instead of two? Or multiple sets of chromosomes? If you're making any of these claims, where's your evidence?

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          This is the part you don't get, Dave, and it's what demolishes your argument. I'm not sure why you don't understand this (other than deliberate ignorance and opacity of mind), but you don't.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          20,000 is more like it. You can't equate base pairs to genes, because the vast majority of the human genome is not associated with any gene.
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No. Two alleles for each gene, maximum, Dave. No individual can have more. The amount of heterozygosity could be 100%, Dave, and the result would be at most twice the genetic variability of the absolute bare minimum possible.
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ayala is talking about populations; you're talking about individuals. Until you wake up and make the distinction, you're never going to get out of the weeds.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations  arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Check out my emphasis, Dave.

             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now with this in mind what about your supposed "bottleneck"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It remains exactly the same, Dave. Funnelling all of human diversity through eight individuals throws away almost all of the existing diversity. As I've said at least three times now, you could have five hundred alleles for a given gene, but with only eight individuals to start with, you can have, at most, sixteen alleles. Virtually all of the diversity you had pre-flood is now gone.

          It doesn't get much more straightforward that this, Dave.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 18 2006,11:32

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,17:27)
          Virtually all of the diversity you had pre-flood is now gone.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          If he's right, there couldn't have been any diversity to begin with.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,11:37

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,15:28)
          More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

          p. 63
          “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          p. 64
          “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now with this in mind what about your supposed "bottleneck"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you don't understand this quotation.
          Ayala is discussing whole populations with "stored genetic variations" that result from (guess what?) mutations, and he makes it perfectly clear.

          In a population of two individuals, you can "store" 4 alleles per locus, at most.

          Got that? Write that down!   :D
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,11:38

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,16:27)
          How, Dave? More "miracles"? Did Adam and Eve (or Noah and his boatmates) had an unusually large number of chromosomes? Did they each have 92 chromosomes, or 184 chromosomes? Where did the extra "genetic richness" come from?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Hehe, well, we're up to AT LEAST 250 chromosomes for HLA-B polymorphism alone (assuming no allelic duplication within either individual or across Adam and Eve). THAT is an intersting idea regarding the created Human "kind" if I ever heard one!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,11:43

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 18 2006,16:38)
          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,16:27)
          How, Dave? More "miracles"? Did Adam and Eve (or Noah and his boatmates) had an unusually large number of chromosomes? Did they each have 92 chromosomes, or 184 chromosomes? Where did the extra "genetic richness" come from?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Hehe, well, we're up to AT LEAST 250 chromosomes for HLA-B polymorphism alone (assuming no allelic duplication within either individual or across Adam and Eve). THAT is an intersting idea regarding the created Human "kind" if I ever heard one!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          250*23 chromosomes, you mean?  :p
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,11:44

          You'd think he'd read something on cheetahs...condors...anything that illustrates the nature and hazards of bottlenecks. But no. Dave's here to teach. Uh-huh. Sadly, I remember a guy like Dave in my Population Genetics/Stats class. He broke down in the final and ran out crying. Tragic, it was.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          But let's suppose you, Dave, are a 6-in-a-billion TARD. And let's say you go on to found your own human population on an island far, far away from the TARD-unfriendly world.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          *Sigh* One could only wish it was so...
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 18 2006,11:49

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2006,16:44)
          You'd think he'd read something on cheetahs...condors...anything that illustrates the nature and hazards of bottlenecks.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          He'd better read a biology textbook first.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,11:56

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 18 2006,16:43)
          250*23 chromosomes, you mean?  :p
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Hehe, well I did say number of chromosomes for HLA-B ALONE, didn't I?

          In any case, we now know that Adam was at least a bihectopentadecaploid. Of course, if God "cloned" him from Eve, he was at least a pentahectoploid. And if we include other polymorphisms, he was a multimyriaploid of some sort.

          I wonder what kind of phenotype you would get from say, decasomy-21?

          Wow.
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2006,11:59

          Could the extra alleles have been hiding in that rib that got removed? :p
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 18 2006,12:07

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2006,16:44)
          You'd think he'd read something on cheetahs...condors...anything that illustrates the nature and hazards of bottlenecks. But no. Dave's here to teach. Uh-huh. Sadly, I remember a guy like Dave in my Population Genetics/Stats class. He broke down in the final and ran out crying. Tragic, it was.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          But let's suppose you, Dave, are a 6-in-a-billion TARD. And let's say you go on to found your own human population on an island far, far away from the TARD-unfriendly world.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          *Sigh* One could only wish it was so...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Actually, since you pointed it out, that should read "6-in-a-MILLION TARD", and I have corrected it accordingly. I wonder what we get if we add up the genuine, dyed-in-the-wool TARDs. I'm talking the Discovery Fellows, DaveScots and AFDave's of the world. A few tens of thousands worldwide, as "predicted"? On average, it would be a little over a thousand in the United States, but I think we can allow for a little localization, can't we? Am I off?

          If I'm not off, I'm writing up a grant proposal to seek the source of the TARD phenotype within the highly polymorphic loci!

          If I am, don't tell me -- it's too dperessing to think about.
          Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 18 2006,12:43

          It's obvious that Dave is not only reading alot of assumptions into the Bible but, also creating ideas or concepts that are not in the Bible.

          Front-loading Adam and Eve????

          Do you just make this crap up?
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 18 2006,12:52

          Dave, if I recall your hypothesis correctly, some time soon after the flood was when the single supercontinent broke up (how far after the flood?  at the time of the Tower of Babel?  During the life of Peleg?).  During this time period the creatures and humans that would eventually inhabit these areas happeneds to be there when the continents starting to break up.  So if we had a small "genetically rich" populous, and they spawned quite rapidly, and then we took a random chunk of those people and seperated them by thousands of miles of water, what predictions could we make about their genetic makeup?  

          Why haven't humans speciated given that they are under the same naturalistic pressures that caused a handful (1?) beetle kind to speciate into the 350,000 known beetle species, over a period of 4500 years?

          Does this hyper-evolution of species continue to occur today?  Why is there no recorded history of this occuring in any resource, including the bible?  Why do we not see hyper-evolution today?
          Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 18 2006,13:17

          AFDAve answer me this, how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?

          What's up with that?
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 18 2006,13:35

          AFDave quoted a passage from < this > website which said


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          AFDave, could you please explain how mutations do not introduce information, where information content is defined by Shannon's formulation (which is the accepted definition in physics, mathematics, engineering, and biology)?

          I anticipate that you will defer to Spetner's definition, however his is context dependent and thus useless as an absolute definition of information content. Plus, it is not used in any of the above listed fields.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,13:56

          Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,18:17)
          AFDAve answer me this, how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?

          What's up with that?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Simple: Noah (and all humans before Noah was born) were bidodecaploid, and had 40 alleles per gene. All those extra copies of genes means that they could live a lot longer, because they could just activate whichever allele was most advantageous at a particular time to ward off illness or infirmity.

          Should have seen the DIP switches those guys had on the backs of their necks to choose all those gene combinations…
          Posted by: swbarnes2 on Oct. 18 2006,14:11



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric, I don't think you are correct.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Don't you yet reliaze how stupid you look when you tell other people that you know more than they do?

          Sure, in your own head, you are a genius who knows more hard solid facts from reading watered down Creationist crap (from sources you admit get things wrong, and don't bother to fix them) than the professionals on this board who studied texbooks and read journal articles, but don't you at least have the presense of mind to know that to everyone else, your diet of Creationist baby-talk pales in comparison to the worth of a real science education?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          My understanding is that a couple (Noah and his wife for example) living in a population and not isolated could have easily been on the center of the Punnet diagram
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          The whole #### point of the punnett square is that each box is equally likely.  A middle schooler who though otherwise would flunk

          Why don't you know biology better than middle schoolers?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (in fact the probability would be much greater than 50% that they WOULD be in the center ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Wrong.  Totally wrong.  The whole #### point of the punnett square is that each box is equally likely!  Once you leave the sand box of middle school genetics and dippy punnett squares behind, you realize that we are talking about thousands of genes, and the odds of a person being heterozygous for all of them are ridiculously small.  If you had a perfect ideal HWE population with all alleles equally distributed, you would expect that each individual would be heterozygous for half of those genes, and homozygous for the other half.  The last thing that a person with a remotely tenuous grasp of statistics would expect in that situation would be for individuals to have a significantly higher heterozygocity ratio.

          But this still doesn't help you because, as everyone and their mother has pointed out to you, your 5 unrelated people on the ark can't have more than 10 alleles total between them for any single gene.  And there are genes which are known (that does not mean that someone sat down and drew out a big messy punnatt square, and declared that there were lots of alleles because they drew a pretty picture showing lots of alleles, it means that they have been empirically observed through DNA sequencing or some other genotyping technique), which have a great many more than 10 alleles.

          So your "all genetic diversity descends from a single 'rich' set of people" falls flat on its face.  No set of 5 people can possibly provide more than 10 alleles.  And no two people with 4 alleles between them at a locus can possibly have more "richness" than a population that has 250 alleles at that locus...or do we need to explicitly lay out for you the proof of why 250 > 4?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Umm, no, there's just one gene at a given loci.  There are two alleles.  Honestly, do you think that it makes you look intelligent to use terms with a sloppiness that middle school science teachers would refuse to tolerate?  And genes don't code for "characteristics", unelss you are teaching kindergardeners.  They code for proteins (or occasioanlly, rRNA or tRNA)

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Good grief, no one has believed that for years.  Years.  The human genome project was done in June of 2000, and they were publishing about 30-40,000 genes.  The number hasn't changed much since then.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Really?  You know how much of the human genome looks like this:CACACACACACACACACACACACACACA.

          Maybe you and your kind find books that read like that to be informative...actually, given the accuracy of your posts, I suspect you do.

          Really, Dave, stay in the kiddie pool of Creationism.  Just like the grown-ups don't appreciate swimming in toddler pee, grown-ups don't enjoy wading through the lies (and yes, Dave, you are a liar) and idiocy that you Creaationists revel in.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,15:06

          Quote (swbarnes2 @ Oct. 18 2006,19:11)
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Eric, I don't think you are correct.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Don't you yet reliaze how stupid you look when you tell other people that you know more than they do?

          Sure, in your own head, you are a genius who knows more hard solid facts from reading watered down Creationist crap (from sources you admit get things wrong, and don't bother to fix them) than the professionals on this board who studied texbooks and read journal articles, but don't you at least have the presense of mind to know that to everyone else, your diet of Creationist baby-talk pales in comparison to the worth of a real science education?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          But you know what the funniest part of it is? As I've pointed out before, I'm easily the least educated person on this board! I've got a high-school diploma (although I'll be damned if I can put my hands on it), and I took one—one—single-semester undergraduate astronomy course a dozen years ago at the local community college (which, admittedly, is one of the finest community colleges in the country).

          But I read a lot, I can make critical distinctions between consensus science and the kind of loopy garbage Dave reads, and I have not too bad of a brain. With that limited intellectual toolkit, I can somehow trip Dave up again, and again, and again with his pre-schooler's understanding of science, his inability and/or unwillingness to learn anything that conflicts with his worldview, and his inability and/or unwillingness to ever, ever admit he was wrong.

          I predict that six weeks from now, Dave will be claiming he "won" his argument about how many alleles an individual can have for a single gene, and still claim that Noah and his fellow refugees were more "genetically rich" than anyone alive today.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 18 2006,16:10



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'm easily the least educated person on this board!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Back when I was teaching, I could only wish that I'd have one or two people like you in a class. You kick ass and take names. You obviously read for comprehension and you've kept it up despite not having to earn a grade, which means you LIKE learning...and that's a lot more than I can say for most people -- even some that have tenure. I'd never call you "least" educated, and that's not just me blowing smoke, it's an honest appraisal.

          Here's an observation...Dave is supposed to have an engineering degree with honors. You've slapped him around like...well, as stevestory noted... like Mike Tyson in his prime tearing the head off some poor schmuck.

          Bah, I just realized what a bad compliment that is, since Dave's an idiot. Let me put it another way. If you hadn't said you DIDN'T have an advanced degree, there'd be NO way for me to tell.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 18 2006,16:53

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,13:36)
          "GENETICALLY RICH" EXPLAINED


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AFDave,
          So in your world Adam looks like HUGO CHAVEZs brother and Eve is the MONA LISA.

          Mike PSS

          p.s. You'll have to start doing some heavy duty Permalink clicking to backtrack my numerous requests to rebut my refutation of your mixing notions.  Here's my latest < post > that has links to earlier posts that link to earlier replies to your requests for information related to earlier posts that asked for your comments on my summary (Whewwww).
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 18 2006,17:02

          Hey DM, thanks for the compliments.

          Here's the deal: the real world, the world that's billions of years old, hundreds of billions of light-years wide, with things like general relativity, number theory, M-theory (whatever it turns out to be), black holes and quasars, higgs bosons and gold nuclei, lungfish and lichens, Grand Canyons and Mid-Atlantic ridges, self-organizing phenomena like life and sand dunes,  is endlessly fascinating. Astronomically more fascinating than Dave's constipated, claustrophobic, toy universe with his naked, squalling, insecure, tyrannical and tantrum-throwing "god."

          If nothing else had turned me off Dave's cosmogony, sheer boredom would have done it.
          Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 18 2006,17:43

          I'm sure afdave's understanding is not helped by the fact that the Punnett Square he used shows the combinations of two genes that have similar effects, each with two alleles, whereas the discussion has focussed on one gene with multiple alleles.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 18 2006,18:02

          On another thread Mike PSS notes:
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "You have to constantly hit idiocy and stupidity in the face.  Otherwise, idiocy and stupidity think they are alright."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here we see Deadman educating SFBDave  


          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 18 2006,18:40

          Re "how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?"

          Cause Lazarus Long and his kinfolk try to avoid being noticed by us shorter lived folk. ;)

          Henry
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 18 2006,21:15

          Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 18 2006,23:40)
          Re "how come we don't see any people lving to be, oh, 700 or 900 years old anymore?"

          Cause Lazarus Long and his kinfolk try to avoid being noticed by us shorter lived folk. ;)

          Henry
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Heh, Henry ...right theory, wrong universe...

          DM, U.spelunkus, THAT provoked a belly laugh. For a good time, call Zog!

          Dave, add neutronium dating to cosmogenic-isotope dating you need to refute.

          You keep falling behind in your homework and fail to make it up. You realize this WILL end up in your permanent record?
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 18 2006,21:34

          AFDave, is it OK to bear false witness?
          You're a Christian (or so you say) so where do you stand on lying?
          The majority of your material comes from AIG.
          Yet they've lied to you about the article.
          Here's whats happened...
          Either you sent the e-mail or you didn't.
          If you didn't send the e-mail, then you are a liar.
          If you did send the e-mail, then AIG just brushed you off and willfully continue to misrepresent the truth.
          So AIG are liars even to a 'true believer' like you.
          Correct me if I'm wrong.
          If you want to pretend to ignore my questions and those of other posters to this thread, then go ahead.  Such behaviour reflects badly upon you.  If you can't come up with answers to questions that even a child could understand, then what are you trying to prove here?

          Nobody cares if you are a Creationist or not, AFDave.
          Enough with the "Oh woe is me, I'm a martyr" song and dance.  It's an old trick and nobody is going to fall for it.
          If you've had a hard time here then it's because you exasperate people with your poor attitude and ignorance.  You don't construct valid arguements, you repeat failed arguements like a Buddist mantra,  your sources are either dopey or woefully outdated by 40 to 100+ years.
          ???  etc.
          I mean, really, is this how you want people who read this thread to view people like you?
          Are you proud of your conduct?
          Are you man enough to talk straight and to admit that AIG is a false friend to your cause?

          (Arden is correct by the way.  The Portugese thing was born of your own pig-headedness.  A simple admission that you got it wrong and that you'd like to move on with the debate to other issues would have allowed the matter to end there.  Even now, a modest dash of humility would not be too late.  What do you reckon? Fair enough?)
          Posted by: Tim on Oct. 18 2006,22:29

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,15:28)
          One individual, two alleles (max) for any given gene. It is physically impossible for a normal (non-supernatural) human being to have more than two alleles (heterozygous) or one (homozygous) for any given gene, Dave. End Of Story.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well duh.

          Of course Adam and Eve were supernatural.

          One was created from dust, and the other from ... errr ... a rib.

          And dudes lived to 900 years old in them days.

          In Daveland it is perfectly possible for these super-dudes and dudettes to be 'genetically-rich' with 1,000 times the number of chromosomes of us poor saps and enough genetic variation therein to spawn the 6bn different folk we see today.

          Mutations. Pffft. Who needs mutations. I laugh at your high-falutin' sciency silliness.

          Just because you don't see 900 yr old dusty-lookin' folk with 248 different eye-colours today doesn't mean they didn't exist 6,000 years ago.

          Duh.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2006,02:18

          Y'all will have to forgive me, I'm just the son of a carpenter, but...

          If Eve was made from Adam's rib, wouldn't that make her a clone, and thus have exactly the same genes etc as Adam?  Wouldn't that mean they were homozygowhatsits?

          If so, wouldn't that cut the available genetic material in half?

          Just wonderin'.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 19 2006,02:50

          I notice davey has been very quiet on this subject (in conparison). I wonder if it's because even he realises he's on a hiding to nothing with this "genetically rich" idea of his. It's been so demolished now (why not 1024 chroma's?) that there are no pieces to pick up.

          Amazing how such a know-nothing can say that modern genetics is simply wrong, solely on the basis of his belief that Adam and Eve existed.

          When i asked him how old the sun was, we get the answer 6000 years. Not on the basis of any actual evidence supporting that, but only on the basis that his belief is that it's not possible for anything to be older then 6000 years old - i.e nothing intrinsic to the sun promotes this belief, but a 2000 year old book "proves" facts about the sun (at a time when people didnt even know what the sun really was).

          Amazing. I hope your kids grow up to hate the fact you lied to them throughout their youth - it'll happen. If not to you, then to sombody in your "church".

          Oh, i've found somebody willing to hand out leaflets (Craiglist for ya!;) outside your church pointing towards a tiny url for this thread. This is your last chance to admit that you have not pointed your "friends" towards this thread of lies.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,03:28

          WHOA! HORSE ... THE SPECULATION MACHINE IS RUNNING WILD AGAIN!

          It is always amusing to read people's misunderstandings and assumptions about me ... it has really become a daily source of entertainment for me.  

          The latest misunderstanding centers around my "genetically rich" term.  Apparently many of you assume that to me this means that Adam and Eve has 1000 chromosomes or something.  I'm not sure how you came to think that ... possibly the same way you came to believe in ToE ... because OTHER PEOPLE believe ToE is true ... therefore it MUST be true.  So let us now back up and get some things straight.

          I will say to his credit that I don't think Cory has made this wild assumption, but I see that he also is not clear what I think. so let's get it straight ...


          Let's do a basic review of the Punnet Squares from this article ...< http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp >

          You can read up on Punnet squares here ...< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnet_square >

          First, Cory claims that AIG is confused or lying but I don't think this is so.  The Punnet square above simply considers two alleles (forms) of a particular gene -- one that controls skin color, i.e. more or less melanin.  The AIG article clearly says that more than one pair of genes control skin color (six I think), but they make a simplifying assumption just to illustrate the concept.  This is completely valid.

          Now there are 5 levels of skin color depicted on this chart ... if all six genes were considered there would be many more levels, but the concept does not change so we will stick with just considering one pair with 2 different alleles - lighter and darker.

          Now ... consider an "MMMM" individual (top LH corner of the chart) mating with another "MMMM" individual.  Is it possible for them to produce "MMMm" offspring?  How about "MMmm"?  Or "Mmmm"? "mmmm"?  Of course the answer is "NO" it is not possible for ANY of these offspring.  This situation would illustrate what I mean by a LACK of "genetic richness" and as you can see it can apply to an individual or to a population, so all this chiding me about populations vs. individuals is bogus.  You people that were talking about that simply did not understand what I was saying.  IOW, if this "MMMM" female and "MMMM" male went to a desert island and started a colony, they could only have "MMMM" offspring.  Ditto all of this for two "mmmm" individuals (light skin).

          Contrast these two extremes with the situation we actually have in the diagram above -- an "MmMm" father and an "MmMm" mother and guess what we get ...

          GENETIC RICHNESS

          Now real biologists may not call it that ... fine, but we need some name for the concept.  Maybe I should be calling it heterozygosity.  how about that?

          Let's explore this genetic richness idea further ...

          An "MmMm" father and an "MmMm" mother could produce a population of widely varying skin color as shown on the diagram ... 5 levels from only two genes (remember, in reality there are six genes which control skin color, so there are many more than 5 levels of skin colors actually possible) and as I tried to point out before (maybe not very clearly), there is more chance of the offspring having a medium skin color than any of the other possibilities (1 square each for Level 1-Light and for Level 5-Dark, 4 squares each for Level 2 and 4, but 6 squares or 6/16 probability for Level 3).  

          How long does it take to produce all these various skin tones?  Quite likely only one generation!  Why such a short time?  Because the parents are "GENETICALLY RICH" meaning they have both alleles, not just a single allele.

          Now it is interesting to note that the present world human population DOES IN FACT reflect this simplified Punnet square quite nicely.  Think about it.  Is the world population considered as a group predominantly black?  No.  Predominantly white?  No again.  We are predominantly BROWN considering all 7 billion people.  Most of us are varying shades of lighter or darker brown, just as depicted in this chart.

          THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIOUS ETHNIC GROUPS
          Knowing all this, how did the various people groups come about?  How did we get Caucasians and Asians and Africans etc. etc.?  A likely cause would be a DISPERSION EVENT of some sort.  Do we find a historical report of this?  Why yes we do!  The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages.  Nonsense you say?  Fine ... go ahead and say that, but you have to admit that the evidence does indicate some sort of interesting dispersion event, does it not?  Let me explain.  IF we take the Babel account as a starting point for our Hypothesis of explaining the modern ethnic groups, what would we expect?  We would expect migration in different directions.  Sub groups of the single Babel population which spoke the same language would naturally join forces and migrate away from the Babel area and settle together.  They would likely go in different directions just to avoid conflict with other groups.  What would happen if these sub groups did this?  Well of course you would have SPECIALIZATION within the different groups which is exactly what any dog breeder knows.  Your gene pool is suddenly reduced in any given group, for example, if the Babel population was 500,000 and there were instantly 10 new languages, you would now have 50,000 in each new group (assuming equal splitting).  These new groups would then migrate, settle and begin reproducing.  The laws of heredity would apply and also the laws of natural selection.  The laws of heredity would predict that the newly separated people groups would have different average characteristics when comparing them with other people groups.  The laws of natural selection would predict that some members of each group would be more successful in their new environments, i.e. hot vs. cold climates, agricultural vs. non-agricultural, etc.  As a result of these two laws, the total world human population would quite likely end up just as it actually is today if this were the true scenario which took place.

          WHAT HAVE WE PROVEN?
          What have we proven with this discussion?  Have we proven that Biblical account of Adam and Eve is true? No.  Noah and his wife are the progenitors of the present population?  No again.  What we have done is merely show the PLAUSIBILITY of the Biblical account and how it does not contradict any known law of science.  I have shown you what I mean when I say that a pair of genetically rich humans founded the race (Adam and Eve) and I have shown you why it is quite believable to say that Noah and his wife could have easily contained all the genetic information necessary to produce the wide variety we see in the human race in a very short time.  The only requirement on Noah and his wife would be that they be somewhere towards the middle of the Punnet square, which of course is quite likely as we have seen.  If they were at either one of the extremes, black or white skin (and at the extremes for all othe traits as well), then they would be "genetically poor" and thus the present human population would likely be much less varied than it actually is.  So they were probably people of medium skin tone and also close to the average in all the other characteristics--eye color, hair color, hair texture, height, intelligence, etc.  Note that my idea of "genetically rich" applied to dogs would be commonly known as a "mutt."  And my idea of "genetically poor" would be something like a Chihuahua.  I think that Eric is mistaken that you could eventually get a "Great Dane size" dog from a pair of chihuahuas.  My understanding is that the gene alleles causing large body size are gone forever in Chihuahuas--forever bred OUT of this breed.  It is a purebred.  Just as Mendel's purebred yellow peas could never produce green peas and vice versa.  Only his HYBRID yellow peas could produce green peas.  Once again ... the purebreds are "genetically poor" and the hybrids are "genetically rich."  Only a hybrid "mutt" which contains alleles for large AND small body size can produce a Great Dane.  A chihuahua which ONLY contains alleles for small body size cannot.

          So is the Biblical account plausible?  Yes, quite.

          A REVIEW OF MY APPROACH TO ORIGINS
          The more astute ones here at ATBC will notice that the approach I have taken here is the only approach I will EVER take when studying origins.  Again this approach is ...

          1) Read the historical record
          2) Study the laws of science
          3) Determine if the recorded account conflicts with science

          I think far too many people here dismiss the Bible as a historical record simply because they view it as a religious book.  This is a mistake.  No one should discount the historicity of the Bible regardless of what they may think about its teachings about God or morality or innerrancy or what have you.  Think about it.  What is the most reliable information for determining the truth about Napoleon?  Historical records, right?  Don't historians ALWAYS look for historical records about people or civilizations first?  Then if they cannot find any, they rely on other methods?  

          THE HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLICAL RECORD
          Some may ask "Why do you think the Bible is historically accurate?" which of course can be answered by picking up a text on Biblical Archaeology.  Halley's Bible Handbook is a good one.  Also the British Museum is chock full of historical confirmations of the Bible.  See Peter Master's guide to the British Museum called Heritage of Evidence in the British Museum.  What the study of Biblical Archaeology will tell you is simply this ... The Bible is an accurate historical record at least in the details which we can verify from archaeology.  Why would we doubt it in the details we CANNOT verify? Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote,      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          He continued his assertion of ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact."  (Glueck, Nelson. Rivers in the Desert; History of the Negev. Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969, p. 31)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

           William Albright, one of the greatest archaeologists of the 20th century, wrote this ...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition. (Albright, William. Archaeology and the Religions of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1956, p. 176)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          and      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited.  Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bilbe as a source of history. (Albright, William. The Archaeology of Palestine, Rev. Ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960, pp. 127-128.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Hopefully this at least clears up what I think.  Of course you may disagree with what I think ... that's OK.  Tell me specifically WHY you disagree and I will listen, as usual.

          ********************************

          QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

          Lou FCD...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If Eve was made from Adam's rib, wouldn't that make her a clone, and thus have exactly the same genes etc as Adam?  Wouldn't that mean they were homozygowhatsits?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No I don't think so. My understanding is that homozygosity refers to individuals, i.e. an individual could have a gene for skin color and be homozygous -- "MM" or heterozygous -- "Mm".  My guess (observing the present human race) is that Adam was created with a large degree of heterozygosity -- what I have been calling "genetic richness."  Thus if Eve got the same genetic makeup as Adam (probably true) then together they would give rise to the present situation as we see it today with lots of variability.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And dudes lived to 900 years old in them days.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          This is something which I cannot explain and I don't know of a creationist who can.  However, the Bible is not the only place this is mentioned.  The Weld prism, for example, gives a list of 10 long-lived kings.  Early translations of this prism gave something like tens of thousands of years I think, but my understanding is that later, better translations bring these ages down very close to the Biblically recorded ages.  Personally, I see no logical reason why a human being could not live for 900+ years given the right conditions.  I am quite convinced that conditions were very different prior to the Flood and we do see the recorded ages of men after the Flood progressively declining in a sort of a logarithmic fashion.  I think there is so much we do not know about genetics ... hopefully we will begin to uncover some of the causes of aging as time goes on ... then we may be able to answer these questions.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,03:46

          Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 19 2006,03:47

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,08:28)
          The latest misunderstanding centers around my "genetically rich" term.  Apparently many of you assume that to me this means that Adam and Eve has 1000 chromosomes or something.  I'm not sure how you came to think that ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Because there is no other possibilty except mutations, Davey.

          Your rant about skin colors explains nothing. We already knew that two parents can theoretically give birth to billions of different children. I learned it when I was 12. Thank you, genius.
          We'd like you to explain is how two ancestors can produce descendants having together hundreds of different alleles at the same locus, without mutations.
          Go bak to your homework, boy.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 19 2006,03:50

          Quote (improvius @ Oct. 19 2006,08:46)
          Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Or 4, at most.

          And what about mitochondrial genes, Dave?

          Interestingly: only two of Adam and Eve's children had any descendants. I never read the Bible (gasp!;) but our fundy can confirm this. If so, in the most favorable situation where Adam and Eve had together 4 alleles per locus, half of their "genetic richness" at least was lost in the first generation. Man, that's not a good start.  :(
          It's called a bottleneck, Davey.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,03:53

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 19 2006,09:50)
          Quote (improvius @ Oct. 19 2006,08:46)
          Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Or 4, at most.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Nope.  He's going with 2:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          My guess (observing the present human race) is that Adam was created with a large degree of heterozygosity -- what I have been calling "genetic richness."  Thus if Eve got the same genetic makeup as Adam (probably true) then together they would give rise to the present situation as we see it today with lots of variability.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,04:05

          First some old business
          I was asked to repost my evidence (on this thread) against Dave on plagiarism and quotemining, so here it is:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
          1) had no era from which to date events
          2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
          3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
          4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
          ...possibly??
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Take Dave's list of objections. Notice he didn't cite any source. Remove the numbers.

          ( the Egyptians  had no era from which to date events  did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son  never gave the duration of a dynasty  did not designate contemporary dynasties)

          Run it through a search engine. Guess what singular result you get?
          A .pdf citing a quotemine.
          Conclusion: Dave not only quotemined, but plagiarized as well.
          The .pdf is an excerpt of a book entitled " All Through the Ages" by Christine Miller, published by a Christian vanity press located at  http://www.nothingnewpress.com/atta.shtml . This is what Christine Miller cites:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ”The greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology is the circumstance that the Egyptians themselves never had any chronology at all,” reports Mr. M. Mariette, the former Director of the Service of Conservation of the Antiquities of Egypt, the British Museum. The Egyptians did not enter into computations of time; they were without the chronological idea, save in a few instances. Chronology is, upon the monuments, almost non-existant. The Egyptians had no era from which to date events. They did not distinguish between the years of a sole reign and those of joint reigns of father and son. They never gave the duration of a dynasty. They did not designate contemporary dynasties. Hence the uncertainty of dates in Egyptian history."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          As I said, you can run that list through a search engine and you will find only ONE source. Christine Miller.
          The quote from the .pdf lists Dave's objections in the precise order, using the same wording. Now, what are the odds of that NOT being deliberate, and that it "just happened " to emerge from Dave in the EXACT wording and order? Note Also that Miller didn't even get it right...the guy's name was Auguste Mariette

          Oh, Yeahhhhhh...BUSTED AGAIN.

          Tsk, tsk. Fraud coming from a creationist...how unusual. The funny part is "Christine Miller" didn't even cite a literature source, either. But I know where it came from.

          **note that Dave has said he "heard" this list somewhere...then reproduced it verbatim.
          But also notice he cannot say WHERE he heard it and then claimed also that I "may be right" in saying he took it from the web--from that .pdf.
          Either way, regardless of WHEN or HOW he learned this bit of quotemine...he repeated it here. This is quotemining. He failed to give a source. This is plagiarism.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,04:10



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Boy, you guys sure do a lot of assuming.  Where did I say that?  Did you asusme I think this because I used only two alleles in my Punnet square?

          My post today simply explains what I mean by "genetic richness."  

          Eric said this ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Let's take as an example a "kind" which was represented on the ark by a single pair of organisms. Let's assume this organism has a genotype with 20,000 genes (approximately the same as humans). Let's further assume that there are ten (or fifty or a hundred; it doesn't matter) different alleles for each gene in this organism at the time of the flood. So what are the maximum and minimum amounts of "genetic richness" this pair could have?

          Minimum "genetic richness": both parents have exactly the same alleles at every single locus. This is essentially impossible, because you need a male and a female to get a breeding couple, but it sets a hypothetical floor as to what the absolute logical minimum "genetic richness" could be.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Agreed so far.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Maximum "genetic richness": each of the two organisms is heterozygous for every single gene in its genotype, and there are no duplicate alleles between the two individuals. Therefore, for each gene, the couple contains four alleles, regardless of the number of possible alleles. There could be thousands of possible alleles for each gene in this organism's genotype, but the maximum achievable for a pair of organisms is only four times the absolutely minimum possible "genetic richness."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Agreed also.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Therefore, Dave, there's no way for your "kinds" present on the ark to be appreciably more "genetically rich" that any organism alive today. Even with maximum hybrid vigor, Noah's "genetically rich" specimens are unlikely to have even twice the genetic variability available today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Whoops!  We made a huge leap here.  I disagree. As I explained in the simplified Punnet square above considering only two alleles on two genes ... the only requirement on any parental pair on Noah's ark is that they NOT be in the extreme corners, i.e. not the "minimum" situation Eric describes above.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So there's no way your "genetic richness" can result in an explosive increase in biodiversity over the past five millennia, and even it could, it didn't, because we would have proof positive of such increases in biodiversity in the written records. We have no such proof; therefore it didn't happen.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You don't explain why you think this cannot happen.  I have already shown you how, if you begin with a pair that has a large degree of heterozygosity, you can have a large degree of variation in only one generation.  How much more can you have if there is a Dispersion Event 200 years after the Flood?  A lot!!  Happened with Mendel's peas also, remember?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Further, considered as a population, the denizens of Noah's ark are unavoidably less "genetically rich" than any larger pre-existing population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Not so necessarily as I have explained.  In fact the probability is greatest that they WILL have a large degree of heterozygosity.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Noah's ark is a genetic bottleneck, no matter how you look at it, which drastically reduces genetic variability, and the larger the number of alleles for a given gene in a given population, the narrower the bottleneck.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Not true as I have shown.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Starting with any number of organisms of a "kind" on the ark, the available number of alleles for a given gene is 2(number of organisms). Since (number of organisms on ark) is unavoidably < (number of organisms before flood), there's no way for Dave to get the freakishly explosive increase in diversity his "hypothesis" demands through any sort of "genetic richness."  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Actually, it's quite simple to get this and is what one would expect.

          *******************************

          So Jeannot, in this case you are not even on the right track.  In this case, I have to hand it to Eric -- who doesn't even have a college degree -- for at least understanding the nature of the present debate.  I believe some of his conclusions are wrong, but at least he understands the relevant issues.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,04:13

          On to new business
          Dave repeats this nonsense:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What the study of Biblical Archaeology will tell you is simply this ... The Bible is an accurate historical record at least in the details which we can verify from archaeology.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Except in regard to little things like the flood NOT wiping out Egyptian and Sumerian and Chinese civilizations at 2500 BCE. And they all had writing before and after that date.
          Or take the Tyre example. It didn't vanish under the sea. This is a fact, confirmed by archaeology, and contradicting the bible.
          Or take the Biblical prophecy that Nebuchadrezzar would make the Nile uninhabitable for generations. Never happened, confirmed by both written and archaeological records.
          There are more, of course, but Dave ignores those as well.
          Conclusion: Dave is simply ignorant of the facts or avoids dealing honestly with the facts...so that he can make sweeping claims that have no basis in fact.
          I won't bother to remark on his current biological debacle, it's just laughable.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,04:20

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:10)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Boy, you guys sure do a lot of assuming.  Where did I say that?  Did you asusme I think this because I used only two alleles in my Punnet square?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          If you disagree with the prediction, then where are all of the additional alleles coming from?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,04:20



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          First, Cory claims that AIG is confused or lying but I don't think this is so.  The Punnet square above simply considers two alleles (forms) of a particular gene -- one that controls skin color, i.e. more or less melanin.  The AIG article clearly says that more than one pair of genes control skin color (six I think), but they make a simplifying assumption just to illustrate the concept.  This is completely valid.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And yet the reason I said they are confused or being deliberately deceptive (my term was "slight of hand") is right there, now in bold. It IS the source of your confusion, Dave, and it is why your lengthy "explanation" is worthless. The point that you have missed, Davey, is that if Adam contained all the genetic variation found in present humans (or at least a vast majority, with mutation a minor contributor), then you must get that Punnett square to "simply consider [HUNDREDS of] alleles (forms) of a particular gene" in a SINGLE individual. In other words, Mm doesn't help you in the slightest. You need MmMmMmMm... (all "A", then the same thing for "B", until you reach a few hundred allleles for each). It can't be done (at least, not without adding A LOT of chromosomes to our present diploid complement of 2, which is what we have therefore "speculated" bemusedly from your wild-ass claims).

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now real biologists may not call it that ... fine, but we need some name for the concept.  Maybe I should be calling it heterozygosity.  how about that?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Okay, do that. A "heterozygous" Adam could only have contained 2 (<1%) of the 500 HLA-B alleles found in current human populations. How does that help you?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No I don't think so. My understanding is that homozygosity refers to individuals, i.e. an individual could have a gene for skin color and be homozygous -- "MM" or heterozygous -- "Mm".  My guess (observing the present human race) is that Adam was created with a large degree of heterozygosity -- what I have been calling "genetic richness."  Thus if Eve got the same genetic makeup as Adam (probably true) then together they would give rise to the present situation as we see it today with lots of variability.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Once again, "heterozygous" = 2 different alleles at a locus (gene). Not 500. A "large degree of heterozygosity" means a lot of loci (genes) with two different alleles. It doesn't give you 500 alleles at ANY locus. Basic biology, Dave. Not evolution. Not atheism. No "worldview" required. You are in direct contradiction to -- and now railing against -- the easiest concepts in genetics. Middle-school stuff. You can't claim to "accept" 90% of science and then shit all over basic genetics in this day and age, Dave.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Just as Mendel's purebred yellow peas could never produce green peas and vice versa.  Only his HYBRID yellow peas could produce green peas.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Mendel would slap you silly for what you're advocating, you tool. If his peas contained more than 2 alleles at their loci, he wouldn't have been able to make sense of anything and you wouldn't even know his name.

          Go back and read the posts, Dave.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,04:24

          .
          This should be repeated to Dave until it sinks in, because it's sweet and succinct:

          "heterozygous" = 2 different alleles at a locus (gene). Not 500. A "large degree of heterozygosity" means a lot of loci (genes) with two different alleles. It doesn't give you 500 alleles at ANY locus. Basic biology, Dave. Not evolution. Not atheism. No "worldview" required. You are in direct contradiction to -- and now railing against -- the easiest concepts in genetics. Middle-school stuff. You can't claim to "accept" 90% of science and then shit all over basic genetics in this day and age, Dave.

          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,04:33

          Consider the ABO and Rhesus-style  "blood types." The World Health Organization recognizes 29 variations (including the ABO and Rhesus) Each one has sub-variations.

          Dave can argue: "but those variations represent what happened by mutation and natural selection AFTER Adam and Eve, the "Flood" and dispersal following the Tower of Babel"

          Except that no science supports this and what science we do have...runs counter to it.

          Dave is left (again) with wild mental masturbation amidst his fantasies that have no basis in fact.

          Ooops...I forgot to add: besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,04:38

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Once again, "heterozygous" = 2 different alleles at a locus (gene). Not 500. A "large degree of heterozygosity" means a lot of loci (genes) with two different alleles. It doesn't give you 500 alleles at ANY locus. Basic biology, Dave. Not evolution. Not atheism. No "worldview" required. You are in direct contradiction to -- and now railing against -- the easiest concepts in genetics. Middle-school stuff. You can't claim to "accept" 90% of science and then shit all over basic genetics in this day and age, Dave.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Again, where in the WORLD do you hear me saying that "heterozygous" = 500 alleles at a locus?  You are totally misrepresenting what I have said.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,04:45

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,09:38)
          Again, where in the WORLD do you hear me saying that "heterozygous" = 500 alleles at a locus?  You are totally misrepresenting what I have said.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I am most certainly NOT misrepresenting what you have said. I just actually, you know, THINK about what is said. (Why do I always have to develop your ideas for you, Dave? ) Your "genetic richness" claim is that Adam contained all or most of the genetic information/variation found in modern humans. This variation includes hundreds of alleles for some genes. Therefore Adam must have contained hundreds of alleles for some genes. "Heterozygosity" will not get you there. Adam could be as heterozygous as it is possible to be. I'll even give you COMPLETELY heterozygous, which is an obvious impossibility (consider the Y-chromosome, for example). He still could not have contained the smallest fraction of present day variation or "genetic richness".
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,04:54

          What's funny to me is that basically Dave is doing what Ghost of Paley's character used to do (by the way, Dave, now that GoP has admitted trolling and being an evolutionist in disguise, you have a grand total of zero supporters).

          Dave reads a brief bit of garbage from AIG or ICR...he appropriates it and calls it "his." He presents it here, then runs off and does a cursory check at ...oh, say Wikipedia...to "confirm" what he has already accepted as true. Note that he is using methods exactly counter to those used in science.

          Dave then tries to "absorb" the entire topic and argue FOR his predetermined claim, substituting DAYS for what should be YEARS  of study...and proclaims "victory" based on his ignorant understanding of the issues.

          And he terms this both honest and "scientific"!!!!!!
          Oh, and I forgot to add: besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,04:56



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I am most certainly NOT misrepresenting what you have said. I just actually, you know, THINK about what is said. (Why do I always have to develop your ideas for you, Dave? ) Your "genetic richness" claim is that Adam contained all or most of the genetic information/variation found in modern humans. This variation includes hundreds of alleles for some genes. Therefore Adam must have contained hundreds of alleles for some genes. "Heterozygosity" will not get you there. Adam could be as heterozygous as it is possible to be. I'll even give you COMPLETELY heterozygous, which is an obvious impossibility (consider the Y-chromosome, for example). He still could not have contained the smallest fraction of present day variation or "genetic richness".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You did in fact misrepresent what I said, but that's OK.  Forget it.

          Now ... why on earth do you suppose that Adam DID NOT contain hundreds of alleles for some genes?  Where did I ever suggest that he did not?  Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?

          Remember my approach.  1) Read the historical record 2) Observe nature 3) see if the record is plausible given the known facts of science.

          Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.  Of course you have to have a miracle to create a man and a woman in the first place, but it does not seem miraculous at all to me to then let them reproduce and observe that they would give rise to something quite like what we see today in the world population.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2006,04:57

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,08:28)
          Lou FCD...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If Eve was made from Adam's rib, wouldn't that make her a clone, and thus have exactly the same genes etc as Adam?  Wouldn't that mean they were homozygowhatsits?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No I don't think so. My understanding is that ....
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I have no idea if you're right or wrong about this, but you'll forgive me if I don't defer to your understanding of Jack Squat.

          Nutbag.

          My question is whether Adam and Eve could have had different genes.

          Improvius' comment answered my question.

          So.  My next question is can two people be clones, have the same genes, and be different genders?

          Seems not.  Otherwise you could have identical twins of different genders, right?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,05:07



          Just a little perspective. This is the banner at answers in genesis this month.

          ???
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,05:09



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.  Of course you have to have a miracle to create a man and a woman in the first place
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh, boy, two more miracles to add to the list of miracles that Dave needs to support his claims of "scientific plausibility"
          BWAHAHAHA.
          Besides him being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,05:10

          Deadman ... I know you are feeling a little left out right now.  Patience!  I'm sure we'll get back to topics in your area of expertise soon ... I'm interested in all those Egypt and China questions.  But I'm only one guy and can really only focus on one topic at a time.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,05:14

          Uh, Dave, I posted some points on this very issue, plagiarist. And by the way, I had to take Bio/biochem/genetics/Pop. Gen classes for Paleoanth. So I think I can fairly claim greater expertise in this area than you, "engineer."
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,05:19



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You did in fact misrepresent what I said, but that's OK.  Forget it.

          Now ... why on earth do you suppose that Adam DID NOT contain hundreds of alleles for some genes?  Where did I ever suggest that he did not?  Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?

          Remember my approach.  1) Read the historical record 2) Observe nature 3) see if the record is plausible given the known facts of science.

          Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.  Of course you have to have a miracle to create a man and a woman in the first place, but it does not seem miraculous at all to me to then let them reproduce and observe that they would give rise to something quite like what we see today in the world population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          God, you're a moron Dave.

          Compare:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Again, where in the WORLD do you hear me saying that "heterozygous" = 500 alleles at a locus?  You are totally misrepresenting what I have said.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          with



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          why on earth do you suppose that Adam DID NOT contain hundreds of alleles for some genes?  Where did I ever suggest that he did not?  Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You've GOT to be kidding.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Not for anyone who has had a single one-hour lesson in genetics. Diploid, Dipshit. Look it up.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Remember my approach.  1) Read the historical record 2) Observe nature 3) see if the record is plausible given the known facts of science.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You missed the bolded part. Easy observation in nature: humans are diploid. That means two alleles. Two different ones, max. We've already discussed what happens to humans that get three alleles at loci on chromosome 21. It's called Down Syndrome.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Um...didn't you just say:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          WHOA! HORSE ... THE SPECULATION MACHINE IS RUNNING WILD AGAIN!

          It is always amusing to read people's misunderstandings and assumptions about me ... it has really become a daily source of entertainment for me.  

          The latest misunderstanding centers around my "genetically rich" term.  Apparently many of you assume that to me this means that Adam and Eve has 1000 chromosomes or something.  I'm not sure how you came to think that ... possibly the same way you came to believe in ToE ... because OTHER PEOPLE believe ToE is true ... therefore it MUST be true.  So let us now back up and get some things straight.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Your ducking and weaving here is hilarious, Dave. I am literally laughing out loud as I type this.

          Now, do you really want to pursue the "1000 chromosomes" position? You WILL be ripped to shreds on the biological ramifications of it. And oh yeah -- hundreds of copies of each chromosome are NOT observed in nature (not in anything alive for more than a few seconds, at least), so it doesn't follow your self-described "approach".


          Last chance, Dave.

          We do not need a lesson in Punnett squares (but you certainly do).

          You are under the completely naive assumption that the whole of human genetic variation ("genetic richness") can be encapsulated in grade-school representations of Mendel's peas (round peas vs. wrinkled peas, yellow peas vs. green peas). You seem to think all (or at least most, allowing for some trivial mutation) human "genetic richness" consists of the recombination of different loci with, at most, TWO alleles each (the AIG figure). If that were the case, you might almost have a case when it came to genetics (Adam's single Y-chromosome would still pose a problem, however.)

          This is laughably false, and you have been pointed to the overwhelming example of MHC loci. You would be hard-pressed to find ANY polymorphic locus in humans that had just two alleles. And any more than two alleles cannot "fit" into normal diploid humans. Ah, but Adam wasn't normal, right? Okay, then he had thousands of chromosomes. End of story.

          If you don't get this, you have no business claiming any understanding of basic biology whatsoever. Again, this isn't evolution. It's BASIC genetics (Mendel was a Creationist, wasn't he? ). It is the FIRST lesson you get in genetics.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,05:22

          I just answered my own question about "Why could Adam not have had multiple alleles for a given gene?"



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Basic features of heredity > Mendelian genetics > Allelic interactions > Multiple alleles

          The traits discussed so far all have been governed by the interaction of two possible alleles. [I assume this is quite common?] Many genes, however, are represented by multiple allelic forms within a population. (One individual, of course, can possess only two of these multiple alleles.) Human blood groups—in this case, the well-known ABO system—again provide an example. The gene that governs ABO blood types has three alleles [OK, not much more than two]: IA, IB, and IO. IA and IB are codominant, but IO is recessive. Because of the multiple alleles and their various dominance relationships, there are four phenotypic ABO blood types: type A (genotypes IAIA and IAIO), type B (genotypes IBIB and IBIO), type AB (genotype IAIB), and type O (genotype IOIO).

          [url]heredity. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-50777 > [/url]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,05:25



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BWAHAHAHA. WHAT WOULD BE LOGICAL WOULD BE FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS BEFORE TALKING NONSENSE.

          I love the way you did a complete 180-degree turn on your claim about multiple alleles at a given locus. Besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 19 2006,05:35

          Dave,

          5000 year old trees.

          How?
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,05:40

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2006,11:25)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BWAHAHAHA. WHAT WOULD BE LOGICAL WOULD BE FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS BEFORE TALKING NONSENSE.

          I love the way you did a complete 180-degree turn on your claim about multiple alleles at a given locus. Besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
          When we rely on A-I-G.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,05:41

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:22)
          I just answered my own question about "Why could Adam not have had multiple alleles for a given gene?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No you didn't. It was answered immediately. Many times. For anyone with the most basic understanding of biology, it would never have been asked (much less insisted upon despite being explained). For anyone with the most basic reading comprehension, it would not have taken this long to answer. It's not true until you read it in Encyclopedia Brittanica, eh? And prior to that, we must be wrong or mistaken, right? If you only absorb the EB, why bother with us?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ]Basic features of heredity > Mendelian genetics > Allelic interactions > Multiple alleles

          The traits discussed so far all have been governed by the interaction of two possible alleles. [I assume this is quite common?]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          If you mean "more than one", yes. Very, very common. If you mean "just two", no.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Many genes, however, are represented by multiple allelic forms within a population. (One individual, of course, can possess only two of these multiple alleles.) Human blood groups—in this case, the well-known ABO system—again provide an example. The gene that governs ABO blood types has three alleles [OK, not much more than two]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes, three for this well-known example. Once again, I point you to the MHC loci with hundreds (check the descriptions in EB or Wikipedia or some such) for the high end of the spectrum.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          The answer to this is far, far more complicated than you could ever imagine. But suffice to say that even Mendel's exemplary peas have more than two alleles at the famous schoolbook loci. Accept that the latter greatly exceeds the former (as does the percentage that has only one allele, but that's irrelevant, because one constant allele doesn't create "genetic richness"). Or do your own fucking research (the term "polymorphism" will help). Or go sequence and analyze the genome of every living human to get the best possible answer.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Mutation creates the allele, dumbass. Selection preserves the ones that work. In other words, the exact opposite of pre-existing "genetic richness".
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,05:43

          .
          Now that you've begun to see how ignorant your claims about "genetic richness" were,DAVE, go sit in the corner and think about it**
          **Besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,05:49

          LENNY FLANK AND CARL WIELAND ALREADY HAD THIS VERY DISCUSSION 3 YEARS AGO

          (In case you don't want to wade through it, Wieland says that the multiple alleles we now have could have easily come about by mutation.  After all, they are nothing more than a modification of an existing "blueprint", right?)

          New line of attack?
          24 January 2003

          AiG received the following letter from D.W.. D.W. himself was not negative, but he passed on something from a newsgroup written by a known anti-creationist attacking something Dr Carl Wieland, CEO, AiG–Australia wrote. As the reply from Dr Wieland shows, the anti-creationist once more failed to understand the issues.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          From: Lenny Flank
          Subject: Re: AiG nonsense about information increase (again)
          Original Format
          Newsgroups: talk.origins
          Date: 2002-12-16 17:26:14 PST

          Carl Wieland (MB BS) said

          “However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show ‘evolution happening’.”

          Creationism itself, of course, proves this silliness to be wrong. According to creationists, every human being alive today is descended from the 8 people that got off Noah’s Big Boat (actually, all of us are descended from 2 people who lived in the Really Nice Garden, but I will give the creationists the maximum benefit of the doubt here. …) Since I assume those 8 people on the Really Big Boat were diploid like all of us, that means they had a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for every genetic locus (actually they MUST ahve had less, since some on the Big Baot were descendents of others and therefore must have shared alleles, but again I will give the creationists the maximum possible benefit of the doubt). If Weyland’s [sic] drivel is right and ‘genetic information cannot increase’, then this means there can be NO human locus—none at all—that have more than 16 different alleles.

          Hmmmm … there are over 200 known alleles for some of the hemoglobin genes, and over 400 allales for some of the HLA genes … Since there couldn’t have been more than 16 on the boat, and since there are well over 200 now, that means that genetic information has increased (after all, 200 is more than 16).

          So I’d sure like to hear Weyland (or one of the creationist, uh, geniuses here) to tell me (1) how do we go from 16 alleles to over 200 alleles without a beneficial mutation, and (2) how does going from 16 alleles to over 200 represent a LOSS of genetic information. And please note than NONE of this—absolutely NONE of it, depends on any evolutionary assumptions. It is all straightforward CREATIONISM combined with fourth-grade-level genetics.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Carl Wieland responds ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dear D.W.,

          Thanks for sending along that link. One despairs when one sees the many times that anti-creationists wax eloquent without ever having really read or carefully considered what the creationist arguments in question actually are. And we unfortunately know of this Flank person as one of the most abusive and ill-informed anticreationists and antiChristians on the Internet (for example, see Left Flank: Another Skeptic With the Same Old Canards).

          I would believe that the various alleles of hemoglobin, for instance, could easily have arisen by mutation. But this is without any increase in information. The confusion in the critic’s mind comes because he clearly believes that ‘lots of varying copies’ means ‘lots of information’. That is as erroneous as the other commonly heard evolutionist claim that if you have doubling of chromosomes (polyploidy), that represents ‘more information’ (it would be like buying two copies of the same textbook and expecting to be able to learn twice as much!;).

          Information in the sense of ‘specified complexity’ is at stake. The specification involves function. No new functions have arisen for the hemoglobin alleles. The molecule in question actually has a part which is relatively fixed or invariant. This is the part that directly affects function (oxygen binding and release, primarily) and the variations that do not cause obvious disease all seem to take place in less critical portions, where quite a few changes can occur without impeding function. All these variant molecules function as either normal Hb (hemoglobin), or as defective Hb. Many blood diseases have been linked to mutations in the hemoglobin alleles.

          Perhaps a simple analogy would help. Imagine you have a set of instructions in the form of a book for assembling an airplane. Imagine that in the set of instructions is a page specifying airline logos to be painted on the fuselage and tail. Now changes to this would be important to the airline, but it would not affect the airworthiness of the airplane. These are somewhat analogous to changes in a virus’s protein coat. They don’t alter any of the function of the virus, but like a change in an airplane’s logo, they might make it harder for the host immune system to recognize them. See Has AIDS evolved?.

          In the course of copying, errors on this page of information would also not affect the airworthiness of the resulting airplanes. Many copies of the plans could end up in circulation, varying in their livery, but all having the same functionality. Copies of the instructions with changes to the core information would of course result in defective aircraft and would be discarded.

          However, by using the logic of this critic, one would say that this shows that the original information in the assembly instructions for an airplane could easily have arisen by an accidental process whereby information gradually increases. I.e., he argues as if the random process that produced inconsequential variants of this airplane manual are the same processes that wrote the manual in the first place! This is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the picture.

          The critic would do well to read Dr Lee Spetner’s book Not by Chance (middle right). Spetner is a biophysicist well versed in the whole issue of signal-noise relationships in DNA, and he explains the information issue carefully.

          Also, John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study specifically addresses the question of multiple alleles generated after the Flood (right). Furthermore, Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Evolution 2 (top right) goes further into gene duplication, beneficial information-losing mutations etc. Actually, there is nothing in Flank’s diatribe that isn't covered in our Q&A pages on mutations and information theory.

          Regards,
          Carl Wieland
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now of course, some of you here will immediately jump up and down and say "Carl Wieland! Isn't that the guy that got chimp chromosomes wrong."  Yeah, he was.  And Darwin was wrong about the fossil record supporting cradual evolution.  Smart people are wrong sometimes.

          And honest people admit their knowledge gaps when they see them, Deadman.  Steve Story did one time too.

          You should try it yourself.  It's quite liberating.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,05:54

          Uh, Dave. You do realize that your little citation there has nothing to do with what is at issue here?  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I would believe that the various alleles of hemoglobin, for instance, could easily have arisen by mutation. But this is without any increase in information. The confusion in the critic’s mind comes because he clearly believes that ‘lots of varying copies’ means ‘lots of information’.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          The issue being discussed is increase in information, not multi-googleplexzygosity,besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy, you need to go back to the dunce corner.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,05:56

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,09:10)
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Therefore, Dave, there's no way for your "kinds" present on the ark to be appreciably more "genetically rich" that any organism alive today. Even with maximum hybrid vigor, Noah's "genetically rich" specimens are unlikely to have even twice the genetic variability available today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Whoops!  We made a huge leap here.  I disagree. As I explained in the simplified Punnet square above considering only two alleles on two genes ... the only requirement on any parental pair on Noah's ark is that they NOT be in the extreme corners, i.e. not the "minimum" situation Eric describes above.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And this is exactly where you're wrong, Dave. An organism which is heterzygous for every single gene, a possibility that is fantastically remote, has only twice as many alleles for its entire genome that an organism that is homozygous for every single gene (that also verges on an impossibility). That's it. The difference between a "mutt" and a "purebred" isn't nearly enough to do what you need it to do. And again, as I and Incorygible have pointed out, if you funnel all of human diversity through eight human beings, you throw out virtually all of that diversity.

          And the vast majority of genes have way more than two alleles; some genes have hundreds of alleles. With eight members of your "founder" population, you can have at most sixteen alleles. All the other ones are gone. Why are you incapable of understanding this? Your Punnet square helps you not in the least here, and it doesn't matter where on the diagram any of your eight members of your founder population reside.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So there's no way your "genetic richness" can result in an explosive increase in biodiversity over the past five millennia, and even it could, it didn't, because we would have proof positive of such increases in biodiversity in the written records. We have no such proof; therefore it didn't happen.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You don't explain why you think this cannot happen.  I have already shown you how, if you begin with a pair that has a large degree of heterozygosity, you can have a large degree of variation in only one generation.  How much more can you have if there is a Dispersion Event 200 years after the Flood?  A lot!!  Happened with Mendel's peas also, remember?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, you haven't shown that. Your second generation will have, at best, the same diversity as the first generation, more likely less, and your first generation already has vastly, astronomically less diversity than the population they came from. Virtually all of the original diversity is lost going through a bottleneck that tight. Why can't you get this?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Further, considered as a population, the denizens of Noah's ark are unavoidably less "genetically rich" than any larger pre-existing population.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Not so necessarily as I have explained.  In fact the probability is greatest that they WILL have a large degree of heterozygosity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes. Necessarily. You do understand that going from 500 alleles to sixteen alleles denotes a decrease in diversity, don't you? You realize that 500 > 16? Or maybe you don't? Heterozygosity, greater or less than the original population, helps you not in the slightest way, because you can have at most two alleles at a locus in an individual. There is no limit to the number of alleles at a locus in a population.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Noah's ark is a genetic bottleneck, no matter how you look at it, which drastically reduces genetic variability, and the larger the number of alleles for a given gene in a given population, the narrower the bottleneck.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Not true as I have shown.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, I simply cannot believe you can be this obtuse. Do you understand that 500 > 16? This is about the simplest concept I have ever seen you be unable to grasp.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Starting with any number of organisms of a "kind" on the ark, the available number of alleles for a given gene is 2(number of organisms). Since (number of organisms on ark) is unavoidably < (number of organisms before flood), there's no way for Dave to get the freakishly explosive increase in diversity his "hypothesis" demands through any sort of "genetic richness."  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Actually, it's quite simple to get this and is what one would expect.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          By what method, Dave? What is your secret sauce for getting from a genetically-impoverished founder population that has just gone through almost as tight a genetic bottleneck as it is physically possible to go through (you'd need at least one breeding pair to avoid extinction), to the kind of diversity we see today, in less than five millennia? You think you've somehow "explained" this conundrum? Um, not exactly, to put it mildly.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So Jeannot, in this case you are not even on the right track.  In this case, I have to hand it to Eric -- who doesn't even have a college degree -- for at least understanding the nature of the present debate.  I believe some of his conclusions are wrong, but at least he understands the relevant issues.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          How can you say that, Dave, when it's becoming increasingly clear that you cannot even sort integers into the proper order of increasing magnitude? You cannot discern that 500 > 16, for crying out loud!
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,06:00

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:49)
          (In case you don't want to wade through it, Wieland says that the multiple alleles we now have could have easily come about by mutation.  After all, they are nothing more than a modification of an existing "blueprint", right?)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Hey weasel, if you actually need any proof that this is a completely different (though equally assinine) issue -- and one that is directly opposed to what you've been arguing for days now via the AIG Punnett square -- please compare this latest post with the Ayala quote that you saw fit to put in bold letters yesterday:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Honest you ain't, Dave.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,06:05

          SO THE ISSUE IS SETTLED.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN!

          (Now maybe I can make some time for Deadman soon)

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mutation creates the allele, dumbass. Selection preserves the ones that work. In other words, the exact opposite of pre-existing "genetic richness".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ah, I see Cory agrees with Carl Wieland ... Good!

          I guess if you want to call mutations, which are nothing more than mistakes, "richness", then yes, we have more genetic richness now than in Adam's day.

          Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.  

          Let me ask you something, Cory, did you ever make copies of copies of copies of some important document?  Gets pretty ugly after multiple generations, doesn't it?

          Same with organisms.

          ***************************

          So to summarize, my concept of "Genetic Richness" is the most logical one, namely ...

          1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
          2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations

          Again, if you think this is backwards, well, what can I say?  It won't be the first time or the last that we view things differently now, will it?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,06:05

          I would like to know more about the fish that survived the flood. I am particularly interested in the salmonids Dave. I wonder if you know how they go from fresh to salt water and back. Physiologically of course. Is there a mechanism or is it just that fish can basically do this if they want to?

          Maybe Noah had genetic riches that included the ability to drink salt water? Maybe salinity, er, saltiness only became a limiting factor to physiology after the flood? Look at the Sturgeon for example. It doesn't seem to care much about how salty the water is does it? And they say that the sturgeon is one of the oldest fish... Hmmm. I wonder why they would think that? Salmon are probably at least 5000 years old judging from archaeological and genetic studies done at... er, because they are in the original creation myths of the Pacific Northwest Indians.

          Here's a question for you:
          Assuming that saltiness can be measured and expressed as a ratio (could be sciency mumbo-jumbo I guess)

          And assuming that fish drink the water they live in (by no means a foregone conclusion)

          Do you think salinity could be measured within the cells of a fish? and do you think it ought to correspond with the water they live in? The sturgeon and salmon examples would certainly make you think not wouldn't they?


          **EDIT** If there was only one or a few fish kinds after the flood, I bet they were ones that were good eatin'.!
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,06:12

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:05)
          Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So the vast majority of physical differences among humans can best be attributed to genetic corruption?  And somewhere amidst the global population is a genetically pure lineage?  A "master race", if you will?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,06:12



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (Now maybe I can make some time for Deadman soon)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Before you do that, you better learn about Sumerian, Chinese and Harrappan and proto-Mycenean and Egyptian history and archaeology, instead of just pretending to know things you don't. Besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy, your abrupt about-face shows how truly dishonest your approach is and why it is not "scientific" although you claimed to be. Now go back to your little corner and put on your hat.
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 19 2006,06:14

          Dave's new definition of genetic richness:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
          2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation?  I don't think #2 makes any sense at all.

          And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,06:15

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,11:05)
          SO THE ISSUE IS SETTLED.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN!

          (Now maybe I can make some time for Deadman soon)

          Cory...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mutation creates the allele, dumbass. Selection preserves the ones that work. In other words, the exact opposite of pre-existing "genetic richness".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ah, I see Cory agrees with Carl Wieland ... Good!

          I guess if you want to call mutations, which are nothing more than mistakes, "richness", then yes, we have more genetic richness now than in Adam's day.

          Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.  

          Let me ask you something, Cory, did you ever make copies of copies of copies of some important document?  Gets pretty ugly after multiple generations, doesn't it?

          Same with organisms.

          ***************************

          So to summarize, my concept of "Genetic Richness" is the most logical one, namely ...

          1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
          2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations

          Again, if you think this is backwards, well, what can I say?  It won't be the first time or the last that we view things differently now, will it?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Your dishonesty is unforgiveable, Dave. YOU don't agree with Wieland in this case (or at least didn't when you made the argument), though you pretend you do. Want more proof?

          Oct. 17

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Imagine a subset of a population being removed from the parent population and isolated from that parent population.  What will happen?  My understanding is that the smaller group will be more specialized than the parent population because it will not have access to some of the genetic information contained in the original group.  Consider dogs.  All the modern dogs have been domesticated from wild dogs, right?  Now breeders have created many specialized varieties by selecting dogs with desired traits and isolating and breeding them.  Do you think that we could get a Great Dane from a pair of Chihuahuas?  No.  Why?  The chihuahuas don't have the genetic information required to create a Great Dane.  Was there an ancestral pair of dogs (a mutt) that possessed the genetic info for both Great Danes AND Chihuahuas?  Undoubtedly there was.  And this mutt pair would have been more "genetically rich" than either the Great Danes or the Chihuahuas.  This is what I mean by "genetically rich."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Oct. 18

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          and what [the AIG figure] tells me is that Adam and Eve together (and also the first dog pair, first cat pair, etc.) would have had to have ALL the possible combinations (i.e. middle of the chart) in their genes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now, since your "genetic richness" concept is so logical, than you will accept that if you are shown more than two alleles (i.e., at least one of which had to arise by mutation since Adam) that are ALL positive and adaptive (not harmful or neutral), then your concept will be proven FALSE.

          Agree to that now, Dave, or reveal yourself for the intellectual coward you are.

          Speaking of which, you have now had plenty of time to address your misuse of Hendry et al. (2000) < Link #1 > < Link #2 >
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,06:41

          Wow. Just wow. I have to stress once again that this is by far the simplest concept I have ever witnessed AF Dave being unable to grasp. He just spent the better part of five pages of posts trying to grasp the concept that a human being cannot have more than two alleles at any one locus. It really seemed for a moment there that Dave was incapable of understanding that five hundred is an integer with a greater magnitude than two!

          Are you beginning to understand why you so richly deserve the abuse heaped upon you, Dave? You come swaggering in here, determined to show all the scientists the flaws in all their reasoning, and offer to forgive them if only they'll confess their mistakes, when you cannot understand the simplest concepts, like straightforward Mendelian genetics that are within the grasp of third-graders.

          I was wondering how long Incorygible was going to have to beat you up with the extraordinarily blunt observation that two is a smaller number than 500. But I guess what's really, REALLY entertaining, is watching you hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously, such as: "what gives you the idea I think Adam had more than two alleles at a given locus," and "what makes you think Adam DIDN'T have more than two alleles at a given locus? He could have had HUNDREDS."

          That's worth the price of admission all by itself, Dave!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 19 2006,06:49

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:22)
          I just answered my own question about "Why could Adam not have had multiple alleles for a given gene?"

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Basic features of heredity > Mendelian genetics > Allelic interactions > Multiple alleles

          The traits discussed so far all have been governed by the interaction of two possible alleles. [I assume this is quite common?] Many genes, however, are represented by multiple allelic forms within a population. (One individual, of course, can possess only two of these multiple alleles.) Human blood groups—in this case, the well-known ABO system—again provide an example. The gene that governs ABO blood types has three alleles [OK, not much more than two]: IA, IB, and IO. IA and IB are codominant, but IO is recessive. Because of the multiple alleles and their various dominance relationships, there are four phenotypic ABO blood types: type A (genotypes IAIA and IAIO), type B (genotypes IBIB and IBIO), type AB (genotype IAIB), and type O (genotype IOIO).

          [url]heredity. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-50777 > [/url]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The proportion doesn't matter.
          Microsatellite loci have are highly polymorphic (several dozens of alleles) and are found everywhere in our genome. If all the alleles were present in Adam and Eve from the start, that means both (and their descendants) had hundreds of chromosomes.
          The fact that some genes only have one allele won't change that.

          EDIT: I'm a bit late.  :O
          Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 19 2006,06:56

          I think you guys are missing an important fact.  God sped up the nuclear decay rate during the flood, which explains why all radiometric dating methods are wrong.  This also caused massive mutations in the genomes of all living creatures, and countinued on for a couple of generations.  These mutations created the genetic richness we see today.  Geographic issolation (caused by continents zooming around) plus the large degree of mutation created super-rapid speciation.  These mutations also created low level superpowers for all creatures which allowed fresh and salt water fish to both live in a mixed salinity inveronment, made all creatures heat resistant to survive the massive temperature increase caused by the rapid decay, and allowed grass to sprout legs so it could make it's feeble attempt to outrun the flood waters thereby ending up at the top of the geological column.  

          I think that pretty much solves all our problems.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 19 2006,06:59

          cedric katesby wondered:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I mean, really, is this how you [afdave] want people who read this thread to view people like you?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          See, according to my current theory, the answer would be "yes". Dave must be trying to make fundies look even more ridiculous than they already do.

          He's gotta be an impostor. No one can be that dumb.

          Just to cast my vote: My favorite moment in today's funnies was "I just answered my own question..." after several people had explained in several ways this extremely basic fact. (i.e. 1 locus, 1-2 alleles/individual.)
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,07:02

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,11:05)
          SO THE ISSUE IS SETTLED.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN!

          (Now maybe I can make some time for Deadman soon)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AND WHICH ISSUE IS THAT, DAVE?

          That your concept of "genetic richness" is worthless, and accomplishes none of the goals that you set for it? That neither Adam, Eve, nor Noah or any of his boatmates, were in any meaningful sense any more "genetically rich" than any random sample of human beings throughout history? That, just like every other human being who ever walked the planet, they had at most two alleles for every single gene, and were no more or less likely to be heterozygous for any of those genes than any other random sampling of humans?

          If that's what you mean by the issue being "settled," then yes, it's settled. If you mean, by the issue being "settled," that there's anything meaningful or helpful to your "hypothesis" about the concept of "genetic richness," then no, the issue is not "settled."

          This is another one of those cases, Dave, where you were so utterly, irredeemably wrong, that there's simply no way for you to escape with your dignity intact.

          Although you'll try anyway, and I'm sure six weeks from now you'll be declaring "victory" once again.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Cory...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mutation creates the allele, dumbass. Selection preserves the ones that work. In other words, the exact opposite of pre-existing "genetic richness".
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Ah, I see Cory agrees with Carl Wieland ... Good!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          And, incidentally, completely disagrees with you, Dave.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I guess if you want to call mutations, which are nothing more than mistakes, "richness", then yes, we have more genetic richness now than in Adam's day.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well, it's good to see that you finally accept the cornerstone of the theory of evolution, Dave. Maybe you really can be persuaded to drop your creationist stupidity!



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Or, maybe not.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Let me ask you something, Cory, did you ever make copies of copies of copies of some important document?  Gets pretty ugly after multiple generations, doesn't it?

          Same with organisms.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So, say, Scarlett Johansson is uglier than Volvox, you're saying? Well, I guess that is a judgment call, but I'd still have to say I disagree.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So to summarize, my concept of "Genetic Richness" is the most logical one, namely ...

          1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
          2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No. It's meaningless, Dave, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. First, you have no reason whatsoever to suppose that Noah (or Adam) was any more heterozygous than any other random human, and even if they were maximally heterozygous (a virtual impossibility), they wouldn't be that much more heterozygous than your average human.

          Your concept of "genetic richness" not only isn't logical; it's not even meaningful. And, you have no evidence for it anyway.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Again, if you think this is backwards, well, what can I say?  It won't be the first time or the last that we view things differently now, will it?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You could say you lost.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 19 2006,07:03

          Dave, we'd like to know: do you propose an accelerated mutation rate?
          It must have happened after the flood, think about it.
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,07:07

          My vote for the top entertainment value is how Dave's spent days meandering into various idiocies only to come full circle.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I guess if you want to call mutations, which are nothing more than mistakes, "richness", then yes, we have more genetic richness now than in Adam's day.

          Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Original argument: The created kinds had more "genetic richness" than current organisms. Thus, YEC is a plausible (nay, the most logical) explanation for biodiversity.

          Latest definition of "genetic richness": A lack of "corruption" of the genomic complement present in the original created kinds.

          Whoa boy. And of course, without the DNA of the created kinds, there's no way to measure it. Yeesh.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,07:16

          Here is the basic problem Dave,

          Your ideas about religion/science coalesced in someone else’s head. They came from other people. They might have been pointing to a book or an oral tradition or maybe a Humphrey Bogart movie. Whatever they were pointing to was another thing made by people and handed down to another person. No matter how far you continue the regression, at the point you terminate, you find a person who was wrong. Those people were wrong. You are trying to defend ideas that weren't even yours to begin with and, on top of that, the ideas are wrong. How do we know they are wrong? Well, 100% of the evidence points to the fact that they were wrong.

          So you are using someone else’s arguments to prove someone else’s points to people who actually do understand the process of:
          evidence->hypothesis->experiment->data->evidence -> goto line 10.

          The nail in the monkey's head is your misunderstanding of what the process is and does. Your platitudes extend like saltwater taffy until they stretch across the AtBC horizon like an accident on an LA cloverleaf involving a fleet of fertilizer trucks.

          And the frustration you experience when you are called out on quote mining (or whatever generally IQ deficient issue plagues you at the time) is the result of your not knowing ahead of time that you are committing the offense. The reason you are so oblivious to your stupidity is that it isn't even your stupidity. It is someone else’s. You are simply perpetuating it by going along with the idea that even though the family can use it, no one should ever flush the upstairs toilet. Please understand, I am not suggesting any kind of lack of stupidity on your part, I am simply pointing out that this particular stupidity isn’t your original idea. It is probably quote mined but at least unoriginal.

          Hope that helps.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,07:24

          YES, MY "GENETIC RICHNESS" CONCEPT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ALONG

          (And nope, AIG didn't snow job anyone with their diagrams ...)

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now, since your "genetic richness" concept is so logical, than you will accept that if you are shown more than two alleles (i.e., at least one of which had to arise by mutation since Adam) that are ALL positive and adaptive (not harmful or neutral), then your concept will be proven FALSE.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It sounds like this conversation is going the same direction as all the "bacteria are evolving and getting better" conversations we have had in the past.  My guess is that this conversation will end up precisely the same way, i.e. bacterial mutations are not an increase of information at all, and they only are "beneficial" under certain circumstances when beneficial is narrowly defined.  See < http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp >

          Argy...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave's new definition of genetic richness:
          Quote  
          1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
          2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Yup. Not different fundamentally at all.  Just expanded to reflect my more detailed understanding, which of course includes different alleles created by mutation.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation?  I don't think #2 makes any sense at all.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Good point ... unless it's possible to accumulate some just through the normal course of a lifetime through normal activities.  If this does not occur, then you are right, Adam would have had NO mutations.  I defer to our experts on this question.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Obviously I have only known about multiple alleles arising through mutation for about 3 hours now, but it appears that they are simply "modifications of a basic design" as Wieland explained.  They are not "new designs" as I understand it.

          Improv...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So the vast majority of physical differences among humans can best be attributed to genetic corruption?  And somewhere amidst the global population is a genetically pure lineage?  A "master race", if you will?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No, not at all.  See Ayala's quote I gave previously.  The vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two  :-)   (Hey, I know this now! ) alleles at each locus in Adam's genes.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,07:24

          Or, we could boil it down further:

          Original definition

          "Genetic richness" is more genetic diversity.

          Current definition

          "Genetic richness" is less genetic diversity.
          Posted by: swbarnes2 on Oct. 19 2006,07:29



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          First, Cory claims that AIG is confused or lying but I don't think this is so.  The Punnet square above simply considers two alleles (forms) of a particular gene -- one that controls skin color, i.e. more or less melanin.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No, it doesn't.  It shows two genes, with two alleles each.

          Do you really not understand the difference between 1 and 2?

          Do you really think that it makes you look intelligent to be lecturing people on how wrong they are, and giving them links to baby pages on punnett squares, when you so clearly demonstrate that you don't understand them yourself?

          What do you thnk your fellow Christians think of you when you are so obvioulsy clueless, and relentlessly arrogant?  Do you think they are proud of the fact that you loudly advertise your non-comprehension of middle school science?

          Do you think that your children would be proud that their father can't tell the difference between one gene and two genes?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now there are 5 levels of skin color depicted on this chart ... if all six genes were considered there would be many more levels, but the concept does not change so we will stick with just considering one pair with 2 different alleles - lighter and darker.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          But your square doesn't show that.  Your square shows two genes, with two alleles each for a total of 4 alleles.  4 does not equal 2.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now ... consider an "MMMM" individual (top LH corner of the chart) mating with another "MMMM" individual.  Is it possible for them to produce "MMMm" offspring?  How about "MMmm"?  Or "Mmmm"? "mmmm"?  Of course the answer is "NO"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You are drowning in the kiddie pool.  What your middle school tool that you don't even understand doesn't tell you is that mutations really happen.  So sometimes, parents do give their offspring alleles that they themselves didn't possess, because of mutations.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This situation would illustrate what I mean by a LACK of "genetic richness" and as you can see it can apply to an individual or to a population, so all this chiding me about populations vs. individuals is bogus.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Once again, the population of humans has 250 alleles for certain MHC proteins.  An individual can not possibly have more than 2.  5 unrelated people can't have more than 10.  250 >10.  250 > 2.  That's not an "evolutionary specualtion", it's a cold observed fact.  



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          IOW, if this "MMMM" female and "MMMM" male went to a desert island and started a colony, they could only have "MMMM" offspring.  Ditto all of this for two "mmmm" individuals (light skin).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Still wrong.  Spontaneous mutations happen.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Contrast these two extremes with the situation we actually have in the diagram above -- an "MmMm" father and an "MmMm" mother and guess what we get ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          2 alleles per gene, instead of 1.  Now, you only need to account for 248 more alleles that we positively know exist.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          there is more chance of the offspring having a medium skin color than any of the other possibilities (1 square each for Level 1-Light and for Level 5-Dark, 4 squares each for Level 2 and 4, but 6 squares or 6/16 probability for Level 3).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Okay, a 6/16 possiblity that they are heterozygous for both genes, and a 10/16 possibility that they are homozygous for one gene, therefore losing some of the diversity that their parents had.

          You do accept that 16-6 is 10, right?

          And perhaps you are also aware that 10 > 6?

          And you honestly think that this helps your argument?  That the offspring are more likely than not to have fewer alleles than their parents had?  How does this help you account for those missing 248 alleles?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,07:31

          So tell me, O wise BWE ... what original thought have YOU had regarding Origins?  Have I been mistaken all this time?  I thought Darwin was the start of all these modern Evolution ideas and I thought it Tim Berners-Lee who invented the web at CERN.  Silly me!  All this time I should have known ... It was BWE and Al Gore!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,07:34


          *sniff* "Stupid teacher. I was SO right. Just wait until I tell Jesus about THIS tonight, then they'll see. "
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,07:37

          Wow. He still doesn't get it. Is that even possible?
             
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:24)
          The vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two  :-)   (Hey, I know this now! ) alleles at each locus in Adam's genes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave. Essentially none of the variability comes from the "heterozygosity of the two alleles" (to the extent that phrase even has any meaning, and I'm not positive it does).

          If there are 200 alleles for a particular gene, 196 (minimum) came from somewhere other than Adam and Eve, and 184 of them (minimum) came from somewhere other than Noah and his boatmates. 99% of the variability of a gene with 200 alleles must necessarily have come from mutations subsequent to Adam and Eve, and 92% of it must have come from mutations subsequent to Noah and his buddies.

          To a reasonable approximation, none of the variability came from the "heterozygosity of the two alleles."

          Are you ever going to understand this, Dave?

          One more thing. For (roughly speaking) 200 alleles to have appeared in 6,000 years, that equates to a mutation rate at that locus of approximately one every generation. Essentially every single generation since Adam must have produced on average one mutation for just this one gene. And that's just one gene! We should have seen a significant increase in genetic variability in humans just in the past century!

          Do you now see why you're proposing rates of evolution far in excess of anything proposed by the theory of evolution?
          Posted by: jujuquisp on Oct. 19 2006,07:38

          I think I can help you, AFDave.  This is my first post on this thread but I've been lurking for a while, afraid to confront the evolutionists with the truth.  My research has shown that over the 900 year lifetime of Adam and Eve, they easily could have produced the genetic richness we see today by breeding offspring throughout their lives WHILE having their genes undergo mutation to produce every allele seen today.  This could account for the 500+ alleles we see at the HLA gene IF Adam and Eve produced 250+ offspring.  I hope this helps and let me know if you need my assistance in any other manner.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,07:41

          Mr Barnes---

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          First, Cory claims that AIG is confused or lying but I don't think this is so.  The Punnet square above simply considers two alleles (forms) of a particular gene -- one that controls skin color, i.e. more or less melanin.

          No, it doesn't.  It shows two genes, with two alleles each.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Whoops!  You're right.  Good catch.  Two genes, two alleles each.  Got to typing too fast.  Cory's claim is still wrong.  AIG's info is very relevant and not in the least misleading.


          Eric...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Or, we could boil it down further:

          Original definition

          "Genetic richness" is more genetic diversity.

          Current definition

          "Genetic richness" is less genetic diversity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Nope.  You were doing fine for a while, Eric.  Now you are breaking down.

          Time for you to re-read.

          "Genetic Poverty" is minimal heterozygosity.
          "Genetic Richness" is a high degree of heterozygosity.

          Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,07:44



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AIG's info is very relevant and not in the least misleading
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          BWAHAHAHAHA. Except it MISLEAD YOU.
          **note: Besides you being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,07:45

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,13:24)
          See Ayala's quote I gave previously.  The vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two  :-)   (Hey, I know this now! ) alleles at each locus in Adam's genes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          There is nothing whatsoever that Ayala has ever written that supports the notion that "the vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two".
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,07:53

          jujuquisp Posted on Oct. 19 2006,12:38


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I think I can help you, AFDave.  This is my first post on this thread but I've been lurking for a while, afraid to confront the evolutionists with the truth.  My research has shown that over the 900 year lifetime of Adam and Eve, they easily could have produced the genetic richness we see today by breeding offspring throughout their lives WHILE have their genes undergo mutation to produce every allele seen today.  This could account for the 500+ alleles we see at the HLA gene IF Adam and Eve produced 250+ offspring.  I hope this helps and let me know if you need my assistance in any other manner.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No need to be afraid.  I've been here for 5 months now shining the light on the errors.  Some of them act all bullyish and such, but they are really harmless and are all decent folks.  I am a lowly electrical engineer, but I have an inquiring mind and I like studying this stuff.  

          Tell us a little about your background and I'd also love to hear more detail on your post above.

          ***************************

          Improv ... do me favor and calculate how much variability you could get from a largely heterozygous Adam with only 2 alleles per locus.

          I'll send you a new calculator when your blows up!
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,07:55

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:41)
          Eric...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Or, we could boil it down further:

          Original definition

          "Genetic richness" is more genetic diversity.

          Current definition

          "Genetic richness" is less genetic diversity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Nope.  You were doing fine for a while, Eric.  Now you are breaking down.

          Time for you to re-read.

          "Genetic Poverty" is minimal heterozygosity.
          "Genetic Richness" is a high degree of heterozygosity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Bwahaha. Davey advising someone to re-read after equivocating terms.

          Dave:

          "genetic diversity" = genetic variation within a population or species

          ''heterozygosity" = the presence of different alleles at one or more loci on homologous chromosomes within an individual.

          Why can't you get it through your skull that these are two different things? How dumb are you?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,07:57

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:41)
          Eric...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Or, we could boil it down further:

          Original definition

          "Genetic richness" is more genetic diversity.

          Current definition

          "Genetic richness" is less genetic diversity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Nope.  You were doing fine for a while, Eric.  Now you are breaking down.

          Time for you to re-read.

          "Genetic Poverty" is minimal heterozygosity.
          "Genetic Richness" is a high degree of heterozygosity.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, the difference between maximal heterozygosity and minimal heterozygosity is too small to matter. This has been pointed out to you to the point of stupidity. But even if it could make a difference, you have absolutely zero evidence that Adam, Eve, or Noah and his co-conspirators were any more or less heterozygous than any other random sampling of humans.

          And no matter how you slice it, Dave, pouring all of human genetic diversity through a bottleneck of eight individuals destroys virtually all of that diversity. The more diversity there was prior to the flood, the less relative diversity there was after it. That is an inescapable consequence of basic arithmetic, Dave, and no amount of thrashing will free you from it.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In germ cells or somatic cells? The distinction is important, and without you making it, it's impossible to give a meaningful answer.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,08:05



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No need to be afraid.  I've been here for 5 months now shining the light on the errors.  Some of them act all bullyish and such, but they are really harmless and are all decent folks.  I am a lowly electrical engineer, but I have an inquiring mind and I like studying this stuff.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Translation: "I've been here for 5 months spewing fallacies, insults (after I was asked to stop), false claims,blowing hot air, hand waving, crying about my victimization, issuing quotemines and plagiarizing. I don't KNOW anything really about these people, but I pretend to, even when I lie about their experiences, lives, knowledge and character. I am a lowly engineer that studies AIG and ICR while scrupulously avoiding learning anything that might run counter to my preconcieved religious fanaticism and literalism"
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,08:09

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:53)
          Improv ... do me favor and calculate how much variability you could get from a largely heterozygous Adam with only 2 alleles per locus.

          I'll send you a new calculator when your blows up!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, are you asking how many genotypically unique children Adam could theoretically have fathered? Well, you are, regardless of what you think you're asking. So unless you're saying Adam fathered hundreds of millions of children, your implied question is meaningless.

          Any human today could theoretically produce more genetically unique progeny than there are protons in the universe. And that doesn't make any assumptions about how much heterozygosity that human has.

          But no matter how you slice it, any individual human contains vastly, astronomically less genetic "variability" (it's hard for me to type this, because it makes so little sense) than any decent-sized population of even a few hundred individuals or more.

          You're using the word "variability" with respect to Adam's genome in a manner that is verging on utter meaninglessness. So unless you're claiming that Adam (or Eve, or Noah, or his fellow refugees) had many more than 23 chromosomes, or had some sort of multi-helical DNA structure (ten strands? a thousand?), it is simply a mathematical impossibility for these individuals to be the source for anything but a vanishingly tiny fraction of the total genetic variability in humans today.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 19 2006,08:22

          TOO BLATANT TO PASS UP ...TRULY UNBELIEVABLE!

          Deadman ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFD...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No need to be afraid.  I've been here for 5 months now shining the light on the errors.  Some of them act all bullyish and such, but they are really harmless and are all decent folks.  I am a lowly electrical engineer, but I have an inquiring mind and I like studying this stuff.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Translation: "I've been here for 5 months spewing ... insults (after I was asked to stop),
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Let's see now ... I think we have that precisely backwards, don't we?  Who has been one of the chief "insult spewers"?  And who was asked to stop?

          ***********************************

          stevestory (The Moderator)

          Posts: 2572
          Joined: Oct. 2005
           (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,12:21    



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          There has been enough name-calling in this thread to last a lifetime. Future instances may be met with summary deletion.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          ********************************************
          deadman_932

          Posts: 916
          Joined: May 2006
           (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2006,14:19    



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Hmm..since the *current* discussion of "name-calling" has arisen following a couple of my posts, I'd like to say this:
          I have no problem with NOT using perjoratives, insults or cursing, or slang for that matter. I just don't view "cursing" as a sign of weakness or of emotionalism, neccessarily. I also don't think you can tell if one has "lost his cool" via the use of profanity (particularly in text) -- I personally view "cursing" as an emphasizer, for the most part, much as bold or capital letters , etc. However...if that is agreed to be verboten, fine, I have no problem with that. Insults sans "profanity" will merely result in lengthier posts on my part, and increased use of "acceptable" emphasizers. No big deal.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          *************************************

          Deadman ... how do you live with yourself making up such easily detectable and blatant lies, WHILE accusing me of exactly what you, in fact, are doing yourself?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 19 2006,08:25

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:24)
          YES, MY "GENETIC RICHNESS" CONCEPT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ALONG
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yup. Pretty much the same as we thought it was all along, too.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          (And nope, AIG didn't snow job anyone with their diagrams ...)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          That you, having gobbled up that article, are in fact "snow jobbed" testifies to the contrary.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Cory...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now, since your "genetic richness" concept is so logical, than you will accept that if you are shown more than two alleles (i.e., at least one of which had to arise by mutation since Adam) that are ALL positive and adaptive (not harmful or neutral), then your concept will be proven FALSE.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It sounds like this conversation is going the same direction as all the "bacteria are evolving and getting better" conversations we have had in the past.  My guess is that this conversation will end up precisely the same way, i.e. bacterial mutations are not an increase of information at all, and they only are "beneficial" under certain circumstances when beneficial is narrowly defined.  See < http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So you've figured out that "beneficial" is context-dependent and based on environmental circumstances, eh Dave? Congratulations on "discovering" a fundamental precept of evolutionary theory. Now try the flip side: is "harmful" context-dependent? Ooohhh...blows your mind, don'it?

          In any case, you seem to have taken the coward's way out of the obvious challenge to your "genetic richness concept. Big surprise.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Yup. Not different fundamentally at all.  Just expanded to reflect my more detailed understanding, which of course includes different alleles created by mutation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, how did you even type that last part with a straight face? (Dis)honestly, man -- what are you smoking? Have you even been reading what you have typed over the past few days? I've summarized a bit of your "of course includes different allelels created by mutation" a few posts back.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation?  I don't think #2 makes any sense at all.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Good point ... unless it's possible to accumulate some just through the normal course of a lifetime through normal activities.  If this does not occur, then you are right, Adam would have had NO mutations.  I defer to our experts on this question.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Riiiggghht. Okay. So flip open your handy-dandy Encyclopedia Brittanica and tell us what they say. We all know how you defer to the relevant experts on this forum.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Obviously I have only known about multiple alleles arising through mutation for about 3 hours now, but it appears that they are simply "modifications of a basic design" as Wieland explained.  They are not "new designs" as I understand it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          He does it again, this time in the same post, folks. Compare the bolded part above with this bolded part (a little further above):



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Yup. Not different fundamentally at all.  Just expanded to reflect my more detailed understanding, which of course includes different alleles created by mutation.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Improv...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So the vast majority of physical differences among humans can best be attributed to genetic corruption?  And somewhere amidst the global population is a genetically pure lineage?  A "master race", if you will?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No, not at all.  See Ayala's quote I gave previously.  The vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two  :-)   (Hey, I know this now! ) alleles at each locus in Adam's genes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, as I pointed out to you, BAdam’s heterozygosity could account for LESS THAN 1% of the alleles and LESS THAN 0.0001% of the overdominant allelic combinations in HLA-B that constitute the variability in this locus. The rest arose via mutation.

          Furthermore, no calculators were harmed in this calculation.

          Once again, who do you think you're fooling here? Are you even fooling yourself?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,08:25



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman ... how do you live with yourself making up such easily detectable and blatant lies
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Ahem...what part of what I posted was a lie, bright boy? Be PRECISE and cite it.

          P.S. You'll notice stevestory never mentioned my name. I merely stepped up to the plate, thinking it would be best to curtail it. This in no way "puts the lie" to the fact that you were asked months ago to stop insulting...and failed to.
          Now you do exactly what I said in my previous post. You cast false claims and assert victimhood  :)

          Ooops, forgot again...besides you being a plagiarizer and quoteminin' kinda guy  :D
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 19 2006,08:34



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids.  And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase.  So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,08:34

          Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 19 2006,13:25)
          Once again, who do you think you're fooling here? Are you even fooling yourself?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I suspect that this is Dave's strategy. He will string this little charade out as long as possible, running it over ten or twelve pages to make searching for his previous comments more difficult, during which time he will slowly surrender more and more territory. Without ever admitting he was wrong, he will eventually state that "of course there can only be two alleles (at most) at a given locus in a given human being," that "of course Adam couldn't have contained all the genetic variability contained in the human population," that "of course most human genetic variability was lost when all humans other than the eight on the ark perished in the flood." He'll deny he ever thought otherwise.

          But what's your answer to this question, Dave? How is it possible to get from four alleles (the maximum possible) at one HLA locus, to 500 alleles at that locus in less than 200 generations? Do you have an explanation for that insanely high mutation rate, Dave?
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 19 2006,08:37

          Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 19 2006,14:34)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids.  And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase.  So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Still doesn't get you past the Noah & co. bottleneck.
          Posted by: jujuquisp on Oct. 19 2006,08:42

          Dave, I presented your problem to one of my colleagues here.  He agrees that your explanation of genetic richness fits into known scientific principles of genetics and it is very possible for a long-lived individual to accumulate enough mutations at a loci to breed offspring with every known allele we have today.  I think you may be onto something with this hypothesis and let me know if there is more that we can help you with.  Stick to your guns if you know you are right.  Don't let the others here fluster you.
          Posted by: jujuquisp on Oct. 19 2006,08:45

          Dave,
          My colleague also thought it might be wise to stay away from the Punnet Square you used previously to try to get your point across.  It is confusing and only muddying the waters of this discussion.  The more complex a diagram is, the more difficult it can be getting your point across and educating others.  I've learned this from years of teaching.
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 19 2006,08:53

          OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

          (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
          (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 19 2006,08:55

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 19 2006,11:05)
          I would like to know more about the fish that survived the flood.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          If 5000 feet of water laid down 5000 feet of sediment during the so-called Flood, it was more of a global mudslide. So how could any fish, fresh or saltwater, survive?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,08:55

          Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 19 2006,13:42)
          Dave, I presented your problem to one of my colleagues here.  He agrees that your explanation of genetic richness fits into known scientific principles of genetics and it is very possible for a long-lived individual to accumulate enough mutations at a loci to breed offspring with every known allele we have today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Especially if he lives to be 6,000 years old and walks around with a big chunk of weapons-grade uranium in his jock strap.

          So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,09:08



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If 5000 feet of water laid down 5000 feet of sediment during the so-called Flood, it was more of a global mudslide. So how could any fish, fresh or saltwater, survive?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          High mutation rates allowed each "kind" to gain the ability to exude copious amounts of mucous and form a chamber in the mud to hibernate in , much like the mighty lungfish. Then they devolved to wipe out the traces of this accellerated adaptation. It's all very simple.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 19 2006,09:10

          And lo, Jesus spake with a loud voice unto Argy and saith, "Taketh thy alleles and sticketh them in thine own jeans... the back part."
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,09:13

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:31)
          So tell me, O wise BWE ... what original thought have YOU had regarding Origins?  Have I been mistaken all this time?  I thought Darwin was the start of all these modern Evolution ideas and I thought it Tim Berners-Lee who invented the web at CERN.  Silly me!  All this time I should have known ... It was BWE and Al Gore!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well,
          So glad you asked. Let me start at the beginning. I was born a poor black child... Um. Wrong one. Let's see. Oh yes, here it is. Ok. I grew up without the yoke of religion holding me down... No, that's not it either.

          I was fettered with the constraints of having a botany professor for a mother and a history professor for a father so my outlook was necessarily skewed by my upbringing. I did however manage to read a bit and then I went to college and learned to understand a few things there. I'm not sure that I have many original thoughts regarding origins in terms of evidence. I have done some science, read the Bible(s) several times as well as many other creation myths, and I also have some knowledge of some other civilizations and histories, but I am not sure that anyone has ever put forth any conclusive evidence of the origin of the first life.

          I can see the similarities between creation myths and can understand that they are attempts to explain what the authors did not understand. I can also catalog the phenomena that the authors did not understand and the supernatural explanations given for these phenomena. A partial list:* gravity –god, * geologic processes –god, * relativity or the absence of a reference point –god, * light speed and the implications of telescopes –god, * climate –god, * dna –god, * the Americas –ummm, * the size and age of the cosmos –god.

          These phenomena are now partially understood by applying the scientific method to them. What's more, the science is accessible to anyone willing and able to repeat the experiments. If you were to repeat the experiments, you should get the same results. And, strangely, none of them end up needing anything specific from god. As Carl Sagan said "We grow up in isolation. We need to teach ourselves the cosmos."


          I have repeated some experiments and sometimes achieved different results. In college, this was extraordinarily frustrating because my professors made me figure out why. I had to do things over and over and over and over until I could isolate the variables and produce repeatable results. By the time I was trying to figure out how a certain kind of starfish could do one thing sometimes and another thing another time in what looked like identical circumstances, I had enough background in methodology and sometimes just plain information that I wasn't making assumptions like "Maybe it's doing this because it is only 6000 years old." or "Maybe Earth is only 6000 years old." Natural selection was a central tenet to my research. If it weren't, I would not have been able to do any of it. And, what's more, if it wasn't accurate at least to a large degree, then I would have not been able to reproduce results at all.

          The funny thing is that I never needed to consider the origin of the first life. As far as I am aware, no biologist does. All I needed to understand was the mechanism for adaptation. But when I consider religious explanations for origins, I get a very different picture. Have you read Gilgamesh? Do you know whether it predates the Torah?

          Religious explanations all do something peculiar. They elevate “Man” to an honorary title. They separate us from the rest of the creatures as somehow different. “Tool Using”, “Speech”, ability to “Reason” or “Love”, ability to “Farm””. It turns out that we have no such monopoly. Our presumed distinctions turn out to be just that-presumed. Our distinction turns out to be the ability to plan . We have the ability to employ past observation in the present for a future intent. Not simply storing nuts for the winter but setting aside a weapon near a tree where I will eventually provoke an argument with my rival- that kind of intent. Man employs the dimension of time . We can sense the present as space to be aware of time past and time to come. The employment of time as a dimension is what opened up all that we are today-including religion.

          Although memory and planning certainly exist in other species besides man, man’s memory of his past can be evaluated, now for future ends such as whacking his rival with a club unexpectedly. There is the element of surprise, the element of planning the place and the element of being prepared. Different.

          But using time as a dimension differs from using space. We do not occupy the dimension of time with our physical bodies.  We need to imagine it. We occupy the space with our minds. We make images of past events, use reason to evaluate them and try to construct images of future space. This talent feeds itself by including the ability to store information for [i]evaluation[\i] purposes. Leads to skins for clothes then houses then better materials then better objects from those materials then better materials and etc. Technology.

          The downside is that we become aware that we will die. At first, it is terrifying. But, after consideration, we realize that we can see beyond death in our time dimension we occupy so we conclude that that part of us that can employ that dimension will not die. Then we further conclude that the same is true for our friends and loved ones and because we all share sort of the same world in that time dimension we will probably occupy it together when our bodies die. Voila!
          Religion. Nothing wrong with the hypothesis, it is just hard to test. So all we have are guesses. And if the nature of those guesses force us to ignore evidence for how the world really works, we are all the poorer for it. Any religion which seeks the disproval of information had better use honest tactics in its effort or risk looking like you. And fundies of all religions.

          But Dave, these aren’t my ideas. I am paraphrasing many. Most notably, Philip Wylie, Carl Sagan, Steven Gould, Fritjof Kapra, and Ovid. And what’s more, they are subject to revision in my mind as better evidence or ideas come along.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 19 2006,09:28

          In my continued task to make Dave look even more foolish, I will now present the example you have been using so that a 3-year old could understand it, and thus make Dave look stupid when he fails to comprehend it.

          Essentially: Dave claims that Adam was "genetically rich". Lets concentrate on a single gene, that can take 500 alleles or, for purposes of simplification of language, "values". Lets list those values:
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ..., 498, 499, 500

          Adam was a diploid (because if it is impossible to go from 48 chromosomes to 46, it is also impossible to get a diploid from a tetraploid, according to Dave's "hypothesis"). That means that he could have two different values for that gene. Lets say 1 and 2:
          Adam: 1,2
          Eve is genetically identical to Adam, according to genesis, so Dave invokes another miracle and gives her two different values:
          Eve: 3,4
          Now, Dave, you are missing 496 values: 5, 6, 7, 8, ..., 498, 499, 500. Where are they? You have said in your "hypothesis" that mutations cannot add information, so according to your theory mutations cannot create the new information inside those 496 values!

          While you think about that, lets expand the example to Noah. For the sake of argument, lets assume maximum genetic variability:
          Noah: 1, 2
          Noah's wife: 3, 4

          Now, genetics tells us that their three children must combine their values, taking one of each. Lets assume:
          1st child: 1,3
          2nd child: 2,4
          3rd child: 1,4
          (feel free to change those numbers, as long as you take one from Noah and another from his wife)

          They each had a wife, so lets assume:
          1st wife: 5,6
          2nd wife: 7,8
          3rd wife: 9,10

          So, Dave, after the flood, you are suddenly missing 490 values! Where are they? How is it that today you can find all 500 of those values by checking the gene of enough people? How did the children's wives come by their values, since Adam and Eve didn't have them? Is it possible that you are wrong and mutations do add information? In that case, your whole "evolution cannot happen" breaks down since it can come up with new things via mutation - will you admit that?

          Please, do address these issues. I look forward to your mangling of basic genetics.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: I am calling Loki on jujuquisp. That comment about a "colleague" and the whole edging Dave on is *really* suspect. The touch about being a teacher is good, too.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 19 2006,10:11

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 19 2006,15:13)
          Well,
          --snip--
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Excellent, thoughtful post.  Bravo.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 19 2006,10:57

          Thank you. It was almost longer untill I saw what time it was.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 19 2006,13:04

          By the way...

          Now-admitted impostor "Ghost of Paley" essentially "jumped the shark" when he endorsed the moon-landings-were-faked theory.

          Have we ever pinned "afdave" down on whether the (alleged!;) moon landings are credible?

          Just wondering.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 19 2006,16:20

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 19 2006,14:55)
             
          Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 19 2006,13:42)
          Dave, I presented your problem to one of my colleagues here.  He agrees that your explanation of genetic richness fits into known scientific principles of genetics and it is very possible for a long-lived individual to accumulate enough mutations at a loci to breed offspring with every known allele we have today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Especially if he lives to be 6,000 years old and walks around with a big chunk of weapons-grade uranium in his jock strap.

          So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Let's put some numbers on the table for these alleles in terms of Dave's UCGH.  I'm going to go for a bulletpoint timeline to make it brief.
          • Now, we have the flood at 4500 years ago.
          • But didn't Dave say the continents were moved during the flood?  So we have the present geographic configuration when the flood subsides (NO ERIC, DOWN, BAD ERIC, DON'T MENTION WHERE THE WATER CAME FROM AGAIN, BAD).
          • So the Ark landed in ?Turkey? and the animals and people frolicked for ?50? years.
          • Now it gets confusing because I'm not sure if the Tower of Babel happens before or after the ice age.  I think it has to happen before the ice age because the languages of North & South America are all Babelled.
          • The the ice age comes for ?200? years and the frolicking people then spread around the globe.  Here's where it gets interesting for the UCGH geneticist.
          • So 250 years after the flood we have the populations expanding around the globe with their new found languages.  But the then become ISOLATED in New Guinea, Australia, North & South America, and Madagascar (to name a few).
          • So we need to ask some questions about these ISOLATED populations, do they exhibit the same allele diversity in their population that the rest of humanity (Europe, Asia, Africa) have?
          • IF these ISOLATED populations have similar diversity in their alleles compared to all other populations on earth then they must have acquired this diversity BEFORE their ISOLATION.
          • This means the allele diversity must have appeared in the first 250 years after the flood.


          So, let's narrow these dates down a little.  We aren't talking about 4500 years of mutation and selection, we are talking about 250 years of mutation and selection in the human population..........According to the UCGH timeline.  I'm too lazy at present to Permalink some of the above statements, but I can if pressed.

          DAVE,
          COULD YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS TIMELINE FOR US?  I THINK I HAVE IT NEAR TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE, BUT I MAY BE OFF BY A FACTOR OF 2 (3 AT MOST).

          Mike PSS

          p.s. Still waiting on your mixing response.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 19 2006,17:57

          Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 19 2006,21:20)
          So, let's narrow these dates down a little.  We aren't talking about 4500 years of mutation and selection, we are talking about 250 years of mutation and selection in the human population..........
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          …in other words, a few generations. Or, if the Bible is right about human lifespans at the time, less than one generation.

          But the interesting thing I've gleaned from watching AF Dave stumble and bumble around in the thickets of grade-school genetics is, when Dave initially posted his UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis," he had absolutely no freaking idea what he meant when he said Adam and Eve were "genetically rich." He still doesn't really know what he means by "genetically rich," but the broader point is, Dave hadn't really thought his "hypothesis" through before he posted it. In other words, it wasn't really a "hypothesis" at all. It was word salad. Dave has had to continuously scramble about on the Internet, trying to find something, anything, to justify statements he'd already made months ago.

          Which is further evidence, as if any were needed, that "science" is to Dave as thoroughly incomprehensible a topic as 18th-Century Versailles dinner etiquette would be to a junkyard dog.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 19 2006,18:09

          The next AtBC project should be to teach this little fellow to speak Esperanto. This should be easier.
          Posted by: lawman on Oct. 19 2006,20:30

          sorry, this may have already been answered, but if the continents were zipping about and bashing each other during the Flood and the ark comes to rest in the Mid-East(?), how did the animals then disperse to the now widely separated continents?
          thanks
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 19 2006,21:37

          Hey Davey, why hasn't an archaeologist, anthropologist, biblical scholar or anyone else for that matter, ever found human remains that show the wear of 900 years of living (or 500, or 100)?

          It'd be pretty hard to hide that kind of wear and tear on a human skeleton even if they were "genetically rich"! Don't wave your hands or diddle your nose. 'Splain please.

          Considering the number of Egyptian (and other) bodies we've recovered, it's kind of hard to believe not one 900 YO set of gigantic or normal sized human remains have ever been found in the Near East.

          Did Adam and his begats shed teeth like T-Rex or did they have super teeth, super knees, super hips, super prostates? Was Adam a six billion shekel man?

          It's Get Busy Time Davey and you keep falling behind. Test is on, ... whoops it's already Friday! Permanent record Dave. Yeshua is watching!

          The proper name for the new holotype of hominid Davey represents is Homo spelunkus. Probing the depths of ignorance. Ouch!
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 19 2006,23:31

          Quote (lawman @ Oct. 20 2006,01:30)
          sorry, this may have already been answered, but if the continents were zipping about and bashing each other during the Flood and the ark comes to rest in the Mid-East(?), how did the animals then disperse to the now widely separated continents?
          thanks
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In the same line of questions that Dave is not going to answer, or even admit they were ever put forward, I would like to add - what did the penguins eat all the way to the artic from the Ark? How did they survive the heat? How did the two kangaroos cross the indian ocean? Are panda bears evolved from the "bear kind pair", or were there "bears" and "panda bears" in the ark? And how do you know either way?

          [quote=Mike PSS] ?Turkey?{...}?50?{...}?250? [/quote]

          Mike, I know that it is not comongly found outside Spanish, but can I introduce you to the opening question mark?
          ¿Turkey? ¿50? ¿250?
          It might be just me, but I find it far more confortable to look at

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: 10 previews and multiple changes, and I've given up on why the second quote iB code is not working
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 20 2006,00:54

          And I'm still waiting to hear how trees which began growing 5000 years ago, survived a catastrophic, global flood which happened 4500 years ago.

          Also, the scenario post-flood would be one of disjointed continents scoured of all life; bare rock, with no soil. How did Noah and his family re-establish the World's flora, and what did the animals from the ark do whilst the ecosystems were developing. And where did he get the soil from? And if the land-masses that we see today were elsewhere before the flood, wouldn't the biota be adapted to different environments. And why am I even bothering to ask these questions?

          Dave, it was check-mate a long while ago. You insisted on playing on, and now you have absolutely no pieces left. And yet you continue to want to play on. Do you realise how stupid this makes you look?

          And jujuquisp, I suspect that you're a troll, but if not, how would YOU answer my questions?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,01:00

          Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 20 2006,05:54)
          And I'm still waiting to hear how trees which began growing 5000 years ago, survived a catastrophic, global flood which happened 4500 years ago.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AIG already have their made-up answer : there isn't any 5000 year-old tree.
          You know, some trees in greenhouses may accumulate more than on ring per year, therefore the wild californian pines are younger. Irrefutable.

          And don't even mention dendrochonology.
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 20 2006,01:50

          Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Oct. 20 2006,02:37)
          Hey Davey, why hasn't an archaeologist, anthropologist, biblical scholar or anyone else for that matter, ever found human remains that show the wear of 900 years of living (or 500, or 100)?

          It'd be pretty hard to hide that kind of wear and tear on a human skeleton even if they were "genetically rich"! Don't wave your hands or diddle your nose. 'Splain please.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Don't mean to butt in here, but I found this explanation.

          < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMMyrSAkNo >

          Hope that helps.
          Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 20 2006,02:01



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Don't mean to butt in here, but I found this explanation.

          www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMMyrSAkNo

          Hope that helps.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It's .....AFDave?
          Could it be?
          It would explain a lot. :p

          An expanding Earth. Hmmm.  It does sound plausible.
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 20 2006,02:18

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,06:00)
          Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 20 2006,05:54)
          And I'm still waiting to hear how trees which began growing 5000 years ago, survived a catastrophic, global flood which happened 4500 years ago.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AIG already have their made-up answer : there isn't any 5000 year-old tree.
          You know, some trees in greenhouses may accumulate more than on ring per year, therefore the wild californian pines are younger. Irrefutable.

          And don't even mention dendrochonology.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Holy hothouses, Batman!

          :D
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 20 2006,02:26

          Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 20 2006,06:50)
          Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Oct. 20 2006,02:37)
          Hey Davey, why hasn't an archaeologist, anthropologist, biblical scholar or anyone else for that matter, ever found human remains that show the wear of 900 years of living (or 500, or 100)?

          It'd be pretty hard to hide that kind of wear and tear on a human skeleton even if they were "genetically rich"! Don't wave your hands or diddle your nose. 'Splain please.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Don't mean to butt in here, but I found this explanation.

          < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMMyrSAkNo >

          Hope that helps.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Oh, well that settles it.  I'm converted.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,03:06

          Quote (lawman @ Oct. 20 2006,02:30)
          sorry, this may have already been answered, but if the continents were zipping about and bashing each other during the Flood and the ark comes to rest in the Mid-East(?), how did the animals then disperse to the now widely separated continents?
          thanks
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          lawman,
          From AFDave's Hypothesis on Page 1.
             
          Quote (afdave @ Original UCGH from May2006)
          C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

          D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

          G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

          H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

          I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

          J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

          K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Obviously, in the UCGH world, the ice age lowered sea levels and created land bridges for migration of humans/animals during this time AND THIS TIME ONLY.  After the ice age the sea levels regained present levels and left ISOLATED populations of animals and humans until rediscovered during the recent age of exploration.

          Got It!!! Write It Down!!!  :D

          Get away JAD, this is AFDave's UCGH, not your theory.

          Grey Wolf,  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Mike, I know that it is not comongly found outside Spanish, but can I introduce you to the opening question mark?
          ¿Turkey? ¿50? ¿250?
          It might be just me, but I find it far more confortable to look at

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          What can I say, I'm lazy with syntax.  I can boot up the character map and insert the proper punctuation like ¿ or § or other stuff, but my MO is to get my point across with minimum effort.  It's because I fully express my procrastination gene (I'm homozygostic for that allele I'm sure). :p
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,03:36



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And I'm still waiting to hear how trees which began growing 5000 years ago, survived a catastrophic, global flood which happened 4500 years ago.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          As Jeannot mentioned, Dave's "big guns" on "how dendrochronology is wrong"  were "unbiased" Australian  plant physiologist "Dr." Don Batten, who gives the following quote:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I was converted as a result of a street preacher from the Open Air Campaigners at the young age of 10 years. As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that ‘science was facts’ and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that ‘God used evolution’, days-are-ages, ‘progressive creation’, etc. I could never see how the gap theory solved anything, or that it had any basis in the Bible. However, I really chose not to think about ‘science’ and the Bible because I guess I knew that evolution did not go with the Bible at all.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Unbiased, yep, yep, uh-huh.

          Batten claims three problems with dendro that invalidate it: some trees produce occasional multiple seasonal  rings ( this is well-known in dendro, and people are trained to deal with it). But Batten claims in his AIG article that it's much more...up to FIVE rings per year. He fails to give a citation on this remarkable work. Well, it's from farmed Pinus radiata trees in New Zealand, in a NON-seasonal artificial environment. Honesty flows from Batten.

          Batten next claims a major fault is that dendro and C14 dating are used to confirm each other. Never mind that dendro existed long before carbon dating. Never mind that ONLY in the "through the looking-glass" world of Creationism is calibration by comparison regarded as a weakness (Dave likes doing that with radiometric dating and fossil sequences, along with all the other methods used to calibrate and refine chronologies).

          Finally Batten mentions a grand total of TWO whole studies that were withdrawn in dendro, out of tens of thousands in the databases. And these were on procedural/methodological grounds.

          Next up was an H.S. Gladwin article from 1976, a stockbroker who has no expertise in dendro OR archaeology, he FUNDED projects ending in the 1950's, though, so that's "good enough." Keep in mind that when Gladwin allegedly "wrote " this article, he was NINETY-THREE, also. Gladwin claimed in the article that (1) bristlecone and juniper dating was "unreliable," based on his "expert" opinion. He also was convinced that African Pygmies populated the Americas. (2) That deciduous trees CANNOT be used for dendro. I gave AirHea...er.."Dave" a list of cited MAJOR works on dendro using deciduous trees like oak and maple, etc (there are hundreds of studies in the data bases).

          That's it. That's the sum of his arguments against dendro. Good references can be found at : < http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ >   
          < http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html >   
          < http://www.dendrochronology.com/ >  An extensive bibliography  at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration site at < http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html >
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,03:53

          A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

          This article illustrates what I have been saying for some time now in my Creator God Hypothesis ... that all sexually reproducing animals and humans could have easily descended from two genetically rich parents, genetically rich meaning nothing more than "in the middle of the Punnet square" or "significant heterozygosity" or "average of their kind" and (in Adam and Eve's case) also free from mutations.

          Different alleles of the various genes have simply arisen by mutation of EXISTING genes.  If one wants to be obtuse and call this "genetic richness" ... well, I guess you can call it what you want ... I call it deterioration, just as a 5th generation copy made on a Xerox copier would be of much lower quality than the original.

          This article also illustrates the common MIS-understandings among evolutionary biologists regarding the origin and diversification of species.  Note Don Batten's bio at the bottom -- this utterly refutes the notion that creationist scientists cannot operate in the real world.  On the contrary, they are BETTER equippped to operate in the real world because their theories are more consistent with the evidence in the real world.

          Evolutionary biologists are so blinded by the crippling views of Darwinism that a lowly Electrical Engineer like myself can refute many of their erroneous ideas with only a little study.


          ********************************

          Don Batten, PhD, a professional biologist at AIG relates the following exchange between himself and another professional biologist ... Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D., of Speedway, IN, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be used. For a change from most negative feedbacks, this letter attempts to give an objection of substance. But as will be shown, it relies on the informal logical fallacy of argument from authority or Argumentum ad verecundiam (‘As a professional biologist …’) instead of performing elementary calculations, and like most evolutionists, misunderstands the vital point that evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires changes that increase genetic information content. His letter is printed first in its entirety. A response by Don Batten, Ph.D., also a professional biologist, of Answers in Genesis (Australia), immediately follows his letter (indented black text) with point-by-point responses (in dark red) interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (…) at the end of one of TM’s paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.

          ================================

          MEISS:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          “I listened to your program of 6/14/01 entitled ‘Dogs—how many on the Ark?’. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.

          As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments. Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?

          Such silliness will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

          Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.
          Speedway
          IN”
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          ========================

          POINT BY POINT RESPONSE BY DON BATTEN

          MEISS...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I listened to your program of 6/14/01 [14 June 2001] entitled ‘Dogs—how many on the Ark?’. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris [sic — I presume that a professional biologist knows that the generic name should be capitalized and this is just a typo] arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BATTEN:  Obviously these short radio programs do not ‘cover all the bases’. I suggest that you check out the rest of our website for the details of these things—it’s easy to do using the internal search engine and the Q&A tab which hyperlinks to about 50 topic categories. Ken Ham was saying that the variety of dogs, wolves, etc., could possibly have come from one pair—that there may have been only one pair on the Ark. Evidence of inter-fertility between different species of the wolf group is good evidence that they belong to the one created kind. There is no doubt that the number of basically different kinds of animals is much less than the number of species that have been named, so that one of the common scoffers’ arguments that ‘Noah could not have fitted all the animals’, is just hot air (see Q&A: Noah’s Ark).

          MEISS:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BATTEN: I am a professional biologist also, so this argument from authority doesn’t impress me in the least, and nor should it impress anyone else. I do not see anything preposterous or superficial about the argument. Perhaps it is not the biology that offends you, but the worldview that we stand for and your protestations are an excuse for denying the clear teaching of the Bible regarding the Creation, Fall and Flood.

          MEISS:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits …
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------






          BATTEN: David Menton’s pictures above, under the scanning electron microscope, show the tremendous difference between feathers (top) and scales (bottom) [both magnified 80 times].

          Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly — see Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?. However, does this give support to belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Most definitely not. The sort of variety created by mutations (for example, hairless, pushed in face, stumpy legs, etc.) is due to loss of information, not the addition of new genetic information. This is not the stuff that would change a lizard (or a dinosaur) into a bird, for example — this requires the addition of the specifications (coded in the DNA) for making feathers (see scannning electron micrographs, left), flow-through lungs connected to hollow bones, bird-brains, etc.

          As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.

          MEISS:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          … arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BATTEN: Actually, two genomes (male and female) could have four different alleles (variety of a given gene) between them for each gene locus, not two. Since you say you are a professional biologist, I assume you just made a simple mistake here and you actually do understand the principles of genetics.

          Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD — for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1)/2).

          With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 1030,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 1080 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (‘phenotype’) would be less than the huge number above.

          But let’s be ultra-generous to the evolutionist. I.e., let’s assume (as you claimed) that there were only two types of allele per locus, and that there was no co-dominance so only two phenotypes per locus, and there was only 1% heterozygosity in wolves/dogs (cf. 6.7% in humans even today, presumably much less than in Adam and Eve), the number of possible varieties would be 2300 = 10300(log(10)2) = 1090. Even with these conservative figures, this number is still so huge that it makes the number of atoms in the universe seem like a tiny smattering — 1090/1080 = 1010 (10 billion) times larger!

          So it seems like there would have been plenty of genetic potential to produce all the members of the wolf kind that we see today. And if to this we add the degenerative changes due to mutations, we have more than ample capacity in two animals to produce all the varieties of dogs/wolves/jackals that we see today.

          MEISS:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Such silliness will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

          Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BATTEN: Actually there are plenty of competent scientists, including professional biologists, who accept the Bible’s authority, including the accounts of Creation, the Fall and the Flood; and of course creationists were responsible for founding most branches of modern science, including biology. This is well documented in our creationist scientists page. And I know laymen who understand these basic issues of genetics better than some supposedly ‘professional biologists’. In fact, one Professor of Genetics at a university was shocked into reason by his wife, who has no academic qualifications — like you, he scoffed at her supposed ignorance, but God used something she said to break through his evolutionized outlook (see Jumping Ship: A geneticist tells of his ‘double conversion’). < http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home....lan.asp >

          Perhaps it is not the credibility of our teaching that is a problem but that, like other unbelievers, you are ‘wilfully ignorant’ of things the Bible teaches (2 Peter 3:5). This scoffing derision comes from a determination to follow one’s own evil desires (2 Peter 3:3) because to acknowledge the truth of the Bible would mean having to submit to the One who inspired it, admitting that you are guilty in His sight, deserving of His judgment and in need of the forgiveness He has made available through Jesus Christ. Such a profound change (conversion) would not make one the flavor of the month with one’s fellow scoffers! It would be a very difficult decision, but it needs to be done! Jesus said to follow him would be costly (John 15:18–21 cf. 2 Timothy 3:12), but He is the only way to eternal life (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).

          Sincerely
          Don Batten, Ph.D.
          Research scientist, author and editorial consultant
          AiG (Australia)

          **************************************

          Dr. Don Batten
          Creationist Agricultural Scientist




          Biography
          Dr. Batten is an expert on plant physiology, especially environmental adaptation of tropical / subtropical fruit species such as mango, lychee and custard apple (Annona spp.); floral biology, floral induction; breeding; environmental physiology (especially water requirements, effects of water deficits), plant taxonomy (especially at the sub-species level), and mineral nutrition. Dr. Batten’s research in floral induction of lychee and mango resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought, which had been a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops.

          Education
          1969–72: B.Sc.Agr. (First Class Honours)—University of Sydney (Australia)

          1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

          ****************************************
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,04:03

          HAHAHAHAHA
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,04:19

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,09:53)
          A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

          This article illustrates what I have been saying for some time now in my Creator God Hypothesis ... that all sexually reproducing animals and humans could have easily descended from two genetically rich parents, genetically rich meaning nothing more than "in the middle of the Punnet square" or "significant heterozygosity" or "average of their kind" and (in Adam and Eve's case) also free from mutations.

          Different alleles of the various genes have simply arisen by mutation of EXISTING genes.  If one wants to be obtuse and call this "genetic richness" ... well, I guess you can call it what you want ... I call it deterioration, just as a 5th generation copy made on a Xerox copier would be of much lower quality than the original.

          This article also illustrates the common MIS-understandings among evolutionary biologists regarding the origin and diversification of species.  Note Don Batten's bio at the bottom -- this utterly refutes the notion that creationist scientists cannot operate in the real world.  On the contrary, they are BETTER equippped to operate in the real world because their theories are more consistent with the evidence in the real world.

          Evolutionary biologists are so blinded by the crippling views of Darwinism that a lowly Electrical Engineer like myself can refute many of their erroneous ideas with only a little study.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AFDave,
          If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

          The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

          PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

          Mike PSS
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,04:22

          I'm SO glad I posted that little bit on "Dr." Don Batten today. Batten isn't a "professional biologist" he's a plant physiologist. Battens claims on "mutation cannot increase information" is a trivially-destroyed common claim of creationists who don't have the slightest grasp of information theory. Claiming that because wolves can interbreed with other wolves = "proof" that all canids are descended from a single Noah's Ark pair is remarkably dense, but expected from "Dr." Don Batten and AFDave. HAHAHAHAHA
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 20 2006,04:26

          This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation, so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

          We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,04:31

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2006,10:22)
          I'm SO glad I posted that little bit on "Dr." Don Batten today. Batten isn't a "professional biologist" he's a plant physiologist. Battens claims on "mutation cannot increase information" is a trivially-destroyed common claim of creationists who don't have the slightest grasp of information theory. Claiming that because wolves can interbreed with other wolves = "proof" that all canids are descended from a single Noah's Ark pair is remarkably dense, but expected from "Dr." Don Batten and AFDave. HAHAHAHAHA
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          deadman,
          If you continue to preempt AFDave by discreditting his sources BEFORE he posts (in this case by 17 minutes) then I'm going to suspect collusion between you and AFDave.

          However, I'll let it go in this case because you were destroying the dendro argument and AFDave presented the dog argument.

          Maybe you have a secret code in this thread so that the coded message to you from AFDave said "I'm posting Batten's 'D' argument" and you thought dendro instead of dog.

          I'm watching you and ready to push the shenanigans button. ;)
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 20 2006,04:40

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:53)
          Different alleles of the various genes have simply arisen by mutation of EXISTING genes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,

          You have claimed that "evolution cannot happen" and yet now you tell us that mutation does happen? And in a moment you will tell us that only the lucky descendants with viable (i.e. neutral or good mutations) survive, because they are fitter than their less lucky brothers, I suppose. Tell me again, why do you think evolution is impossible if you so readily agree that mutation can produce new alleles? Before you jump on the "information is lost" dead horse, read bellow...

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:53)
          If one wants to be obtuse and call this "genetic richness" ... well, I guess you can call it what you want ... I call it deterioration, just as a 5th generation copy made on a Xerox copier would be of much lower quality than the original.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I agree that you are obtuse by calling allele-producing mutations "genetic richness". Genetic richness, as defined by you, is, as I showed in my simple example, and many others in their own posts, an impossible and extremelly stupid concept, result of vast ignorance of actual genetics.

          Now, however, you are trying to change tracks and say that it is "deterioration". I wonder if you will try to adress this issue, or just ignore the criticism you can't face, as usual. As I pointed out already, if you start with 4 alleles for a gene and over the generations mutations create 496 extra alleles, you have *added* information to the system. All the alleles, as far as I can tell, are different but equal in their properties - there is no "degeneration", and there is a substantial gain in genetic information.

          As an example*: alleles for eye colour: lets say there are 4 alleles: grey (gy), green (gn), brown (br), blue (bl). Adam could only have two of these** - say gy-gn. His children could only have grey or green eyes. A mutation, however, introduces the (br) allele and one of his sons is born with brown eyes - has information been lost? If so, what information and where? Are you going to tell us that people with brown eyes are somehow "degenerated"?

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          *Disclaimer: May not be a real-world example. I have no idea how many genes code for eye colour, nor how many alleles there really are for eye colour. This example's sole purpose is to help Dave define "genetic degeneration"

          **Since Eve is product of Adam's rib, we will assume her eye colour was equal to Adam's - being her female clone and all.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,04:42

          Haha. Mike: Yeah, it was funny. Dave has a VERY limited number of "experts" to appeal to, and it just happened that the topics coincided. Oh, and by the way, Dave, lest you try to misunderstand what I noted about "Professional Biologist" and "Plant Physiologist," PRECISION means A LOT in science. Batten is not some jack of all trades expert, he's a SPECIALIST in one arena, and even there, his claims are laughable, especially when he tries to disguise the sources of his claims by not citing them.
          I mentioned a LONG time ago, in MAY, that the dog genome had been sequenced, and it shows NO BOTTLENECK. The other point is that dogs and jackals cannot interbreed, and there are dozens of similar instances, as with foxes (canids) and oh, say the Cape Hunting Dog. The Maned wolf, the Bush Dog, (Speathos venaticus) or the "Raccoon Dog" Nyctereutes procyonides. You have NO clue what the #### you're talking about , Dave, nor does "Dr" Don Batten.

          Oh, and I asked you yesterday to CITE specifically what was " a lie" in  what I posted, DAVE, or will you now allow me to call you a hypocrite and a false accuser on TOP of the fact that you are a plagiarist and quoteminer?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,04:52

          Improv...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I agree with this part.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

          We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't know about this part.  It's a good question though and I want to investigate further.

          **********************************

          Of course ... let's not forget about my offer to set up a conference call between myself, Don Batten, and Deadman to let Don speak for himself on dendrochronology.  

          Deadman ... you have fallen into the same trap that so many skeptics of creationism have ... you are unable to answer my claims on the current topic ... so all you have left is to try to discredit me, Don Batten and others.  Your latest tactic is to jump topics to an area that you think you have an edge.  

          Your tactics aren't working though as evidenced by your most recent blunders in trying to say I quote mined ... thoroughly refuted here < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3384 > ...
          and that it was ME that was hurling insults and got asked not to, when in reality it was YOU.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 20 2006,04:52



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Jesus said to follow him would be costly...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          If I may paraphrase:
          "what doth it profit a man if he gain his soul, yet lose his mind?"
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 20 2006,04:54

          One more time, in case you missed it:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

          (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
          (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,04:59

          No, Dave, I posted up valid refutations of your claims, and of Don Batten's.
          And I asked you to CITE specifically what you claim I LIED about in my previous post, quoteminer and plagiarist.
          Why are you avoiding doing just that, Dave? YOU CLAIMED I "lied" so show it. Be a man, Dave, be MORE than just a plagiarist and quoteminer.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 20 2006,05:04

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,10:52)
          Improv...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I agree with this part.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

          We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't know about this part.  It's a good question though and I want to investigate further.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          We could also look at fossils and written records to find out which animals were around soon after the flood.  When we find specific evidence of a particular animal having lived around 4000 years ago, we can safely assume that it is very close to one of the original surviving kinds from the ark.  Then we could look at the alleles of modern individuals from these "species" and use that as a starting point.  For example, if we find that wolves did indeed exist 4000 years ago, then we can be reasonably certain that a modern wolf is very similar to the original kind.  We can then use wolf genes and alleles as a basis of comparison to determine which other modern animals are members of the same kind.

          Does this sound reasonable or not?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,05:24

          Argy...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

          (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
          (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          If I understand correctly, in case 1, you would have an "MmMm" situation (to stick with the AIG Punnet square example) and in Case 2 you would have an "MMmm" situation, which as far as I can tell, would statistically have the same effect in their descendants.  Do you agree?
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,05:24

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,10:52)
          Deadman ... you have fallen into the same trap that so many skeptics of creationism have ... you are unable to answer my claims on the current topic ... so all you have left is to try to discredit me, Don Batten and others.  Your latest tactic is to jump topics to an area that you think you have an edge.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          **sniff** I answered your claim on your topic.
          **gulp** But you haven't answered me yet.
          **shudder** AND you haven't answered me about my refutation of your mixing argument either.

          Boo Hoo Hoo.  Wo is me.

          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 20 2006,05:30



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave, please read < this article > on the Apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation. Please, oh please, tell us how this one recent mutation does not increase "information" by one of the following meaningful and measureable definitions of the term provided by Shannon (classical information theory), Chaitin-Kolmogorov (algorithmic information theory), or even Spetner (enzyme specificity).

          Thank you.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,05:32

          Here is the relevant portion ofmy post, from the previous page:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Translation: "I've been here for 5 months spewing fallacies, insults (after I was asked to stop)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Now, do I mention a time period? Yes...Five months. Why did I mention five months ago? Because that was JUNE...when I asked Dave to STOP INSULTING. Here is Dave's response:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          if you're interested in civility, I'm happy to oblige ... but I would like to know what it is that specifically insults you. You gotta remember, I have an Air Force fighter pilot barroom background and brother, let me tell you, those buggers can dish it out! But nobody gets mad ... it's just all in good fun. So you'll have to pardon me if I assume wrongly that you guys are the same way.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          A day later Dave posts:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If you can't understand my Portuguese explanation by now, then you are as blind as Rilke. So, you can go on being a 'Stage 4 Troll' or you can get back on the sciency track you were starting to get on. Rilke has already fallen off the 'lunatic troll cliff' and she's been spanked twice
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So, were you asked to stop, Dave? Yes. Did you? No. So, tell me Dave...what part of what I wrote on the previous page was a lie, Mr. Plagiarist and quoteminer?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,05:35

          Deadman...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Batten isn't a "professional biologist" he's a plant physiologist.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Hmmm ... I learn something new every day.  I suppose this means that "biological systems" do not include plants.  Check!
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,05:38

          Dave, your problem is that you are wrong. Wrong in sooo many ways. Was my answer to your question satisfactory?

          Geology. You really need to start with geology. You might gain some from taking a class. Tectonics is, in fact, measurable. AiG is, in fact wrong.

          Now I have a question for you! If it could be demonstrated that Earth is over 10k years old, would you be wrong?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,05:49

          What I had already posted previously on this page, along with other things Dave fails to note or address:

          "Oh, and by the way, Dave, lest you try to misunderstand what I noted about "Professional Biologist" and "Plant Physiologist," PRECISION means A LOT in science. Batten is not some jack of all trades expert, he's a SPECIALIST in one arena, and even there, his claims are laughable, especially when he tries to disguise the sources of his claims by not citing them."

          Now how about answering what I asked about you claiming I lied, Dave? I mean, besides you being a plagiarist and quoteminer, unless you answer to your accusations, I can safely call you a hypocrite, false accuser and liar yourself. (for falsely claiming I had lied).  

          The reason I am doing this is that Dave doesn't know about the topics he raises and is merely trying to sift out what he can pervert. I find this objectionable.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,05:49

          DM...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So, were you asked to stop, Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Could you quote yourself where you asked this?  And maybe take all this to the Bathroom Wall so we can keep this thread on my "Creator God Hypothesis"? (we're currently on Points C & D)
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,05:56

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:53)
          A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

          This article illustrates what I have been saying for some time now in my Creator God Hypothesis ... that all sexually reproducing animals and humans could have easily descended from two genetically rich parents, genetically rich meaning nothing more than "in the middle of the Punnet square" or "significant heterozygosity" or "average of their kind" and (in Adam and Eve's case) also free from mutations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, get over the "genetically rich" thing. You know as well as I do that the term has no meaning. We've been over this to the point of nausea, and the fact that you continue to refer to anyone or anything on the ark being "genetically rich" merely points up your stupidity, your dishonesty, or (more likely) both.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Different alleles of the various genes have simply arisen by mutation of EXISTING genes.  If one wants to be obtuse and call this "genetic richness" ... well, I guess you can call it what you want ... I call it deterioration, just as a 5th generation copy made on a Xerox copier would be of much lower quality than the original.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In two hundred generations, Dave? You think you can get a new allele (in some cases multiple alleles) for a particular gene in every single generation for two hundred generations?

          And one more point on your stupid "xerox" analogy: do xerox copies reproduce themselves, Dave? Is there any selection pressure on them?




          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evolutionary biologists are so blinded by the crippling views of Darwinism that a lowly Electrical Engineer like myself can refute many of their erroneous ideas with only a little study.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In your dreams, Dave. You haven't "refuted" anything on any of your threads, after more than 300 pages. If you think I'm wrong, whip out some permalinks, or stop making the claim.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Does the word "nylon" mean anything to you, Dave?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,05:56

          I don't have to do anything you want, Dave, You raised an accusation against me HERE. I am asking you to respond HERE. What's the problem?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,06:05

          Let me be very clear on this again, Dave.
          Here is what I posted :  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Translation: "I've been here for 5 months spewing fallacies, insults (after I was asked to stop)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You accused me HERE of lying.
          I asked you what was a lie about it, given that five months ago, you were asked to and agreed to stop insulting. Did you? No.
          I don't take this lightly. You are not a person that I like, trust or care to have casting false accusations against me. I can prove to any rational fair witness that you are a liar OR delusional, and that you have both plagiarized the work of another and quotemined. I don't care where you got the plagiarized citation from, it remains plagiarism and quotemining, regardless of source or when you got it.
          Therefore I find it also objectionable that a person of your low character should accuse me falsely of anything.    
          Want me to drop this? Admit you falsely accused me. Deal also with your quotemining and plagiarism honestly. Be a man of integrity and ethics for once on this matter.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,06:10

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,11:49)
          DM...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So, were you asked to stop, Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Could you quote yourself where you asked this?  And maybe take all this to the Bathroom Wall so we can keep this thread on my "Creator God Hypothesis"? (we're currently on Points C & D)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          From my < account > you are mentioning items on Points C, D, G, H, I, J, and K.  Because I've < identified an issue > with your allele distribution in the human population after the flood.

          Please reply,  my lower lip is trembling and I will cry again if ignored.


          Mike PSS
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 20 2006,06:21

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:24)
          Argy...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

          (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
          (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          If I understand correctly, in case 1, you would have an "MmMm" situation (to stick with the AIG Punnet square example) and in Case 2 you would have an "MMmm" situation, which as far as I can tell, would statistically have the same effect in their descendants.  Do you agree?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right.  So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?"  Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,06:22

          Incorygible ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, please read this article on the Apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation. Please, oh please, tell us how this one recent mutation does not increase "information" by one of the following meaningful and measureable definitions of the term provided by Shannon (classical information theory), Chaitin-Kolmogorov (algorithmic information theory), or even Spetner (enzyme specificity).

          Thank you.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I will be glad to read this.  If it's long it may take me a little while.  I have copied off the link.  Do you know of LOTS of examples of supposed increases in information?  I have heard of only one other here ... nylon-eating bacteria ... and I have not investigated it yet.

          Do you now understand my statements about genetic richness in Adam and Noah?  Do you agree with Eric that Noah would have made a bottleneck?  I'm guessing you do, but your agreement is based on your understanding of mutations as a source of "genetic richness," correct? Whereas my view is that mutated alleles could more accurately be described as "genetic corruption" not "richness." If this is your position, I think I at least see the nature of our disagreement.  With this in mind, let me clear up a misunderstanding I think you have ...

          Cory...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So you've figured out that "beneficial" is context-dependent and based on environmental circumstances, eh Dave? Congratulations on "discovering" a fundamental precept of evolutionary theory. Now try the flip side: is "harmful" context-dependent? Ooohhh...blows your mind, don'it?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I have ALWAYS maintained that "beneficial" and "harmful" are context dependent.  Where do you note that I have said otherwise?  I thought it was ToE advocates who gripe about using the terms "beneficial" or "harmful" mutations, not creationists.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,06:25

          Mike ( and everyone else) : sorry I kinda spoiled the fun for a moment, but Dave will be back with an excuse soon, I'm sure.

          The thing that gets me is the amount of time spent trying to patiently explain even simple things to Dave and the fact that he seems to let it all pass in one ear and out the other, while making claims he can't even vaguely support -- because he knows squat about the topics and is merely looking for ANYTHING to twist.

          Anyway, sorry for chasing him off again, but as I said, I'm sure he's scouring the logs to try to find an excuse for his nasty little tactics and he'll be back, all full of vim, vinegar and vigor as if nothing at all had happened.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,06:29

          I know you have a very selective memory, Dave, and like letting the page on the thread turn over so you can pretend that previous posts don't exist, so here it is again:

          Let me be very clear on this again, Dave.
          Here is what I posted :  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Translation: "I've been here for 5 months spewing fallacies, insults (after I was asked to stop)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          You accused me HERE of lying.
          I asked you what was a lie about it, given that five months ago, you were asked to and agreed to stop insulting. Did you? No.
          I don't take this lightly. You are not a person that I like, trust or care to have casting false accusations against me. I can prove to any rational fair witness that you are a liar OR delusional, and that you have both plagiarized the work of another and quotemined. I don't care where you got the plagiarized citation from, it remains plagiarism and quotemining, regardless of source or when you got it.
          Therefore I find it also objectionable that a person of your low character should accuse me falsely of anything.    
          Want me to drop this? Admit you falsely accused me. Deal also with your quotemining and plagiarism honestly. Be a man of integrity and ethics for once on this matter.
          Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 20 2006,06:29

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 20 2006,11:25)
          Mike ( and everyone else) : sorry I kinda spoiled the fun for a moment, but Dave will be back with an excuse soon, I'm sure.

          The thing that gets me is the amount of time spent trying to patiently explain even simple things to Dave and the fact that he seems to let it all pass in one ear and out the other, while making claims he can't even vaguely support -- because he knows squat about the topics and is merely looking for ANYTHING to twist.

          Anyway, sorry for chasing him off again, but as I said, I'm sure he's scouring the logs to try to find an excuse for his nasty little tactics and he'll be back, all full of vim, vinegar and vigor as if nothing at all had happened.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          speak of the devil.....
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 20 2006,06:36

          afdave, quoting Batten:  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD — for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1)/2).

          With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 1030,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 1080 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Of course, what Batten's describing is genetically distinct individuals-- individuals that are different at any of their 30,000 loci. But there are still no more than four alleles at any given locus. So Batten's argument does exactly nothing to explain how we can have 500 alleles at a single locus today, without a mutation rate so high that it would have driven every canid species to extinction.

          afdave:

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evolutionary biologists are so blinded by the crippling views of Darwinism that a lowly Electrical Engineer like myself can refute many of their erroneous ideas with only a little study.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I certainly hope that you are a troll. If you mean this, you're dangerously arrogant.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,06:37

          Argystokes...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

          (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
          (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          If I understand correctly, in case 1, you would have an "MmMm" situation (to stick with the AIG Punnet square example) and in Case 2 you would have an "MMmm" situation, which as far as I can tell, would statistically have the same effect in their descendants.  Do you agree?

          Argy...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right.  So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?"  Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Why I think it matters is because Genesis records a supernatural creation of Adam first, then a supernatural creation of Eve from Adam's side ("side" is a better translation ... "rib" in KJV).  This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.  This would be the (1) scenario above and would require a certain degree of heterozygosity to produce some significant variation in their descendents.  How much heterozygosity?  I do not know ... I have said "large" and "a high degree" ... I am told that current heterozygosity in humans is around 7%.  So I cannot really say what "large" would be.  I just know that there would have to be enough to create tall humans, short humans, light skinned humans, dark skinned humans, etc. that we see in the world today.

          It may be that my "genetically rich" statement in my "Hypothesis" (Eric, you are correct ... it is not a true hypothesis in the sense that I don't plan on publishing it) serves only to confuse people.  In this case, I may use a different choice of words in the future.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,06:46

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,09:52)
          Improv...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation,
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I agree with this part.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Impossible, Dave. Subsequent to the flood, there cannot have been more than 16 alleles for any gene in the population, other than those caused by mutation. Therefore, if any gene has more than 32 alleles in the current population, the majority of those alleles are the result of mutation. For genes that have more than 200 alleles, your "hypothesis" requires a new allele to be produced every single generation.

          Looks like awfully sloppy chromosomal duplication to me. We're lucky any of us are alive.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

          We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I don't know about this part.  It's a good question though and I want to investigate further.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          We already know it's not, Dave. Many, many, many genes have way more than four (or sixteen) alleles.

          So how are you going to identify "kinds" using this methodology? Any ideas?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman ... you have fallen into the same trap that so many skeptics of creationism have ... you are unable to answer my claims on the current topic ... so all you have left is to try to discredit me, Don Batten and others.  Your latest tactic is to jump topics to an area that you think you have an edge.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, Deadman has (I'm sure) been royally entertained watching your claims on the current topic be eviscerated. He doesn't have to answer every single claim you make; the list of your claims he's already demolished grows by the week.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Your tactics aren't working though as evidenced by your most recent blunders in trying to say I quote mined ... thoroughly refuted here < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3384 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Don't you find it slightly remarkable that you're the only one here who doesn't think you're guilty of quote-mining, Dave? You provided ample evidence of your own quote-mining in the very thread where you attempted to refute Deadman's claims that you quote-mined!

          What the Brits would call an own-goal, Dave.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,06:48



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          it is not a true hypothesis in the sense that I don't plan on publishing it) serves only to confuse people. In this case, I may use a different choice of words in the future.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You're trying to rehabilitate yourself again, Dave. By giving the appearance of rationality on ONE topic when you remain irrational on a hundred others. And oddly enough, you haven't responded to my post.
          Did you agree to act civilly and cease insults? Yes.

          I don't care how you want to re-frame it or excuse it, Dave. It's just like the quotemining and plagiarism. You can't DO some things and pretend they don't exist.
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 20 2006,07:00



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Why I think it matters is because Genesis records a supernatural creation of Adam first, then a supernatural creation of Eve from Adam's side ("side" is a better translation ... "rib" in KJV).  This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Um, what?  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as your scenario implies.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,07:04

          Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 20 2006,05:54)
          Also, the scenario post-flood would be one of disjointed continents scoured of all life; bare rock, with no soil. How did Noah and his family re-establish the World's flora, and what did the animals from the ark do whilst the ecosystems were developing. And where did he get the soil from?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It seems that this objetion alone debunks your flood theory, Dave.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,07:06

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,11:37)
          Argy...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right.  So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?"  Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Why I think it matters is because Genesis records a supernatural creation of Adam first, then a supernatural creation of Eve from Adam's side ("side" is a better translation ... "rib" in KJV).  This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.  This would be the (1) scenario above and would require a certain degree of heterozygosity to produce some significant variation in their descendents.  How much heterozygosity?  I do not know ... I have said "large" and "a high degree" ... I am told that current heterozygosity in humans is around 7%.  So I cannot really say what "large" would be.  I just know that there would have to be enough to create tall humans, short humans, light skinned humans, dark skinned humans, etc. that we see in the world today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, it doesn't matter in the slightest. I simply do not understand why you cannot absorb this simple, obvious point.

          It doesn't matter how heterozygous Adam or Eve were. At best, the two of them together could only account for a vanishingly tiny fraction of the current genetic variability. All of the rest of it would have to have come from subsequent mutations, at a rate high enough to have driven humanity to extinction. It doesn't matter if Adam were 3%, or 7%, or 50%, or 93% heterozygous. He can pass at most one allele for each gene onto any one offspring. Same with Eve. Your "genetically rich" concept is still just as meaningless as it ever was, but somehow you simply cannot be made to understand this. It's still the simplest concept I've ever seen you or anyone else be unable to grasp.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It may be that my "genetically rich" statement in my "Hypothesis" (Eric, you are correct ... it is not a true hypothesis in the sense that I don't plan on publishing it) serves only to confuse people.  In this case, I may use a different choice of words in the future.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          It doesn't matter whether you plan to "publish" your "hypothesis," Dave. It matters whether your "hypothesis" is ruled out by observation. Which it has, on so many levels it would be exceedingly tedious just to list them all.

          Your "genetically rich" statement isn't "confusing," Dave. It's wrong. It's worse than wrong (it isn't even wrong); it's meaningless. I simply cannot understand why it's impossible for you to understand this, after half a dozen people have explained to you in minute detail why it's wrong.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 20 2006,07:06

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,11:22)
          Do you know of LOTS of examples of supposed increases in information?  I have heard of only one other here ... nylon-eating bacteria
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You are lying again, Dave. Badly, too. The first example we have given you of increase in information is the 500-allele gene. The increase in information is from the 2 or 4 alleles in Adam and Eve to the 10 alleles in Noah's family, to 500 today.

          Your claim, in case you cannot understand where your "hypothesis" takes you, is that there have been two new alleles for that gene alone in every generation (one generation every 20 years, we have 225 generations since the flood 4500 years ago) - and that magically ever since we started to use genetics that super-über-mega-macroevolution has stopped (since we have not seen alleles popping up in the human genoma between generations). Further proof that the Flood is a myth (not that you have been able to show otherwise so far in every other angle).

          A second example was eye colour. Let me state it clearly: Adam had, say, brown eyes. Say Eve had blue eyes. At some point, a mutation must have made some descendant, somewhere, to get green eyes (or grey, or black, or...). That is an increment of information. I'm really looking forward to hear you explain why having green eyes makes someone "degenerated".

          And yes, there are thousands of such instances - every gene that can have more than two alleles.

          But my point is: you are lying. Again. You have been given three examples. But it only takes one to destroy your baseless assertion.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          Edit: changed decadent for degenerated - Dave is funnier by mistake that I can be on purpose.
          Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 20 2006,07:12

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 20 2006,12:06)
          It doesn't matter how heterozygous Adam or Eve were.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Well, if Adam and Eve were homozygous, that would be an abomination.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,07:13

          Ok Dave, I know you won't directly answer my questions and I've been patiently waiting for you to get around to mine. It's the same as the Portuguese, I took your bet and you told me that I already lost. I asked if this means that you took my bet and you said something like "Rilke this or that". So asked again if you took my bet and you said something like " Hummanna hummanna hom" or whatever. I just shook my head realizing that you were never going to take the bet even though it was your bet. Just so you know Dave, that did not go unnoticed by the others here. You became a liar, welcher and cheat with that one alone.

          I have been asking you over and over if I could prove that the earth was more than age-X would that prove you wrong. By your silence I am assuming that the answer is yes. Since I am just about to do that very thing, you should answer my question soon. If it would not prove you wrong, then we need to have a different discussion first.

          And I just checked to make sure you are logged in.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,07:16

          Mike PSS...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave,
          If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

          The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

          PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          DO they have the same number and type? I am not very familiar with the HLA gene yet ... feel free to enlighten me.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,07:16

          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ???
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 20 2006,07:23



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I am told that current heterozygosity in humans is around 7%.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          And, just to be crystal clear here, what do you take that to mean? That, for any given human, about 7% of the genes will have one or more differences between the maternally and paternally inherited copies, or that there's about a 7% sequence difference at all loci? Or yet a 3d interpretation I haven't considered?

          Just to be clear - as I believe it has a strong bearing on Dr. Batten's calculations.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,07:28

          Are you finding it difficult to address your false accusations, Dave?
          Personally, I think this is what separates you and I on the essential level, Dave. For instance, you'll note that when stevestory mentioned that the tone of the thread needed to be elevated, he didn't mention me specifically, but I recognized my culpability in it and stepped to the forefront, and took the blame responsibly. Yet you cannot do the same?

          As I said, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar directly, Dave -- for something that was true. I hope that one day you'll develop the ethics required to deal with your errors. But you have not shown it to this point. Why?
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,07:30

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 20 2006,12:23)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I am told that current heterozygosity in humans is around 7%.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          And, just to be crystal clear here, what do you take that to mean? That, for any given human, about 7% of the genes will have one or more differences between the maternally and paternally inherited copies, or that there's about a 7% sequence difference at all loci? Or yet a 3d interpretation I haven't considered?

          Just to be clear - as I believe it has a strong bearing on Dr. Batten's calculations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In population genetics, heterozygosity is the proportion of heterozygotes at a given locus.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,07:32

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,12:16)
          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ???
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.

          But since MHC genes are effective because of the vast number of alleles, and wouldn't work nearly as well if there were only a handful of alleles, it's difficult to understand why Dave would think that all those extra alleles don't add "information" to the human genome no matter what the definition of "information" is.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 20 2006,07:34

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,12:16)
          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ???
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          jeannot, it is relevant because stupid, baseless, irrational creationist argument #45638746 is that there is a law of "conservation of information" analogous to the 2LoT that says "the information on a given system can only remain the same or decrease, never increase". It is one of D*mbski's favourites, I believe (or maybe some other high-IDiot). It is of course trivially easy to show wrong, but Dave has been trying to shield behind it when his position that "mutations don't happen" was shot dead, dead, dead. Creationists try to sell that both the 2LoT and this one are consequence of the fall - which is why they hate to be shown increases of information. Eventually, I expect Dave to either cave and say it is the work of the Devil or simply ignore that the conversation ever took place and claim he "won" the "genetically rich" baseless assertion.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: talkorigins' index of creationist claims' page on the topic:
          < http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html >
          Posted by: k.e on Oct. 20 2006,07:35



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Um, what?  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as your scenario implies.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





          Why if Evey Baby was magically produced out of bone AFD, does every woman have a belly button? (oh and Men have nipples)

          Since by your moronic reasoning they would all be an 'Eve' kind or are you going to tell me you don't know how belly buttons come about? (you do have kids right?)

          AND your scenario implies the first recorded case of incest in the true (smirk) history of the world as printed by godzown daily stone tablet publishing empire. Eve is genetically Adams daughter by your loony standards.

          Now since the REAL (gafaw) history of the NON-birth of Adam and Eve comes directly from your god of truly stupid engineers.

          I wonder  if he had cnc machines to engrave the rocks and diamond tiped blades to cut the slabs of unmixed granite from temple mount?

          How were these cut rocks shifted around the place ....oh yes...the horse and cart...with wheels.

          Any mention in the holee babel about the invention of the wheel AFD?

          BTW keep up the good work you're making deadman look like a hero.....even though you try to keep pushing him off the page

          ....and whats with the sudden splurge of faux honesty old chap?

          Trying to destroy your image?

          Come now .....admitting you C&P'd some stuff is entirely out of character.....or is Pinocchio whispering in your ear?

          Oh Davey....I can see you blushing...quick out with another logical fallacy.....argumentum ad nausium.

          A well known technique used by fraudsters ...since Adam was a boy...er except he was never a boy ...was he Pinocchio? (he just popped out of thin air like your children)
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,07:37

          Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 20 2006,12:34)
          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,12:16)
          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ???
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          jeannot, it is relevant because stupid, baseless, irrational creationist argument #45638746 is that there is a law of "conservation of information" analogous to the 2LoT that says "the information on a given system can only remain the same or decrease, never increase". ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Sure, but why do we even care to answer that? This does not alter the fact that mutations are observed in the wild and in the lab.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 20 2006,07:41

          Deadman...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          By giving the appearance of rationality on ONE topic ... blah blah blah
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Closest thing I've gotten to a complement from Deadman in months! :-)   He thinks I have the APPEARANCE of rationality!!

          Jim...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Well, if Adam and Eve were homozygous, that would be an abomination.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Cute!

          Grey_Wolf...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You are lying again, Dave. Badly, too. The first example we have given you of increase in information is the 500-allele gene. The increase in information is from the 2 or 4 alleles in Adam and Eve to the 10 alleles in Noah's family, to 500 today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          This is CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.  We have already discussed this thoroughly here at ATBC on another thread.  You might want to do a search of all threads here started by me or containing "AFDave" in the title (started by Steve Story) ... as I recall, this was discussed on my "Ape Questions" thread ... but you can get my position on the topic here < http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp >

          Lying again? When did I lie before?

          Jeannot...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You, as a ToE advocate, NEED for mutations to increase information in order for your theory to be plausible.  Without it, you have no mechanism for organisms to become increasingly complex over time.

          Russell..

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And, just to be crystal clear here, what do you take that to mean? That, for any given human, about 7% of the genes will have one or more differences between the maternally and paternally inherited copies, or that there's about a 7% sequence difference at all loci? Or yet a 3d interpretation I haven't considered?

          Just to be clear - as I believe it has a strong bearing on Dr. Batten's calculations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here is one source for what I mean ...


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Variation within created kinds
          by Dr. Gary Parker

          (former evolutionary biologist turned YECt)

          First published in
          Creation: Facts of Life
          Chapter 2: Darwin and biologic change

          I have been saying, perhaps too often, that the weight of evidence points to “variation within the created kinds.” Do I really mean that all the tremendous variety we see today was built right into the created kinds—just a pair as a minimum for most kinds and perhaps a dozen in one-celled forms with multiple sexes? Could there be enough variation in two created human beings, for example, to produce all the variation among human beings we see today?

          Answer: “Yes, indeed; no problem!” I get some help here from an unexpected source, evolutionist Francisco Ayala.23 He says that human beings are “heterozygous” for 6.7% of their genes on the average. That means that 6 or 7 times in a 100, the pair of genes for a given trait differ, like the genes for free or attached ear lobes, or for rolling or not rolling the tongue. Now this may not seem like much. But Ayala calculates a single human couple with just “6.7% variety” could produce 102017 children (mathematically, not physically!;) before they would run out of variation and have to produce an identical twin. That’s a 1 followed by 2,017 zeroes! The number of atoms in the known universe is a mere 1080, nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in the genes of just two human beings!

          < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-variation.asp >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,07:44

          If you'll go back on your threads, not just this one,Dave, you'll find multiple instances of people noting your insults and you being asked to knock off the insults. This was not isolated, and you were asked more than once on your "hypothesis" thread, so you better be prepared to make some real fancy excuses if that is what you want to do, rather than accept responsibility.
          IF you had come in with a civil tone to begin with...you would have been dealt with differently, Dave. But you seemed to revel in it, as shown in the post I gave a bit ago.

          "  I have an Air Force fighter pilot barroom background and brother, let me tell you, those buggers can dish it out! But nobody gets mad ... it's just all in good fun. So you'll have to pardon me if I assume wrongly that you guys are the same way. "

          This flip-flopping between claims and positions is also seen in things like your claim to being  a scientist, then a journalist, from having a valid hypothesis to ...well, I'm not sure what you're calling it now. From having ONE  position on "genetic richness" to the exact opposite.

          It would appear to me that you're using these things to claim a number of points. Martyrdom and unfair persecution among them...while you feel free to call others a liar...baselessly.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,07:46

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
          You, as a ToE advocate, NEED for mutations to increase information in order for your theory to be plausible.  Without it, you have no mechanism for organisms to become increasingly complex over time.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Can you show me the difference between a mutation that increases information and one that doesn't?

          And don't you think that the millions of species that descended from a few thousand represent somehow more information?
          Or are you going to claim that all their alleles were stored in the genome of the individuals saved by Noah? Your claim was pretty much debunked regarding Adam and Eve, in case you haven't noticed. And this is another order of magnitude: a couple of huh.."genetically rich" individual had the genetic content of a thousand of species in average. Man, that's a lot.  :O We're talking about thousands of alleles, at least.
          Posted by: edmund on Oct. 20 2006,07:53

          Just for the lurkers, the argument by Dr. Gary Parker suffers from the exact same problem as the argument made by Batten: variability across loci-- which is where that 10^2017 figure comes from-- does exactly nothing to increase the number of alleles available at a [/I]particular[I] locus.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,07:59

          Ha ha ha ha. Boy, I forgot how good google is. This guy already assembled my list. Duh!

          Well, I can't take credit for the work anymore but it is very concise.


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             Age Dating Correlations

             For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is:

                 *     8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California
                 *   10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
                 *   45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
                 * ...  corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
                 * 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
                 * 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
                 * 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
                 * ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
                 * Even greater age corroborated by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
                 * ... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites
                 * and a "hmmm" to close with.

             I started with a post on a Netscape Message Board (Msg#110611 [Age Dating] thread, hyperlinked new), making some typo corrections, replacing some broken links (and associated quotes) and reformatting it into a more readable essay and finally, expanded it by adding some further bits of information. It started originally with a discussion of Velikovsky's catastrophe hypothesis as posted on Ginenthals website. I've posted some of this a couple of times now, but felt it should be put together on a webpage, because it is important to understand the kind of thing scientists do to validate their methods.

             All references are hyperlinked for further study.

             The bottom Line? All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap, thus they corroborate each other even though they are based on different environments, different methods and different evidence. For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a short (4-5 day?) period, and it would have to mimic it to such an extent that it would be experienced by any living plant or creature as an actual annual time period.

             Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).

             Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          < link >
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,08:06

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
          Grey_Wolf...      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          You are lying again, Dave. Badly, too. The first example we have given you of increase in information is the 500-allele gene. The increase in information is from the 2 or 4 alleles in Adam and Eve to the 10 alleles in Noah's family, to 500 today.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          This is CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.  We have already discussed this thoroughly here at ATBC on another thread.  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, are you functionally illiterate? Did you fail to discern what I meant when I said the whole reason MHC genes are effective is because of the large numbers of alleles? How does this square with your claim that all those extra alleles are a "corruption of good information, not increase in information"? And you still have no idea what "information" really is. Which has more information, Dave, the speech or the noise?
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Jeannot...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
          We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
          Please, somebody explain me.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          You, as a ToE advocate, NEED for mutations to increase information in order for your theory to be plausible.  Without it, you have no mechanism for organisms to become increasingly complex over time.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Neither do you, genius. Where did all the other alleles come from, genius? They didn't come from Adam, and they didn't come from Eve. Most of the ones that mutatated into existence between Eden and the "flood" would have been wiped out during the flood, leaving you around 200 generations to have mutated the vast majority of genetic variability in the human genome today. You need mutation rates far in excess of anything proposed by the ToE, Dave, and you can't get around that simple fact by ignoring it.

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Russell..    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And, just to be crystal clear here, what do you take that to mean? That, for any given human, about 7% of the genes will have one or more differences between the maternally and paternally inherited copies, or that there's about a 7% sequence difference at all loci? Or yet a 3d interpretation I haven't considered?

          Just to be clear - as I believe it has a strong bearing on Dr. Batten's calculations.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Here is one source for what I mean ...
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Variation within created kinds
          by Dr. Gary Parker

          (former evolutionary biologist turned YECt)

          First published in
          Creation: Facts of Life
          Chapter 2: Darwin and biologic change

          I have been saying, perhaps too often, that the weight of evidence points to “variation within the created kinds.” Do I really mean that all the tremendous variety we see today was built right into the created kinds—just a pair as a minimum for most kinds and perhaps a dozen in one-celled forms with multiple sexes? Could there be enough variation in two created human beings, for example, to produce all the variation among human beings we see today?

          Answer: “Yes, indeed; no problem!” I get some help here from an unexpected source, evolutionist Francisco Ayala.23 He says that human beings are “heterozygous” for 6.7% of their genes on the average. That means that 6 or 7 times in a 100, the pair of genes for a given trait differ, like the genes for free or attached ear lobes, or for rolling or not rolling the tongue. Now this may not seem like much. But Ayala calculates a single human couple with just “6.7% variety” could produce 102017 children (mathematically, not physically!;) before they would run out of variation and have to produce an identical twin. That’s a 1 followed by 2,017 zeroes! The number of atoms in the known universe is a mere 1080, nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in the genes of just two human beings!

          < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-variation.asp >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dammit, Dave, are you ever going to understand why this doesn't help you? You exterminated virtually all of that variability with your "flood"! You destroyed virtually all of the available alleles for any gene, leaving a theoretical maximum of 16 alleles, and a practical maximum of ten alleles, for every single gene in the human genome! Without absolutely lethal levels of mutation over the past five millennia, we should see no more than ten or twelve different alleles for any given gene anywhere!

          Why, oh why, are you simply incapable of understanding this extremely basic and fundamental concept? Are you stupid?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,08:08

          And Dave,

          AiG doesn't ever let you know that the datings cross-reference and calibrate each other. There is simply no alternative explanation other than poof. But feel free to believe stupid things and stay in denial. If you want, we can discuss this stuff. You wouldn't believe how many climate guys have been crawling through our data in the last few years. I'm sure I could answer most things you might object to.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 20 2006,08:08

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
          This is CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I see. So, according to you, having green eyes is being corrupted. And you wonder why we call your arguments idiotic.

          By the way, Dave, how many fingers did Adam and Eve have in each hand?

           
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
          We have already discussed this thoroughly here at ATBC on another thread.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I'm not interested. Just tell me - is having green eyes being corrupted?

           
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,12:41)
          Lying again? When did I lie before?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Deadman's got a list. I've checked them, and agree you have knowingly given false information in several occasions. Your favourite is lying by omission - like in this case, "forgetting" two out of three examples of increased information. You had blue and brown, and now you have blue, brown and green. An obvious increase in information, presented to you as such, which you somehow did not count. Even if green-eyed people are "corrupted" they have information that their blue and brown-eyed ancestors did not posses - the genetic information on how to develop green eyes.

          Jeannot said:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Sure, but why do we even care to answer that? This does not alter the fact that mutations are observed in the wild and in the lab.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I have two reasons:
          1) Dave is trying to pass it off as a real issue, and he claims victory enough when he's been beaten to the ground, without letting him sprout stupid concepts unchallenged
          2) I want to have my fun - deadman likes to point out Dave's lies, I like to tackle the easy false arguments. I have this goal of easy examples that three year olds can understand (à la evil overlord) that keeps showing just how idiotic Dave's arguments are.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 20 2006,08:11



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In population genetics, heterozygosity is the proportion of heterozygotes at a given locus.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh, I know what it means in the real world. I was wondering what, if anything, it means in "afdave's" mind. Beyond just quoting YECs, that is. Does he, for instance, have any idea how that 10^2017 was calculated?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,08:11

          Let's see...Dave has been given lots of opportunity to respond honestly to my request and has not. Parts of two days should be enough for anyone.
          Given that, I feel justified in being able to call you a liar, hypocrite, plagiarist and quoteminer, Dave, without you crying "insult." Don't complain when or if I do. I'll make sure to keep these pages handy.
          If you'd like to change this at any time, feel free to apologize to me here on this and the other charges that have been shown true. Thanks!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,08:13

          Methinks Dave doesn't know the genetics of meiosis and fertilization.
          Too bad for the expert in genetics he claims to be.  ???
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,08:17

          We now return to our regularly scheduled "Slap Down"
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 20 2006,08:24

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 20 2006,13:11)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In population genetics, heterozygosity is the proportion of heterozygotes at a given locus.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh, I know what it means in the real world. I was wondering what, if anything, it means in "afdave's" mind. Beyond just quoting YECs, that is. Does he, for instance, have any idea how that 10^2017 was calculated?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ok.
          It's 102017 in his quote, which seems a bit low if we consider crossing over.

          EDIT: It was a typo.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,08:26

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,13:13)
          Methinks Dave doesn't know the genetics of meiosis and fertilization.
          Too bad for the expert in genetics he claims to be.  ???
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I think the real problem is, Dave doesn't understand that 2 < 200, 2 < 400, 2 < 500, 10 < 200, 10 < 400, 16 < 32, 16 < 200…you know, that sort of thing.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 20 2006,08:27

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:41)
          This is CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In the context of genetics - how can you discern a difference between these two things?
          Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 20 2006,08:33

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,11:22)
          Incorygible ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave, please read this article on the Apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation. Please, oh please, tell us how this one recent mutation does not increase "information" by one of the following meaningful and measureable definitions of the term provided by Shannon (classical information theory), Chaitin-Kolmogorov (algorithmic information theory), or even Spetner (enzyme specificity).

          Thank you.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I will be glad to read this.  If it's long it may take me a little while.  I have copied off the link.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Thank you, Dave.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Do you know of LOTS of examples of supposed increases in information?  I have heard of only one other here ... nylon-eating bacteria ... and I have not investigated it yet.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes, provided you define EXACTLY what you mean by a mutation that "increases information". Do so, and I will provide the examples. The reason I chose to start with Apo AI milano is that this one is particularly good at a one-shot kill when it comes to the rather slippery notions of "information" that Creationists like to toy around with (e.g., Shannon vs. Kolmogorov vs. Spetner), before they ultimately latch onto something like flagella or "new body plans", which have no bearing on any actual scientific definition of "information". And before you go THAT route, please note that neither the flagella or body "plans" could in any way be fairly described -- either by YECs or evolutionists -- as "a mutation that increases information". Obviously creationists view them as special creation, and evolutionists view them as the end result of a LONG SERIES of mutations (whether or not any, some or all of those constituent mutations increased "information" is going to depend on your definition). So remember, before you try to grasp onto "body plans" -- that's not what you asked. Again, give me your definition of "information", and provided it's not a tieresome rehashing of "things exactly as God made them", I will inundate you with examples.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Do you now understand my statements about genetic richness in Adam and Noah?  Do you agree with Eric that Noah would have made a bottleneck?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'm guessing you do, but your agreement is based on your understanding of mutations as a source of "genetic richness," correct?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Yes.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Whereas my view is that mutated alleles could more accurately be described as "genetic corruption" not "richness."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And you define it as "corruption" because, in your view, mutations are "neutral" or "harmful", right? They couldn't possibly improve upon God's creation? (With that in mind, See below.)



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If this is your position, I think I at least see the nature of our disagreement.  With this in mind, let me clear up a misunderstanding I think you have ...

          Cory...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So you've figured out that "beneficial" is context-dependent and based on environmental circumstances, eh Dave? Congratulations on "discovering" a fundamental precept of evolutionary theory. Now try the flip side: is "harmful" context-dependent? Ooohhh...blows your mind, don'it?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I have ALWAYS maintained that "beneficial" and "harmful" are context dependent.  Where do you note that I have said otherwise?  I thought it was ToE advocates who gripe about using the terms "beneficial" or "harmful" mutations, not creationists.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          So if "harmful" is context-dependent, then so is "corruption". Which means so is "genetic richness". Which means "genetic richness", if it is meaningful enough to be measured at all, cannot be measured outside of environmental context.

          For example, consider the following two bacteria on a plate smeared with antibiotics:

          (1) A modern bacterium that has "lost information" via mutation and is antibiotic-resistant.
          (2) The bacterial Adam, a created kind that has no such information-losing mutation.

          Which one is genetically "richer", Dave? Which one is "corrupted"? Which one would be able to actually, you know, survive antibiotic compounds created by plants and fungi the minute God lifted the "no death" policy in Eden?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,08:35

          The difference is that... Hmmm... good question. I'll have to read up on that... But in the meantime, deadman! how can you continue to call dave names without remembering to include welcher and cheat!

          Oh yeah, almost forgot.

          The cross referencing features also destroy your idea of a flood. It would have to be recorded.

          But maybe you could get a job at AIG?

          Oh, sorry, just checked. They don't have any openings.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,08:39



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          This is a good one that I've been using a while. How can a mutation NOT be "good" if it allows for ...y'know...like, LIVING? How is this "corrupting existing good info?" (Regardless of the creationist muddling of Kolmogorov,Shannon, Chaitin, etc.)

          < http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html >  (beneficial human mutations)
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 20 2006,08:46

          A couple of days ago when I perused this thread, I thought "That's it.  He's treed.  Dave has absolutely no way to turn and he's going to back down."  I was wrong.  I haven't decided whther this means I overestimated Dave, or underestimated him.

          Anyway, Dave, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your ignorance of genetics isn't wilful.  it's no disgrace not to know this stuff - i didn't know much until a couple of years ago when I started working on some genetic-epidemiology issues.

          So, let's join the throng of people trying to explain:

          1.  Humans, and most other organisms, have two copies of each gene.  (Let's ignore the XY stuff for now).  So an individual can either have two copies of the same allele (homozygous) or two different alleles (heterozygous) at each locus.

          2.  Therefore Adam and Eve were, at best, heterozygous at each locus, and had different alleles from each other.  So, at most, there were four alleles for each gene 6000 years ago.

          3.  Regardless of what happened in the intervening 1500 years, Noah and crew were the only surviving humans.  At most, that's 16 alleles per locus, and that assumes Noah's sons were adopted and not biological descendants.  (Note also that for the non-human "kinds", the situation is even worse: no more than four alleles surviving at each locus).

          4.  We see a much greater allelic diversity today: hundreds of alleles in some cases.

          5.  To explain the observed diversity in the human genome, there must have been, at some point in the last 4500 years, an extremely high mutation rate: much, much higher that that which we observe today.  Not to mention the other "kinds", in which there's not just been an increase in intra-species diversity, but enough mutation to produce speciation on a massive scale.

          Dave, which of the above five points do you disagree with, and/or not understand?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,10:46

          Dave, you have crashed and burned. I am shocked that you were able to grasp alleles at all but you would have done better denying genetics wholesale. Speaking of which, I hope you go back and see my earlier posts.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,11:35

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:16)
          Mike PSS...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave,
          If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

          The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

          PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          DO they have the same number and type? I am not very familiar with the HLA gene yet ... feel free to enlighten me.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          I'm not a geneticist or biologist, but I can use Google.  I highly reccomend it sometimes.

          I searched for < 'hla allele worldwide distribution' > and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was < Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net > and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the < front page > I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I clicked on the < Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies > and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the < 'Citation' > reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

          Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.

          What can I derive from this information as it relates to your UCGH presented so far?  That the Native North American population acquired their HLA-A,B, and C allele variability BEFORE the ISOLATION of the North American population.  Since this ISOLATION happened after the flood and immediately after the end of the UCGH ice age then there is only ~250 years that this quantity of allelic mutation could have occured in the population.

          DAVE, THIS IS A LOT OF MUTATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  HOW CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS ALLELIC MUTATION RATE GIVEN THE ABOVE ALLELIC DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN POST-DILUVIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.

          Does that answer your query?

          Mike PSS
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,12:31

          Actually, it's much, much worse for Dave than that. He doesn't have 250 years for all this diversity to arrive. He has no time at all.

          Here's the "< continental drift >" model Dave says he subscribes to. Note that all humans other than the ones on the ark are exterminated during the "Rupture Phase (hours)" or the "Flood Phase (months)." So from the beginning of the "Rupture Phase" to the end of the "Flood Phase" there are only eight humans on the planet.

          Then, immediately afterwards, there is the "Continental Drift Phase (1 day)." This happens before the UCG"H" "ice age." Yes, this means that the continents "drifted" (or, more accurately, sprinted) to their current positions less than a year after all humans on the planet other than Noah and his boating party were exterminated.

          Now, the question becomes, how did those people in, e.g., the Americas, Australia, etc. get there? They must have gotten there after the continental drift phase, since Noah and his little band of boating enthusiasts didn't even get off their boat until after (or at the same time as) the continents arrived, breathless and sweaty, at their current positions.

          But all of that genetic diversity in these now-widely-separated humans' HLA genes must have been there before their dispersal! It certainly didn't appear after they dispersed to their new homes, and it certainly didn't exist in Noah and his compatriots. So where did it come from? Any pre-existing diversity was wiped out in the flood, couldn't have arisen from Noah's band of hardy arkonauts, and couldn't have arisen after the fact, after everyone had dispersed to their current homes.

          So how did it get there? Was it just "magicked" into place, Dave? Just so we'd think the world is older than it is? Is God lying to us again?
          Posted by: swbarnes2 on Oct. 20 2006,12:33



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Right…the same genetic make-up, except that one is a boy, and the other is a girl.

          Don’t preschoolers learn that boys are different from girls?  So therefore, wouldn’t preschool logic and knowledge prove that your story can’t fly?

          Remember way back when when you claimed you had evidence for your crazy speculations?

          Well, why don’t you provide some?

          According to you, fish never went through a flood-induced bottle neck, clean animals went through a 14-member bottle neck, humans through a 8 person /5 unrelated people bottle neck, and unclean animals went through a 2 member bottle neck.

          Well, I’m looking at all the genomes at ensembl, (www.ensembl.org) and I’m seeing humans, mice, cows and zebrafish, plus chickens, mosquitoes, flies, dogs, pigs, etc.  If you really have evidence, you can show us, using this data, that the genetic data allows us to sort organisms by how many members they were reduced to after the flood.  In fact, you should even be able to predict how many members of, say, yeast survived, and the genomic data should bear you out.

          Or, if you have absolutely no notion of how to look at real evidence, and know that not a single Creationist does either, you’ll just wet your pants in silence.  

          Or maybe you will lie, and say that you’ll “look into it”, knowing that you will never even glance at Ensembl, knowing that if you did, you would have absolutely no idea how to understand anything that is presented there, and knowing that there is not a single Creationist who can do any better than your sorry self when it comes to analyzing real data.

          Normally, I'd say that you are certain to choose the third option, because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that you lie like a rug.  But I bet you figure that saying "I'll get back to you" twice in one day is repetative, so I predict that you will go with the second option, the one where you flat out refuse to even think about a perfectly straightforward way to factually support your speculations.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 20 2006,13:42

          Ah, I see information theory has come up again. Let me remind AFDave what science has to say about information theory.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No. I mean information.  How in the world did you arrive at your conclusion with that paper?  It's 55 pages on the Mathematical Theory of Communication.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




          I understand your confusion over my choice of citation. It was not a good idea to throw the document at you without telling you how to read it. On pages 10 and 11 Shannon lays out an equation that quantifies the amount of information from a signal source (which could be the genome). The equation is:



          pi stands for the probability of a certain symbol appearing while K is a constant. Adding up all pi with i going from 1 to n should give you one.

          There are two important things to note with this equation. The first is that the interpreted content of the message is not quantified in information theory. It is only the probability of symbols appearing that is being quantified. Secondly, an information channel where each symbol has an equal probability of occurring has the highest information content. You can do the math for yourself to demonstrate what I have stated above. However, I will give you an example. Say we have a binary signal source with each bit having equal probability of appearing, such as:
                    111010001010 or
                    111111000000

          If you do the math, and what our answer in units of bits we get:
          -K*(0.5 * log2(0.5) + 0.5 * log2(0.5)) = -K * (-0.5 + -0.5) = K
          What this shows is that information content for both messages is the same. Now, let’s consider another binary information source, this time its signal is:
                    111111111111

          Again, we do the math:
          -K * (1 * log2(1) + 0 * log2(0)) = -K * (0 + 0) = 0
          A channel always in the same state has no information content. On page 11 of Shannon’s paper, he graphs what I have just said.


          This is for a binary signal source where p and q are the probabilities of two symbols occuring.

          These results are counter-intuitive to most of our notions of information in everyday life. We usually do not think of a random process having the same information content, or possibly more, than a "structured" one. But this is also validated by other measures of information such as Kolmogorov information.

          The measure of information that I have given above is the standard in the sciences and mathematics, and biology is a science. When you say that random mutation causes the genome to lose information, it does not square with the definition of information used in the relevant fields. A mutation that results in the probability of a certain symbol increasing when its probability is less than 1/n will increase the information content of a signal. The opposite is also true.

          If we were to start with a signal such as 1111111111 and mutate it randomly (where we replace a symbol at a random position in the signal with either a 1 or 0 of equal probability), as time -> infinity the information content of the signal will approach K, the maximum amount of information. Likewise, if we start with a signal such as 111111000000, which already has an information content of K, and apply the same mutation principle the information content will tend to stay around K, the maximum amount of information.


          Thus, mutation does not always lower the information content of a signal. I hope this clears up some confusion that can happen over what information is and how it is defined in the sciences.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          To see the figures go here < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=21610 >
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 20 2006,13:51

          —and with that in mind, Dave, which has more information content:

          • a 20-minute digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or
          • a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise

          ?
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 20 2006,13:55

          Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 20 2006,19:42)
          Ah, I see information theory has come up again. Let me remind AFDave what science has to say about information theory.

          --snip--
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Great post Drew.  I think I might have even grasped the concept.  Thanks.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 20 2006,14:00

          Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 20 2006,18:31)
          Actually, it's much, much worse for Dave than that. He doesn't have 250 years for all this diversity to arrive. He has no time at all.

          Here's the "< continental drift >" model Dave says he subscribes to.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Eric,
          I'm kind and reasoned.  I'll give the UCGH the benefit of the doubt and say there is a time lag between the end of the flood and the population dispersal that's claimed.  I think the UCGH ice age would expose a land bridge to most areas (big IF but no miracle) and enable the populations to migrate.  HOWEVER, there will certainly be isolation afterwards.

          Also, the timeline available for all this ice, babel tower, and migration is limited since Dave has admitted that written accounts start a few hundred years after the end of the flood (DOWN deadman, HEEL!... IT"S WHAT DAVE SAID AND IT'S FOR TRUTH, BAD deadman).  We have to account for these kingdoms to be settled and the heierarchal establishment of the noble families to take hold before the first true dyansties are documented in the written histories.  And we know that these written accounts don't mention the ice age so there is a definitive end point to the migration during the ice age.

          Anyway,  I'm trying to piece together Dave's event timeline from his prior UCGH claims and relate that to the measured mutations on alleles in the human population.

          I just have to put my head aside while I type.  Self-induced cognitive dissonance I guess.

          Mike PSS

          p.s.  DAVE, PLEASE CORRECT MY ABOVE ACCOUNTS TO FULLY ALIGN THEM WITH YOUR UCGH.  THIS IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS AFTER ALL AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO MISREPRESENT (OR PLAIGERIZE OR MISQUOTE) ANYTHING IN YOUR UCGH PRESENTATIONS SO FAR.
          Posted by: Bing on Oct. 20 2006,15:43

          Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 20 2006,13:46)
          2.  Therefore Adam and Eve were, at best, heterozygous at each locus, and had different alleles from each other.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          See, this is the part that I don't get.  

          If Eve was made from Adam's rib (side?) then isn't she effectively a clone of Adam, with G*d using Adam's genetic material taken from muscle or bone to whip her up in His supernatural petrie dish?  Obviously He would have had to do some manipulation to eliminate that pesky 'Y' and double up on the 'X' to make things work for gender but wouldn't the DNA taken from mature somatic cells be pretty uniform?  No messy meiosis scrambling things up?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 20 2006,16:12

          Listen Bing,

          God can do whatever he wants as he rides in his chariot across the sky. The earth is only 6000 years old except it isn't and genes show that except they don't. Ice cores my friend, they tell the truth but they lie! It's all just a big thing to test our freakin faith! don't you see? How can you all be so blind.

          I started out on burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. 10 points to the first one to know the reference!

          !!! GodDidIt!!!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 20 2006,18:27

          Ahem. I used to vacation in Juarez about Eastertime, so I know the reference. And Mike, we gotta talk. This "kibbles and bits" crap sucks, I want steak.
          Another thing: shouldn't you guys be charging for the tutorials you're giving this twa...errm...guy Dave?
          Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 20 2006,18:35

          Quote (Bing @ Oct. 20 2006,20:43)
          Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 20 2006,13:46)
          2.  Therefore Adam and Eve were, at best, heterozygous at each locus, and had different alleles from each other.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          See, this is the part that I don't get.  

          If Eve was made from Adam's rib (side?) then isn't she effectively a clone of Adam, with G*d using Adam's genetic material taken from muscle or bone to whip her up in His supernatural petrie dish?  Obviously He would have had to do some manipulation to eliminate that pesky 'Y' and double up on the 'X' to make things work for gender but wouldn't the DNA taken from mature somatic cells be pretty uniform?  No messy meiosis scrambling things up?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes, Bing, of course you're right.  I'm just giving Dave the maximum possible leeway, which is why I gave the Ark crew 16 alleles instead of a more likely maximum 10.

          But really, what's the point?  We already have to invoke so many miracles (the Miracle of Accelerated Radioactive Decay, the Miracle of the >6000 Light-year Visible Objects, the Miracle of the Appearing and Disappearing Flood Waters, the Miracle of Paleosols in Flood Deposits, the Miracle of the Ordered Fossils...), so what's a few more?  Maybe Noah's family were megaploid.
          Posted by: k.e on Oct. 20 2006,22:05

          Well AFD, now that science has proven your old folk tales to be wrong you might want to clear up a couple of points for me.

          1.Who was Eve's father? She DID have one right? Adam Or God?  They were the only 2 males on the planet right?
          (....after the removal of the agrarian goddesses of pre-history such as  Catal Huyuk  the goddesses got short shrift from the Bedouin cattle herders, but hey that's life in a desert once a bronze age starts.)

          2. Why was Mary NOT the mother of god?

          You being a "sintist" an' all, should be able to give a truthful and logically consistent answer...

          ...and spare us the avoidance and used chewing gum answers, the changing of the subject, the false claims of 'explanation'...let me repeat argumentum ad nausium is a logical fallacy and BY DEFINITION is CONCEDEING the argument.

          Oh and please send these guys an email and get them to stop telling everyone that 'proto-venus' is at least 15,000 years older than you're YEAR ZERO.

          < FROM VENUS FIGURINES THROUGH TIME - THE MOTHER GODDESS >
          Posted by: Bing on Oct. 21 2006,02:05

          Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 20 2006,23:35)
          Maybe Noah's family were megaploid.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I was going to say that Dave is the only example of polyploidy here, but that would be insulting to people with < trisomy 21 >
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 21 2006,03:53

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2006,00:27)
          Ahem. I used to vacation in Juarez about Eastertime, so I know the reference. And Mike, we gotta talk. This "kibbles and bits" crap sucks, I want steak.
          Another thing: shouldn't you guys be charging for the tutorials you're giving this twa...errm...guy Dave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No steak for you.  < FISH. >  AFDave begins with the small fish and you come out at the end to answer.  HAHAHA.

          Also, for another Monty Python analogy watch < THIS. >
          Think of the contenstants as creos trying to overcome the obstacles (scientific facts) to finally explain their positions.  I'm sure we could put creo names to Nigel, Vivian, Jervaise, Oliver and Simon. :)
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,05:29

          Mike: hah! About a month or so into this debacle, I was thinking it reminded me of nothing else so much as the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch with Michael Palin as the shopkeeper and John Cleese as a customer, Mr. Praline:
           
          Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now...

          Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

          Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are  now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, He's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
          *********************************************
          Guess who's trying to sell a DEAD bird around here?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 21 2006,05:48

          IS EYE COLOR THE RESULT OF A MUTATION? ... (AS GREY WOLF C MAINTAINS)

          It appears that it is NOT a mutation, but rather a function of at least 3 gene pairs ... I see nothing in this article (from a non-YEC source and therefore trustworthy to Evos--Oregon State Univ) that says anything about multiple (>2) alleles of any gene being related to eye color.  Maybe there are, but nothing is mentioned about that in this article.

          If this article is correct, then Grey Wolf's contention is wrong.  IOW, if this article is correct, then brown, blue and green eyes are simply "pre-designed possibilities" which the Creator programmed into the original humans, Adam and Eve.

          Read it and see for yourself ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          At one time scientists thought that a single gene pair, in a dominant/recessive inheritance pattern, controlled human eye color. The allele for brown eyes was considered dominant over the allele for blue eyes. The genetic basis for eye color is actually far more complex. At the present, three gene pairs controlling human eye color are known. Two of the gene pairs occur on chromosome pair 15 and one occurs on chromosome pair 19. The bey 2 gene, on chromosome 15, has a brown and a blue allele. A second gene, located on chromosome 19 (the gey gene) has a blue and a green allele. A third gene, bey 1, located on chromosome 15, is a central brown eye color gene.

          Geneticists have designed a model using the bey 2 and gey gene pairs that explains the inheritance of blue, green and brown eyes. In this model the bey 2 gene has a brown and a blue allele. The brown allele is always dominant over the blue allele so even if a person is heterozygous (one brown and one blue allele) for the bey 2 gene on chromosome 15 the brown allele will be expressed. The gey gene also has two alleles, one green and one blue. The green allele is dominant to the blue allele on either chromosome but is recessive to the brown allele on chromosome 15. This means that there is a dominance order among the two gene pairs. If a person has a brown allele on chromosome 15 and all other alleles are blue or green the person will have brown eyes. If there is a green allele on chromosome 19 and the rest of the alleles are blue, eye color will be green. Blue eyes will occur only if all four alleles are for blue eyes. This model explains the inheritance of blue, brown and green eyes but cannot account for gray, hazel or multiple shades of brown, blue, green and gray eyes. It cannot explain how two blue-eyed parents can produce a brown-eyed child or how eye color can change over time. This suggests that there are other genes, yet to be discovered, that determine eye color or that modify the expression of the known eye color genes.

          How does a gene, a section of a chromosome in the cell nucleus, make my eyes a particular color? The exact color of the human eye is determined by the amount of a single pigment called melanin that is present in the iris of the eye. Melanin is a dark brown pigment that is deposited on the front surface of the iris. If a lot of melanin is present, the eye will appear brown or even black. If very little melanin is present the iris appears blue. Intermediate amounts of melanin produces gray, green, hazel or varying shades of brown. Genes work by directing the production of enzymes, chemicals that control all of the processes that occur in our body. Eye color genes, through the enzymes they produce, direct the amount and placement of melanin in the iris. In general Caucasian babies are born with blue eyes because at the time of birth they haven't begun to produce melanin in their irises. Their eyes may change to green, brown or other colors as melanin production begins. Babies of other ethnic origins such as African, Asian, Hispanic and Native American, are often born with brown or black eyes. Albinos have no pigment in their irises so the blood vessels in the back of the eye reflect light making the eyes look pink. Albinos also lack melanin in their skin and hair. Since albinism is caused by a recessive allele, two normal parents may produce an albino. An albino can have normal offspring if the other parent is normal for melanin production.
          < http://www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Grey_Wolf...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          A second example was eye colour. Let me state it clearly: Adam had, say, brown eyes. Say Eve had blue eyes. At some point, a mutation must have made some descendant, somewhere, to get green eyes (or grey, or black, or...). That is an increment of information. I'm really looking forward to hear you explain why having green eyes makes someone "degenerated".

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          OK. Grey WOlf ... back to you.

          ***********************************************

          THE Apo-AI MILANO MUTATION IS A DECREASE IN SPECIFICITY, NOT AN INCREASE

          Incorygible ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Dave, please read this article on the Apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation. Please, oh please, tell us how this one recent mutation does not increase "information" by one of the following meaningful and measureable definitions of the term provided by Shannon (classical information theory), Chaitin-Kolmogorov (algorithmic information theory), or even Spetner (enzyme specificity).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          The Talk Origins article is found here < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html > and the AIG response is found here < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp >

          The main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

          Note that Dr Steven Pirie-Shepherd did share some useful information with AIG and they did modify their original article, which no doubt did contain some incorrect details about this mutation as the Talk Origins article points out.  Fine ... this shows that AIG is honest and will humbly accept corrections in their search for truth.  

          The upshot, though, is that this mutation is not an increase in specificity, therefore, it does not help the increasingly discredited theory of "Molecules to Man" Evolution.

          Here's the meat of the AIG article ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It would appear that the questioner is under the mistaken impression that beneficial mutations are a problem for creationists. Some creationists make this unfortunate error. The mutations Q&A section of our Web site clearly teaches that the issue is not whether the mutation is beneficial but if it adds new genetic information (specified complexity). So it would have been clear that the A-I Milano mutation is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution.

          What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred.  The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.

          Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.

          Note that quantifying the amount of information is not as easy as just counting the number of functions or even the number of base pairs (‘letters’) in a gene.  This is simplistic reasoning. It is firstly, but not only, a question of specificity.  For example, if I said, ‘Fix the Porsche,’ this conveys more information than ‘Fix the automobile,’ although the latter has more letters.  If I said, ‘Fix the car and the truck,’ we now have two ‘functions’ in this sentence, but does it contain more information than ‘Fix the Porsche’? We are now comparing a command with two ‘functions,’ but both of low specificity, with a command with one function and high specificity. In this case deciding which has the most information is not simple.  This illustrates the importance of context and purpose (teleology).  For example, if there were only one car to fix, a Porsche, ‘Fix the automobile’ would carry as much information as ‘Fix the Porsche.’  But if there were dozens of possible cars or trucks to fix, ‘Fix the Porsche’ would contain much more useful information than ‘Fix the car and truck.’  Dr Werner Gitt explores these issues in detail in his incisive In the Beginning Was Information.

          For more information on defining information mathematically, see How is information content measured? (somewhat technical).  However, mathematical definitions of information only work in certain contexts (e.g. substrate specificity of enzymes).

          It would also be useful to study the article Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?  and the explanations about information content accompanied by Dr Lee Spetner's graphs of the activity of the enzyme ribitol dehydrogenase.  The Milano mutation seems to parallel the mutant enzyme, with a lower peak and broader spectrum, i.e. towards lower specificity hence lower information.

          Of course it remains to be seen if this mutation is completely beneficial. The fact that the persons with it are unable to produce normal levels of HDLs, which are known to perform a valuable role in moving ‘bad’ cholesterol, suggests that there could be a health down side to this mutation (as there is with sickle-cell anemia).

          Apparently this mutation has only been seen in heterozygotes.  That is, all those who have the mutation have a normal gene pairing the mutant gene.  The homozygous state (both genes the same) could be lethal.  This would then parallel sickle-cell anemia, which evolutionists often put up as an example of evolution in action.  Here the heterozygote has an advantage, but the homozygote is lethal.  This cannot be an example of upward evolutionary progression since the mutant form can never take over the population; it will always be limited to a small percentage of individuals in the population.  

          However, with the A-I Milano mutation, there are not yet many people with the mutation, so the chances of two people with the mutation marrying and having children so that a homozygote could be produced (1 in 4 of the children) would be very low—it probably has not happened yet.  The ‘jury remains out’ on whether a homozygote would be viable.*

          Needless to say, if someone follows a healthy lifestyle, eats the right things (something like the food pyramid as recently revised by Harvard Medical School, although this could be improved further), exercises, maintains a healthy weight and does not abuse their body by smoking, the A-I Milano mutation will likely be of no use. Epidemiological studies show that heart disease can probably be avoided.
          < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,06:09

          Once again you're posting about things that you, Dave, personally know nothing about, much as with your last "genetic richness" joke-fest. By merely following AiG's facile redefinitions/torturing of information theory and not bothering to learn about it yourself, you are simply perpetuating reasons why Creationists are held in contempt by actual..y'know, scientists.
          Take for instance this passage in your AiG article: " Note that quantifying the amount of information is not as easy as just counting the number of functions or even the number of base pairs (‘letters’) in a gene. This is simplistic reasoning. It is firstly, but not only, a question of specificity"
          As a response, you should know this:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          It is important to note that Werner Gitt's information theory formulations and Lee Spetner's applications of information theory have not been published in scientific journals and are not peer-reviewed. Currently, they are simply pseudo-scientific concepts, completely unused by professional research scientists. More importantly, however, even using these formulations we can see that Apo-AIM has more AiG-style "information."
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,06:22

          As was said yesterday, Dave, this is an old topic in the creationist repertoire, and it's trivially dismissed. Not that you'd know that, given your usual approach of merely regurgitating AiG and ICR cra...er...claims, then hoping for a tutorial on why you're wrong, so you don't have to actually bother to...y'know...study.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,06:48



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Fine ... this shows that AIG is honest and will humbly accept corrections in their search for truth.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          which reminds me... you promised to keep us up to date on your efforts to correct their chromosome fusion faux pas. How's that coming along?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 21 2006,06:51

          DM...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          As was said yesterday, Dave, this is an old topic in the creationist repertoire, and it's trivially dismissed.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Except that YOU, Deadman, cannot refute the points I am making ... all you can say is "this is trivially dismissed"

          Russell ... no response yet ... I expect it could be a month at least.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,06:57

          I don't believe you're actually capable of comprehending actual info theory as set forth by Shannon, Kolmogorov and Greg Chaitin, among others, but in the interests of lessening your ignorance of the subject, you might want to look at various popular books, online tutorials and take-downs of Spetner and Gitt. Neither of their views hold merit.
          < http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm >  
          < http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/gitt.htm >
          < http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Tutorials/Info-Theory/ >
          < http://parallel.vub.ac.be/researc....ry.html >
          < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/algorithmic.html >
          < http://www.best.com/~szabo/kolmogorov.html >
          < http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/ >

          I'll add that even with this, you should expect to spend a great deal of time grasping the details.
          I realize that this is anathema to you, but you might want to try the "learning" approach, since your standard methods seem to fail so badly.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,07:00

          A response to you has already been given in the TO articles and additional material posted. It is succinctly expressed by this:    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apo-AIM is 1) of a more complex tertiary structure 2) more stable and 3) activates cholesterol efflux more effectively than Apo-AI. Furthermore, Apo-AIM has an antioxidant activity not present in Apo-AI that is sequence and substrate specific. Thus, far from a loss of specificity, Apo-AIM represents a gain of specificity and "information" by AiG's own measures
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          This is to say that the structure is more complex...hence more "information," it SPECIFIES for cholesterol more effectively and has additional antioxidant properties. Going by the AiG "metaphor" -- it is a mechanic not just able to work on Porsches, but also sweeps the garage. It now does two jobs. This is inherently more complex, twa..er, Dave.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,07:02



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Russell ... no response yet ... I expect it could be a month at least.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh, at least! I mean, that stuff is pretty arcane. They'll need to do a whole lot of in-depth research to verify what any college freshman biology student would be flunked for not grasping!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,07:10

          Russell: pffft, that's nothing. Dave there was lied to by the ICR's Russell Humphreys directly, plus Humphrey's "assistant" or some other twit at ICR. . THAT was amusing to watch.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 21 2006,07:13

          Read my post, Deadman ... the AIG article refutes it easily ... what is your answer to my specific summary points?

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I'm interested in YOUR response to MY statements, not a big list of links, the content of which, you probably don't even comprehend.

          I will put AIG's understanding of Information Theory up against TO's any day ... it looks like that's the direction this is heading ... which helps me.  I look forward to studying this more in the days ahead.

          Do you, like Grey Wolf, think that eye color is determined by a mutated allele?  C'mon, Deadman ... answer the individual points.

          Russell ... it's not a matter of time to research it ... it's a matter of THOUSANDS of questions coming in ... in case you hadn't noticed, AIG is growing quite rapidly.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,07:22

          Again, from the TO article you failed to read, with citations (got any studies in that AIG article, bright boy?):
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apo-AIM dimers form HDL particles as readily as Apo-AI monomers (1) , and the HDL formed from Apo-AIM stimulates cholesterol efflux more efficiently than HDL formed from Apo-AI monomers.(2,3)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (1) Calabresi L, et al. (1999) "Cell cholesterol efflux to reconstituted high-density lipoproteins containing the apolipoprotein A-IMilano dimer." Biochemistry 38, 16307-14
          (2) Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Reconstituted high-density lipoproteins with a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer: evidence for restricted particle size heterogeneity." Biochemistry 36, 12428-33
          (3) Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Activation of lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase by a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer." Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 232, 345-9
          Here, I'll translate that for you, since you're not too swift: it forms HDL JUST as readily and removes it more effectively (efflux). It also acts as an antioxidant.

          More importantly, Spetner's claims about his "unique" version of information theory remain unpublished in scientific journals, hence are not peer-reviewed, and have been taken apart by many others. This is not in question.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 21 2006,07:35

          Again, discussing information theory is irrelevant to Dave's huge problems. And as the concept is not as clear as, say, heterozygosity, he won't understand anything.

          There is a more relevant question Dave needs to address: how does he determine that two species come from the same ancestral couple of indivuals?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,07:43

          Jeannot:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Again, discussing information theory is irrelevant to Dave's huge problems. And as the concept is not as clear as, say, heterozygosity, he won't understand anything.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          True, that's why I suggested the next project should be to teach this little guy Esperanto:
          It'll likely be more fruitful and less of a waste of time, even to the dog.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,07:59



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Russell ... it's not a matter of time to research it ... it's a matter of THOUSANDS of questions coming in
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          See, that's the thing. This one error is a drop in the bucket. I'm focusing on it only because it's the only one I'm aware of that even you have admitted is dead wrong. But you're right, there are THOUSANDS of things they have dead wrong, and there are probably THOUSANDS of idealistic/hopeful/bored students/teachers/scientists bringing them to AIG's attention. No way they could keep up with the traffic! But if they're stretched too thin to correct misinformation that's been up for, what? years?, then what good are they?


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I will put AIG's understanding of Information Theory up against TO's any day
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          What makes you think, for instance, that their representation of information theory is any more reliable than their representation of basic genetics? How do you know they don't have a backlog of THOUSANDS of questions from people that actually DO information theory that they just haven't had time to research, what with all their rapid growth and all? Is it that your own grasp of information theory is solid enough that, unlike basic genetics, you can actually judge their accuracy? Or is it the fact that they are "Bible-believing Christians" that makes their claims more credible in your eyes?



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          ... in case you hadn't noticed, AIG is growing quite rapidly.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No, I can't say that I have noticed. What data are you referring to? Growing in the sense of, what? number of web hits per hour? Number of employees? Assets? What?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 21 2006,08:13

          Deadman...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apo-AIM dimers form HDL particles as readily as Apo-AI monomers (1) , and the HDL formed from Apo-AIM stimulates cholesterol efflux more efficiently than HDL formed from Apo-AI monomers.(2,3)  

          (1) Calabresi L, et al. (1999) "Cell cholesterol efflux to reconstituted high-density lipoproteins containing the apolipoprotein A-IMilano dimer." Biochemistry 38, 16307-14
          (2) Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Reconstituted high-density lipoproteins with a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer: evidence for restricted particle size heterogeneity." Biochemistry 36, 12428-33
          (3) Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Activation of lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase by a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer." Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 232, 345-9


          Here, I'll translate that for you, since you're not too swift: it forms HDL JUST as readily and removes it more effectively (efflux). It also acts as an antioxidant.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I did read the article in its entirety ...

          How do those 3 references support your conclusion of ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Here, I'll translate that for you, since you're not too swift: it forms HDL JUST as readily and removes it more effectively (efflux). It also acts as an antioxidant.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Also, again ... do you agree with Grey Wolf that human eye color is controlled by mutant alleles?  If so, please explain this.

          BTW ... AIG scientists have the same access to science journals that your Talk Origins authors do.

          Russell ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          But you're right, there are THOUSANDS of things they have dead wrong, and there are probably THOUSANDS of idealistic/hopeful/bored students/teachers/scientists bringing them to AIG's attention.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Shame on you putting words in my mouth!  

          I didn't say there are thousands of things wrong ... I said they get thousands of questions ... most of it is people trying to get de-programmed from years of evolutionary propaganda.  The error I brought to their attention is the only one I know of ... do you know of others?

          Their representation of basic genetics is better than yours so far ...

          Case in point ... you and many others here seem to hold the erroneous opinion that the present multiplicity of alleles we see in present populations is somehow an improvement ... the engine of "Molecules to Man" evolution or something ... AIG holds the correct view, i.e. that it represent LOSS of specificity.

          RE AIG growing:  Yes, yes, and yes.  All those areas.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,08:20



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          This one error is a drop in the bucket. I'm focusing on it only because it's the only one I'm aware of that even you have admitted is dead wrong. But you're right, there are THOUSANDS of things they have dead wrong
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Another example of a claim that is dead wrong is in the AIG claims Dave cited...in fact, it forms the heart of their claim:
          " The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do [remove HDL]"
          Do they offer any studies in that article? No. Do the articles cited above contradict this directly? Yes. Will they remove that? Haven't yet.

          This happens time and again, and time and again Dave falls for it like a catfish swallowing a hook covered with chicken guts.

          Why does this continue to happen? Simple: Dave doesn't bother to check beforehand. He puts it up HERE to get tutored on WHY it is wrong. He won't bother to do the work himself, because he's intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest.

          This is not an insult, it is fact. Just as his other faults I have cited are facts supported by the evidence.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 21 2006,08:24

          Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 21 2006,12:35)
          Again, discussing information theory is irrelevant to Dave's huge problems. And as the concept is not as clear as, say, heterozygosity, he won't understand anything.

          There is a more relevant question Dave needs to address: how does he determine that two species come from the same ancestral couple of indivuals?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          dave

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I'm interested in YOUR response to MY statements, not a big list of links, the content of which, you probably don't even comprehend.

          I will put AIG's understanding of Information Theory up against TO's any day ... it looks like that's the direction this is heading ... which helps me.  I look forward to studying this more in the days ahead.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Um.. Dave, you're anthropomorphising again. Go get a tissue.

          You asked me my great idea, I told you. And still, your sources are wrong. I took the rug out from under a young earth and you are stuck on genetics and information theory.

          Let me say this about that. I took a two-term genetics course in grad school and I can barely follow all of what folks here are talking about. What you are doing is talking about the color of the paint when the subject is its chemistry. The subject is so much more complex than your information gives it credit for that you don't even know how stupid you look.

          But dating through annual accumulations. (Tree rings ice cores diatoms stalagtites etc) Minimum confirmed age over half a million years. And what's more, it calibrated your radiocarbon dating so it blows out your whole stinkin isotope graph as just so much stupidity.

          Forget the hard science dude, stick with the easier stuff. I suggest maybe go fish or, if it's a good day, crazy 8's.

          You are aware that I did show irrefutable evidence that  Earth is over 1/2 a million years, right? And that I made you look even dumber than you did before? (And after  the various smackdowns, most recently deadman's, that is something I am kinda proud of in some sick and twisted way.)
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,08:28



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How do those 3 references support your conclusion [?]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I suggest you learn how to read for comprehension.

          If you'd read the article, you'd see it has links to the pub med abstracts.

          It also includes other pertinant articles on the subject of HDL-binding by the Milano variant.

          Look at the articles.

          Look online for other articles on the topic such as < http://circres.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/76/3/405. >

          Learn to LEARN for YOURSELF, quit begging others to tutor you.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2006,08:35

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 21 2006,12:13)
          I'm interested in YOUR response to MY statements, not a big list of links, the content of which, you probably don't even comprehend.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Deadman: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
          AfDave: 'Tis but a scratch.
          Deadman: A scratch? Your arm's off.
          AfDave: No it isn't.
          Deadman: What's that, then?
          AfDave: [after a pause] I've had worse.
          Deadman: You liar.
          AfDave: Come on ya pansy.
          (Deadman cuts off other arm)
          Deadman: "Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left."
          AfDave: "Yes I have."
          Deadman: "Look!"
          AfDave: "It's just a flesh wound."
          (Deadman cuts off one leg)
          AfDave: "Right, I'll do you for that!"
          Deadman: "You'll what?"
          AfDave: "Come here!"
          Deadman: "What are you gonna do, bleed on me?"
          AfDave: "I'm invincible!"
          Deadman: "...You're a loony."
          (Deadman cuts off AfDave's last leg)
          AfDave: "Okay, we'll call it a draw."
          Deadman: "Come, Jeannot."
          (Deadman and Jeannot ride off)
          AfDave: "Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,08:41

          Again, an essential difference between you and I, Dave:

          I don't pretend to be a biologist or biochemist, but in some 20 years of following the topics, I have learned about various controversies in depth from BOTH SIDES -- enough to make a reasoned conclusion given my meager bio and biochem/genetics background. (of which I have SOME as opposed to none that you have pointed to)

          You haven't done that. What you do is accept the AIG/ICR claim of the day, and don't bother to LEARN ABOUT IT YOURSELF, you then come HERE and beg others to tutor you. I find this just as low as most of your other tactics, and just as revealing about who you are as a person, Dave.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,09:08

          Just in case Dave isn't convinced that actual study of the issues won't reveal AIG's utter inadequacy -- some citations:
          G. Chiesa, E. Monteggia, M. Marchesi, P. Lorenzon, M. Laucello, V. Lorusso, C. Di Mario, E. Karvouni, R. S. Newton, C. L. Bisgaier, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori (2002) "Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Infusion Into Rabbit Carotid Artery Rapidly Removes Lipid From Fatty Streaks." Circ. Res., May 17, 2002; 90(9): 974 - 980.    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (AIM), a natural variant of human apolipoprotein A-I, confers to carriers a significant protection against vascular disease... These results suggest AIM-PL complexes enhanced lipid removal from arteries is the mechanism responsible for the observed plaque changes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          P. K. Shah, J. Yano, O. Reyes, K.-Y. Chyu, S. Kaul, C. L. Bisgaier, S. Drake, and B. Cercek (2001). "High-Dose Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mobilizes Tissue Cholesterol and Rapidly Reduces Plaque Lipid and Macrophage Content in Apolipoprotein E-Deficient Mice : Potential Implications for Acute Plaque Stabilization." Circulation, June 26, 2001; 103(25): 3047 - 3050.    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Repeated doses of recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano phospholipid complex (apoA-Im) reduce atherosclerosis and favorably change plaque composition in rabbits and mice. In this study, we tested whether a single high dose of recombinant apoA-Im could rapidly mobilize tissue cholesterol and reduce plaque lipid and macrophage content in apoE-deficient mice. Conclusions—A single high dose of recombinant apoA-Im rapidly mobilizes tissue cholesterol and reduces plaque lipid ...in apoE-deficient mice.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          C. R. Sirtori, L. Calabresi, G. Franceschini, D. Baldassarre, M. Amato, J. Johansson, M. Salvetti, C. Monteduro, R. Zulli, M. L. Muiesan, and E. Agabiti-Rosei (2001)
          "Cardiovascular Status of Carriers of the Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mutant : The Limone sul Garda Study." Circulation, April 17, 2001; 103(15): 1949 - 1954.    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Structural changes in the carotid arteries were defined as the intima-media thickness (IMT) measured by B-mode ultrasound. HA subjects, both recruited among patients attending our Lipid Clinic and blood donors, showed significant thickening of the carotids (average IMT, 0.86±0.25 and 0.88±0.29 mm, respectively) compared with control subjects (average IMT, 0.64±0.12 mm); the apoA-IM carriers instead showed normal arterial thickness (average IMT, 0.63±0.10 mm). Moreover, a significantly higher prevalence of atherosclerotic plaques was found in patients and blood donors with HA (both 57%) compared with apoA-IM carriers (33%) and control subjects (21%).
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          P. K. Shah, J. Nilsson, S. Kaul, M. C. Fishbein, H. Ageland, A. Hamsten, J. Johansson, F. Karpe, and B. Cercek (1998) "Effects of Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano on Aortic Atherosclerosis in Apolipoprotein E–Deficient Mice." Circulation, March 3, 1998; 97(8): 780 - 785.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In comparison with 20-week-old untreated control mice, 25-week-old apo A-IMilano/PC–treated mice demonstrated no increase in aortic atherosclerosis (11±1% versus 10±4%, P=NS), a 40% reduction in lipid content (22±8% versus 13±8%, P=.01)...Conclusions—Recombinant A-IMilano/PC prevented progression of aortic atherosclerosis and reduced lipid and macrophage content of plaques in apo E–deficient mice despite severe hypercholesterolemia. Thus, A-IMilano/PC may have a role in inhibiting progression and promoting stabilization of atherosclerosis.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Note the dates on the articles, Dave. Note that it is today, nearly 2007. Note that AIG's claims have not altered despite being demonstrated as empty words devoid of actual cited studies. Note that this took me about 15 minutes, counting my laughter and getting a beverage of my choice. Note that you need to change your tactics and begin actually studying the topics before stuffing your foot in your mouth.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 21 2006,09:21

          Dave said: "OK. Grey WOlf ... back to you."

          Back to me? you refute the easiest of the three examples, one I admited up front to be unsure about, and you think that's it? Very well, I admit I did not check the genetics of the eye before posting the example - I admited that when I posted it. I thought it would be an example adequate to your mental abilities, but it seems I was wrong. Nevermind, I withdraw it as an example. (this, by the way, Dave, is called "admitting one's ignorance" - you may want to try it some time, since you have far more ignorance to admit than everyone else in this forum put together).

          But it is not "back to me". You still have to explain how going from 2 (or being generous, 4) alleles for the HLA gene to 10 and then to 500 is a "loss of information" or a "degeneration". Please tell us which 496 alleles are degenerative - I would like to know if I'm "corrupted", you see.

          You also have to explain how 490 new alleles were introduced into the human genome in 250 years - 13 generations, 38 genetical mutations per generation! Until you do, I'm claiming victory - the Ark story is simply impossible because of the impossible mutation rates that had to follow it.

          By the way, this is an interesting angle to Dave's bluffing and BS. Notice how the moment he found a topic he did win in he immediately latched onto it and beat it to the ground with at least four mentions in succesive posts, but somehow managing to not answer the rest of my post? Dave, you are not only a bad liar (as in, not good at it), you're a pathetic nobody that, when you cannot find an easy copy-paste article that defends your position, simply ignore it.

          Well, you cannot, not this time. You have no defense against the mutations rate that your "hypothesis" needs, and thus it is sunk. You cannot explain how entire continents moved thousands of kilometres in days, and so the ark is impossible. You cannot explain how animals got back to their own places after the ark, nor how their species *survived* starting from two individuals (there isn't enough genetic variability in just two individuals), thus your ark story has to be false. The Bible is no more reliable (and in many cases *less* reliable) than the Chinese and Egyptian records of the time, which don't mention a great flood, and thus you have no leg to stand on. Ypur entre hypothesis invokes so many "miracles" to explain just the same things that science explains without miracles at all that Occam would kill it without a second look. And lately you have to invoke a super-macro-evolution just to explain how we went from 10 to 500 alleles for a single gen!

          I am giving you a choice, Dave: for once in this month-long conversation, grow a spine, be honest and admit that your whole Ark is totally, completely and utterly impossible. Or present evidence for every single of the above points. But don't move on as if you had managed to defend "points C & D" like you have with every other point because it is BS - you have never, ever presented any evidence for your position.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,09:24



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The error I brought to their attention is the only one I know of ... do you know of others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Let's see how they handle this most straightforward of misstatements before we waste any more time testing the hypothesis that they won't correct other errors. I asked you before to point me to any molecular biology they pretend discredits evolution. I predict I will be able to demonstrate that they are wrong. I'm still waiting.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Their representation of basic genetics is better than yours so far ... Case in point ... you and many others here seem to hold the erroneous opinion that the present multiplicity of alleles we see in present populations is somehow an improvement ...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          That's your idea of a good "case in point"? ? ?  Pretty pathetic. First of all, why can't you quote something I wrote that is wrong at all, let alone more wrong than their egregious chromosome gaffe? Why do you have to resort to "seem to hold"?


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RE AIG growing:  Yes, yes, and yes.  All those areas.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          data, please. Not that I particularly doubt it. The fact that al Qaida seems to be harvesting a bumper crop of recruits does nothing to convince me they're right about anything.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,09:26

          Grey Wolf: yeah, Dave does that to soothe his ego all the time. He fails on his major claims, finds ANYTHING he can claim victory for, then exults in it.

          He tried to do that with me a few pages back, by claiming I had lied about him in my post. IN that case, though, I showed how he had been asked to stop insulting and didn't. Thus making him a liar in his accusations. Beyond being merely a plagiarizer and quoteminer. Now that I've reminded Dave of that on this page, I'll "tone down" my expressions of disdain and disgust for Dave. Ah, alliteration.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 21 2006,09:41

          Dave said: "RE AIG growing:  Yes, yes, and yes.  All those areas."

          It's a pity that AiG is not growing in "evidence for their position" or "scientific studies" or even "acurateness of their website". How long did they tell you it would take them to correct the error that you pointed out at them, Dave? Because you *have* sent them an e-mail asking them to correct that embarrasing page, like you promised, haven't you?

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          Edit: PD: I see, Dave, that you are still incapable of writing my name properly. First you complain about too many shift-characters, now you put in too many? I know four-year-olds that would be able to write it down properly after being asked to do so. Draw the conclussions you want from that - although, given the track record, the conclussions are bound to be the wrong ones
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 21 2006,10:13

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 21 2006,14:24)


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The error I brought to their attention is the only one I know of ... do you know of others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Let's see how they handle this most straightforward of misstatements before we waste any more time testing the hypothesis that they won't correct other errors. I asked you before to point me to any molecular biology they pretend discredits evolution. I predict I will be able to demonstrate that they are wrong. I'm still waiting.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ha Ha Ha Ha. I predict that a high school biology book could do it. Well, lets see if Dave hops on that one.

          I presented evidence (that AiG doesn't counter) for Earth (May we bathe in her mother goddess love) being more than half a million years old. Does that make you wrong or is there some error in the data that I missed? I know I just cut and pasted from someone else but I do have a long list of specific cross-references that stitch it all together. By the way, There is no record of a flood and there is verification of c-14 dating to 50,000 years i think. Also various other dating methods are actually calibrated using these scales.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 21 2006,10:20

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 21 2006,16:13)
          There is no record of a flood and there is verification of c-14 dating to 50,000 years i think. Also various other dating methods are actually calibrated using these scales.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (Emphasis Added)

          Which proves Dave's point--if c-14 dating is wrong, then it is used to "calibrate" the other methods, it propagates the error.

          Don't you scientists know anything?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 21 2006,11:15

          GREY WOLF ATTEMPTS TO REFUTE MY STATEMENTS ABOUT ALLELES
          My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.

          Team Evo is trying to say that ...

          1) Some mutations are good, therefore
          2) If there is such a thing as genetic richness, we have more now than back then
          3) Eric says that Noah would have created a bottleneck

          No one has yet to show me an example of a "good" mutation so it looks to me like we have "genetic poverty" not richness.  Many have tried to show me a beneficial mutation and they keep failing.  Grey Wolf recently tried to give eye color as an example of a mutated allele.  He mocks my statement that mutated alleles are "corrupted information" by saying "Silly Dave, are green eyes corrupted?"  Now when he shown he was wrong, he lies about his original posts.

          Grey Wolf...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          A second example was eye colour. Let me state it clearly: Adam had, say, brown eyes. Say Eve had blue eyes. At some point, a mutation must have made some descendant, somewhere, to get green eyes (or grey, or black, or...). That is an increment of information. I'm really looking forward to hear you explain why having green eyes makes someone "degenerated".

          And yes, there are thousands of such instances - every gene that can have more than two alleles.

          But my point is: you are lying. Again.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          GW again...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman's got a list. I've checked them, and agree you have knowingly given false information in several occasions. Your favourite is lying by omission - like in this case, "forgetting" two out of three examples of increased information. You had blue and brown, and now you have blue, brown and green. An obvious increase in information, presented to you as such, which you somehow did not count. Even if green-eyed people are "corrupted" they have information that their blue and brown-eyed ancestors did not posses - the genetic information on how to develop green eyes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          GW one more time ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          2) I want to have my fun - deadman likes to point out Dave's lies, I like to tackle the easy false arguments. I have this goal of easy examples that three year olds can understand (à la evil overlord) that keeps showing just how idiotic Dave's arguments are.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          [AFD posts info refuting Grey Wolf's eye color nonsense]

          Grey Wolf...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Back to me? you refute the easiest of the three examples, one I admited up front to be unsure about, and you think that's it? Very well, I admit I did not check the genetics of the eye before posting the example - I admited that when I posted it.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          And then goes on railing about AIG some more and complains I don't type his name right.  Hmmmm ...

          ***************************************************

          Now the latest attempt to show me a "beneficial mutation" is the APO-AIM Mutation.

          The Talk Origins article is found here < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html > and the AIG response is found here < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp >

          The main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

          In Cory's absence, Deadman has been pretending he understands the issues, pretending he's read the papers cited by Talk Origins, ragging on AIG, throwing mud at them and generally being an ... well, he's Deadman ... what can you say?

          My position is the 4 points above which I got from the honest scientists at AIG.

          I would like to hear Cory's response to these points since he is the one who brought up this example, but with Deadman making so much noise, it will probably be a few pages before Cory has a chance to respond on Monday!

          Oh well ... we'll hear from Cory soon enough I guess.

          Have a great Saturday night!  :-)
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,11:33



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No one has yet to show me an example of a "good" mutation so it looks to me like we have "genetic poverty" not richness.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          G. Chiesa, E. Monteggia, M. Marchesi, P. Lorenzon, M. Laucello, V. Lorusso, C. Di Mario, E. Karvouni, R. S.
          Newton, C. L. Bisgaier, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori (2002) "Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Infusion Into Rabbit Carotid Artery Rapidly Removes Lipid From Fatty Streaks." Circ. Res., May 17, 2002; 90(9): 974 - 980.      

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
           
          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (AIM), a natural variant of human apolipoprotein A-I, confers to carriers a significant protection against vascular disease... These results suggest AIM-PL complexes enhanced lipid removal from arteries is the mechanism responsible for the observed plaque changes  
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave fails to respond to each of the citations I gave, and instead tries to insult:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Deadman has been pretending he understands the issues
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          This is typical of Dave, his inability to deal with precisely stated arguments and anyone who has a greater grasp of the issues at hand. But what else can be expected of a guy that is a demonstrable liar, plagiarist and quoteminer? How ...sad.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 21 2006,11:44

          Dave, do you still deny that 500 > 16? Because if you don't think Noah's ark created a genetic bottleneck, that's exactly the same thing as denying that 500 > 16.

          I still don't think you understand what an "allele" is. If you did, you wouldn't be having so much trouble with this incredibly simple fact.

          And as for eye color, Dave, let me ask you this: if the allele for "blue" eyes is "recessive" with respect to the allele for "brown" eyes (which it is), what does that say about whether eye color is controlled by different alleles at different loci?

          Also, one more question about information theory. If you can't get this one right (and explain why it's right), there is absolutely no point whatsoever in even discussing information theory with you:

          Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,11:44

          The main points of the AIG article are that ...


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          What's the evidence for that? I don't see any in your link. Also, isn't assuming "what it was designed to do" rather begging the question? I don't think it was "designed" to do anything.  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Is antioxidant activity an important part of this gene product's contribution to its bearers' health? Does this mutation enhance it? Is there any other relevant question to ask about this?

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          What loss of specificity? I see no reference to any such thing in the links provided.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 21 2006,11:58

          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 21 2006,15:20)
          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 21 2006,16:13)
          There is no record of a flood and there is verification of c-14 dating to 50,000 years i think. Also various other dating methods are actually calibrated using these scales.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (Emphasis Added)

          Which proves Dave's point--if c-14 dating is wrong, then it is used to "calibrate" the other methods, it propagates the error.

          Don't you scientists know anything?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, c-14 is calibrated as are other decay related dating methods by using annually stratified phenomena which are cross-referenced by event between themselves. I appreciate you trying to help Davey out though.

          Am I off my nut here or did I not just give a simple way to know that, if you are concerned with evidence, that Earth is much older than 6 or 7 thousand years?

          Did that stuff just fly over the hedge? No one picked it up and Dave has not responded. Hmmm.   ???

          I could go into quite a bit of detail into the cross calibration events and methods for counting annual deposits. Is it less fun than the genetic stuff? It it just chopped liver?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 21 2006,12:00

          Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 21 2006,15:20)
          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 21 2006,16:13)
          There is no record of a flood and there is verification of c-14 dating to 50,000 years i think. Also various other dating methods are actually calibrated using these scales.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (Emphasis Added)

          Which proves Dave's point--if c-14 dating is wrong, then it is used to "calibrate" the other methods, it propagates the error.

          Don't you scientists know anything?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, c-14 is calibrated as are other decay related dating methods by using annually stratified phenomena which are cross-referenced by event between themselves. I appreciate you trying to help Davey out though.

          Am I off my nut here or did I not just give a simple way to know that, if you are concerned with evidence, that Earth is much older than 6 or 7 thousand years?

          Did that stuff just fly over the hedge? No one picked it up and Dave has not responded. Hmmm.   ???

          I could go into quite a bit of detail into the cross calibration events and methods for counting annual deposits. Is it less fun than the genetic stuff? It it just chopped liver?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,12:03

          Russell rightly asks:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What loss of specificity? I see no reference to any such thing in the links provided.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Since Dave pulled his normal hit-and-run tactic when he's cornered and shown wrong, I'll answer you: There are no references given that support AiG's claims. Dave just happens to buy it whole...even though I pointed out as well that they offer no support.
          Further, it is a fact that their current claims are shown false by the citations I just gave as well as the poundings that experts have given Spetner and AiG.

          These two facts demonstrate that AiG is simply a propaganda mill, devoid of actual valid data in this matter. Which is why Dave...being incapable of study and verification of these things himself...winds up repeating their claims and not addressing counterarguments.

          Yawn. Nothing new. This isn't "AFDave's Updated God Hypothesis" -- it's "Dave presents all the AiG and ICR nonsense and then tries to call it his"
          Remarkably similar to his previous plagiarism, I think.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,12:13



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Did that stuff just fly over the hedge? No one picked it up and Dave has not responded.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Scary was mocking Dave's inability to address things that directly refute his whole fantasy.
          Dave can't handle that, so he'll NEVER directly address you on this, BWE, you know that. Instead, he'll keep trying to get tutoring on lots of other things in the meantime.
          Gratefully, though, he's getting spanked every time--maybe it'll eventually teach him not to come into the house with that weak AiG/ICR stuff.
          Of course, he can always lie and cover-up like the AiG and ICR, if he wants. They've been caught at that too many times to count.
          Hah, like I mentioned earlier...they even lied DIRECTLY to DAVE !!!!
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,12:21

          By the way, I don't think "afdave" has, as he seems to think, "shown Grey Wolf to be wrong" in any significant sense on the eye color thing. He's just shown that, since more than one gene is involved, it's not the simplest example to make the point - which still stands - that there are genes for which there are more than four perfectly good alleles (four being the maximum number the mythical founder humans could have had). I would vote for HLA maybe being the easiest to understand example.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 21 2006,12:27

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 21 2006,16:15)
          GREY WOLF ATTEMPTS TO REFUTE MY STATEMENTS ABOUT ALLELES
          My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Long winded, and completely empty of an argument, Dave. Adam and Eve are irrelevant, and so is any "genetic richness", which means having 2 alleles for the HLA gene out of 500 - the maximum any can have. In fact, chances are that I have two different alleles for HLA - does that make me as genetically rich as Adam, for that gene, Dave?

          You have not made any "STATEMENTS ABOUT ALLELES" so I cannot be trying to "REFUTE (YOUR) STATEMENTS". You have made unsuported claims and presented no evidence, and we have shown why you are wrong by bringing alleles into the conversation.

          The problem is Noah and family - and how 490 different mutations happened in 13 generations. Scared of addressing the central point of my argument, Dave?

          And since you are asking for it, lets revisit the eye colour topic, Dave. Eye colour is controlled by three genes. Give us the genetic makeup of those three genes for Adam, Dave. It won't help your argument, but it may demonstrate that you have a faint inkling of genetics. To be honest with you, I expect that, if you take this reasonable request, you will look like an idiot. Do include Adam's eye colour in the explanaition.

          Oh, by the way, your position is not that "the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood."

          You must have the human race divided in continents by the end of the Ice Age, Dave, so you do not have 4500 years - you have about 450, by which time the human genome had to be fixed in place since there are no major genetic differences between indoeuropeans, africans, australian aboriginals and american indians - we all get, for example, the same 500 HLA alleles.

          Dave, you do not even understand the consequences of your claims. These are two of them:

          1) With the flood, any "genetic richness" of Adam is irrelevant - only the "genetic richness" of Noah and the four wives counts.

          2) Since the ice age was the last time anyone could get to Australia and America before modern shipping techniques, you have to explain how the "entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from four parents with no significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 450 years since the Flood."

          At least get your own argument correct, Dave, so we can point out to you how it is stupid. Hint: you are going to need a new miracle, to give Adam's "genetic richness" to Noah. Not that it helps, since "genetic richness" only gives Noah and Adam two alleles out of 500.

          In any case, I like your "27 mutations of a single gene per generation".

          Dave, what stopped that ultra-mega-macro-evolution? What happened during the ice age (or whenever) that stopped us from seeing 27 mutations in the HLA gene every generation?

          Oh and, Dave, try to address every argument, will you? it gets boring to have to retype everything every time.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: I have won this argument, Dave. The ark is impossible.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 21 2006,12:48

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 21 2006,17:21)
          By the way, I don't think "afdave" has, as he seems to think, "shown Grey Wolf to be wrong" in any significant sense on the eye color thing. He's just shown that, since more than one gene is involved, it's not the simplest example to make the point - which still stands - that there are genes for which there are more than four perfectly good alleles (four being the maximum number the mythical founder humans could have had). I would vote for HLA maybe being the easiest to understand example.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          You are right, Russel. My example was only trying to have Dave admit an increase on information that he couldn't put down to "degeneration and corruption". Obviously, eye colour is far more complex genetically than I expected. Thing is, Dave simply doesn't have the mental ability to visualize the 500 alleles of HLA, which is why while it is devastating for his "hypothesis" he will not address it.

          Can anyone think of a physical characteristic coded for by a single gene that in humans has more than two alleles? I've checked hair colour, but it has 2+ genes, and eye colour has 3+ genes. Blood type is a little weird, since there is a sigle gene, and alleles for A blood and B blood, but while I assume there is a third allele for "0 blood", I have not find a direct reference to it (other genes code for other blood characteristics, of course). Skin colour is dangerous since I'm pretty sure Dave will claim that Adam was caucasian and that everyone else is corrupted and degenerated (reducing the debate to Dave's Bible-based racist ideas), plus I've no idea how many genes might code for skin colour. Any others that you can think of?

          Dave, food for thought: is your objection to evolution these days that "mutations don't introduce information"? Because you used to claim that it didn't have enough time to happen, but you are now suggesting the evolution of millions of species in 450 years, which no biologist considers possible.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf
          Posted by: alicejohn on Oct. 21 2006,13:03

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 21 2006,13:13)
          Russell ...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          But you're right, there are THOUSANDS of things they have dead wrong, and there are probably THOUSANDS of idealistic/hopeful/bored students/teachers/scientists bringing them to AIG's attention.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Shame on you putting words in my mouth!  

          I didn't say there are thousands of things wrong ... I said they get thousands of questions ... most of it is people trying to get de-programmed from years of evolutionary propaganda.  The error I brought to their attention is the only one I know of ... do you know of others?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          [QUOTE]
          How could you possibly know this to be true?  Does AIG release the content of their e-mail to the general public? I suspect it to be true, but you made a statement of fact.  You could not make such a statement unless you are a whole lot closer to AIG than you have let on.

          In the spring when this thread first started, and occasionally since, people wondered about Dave’s true motives.  Someone mentioned the possibility this thread is Dave’s resume/training for getting a job with one of the big creationist organizations.  That always stuck in my mind as the most probable explanation for his behavior.

          However, it made no sense when Dave claimed he didn’t know what a  “Gish Gallop” was.  Anyone who looks into the creationist/evolution debate quickly reads about the Gish Gallop.  When I read the above quote another possible motive for Dave came to me: Dave is trying to become a creationist lecturer or debater.  Think about the last six months.  For all practical purposes Dave has taken a graduate level debating class with some of the best instructors around.  You have provided him with valuable experience handling excellent responses to all of the standard creationist “arguments”.   How else can you explain the fact that the only thing he attempted to do during each topic was to frustrate the expert to the point of lashing out?  A skill he will use to great affect in a live debate.

          My theory (or is it a hypothesis) also explains his “Portuguese moment”.  I think he stumbled upon it by accident, but once he realized linguistic experts were going to engage him, he took advantage of the opportunity to frustrate the experts just to see if he could do it.  There is no doubt in my mind during the course of the discussion he refined his presentation to the point where he could convince gullible people his “explanation” for Portuguese is correct.

          Dave has said all along he was here to learn.  This may actually be the truth.  He is obviously closer to AIG than he has let on.  They have been helping him learn the information and guiding him on how to respond to good questions.  What he needed was practice.  He is getting it.

          You guys are incredible.  It would be an honor to meet ericmurphy someday.  But in my opinion, you guys have been played.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 21 2006,13:16

          Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 20 2006,17:35)
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:16)
          Mike PSS...    

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AFDave,
          If the native americans have the same number and type of alleles expressed on the HLA gene (was it 500? for HLA-A) as south-asians, europeans, and africans (along with aboriginal australians) how did they acquire this number of mutations (490) in only 250 years (between the end of the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age) if you could only have 10 alleles from the survivors of the flood?

          The native american population was ISOLATED from the rest of the world population from the end of the UCGH ice age to Columbus in 1492 (yeah, I know, Lief Ericsson in Labrador in 1100's but the geographic impact of that settlement has been measured and documented).

          PLEASE ADDRESS THIS APPARENT DISCREPENCY IN YOUR ASSERTIONS.

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          DO they have the same number and type? I am not very familiar with the HLA gene yet ... feel free to enlighten me.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          I'm not a geneticist or biologist, but I can use Google.  I highly reccomend it sometimes.

          I searched for < 'hla allele worldwide distribution' > and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was < Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net > and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the < front page > I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I clicked on the < Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies > and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the < 'Citation' > reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

          Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.

          What can I derive from this information as it relates to your UCGH presented so far?  That the Native North American population acquired their HLA-A,B, and C allele variability BEFORE the ISOLATION of the North American population.  Since this ISOLATION happened after the flood and immediately after the end of the UCGH ice age then there is only ~250 years that this quantity of allelic mutation could have occured in the population.

          DAVE, THIS IS A LOT OF MUTATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  HOW CAN WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS ALLELIC MUTATION RATE GIVEN THE ABOVE ALLELIC DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN POST-DILUVIAN POPULATIONS THAT WERE ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.

          Does that answer your query?

          Mike PSS
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          You have a nasty habit of ignoring substantive posts that you yourself requested for information.  I'm opening up the BOLD ALL CAPS marker from now on.  I hear that the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I'll have to be loud.

          Anyway,  I think I answered a question you had in my post.  And Grey Wolf seems to have some questions on a similar line.

          Are you game to enter the Octagon?  Or are you going to meekly observe this post from behind your cognitive dissonance.

          Your play, Oh meek one.
          Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 21 2006,13:22

          Lets face it, Dave is never going to learn anything.

          I think there is a greater chance of teaching Jeremy, here, to be proficient at calculus. He already knows basic maths!



          Jeremy 1
          Dave 0
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 21 2006,13:23

          alicejohn: For the last few months, I've been running that one around my mind. I also assume Dave has his venal motives for this little exercise and my conclusions were similar to yours.
          (1)Dave is trying to impress the AiG/ICR with a compiled "version" that he feels is bulletproof so he can gain access to their lists of adherents/supporters or
          (2) He's doing exactly what you described.

          I don't believe this is for his own curiousity at all.

          The good part is that I can't think of a single point that he's made against modern evolutionary theory that is firmly supported.
          The corrollary to that is that he's been spectacularly unsuccessful in supporting his YEC claims. He can't even respond directly to the fact that literate cultures survived his flood date.

          Anyway, I think you may be right, but the problem for Dave is that he's inept and doesn't have any real support from anything he's "learned " here...so does it matter, really? (I didn't mean that to sound rude, it's just the easiest way of saying he ain't got squat.)

          **ack, I should add this, since you mentioned it. I agree about ericmurphy, (a) whether he has a Ph.D or not, since I'm sure he could get one if he wanted and (b) he's an asset under any circumstances.
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 21 2006,13:28

          alicejohn,
          Welcome to the active posting club.
          If your Hypothesis is correct and this is AFDave 'School for AIG debaters' then I don't hold AIG's recruiting methods in high regard. :p

          From what I see, maybe Dave would score some points in a one hour debate style, but he would still lose a lot of points (and credibility) for some arguments that are refuted or challanged within minutes of him posting.  Deadman even refuted an AFDave post 17 minutes BEFORE AFDave made the argument (I wonder what the quantum probability for that is?).  More points off for style and we would have Dave losing most one-on-one debates.

          The item I see lacking in most of these posts is logic.  It seems that Dave can grab claims and throw them at this board to try and make them stick but the claims don't logically fit.

          My two cents,
          Mike PSS
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 21 2006,14:02

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 21 2006,18:00)
          No, c-14 is calibrated as are other decay related dating methods by using annually stratified phenomena which are cross-referenced by event between themselves. I appreciate you trying to help Davey out though.

          Am I off my nut here or did I not just give a simple way to know that, if you are concerned with evidence, that Earth is much older than 6 or 7 thousand years?

          Did that stuff just fly over the hedge? No one picked it up and Dave has not responded. Hmmm.   ???

          I could go into quite a bit of detail into the cross calibration events and methods for counting annual deposits. Is it less fun than the genetic stuff? It it just chopped liver?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          BWE,

          I was being facetious.  Didn't you catch it by the tone of my voice?  Sorry I wasn't more clear.

          Then again...maybe your explanation kept Dave from using the argument?  Who knows.

          I'll use a smilely next time. ;-)

          And, yes, your explanations for the age of the earth are crystal clear to everyone but Dave.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 21 2006,14:18

          Quote (alicejohn @ Oct. 21 2006,19:03)
          You guys are incredible.  It would be an honor to meet ericmurphy someday.  But in my opinion, you guys have been played.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Welcome, AliceJohn, glad you "uncloaked."

          And I agree with you--this is a bunch of pretty impressive people.

          I have learned a ton here.

          Scary
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 21 2006,14:30



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          But in my opinion, you guys have been played.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Oh, I suspect you're right. Personally, my current hypothesis is that "afdave" is an impostor - a perfectly sensible person who understands perfectly well that evolution is about as solid as any scientific theory you can name, but who gets a kick out of watching folks take his cartoon character seriously. Much like "Ghost of Paley" finally admitted to. I don't really mind playing along - it's kind of entertaining. And I certainly don't worry that any creationist has gleaned anything useful from this discussion. Quite the contrary.

          In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 21 2006,15:11

          In a way, we're all giving Dave's "hypothesis" vastly more credit that it remotely deserves. Dave sees us all as "skeptics" of his biblical comic-book story, but the truth is, everyone here with the exception of Dave (and, basically, anyone with two brain cells to rub together) knows his interpretation of the biblical account of creation is a crock, so wrong on so many levels that in many ways it's not even wrong.

          The ironic thing, though, is that the strongest point Dave makes is his conclusion (which since Dave knows nothing of the scientific method, logic, or even reason, he puts first in his UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis"):
             

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          As I've pointed out before, this could well be true, and even Dawkins doesn't dispute that. But the subsidiary points that Dave uses to support his conclusion—that God created mankind as some sort of "goal"; that everyone is descended from a "genetically rich" Adam and Eve; his "global catastrophic flood"; his "Tower of Babel"; etc.—are a laughable joke, and any elementary schoolchild can see all kinds of problems with them. The evidence that the earth and the universe are billions of years old is so utterly overwhelming that anyone who disbelieves it gives the appearance of being mentally retarded. Same for the theory of evolution—the evidence is so mountainous, so utterly conclusive, so beyond cavil, that doubters like Dave end up inevitably looking like dunces. In particular, his inability to understand why Noah and his houseboatmates could not possibly have contained all the genetic variability currently observed in humans is thigh-slappingly hilarious; I think it might have produced the funniest antics I've ever seen Dave perform in his six months here.

          But what Dave doesn't really get is, for the rest of us here, watching him stumbling around and getting virtually everything wrong is really just a mental exercise, an intellectual game. The proper response to Dave, of course, is to ignore him for the idiot he is. But where's the fun in that? To see him be so utterly, hysterically wrong about so many things, one after another, is definitely one of the most consistently entertaining things I've ever seen on the web. The only thing funnier is Dave's misapprehension that he's actually winning any arguments here. I'm still betting that six weeks from now, Dave will be claiming he's "proven" that Adam and Eve, and Noah and his fellow inmates, contained all of the genetic variability contained in the human genome, and no amount of pointing out that he repeatedly got his ass handed to him will ever change that, even when someone reposts huge swaths of the wreckage for all the lurkers to see.

          You just can't write comedy like this, folks.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2006,19:02

          Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 21 2006,19:28)
          The item I see lacking in most of these posts is logic.  It seems that Dave can grab claims and throw them at this board to try and make them stick but the claims don't logically fit.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The biggest weakness I see is still in his lack of a testable hypothesis.  Each time he starts to settle on a hypothesis that could actually be tested, he backs off immediately.  Each attempt to pin him down to specific predictions or methodologies has resulted in some response such as "I'll have to research that" or "I'll address that later".  The latest examples of such have been dealing with original alleles and kinds.  It seems to me that given our current level of understanding of genetics, demonstrating the distinctions between and micro-evolutionary pathways within kinds would be a fairly simple task.  But Dave knows that as soon as he defines his hypothesis narrowly enough to test it, it will fail.  So he must constantly float between various vague (and often contradictory) generalizations in order to give the pretense of argument.

          So then, what is the next step for all of you?  Is it to simply dismiss and ignore him with the admonishment to come back only when he has something testable?  Or is it to keep refuting and piling up mountains of actual evidence and research to counter his ridiculous assertions?  Did the scientists who boycotted the Kansas Kangaroo hearings have the right idea?  How long do you keep playing whack-a-mole?

          This may be a training session for Dave, but I think the experience is benefitting the science side as well.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 21 2006,19:12

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 21 2006,20:30)
          In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I am starting to lean towards this as well.  Looking back, I think the "Hitler is like God" quote may be the best evidence of shennanigins.  Even if some actual Christian had, at the height of feverish, impassioned flamewarring, posted such nonsense, I'm sure they would have retracted or backed down from it soon afterwards.  But (unless I missed it) we didn't get even so much as a "that's not what I really meant" from AFD.
          Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 21 2006,19:51



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Have you seen dave's blog?  If he's an imposter, he's managed to find a pretty old picture of the real Dave Hawkins.  Unfortunately, the email for Hawkins on k4t doesn't seem to work, so I can't verify.
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 21 2006,22:15

          Why did god need to rest on the 7th day?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 21 2006,23:12

          Does gOd masturbate?

          PS: Scary, I realized you were being sarcastic but it worked as devil's advocate too.

          We can talk about the complex lab stuff that proves deep time and evolution and yada yada but that stuff is pretty inaccessable to a guy like Dave. I don't know what the strange fascination with him is. He just keeps roping you back in. A original dendro thing happened before I happened along his threads so I missed it. If he really believes in a young earth and the flood, core samples disprove that pretty easily and we could get back to the real issue- which is the history of the portuguese language. I offered to debate Dave for a chance to write a post on the other's blog but he declared victory. Before I ever posted a thing!

          I wanted him to say that an old Earth (praise the mother goddess from which all ovarious acts originate) would prove him wrong before I got started, but I realized it was going to be another portuguese thing and he would never respond. So I just went ahead and posted it so we could get on to the the real issue of portuguese.
          Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Oct. 22 2006,01:15

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 22 2006,04:12)
          ...
          We can talk about the complex lab stuff that proves deep time and evolution and yada yada but that stuff is pretty inaccessable to a guy like Dave. I don't know what the strange fascination with him is. He just keeps roping you back in...
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          My bolding.

          Me neither. This is now the longest thread ever on ATBC (I think). Dave has been getting a beating right the way through it and continues to claim he is winning.

          It is kinda fascinating, irritating and uncomfortable all at the same time.

          1 good thing though is the people answering him. This thread is a mine of knowledge.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 22 2006,02:00

          APO-AI MILANO AS AN EXAMPLE OF INCREASED SPECIFICITY IS DYING AND IS ON LIFE SUPPORT ... CAN YOU HELP IT LIVE?

          My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.

          Team Evo is trying to say that ...

          1) Some mutations are good, therefore
          2) If there is such a thing as genetic richness, we have more now than back then
          3) Eric says that Noah would have created a bottleneck
          4) Eric also thinks you can breed Chihuahuas and get Great Dane size dogs
          5) Russell still thinks Grey Wolf was right about eye color
          6) Drew Headley thinks creationists have it wrong about information theory
          7) Improvius is concerned about falsifiability
          8) Cory wants to know my definition of "increasing information"
          9) Mike PSS wants to know about HLA alleles accumulating in only 250 years
          10) AFDave is an imposter who has co-opted the identity of Dave Hawkins

          Man that last one is a funny one ... some people will believe anything ...

          As for the first point, no one here has yet given me anything convincing ... the latest attempt is the APO-AI Milano mutation, but AIG rightly points out that ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          If one did a literature search there are probably plenty of papers to support this ... here's one ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evidence That Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Has Reduced Capacity, Compared With Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I, to Recruit Membrane Cholesterol

          John K. Bielicki; Mark R. McCall; Lori J. Stoltzfus; Amir Ravandi; Arnis Kuksis; Edward M. Rubin; ; Trudy M. Forte

          From the Life Sciences Division 1-213, Department of Molecular and Nuclear Medicine, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley.

          Correspondence to John K. Bielicki, Life Sciences Division 1-213, Department of Molecular and Nuclear Medicine, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

          Abstract Human carriers of apolipoprotein (apo) A-IMilano are heterozygous for an Arg173Cys substitution in the apoA-I primary sequence; despite severe reductions in HDL cholesterol concentrations, affected individuals do not develop coronary heart disease, suggesting that apoA-IMilano may possess antiatherogenic properties. As the beneficial effects of wild-type apoA-I are linked to its role in HDL cholesterol transport, we examined the capacity of apoA-IMilano to recruit cell cholesterol and activate lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) (two key events in the antiatherogenic reverse cholesterol transport pathway). ApoA-IMilano and wild-type apoA-I were expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells, and their ability to recruit membrane phospholipid and cholesterol for the assembly of nascent HDL was compared. Both clonal cell lines exhibited similar levels of apolipoprotein accumulation in serum-free medium (2 µg/mg cell protein per 24 hours), and 15% of each apolipoprotein was associated with membrane lipids to form nascent HDL (d=1.063 to 1.21 g/mL). SDS-PAGE showed that a majority (66±12%) of the lipidated apoA-IMilano was in the homodimer form. Compositional analyses revealed that apoA-IMilano nascent HDL had a significantly lower (P<.001) unesterified cholesterol/phospholipid mole ratio (0.47±0.10) than wild-type apoA-I complexes (1.29±0.14), indicating that apoA-IMilano had a reduced capacity to recruit cell cholesterol. In addition to the reduced unesterified cholesterol/phospholipid ratio, apoA-IMilano nascent HDL consisted mostly of small 7.4-nm particles compared with wild-type apoA-I, in which 11- and 9-nm particles predominated. Despite these changes in nascent HDL particle size and composition, apoA-IMilano activated LCAT normally. We conclude that, even though apoA-IMilano is a normal activator of LCAT, it is less efficient than wild-type apoA-I in recruiting cell cholesterol, suggesting that the putative antiatherogenic properties attributed to apoA-IMilano may be unrelated to the initial stages of reverse cholesterol transport. < http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/atvbaha;17/9/1637 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          It still amazes me that thousands of good scientists like yourselves work every day on computers which utilize software much like DNA (DNA is much more advanced software according to Bill Gates), complete with all kinds of "anti-mutation" systems--anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewalls, etc.  People work very hard to make sure their software doesn't get corrupted, yet you guys think that ..

          Corruption of the DNA Software can be a good thing!

          Just unbelievable ... one can do nothing but stand in awe of such inconsistent reasoning.

          **********************************************

          Here's a funny article that really illustrates the problems with mutations ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Is your dog some kind of degenerate mutant?
          by L. Johannesen

          Next time you pat your dog on the head, look a bit closer. Is it a mutt or mutant?

          Many breeds of dog are just that—mutant degenerate mutts—except we are so familiar with Pugs and Bassets we never really notice how deformed they are.

          The word mutation means change. When we talk about a mutation in a dog, we mean a change in structure. It has a characteristic that its ancestors did not show. This change in the information it inherits is caused by a change either in the genes (those special factors in a cell which carry its body blueprint) or in the chromosomes (those parts of the cell which carry the genes in a specific order).

          A degenerate mutation in a dog leaves the dog worse off than it used to be.

          In this article we will consider some of the more obvious mutants in dogs to illustrate the nature and consequence of mutation.

          Mutations can occur spontaneously (i.e. without our help) or some types can be made to occur (induced) by man adding radiation or chemicals such as colchicine. Regardless of how they occur, mutations do not appear to 'naturally' aim at achieving any specific improvement in the animal.

          A mutation can be one of two types—somatic or gametic. The somatic mutation is one which occurs in any cell of a body except the sex cells associated with reproduction, i.e. sperm or eggs. It can only be passed on to the direct offspring of the cell involved, e.g. skin or hair or tumor, and is not passed on to the next generation. Of greater importance is the gametic or sex cell mutation. Since it occurs in the sex cells it does not produce an effect in the parents, but can be passed on to the next generation to produce a mutant type. However, because of the elaborate in built control processes involved in an organisms growth most of these types of mutations will be 'overruled' and will not show up.

          In the examples which follow I have concentrated on mutations which are easily visible in dogs, and in particular, are very common in the dog family.

          The pug face dog has been produced by man selecting for mutations and recombinations (juggled genes) which have resulted in its original head shape being changed. The long axis of the head has been vertically rotated so that the face points towards the ground. This has resulted in the snout and the eyes being moved up and back to point forward and the upper jaw shortened. The lower jaw, in order to be of any use is of course, upturned to match the top jaw.

          Now while you may think this is a very clever thing to do to a dog, just think about it from the dog's point of view. No great problems would occur from shortening the length of the upper jaw, except that to date we have not been able to get rid of the face skin its ancestor had. The extra skin the ancestor needed for his long nose must now fit a short nose. The result—more wrinkles and folds than the world's most troubled woman, and, as a consequence, dermatitis and eczema.

          Since his lower jaw must bend to fit the now shorter upper jaw, the front teeth now bend backwards and resultant stress often results in teeth abnormalities and malocclusions. This, of course, is why a bull dog hangs on when he bites—he has great difficulty letting go.

          Pretend you are a pug for one moment—take one hand and push your lower jaw up at the front while you keep your head still, then take your other hand and push your lower jaw back. Now you've got that, push hard and try to breathe. See why your bull dog or pekinese puffs after a short run? The head structure which we have bred into the dog has produced a breathing difficulty due to partial obstruction of the throat region. So when you let your pug go in the wild, he cannot run far enough to escape, and if he does manage to run fast enough to catch anything he hasn't got enough breath left to eat it.

          Hairy
          The body of a hairy dog is covered with fairly long hair, so much so that the animals face may have disappeared from sight, and you have to wait for one end to wiggle before you know which end to pat. We may call it cute, but the extra hair is a real burden to the dog, that is, unless you want to spend a lot of extra time keeping it clean.

          Clean—so that eye disease caused by the hair perpetually irritating the eyes, will be kept to a minimum. Even in the best cared for hairy dogs, blindness is a common end. Clean—so that parasites which hide in the hair, never worried by the dog's mouth or scratching feet, do not massacre your dog.

          The floppy ear syndrome
          The Fred Bassets of this world do look sort of silly because of a structural alteration to their ears. Their muscles cannot lift up their ears so they hang there, floppy before breakfast, and sloppy after it.

          Because the dog uses his ears to locate a source of sound, he needs ears which can receive sound and focus on it. Floppy ears can do neither of these things. This makes floppy eared dogs inferior to other breeds in detecting prey or predators by their sound. Parasites can also hide under those dark warm curtains it has for ears, and when the floppy eared dog tries to scratch them out, he only hurts himself. Deafness is a common result.

          Short leg
          Want a dog that will not trouble your neighbors because it cannot jump fences: then a shortlegged mutant such as a Corgi or Dachshund is for you.

          This mutation has been selected for in many breeds because of its usefulness in hunting animals that live in burrows, or for tracking animals by scent through dense undergrowth. After all, if you cannot go over it or through it, get a dog that can go under it.

          But in the wild, such an animal is slowed by its short legs and is usually forced to go around obstacles rather than over them. Therefore it tires more quickly than a long legged dog. In order to catch anything, the short leg must utilize surprise and a short sprint. Consequently, short legged dogs cannot usually fend well for themselves.

          Short spine
          In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

          Hairless dogs
          Sick and tired of all those fleas or that hair on the carpet? Then this dog is for you. It doesn't have any hair at all, except for a small patch between the ears. Their skin is hot to touch.

          If you do have a passion to own one of these baldies, then don't be put off when after you pat it all you usually get is a toothless grin. Its footprints are also different since its toe nails often fall out (especially if they get caught in the carpet). The gene for hairless is linked to the gene for toothless and toenailless. Since they also suffer from death if they possess two genes for hairless they cannot be pure bred. Without hair, they don't like the cold either. All of this should explain why you haven't seen too many hairless dogs around lately, and with the breed name Xololtzcuintli, it's probably just as well.

          Other abnormalities
          There are many other abnormalities which are less common or less spectacular, such as the out-turned eyelids of the bloodhound (remember its red soulful eyes) or the ingrown eyelashes of the Pekinese.

          The only dog mutant which comes anywhere near qualifying as useful (from the dog's point of view) is found in that big lovable St. Bernard.

          It suffers from hyperthyroidism, which means that its overactive thyroid gland enables it to turn food into body heat at an incredible rate, not by choice, but by compulsion. His feet can sometimes be so hot they can melt the snow around him. This makes it easy for him to live in the snowy cold conditions and to play his part in rescuing and or inebriating lost mountaineers. But it has bad points too. He cannot tolerate the heat since he makes so much of his own. It is anything but kind to bring a St. Bernard to a tropical climate. Secondly, he must eat huge quantities of food to survive because he uses it so rapidly and this creates his dilemma. A St. Bernard is best suited to live in the snow and cold, but in such conditions he would normally find nothing to eat and would starve. If man did not artificially maintain the breed, it would soon die out.

          Conclusion
          Dog breeders have used mutations to change the dog for hunting man's way. They have made many grotesque forms and are still trying to make the 'best' domestic dog. But all results considered, man has still not made a dog into a non-dog or a more doggish dog (every postman can verify this).

          Now this means, of course, that your Great Dane or your Dachshund and such like did not get off Noah's ark, since they did not exist then. They are products of modern resourcefulness (?). All of which explains why the bloodhound and its friends are not found in the fossil record (you cannot become extinct when you're not even existant). What son of a dog did Noah take on board the ark? Well, it had to be one which through the effect of degenerate mutation, or by having its genetic pattern juggled by recombination (lovingly selected by man), could produce all of the modern varieties of dog. Not that I wish to be parochial, but I suspect it was probably something like the good old Australian dingo. Of course it would take a government grant of several million dollars to turn a dingo into a daschund through breeding experiments.

          In a more serious vein however, all the research results from dog breeding confirm the statement in Genesis that God commanded each type of organism, dogs included, to 'reproduce after its kind'. Your dog may only be some kind of degenerate mutant, but the point to be made over and over is, that he is a degenerate mutant from some created kind.

          < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/dog.asp >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          No, my friends, mutations are a BAD thing, or at best a NEUTRAL thing.  They result in a LOSS of information, which, for Cory and Drew's sake, equates to a LOSS of specificity.

          To say that our genomes are somehow genetically richer now than in Adam or Noah's day is foolish.  The truth is that our genomes are quite corrupted today and it's only getting worse.  

          God planned it this way ... it's called the Curse ... and you can read about it in Genesis 3.  But He didn't curse the earth just for fun.  He cursed it to remind us of our sin and the need for a saviour, Jesus Christ.  He cursed it to remind us that He's going to make a new heaven and a new earth someday and He invites all to join Him in that new home.

          If you have questions about all this "religious stuff" hop on over to www.kids4truth.com

          This post is rather long already, so I will answer some of the other questions later.
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2006,02:26



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No, my friends, mutations are a BAD thing, or at best a NEUTRAL thing.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. You sound like John Davison. Have you heard of this old clown?

          So according to you, the average thousand of species that descended from a couple of individuals in the Arch are "BAD things"?
          The different species of salmonids adapted to salty and fresh water are all "BAD"?

          How did penguins reach Antarctica after the flood, genius? The ice must have melted underwater, I guess. Or did they adapt to some cold environment afterward? But wait, adaptation is impossible as you just said.

          Get a clue, Davey.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 22 2006,03:27

          Jeannot...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So according to you, the average thousand of species that descended from a couple of individuals in the Arch are "BAD things"?
          The different species of salmonids adapted to salty and fresh water are all "BAD"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  Only the mutations are bad.  The variability which was designed into these organisms was very good, but this variability is NOT the result of mutations as you have somehow been led to believe in school.

          This is your fundamental error.  The sooner you can recognize this error, the more sense genetics will make to you.

          We will get to Antartica and penguins later when we talk about the Ice Age.
          Posted by: k.e on Oct. 22 2006,04:43

          Bwhahahahahahahahaha


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          We will get to Antartica and penguins later when we talk about the Ice Age.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Translation from AFDese into English:

          Quick change the subject ...please..I'm getting a reaming.

          Here is the rest of the blitheringly mind numbing AFDese into English

          AFDese:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          No.  Only the mutations are bad.  The variability which was designed into these organisms was very good, but this variability is NOT the result of mutations as you have somehow been led to believe in school.

          This is your fundamental error.  The sooner you can recognize this error, the more sense genetics will make to you.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          English:



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No..Osiris doesn't work that way.  

          Only the mutations are bad i.e. The devils work.  

          The variability which was designed by crackpot engineers to overcome their fear of Baal not existing and dreamed up in an opium of the masses miasma aka religion was projected into these organisms which can't be explained away by AiG was very good since it almost explains away evolution,

          but this variability is NOT the result of mutations ...that comes from the devils dice and the great designer who is an engineer uses a HP-41 ...it's right every time and as you have somehow been given a proper education which makes me look like a DH because I was led to believe in my "school" a pack of fundy lies.

          This is your fundamental error.  The sooner you can recognize this error, the more sense genetics MY STUPIDITY will make to you.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 22 2006,04:53

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:27)
          We will get to Antartica and penguins later when we talk about the Ice Age.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          But first you should probably learn how to spell "Antarctica." By all means, though, I hope you do go there soon.
          Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 22 2006,05:00

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:27)
          Jeannot...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          So according to you, the average thousand of species that descended from a couple of individuals in the Arch are "BAD things"?
          The different species of salmonids adapted to salty and fresh water are all "BAD"?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          No.  Only the mutations are bad.  The variability which was designed into these organisms was very good, but this variability is NOT the result of mutations as you have somehow been led to believe in school.

          This is your fundamental error.  The sooner you can recognize this error, the more sense genetics will make to you.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Shorter Dave: Everything "good" that happens is a result of godloading, and everything "bad" is the result of mutation.  The evidence for godloading is favorable genetic changes, which we see all around us. Why is that so difficult to understand?
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 22 2006,05:02

          More evidence for the "afdave is an impostor" hypothesis: he's here posting on Sunday morning! Does it seem likely that a devoted, spirals-for-eyes, Kool-aid guzzling, christian brainwashee would take time out from corralling the little Hawkinses for some serious church time (suffering the children, if you will)? I think not.

          (By the way, I've been to Antarctica. Fascinating trip.)
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,05:06

          DAVE CAN'T READ FOR COMPREHENSION -- CAN ANYONE HELP HIM????
          Yes, that's right. Little Dave is afflicted with a severe form of aphasia that renders him incapable of reading for actual comprehension. Isn't there anyone at AtBC that can use words simple enough (preferably monosyllables) to help him grasp simple concepts?
          Here's an example: Dave cites a preliminary study from 1997, using a model different from others being used at the time. Were there follow-ups to this? Of course there were, the study of artherosclerosis and other diseases associated with cholesterol are a lively field.
          But, let us look at what Dave cites:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          As the beneficial effects of wild-type apoA-I are linked to its role in HDL cholesterol transport, we examined the capacity of apoA-IMilano to recruit cell cholesterol and activate lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase ....We conclude that, even though apoA-IMilano is a normal activator of LCAT, it is less efficient than wild-type apoA-I in recruiting cell cholesterol, suggesting that the putative antiatherogenic properties attributed to apoA-IMilano may be unrelated to the initial stages of reverse cholesterol transport.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Notice that the researchers are looking at only 2 aspects of the efflux of cholesterol : " recruiting" cholesterol and activating lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase. Note that THEY claim a less effective "recruiting" ability on the part of AIMilano, and conclude that the antiatherogenic properties  MAY be unrelated to the first stages of transport.
          So the question then remains, is AIMilano a less efficient "recruiter?" does it BIND less efficiently?
          Well, all Dave had to do was READ and look for more RECENT references citing this study. Were there more? You betcha. Will Dave read them? Doubtful, since they contradict his claim that mutation = degeneration.
          Has Dave made similar claims before? Yes. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=480 >
          Dave has claimed that bacteria with antibiotic resistance show that mutations caused reduced fitness (were deleterious) in all cases. I gave Little Davey a long list of in vitro, clinical and animal studies that showed he and some dolt named "Kevin Anderson " at ICR or AIG or some similar depository of stupid were wrong.
          Dave's response was to say "Deadman, I cannot tell if your rebuttals have any merit or not."
          Now he pretends to have suddenly gained the knowledge to deal with such questions, miraculously
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,05:15

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 22 2006,11:02)
          More evidence for the "afdave is an impostor" hypothesis: he's here posting on Sunday morning! Does it seem likely that a devoted, spirals-for-eyes, Kool-aid guzzling, christian brainwashee would take time out from corralling the little Hawkinses for some serious church time (suffering the children, if you will)? I think not.

          (By the way, I've been to Antarctica. Fascinating trip.)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Hmmm. In light of this and GoP I'm going to change my position a bit. Formerly I assumed AFDave was the real deal, mostly because I have known a few people who had that same combination of being very ignorant and arrogantly anti-science. In light of the hoaxing possibilities, I'm changing my position. I believe it is possible that AFDave is the real deal, but I can't guess one way or the other. Just another reason to ignore him.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,05:16

          OH, and by the way, "Dave," I did a pretty thorough search for articles supporting the 1997 claim of reduced binding efficiency in AIMilano. No other citations were found supporting that view, and in fact, the only ones found refuted it.
          This is the way science works, people try to knock down hypotheses and theories/models. Others will offer up competing information SUPPORTING their views.

          This is exactly antithetical to YOUR creator god hypothesis that has been dragged through the  mud time and again...which you cannot support in rebuttal, because you don't have the smarts or the data to back you. Do ya like apples, Dave?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 22 2006,05:20

          Dave, get over your "genetic richness" argument. We've already explained to you in nauseating detail that Noah's ark was in fact a genetic bottleneck, virtually all of whatever genetic diversity that existed at the time was destroyed when virtually all of mankind was destroyed, and for any given gene, a theoretical maximum of 16 alleles and a practical maximum of 10 alleles could have survived the flood.

          Since there are hundreds of thousands of genes that have more than 10 alleles in the current gene pool, most of the genetic diversity in the human genome must necessarily have occurred after the flood, at a mutation rate that would most likely have been lethal to the entire species. This fact alone is enough to dispose of your entire "global catastrophic flood hypothesis," if it hadn't already been disposed of on multiple other grounds.

          Now, if you don't think Noah's ark was a genetic bottleneck, then you need to explain how 10 !< 20, or 50, or 200, or 500. Can you do that, Dave?

          BTW, it's not just me who thinks Noah's ark was a bottleneck; everyone here other than you also thinks it is.

          And one more question: which has more information, Dave? The speech, or the noise? How many times am I going to have to ask this question before you finally attempt an answer?
          Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 22 2006,05:24

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 22 2006,10:02)
          More evidence for the "afdave is an impostor" hypothesis: he's here posting on Sunday morning! Does it seem likely that a devoted, spirals-for-eyes, Kool-aid guzzling, christian brainwashee would take time out from corralling the little Hawkinses for some serious church time (suffering the children, if you will)? I think not.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          In rebuttal, I would note that he was posting fairly early in the morning.  Since he has 5 children, I find it quite unlikely that he would be attending early service. Not with that many rugrats to wrangle.  I expect that it is more likely that he would be attending Sunday School and late service.  I further submit that his posts were shorter than normal, indicating that he didn't have alot of time on his hands.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,05:34

          I'll go along with carlsonjok on this, for a couple of reasons: Dave is likely to let his "helpmeet" (wife) do that kid-wranglin' work. Also, "Dave Hawkins" is mentioned as having some kind of role at that church of his, the tri-city li'l baptist pulpit pounders or whatever it is.
          I'll just add this here: I've found AFDave or Dave Hawkins posting on other sites, so..if this is a sham, it's from a person with a lot of time on their hands and who seems to have hijacked the name of what appears to be a real person living in Missouri who was in the air force. He also must have done some research on Air Force vehicles, nomenclature, etc. He also must have decided to put up the kids4truth site and his blogspot as a ruse. Nah, I think Dave's "real" -- he's just nutty. I think it's THAT aspect that leads people to think...this guy seems like a cartoon, he can't be "real"
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2006,05:48

          Apparently, Dave believes that a couple of individuals can give birth to a thousand of species without the need of mutations, just because it can produce billions of different offspring.

          (Ok, maybe you should read a biology book first, but let's try it anyway ???)
          So, Davey, if speciation (post-flood evolution) were just based on recombination (allele shuffling) and mutation never produced any adaptation, why have we never seen a couple of individuals giving birth to another species in one generation? (let's not consider hybrid speciation) This should be common according to your bogus theory. Don't deny it, I know you never predicted this YECs don't know what a prediction is.

          Or maybe you still think that some organisms can be 500-ploid?   :D
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,06:30

          Wow, talk about something promising for the future, in reducing heart disease:  Genetically Engineered AIMilano was introduced via retroviral vectors into the bone marrow  of mice with atherosclerosis and induced elevated cholesterol.

          Wang L, Sharifi BG, Pan T, et al. (2006). Bone marrow transplantation shows superior atheroprotective effects of gene therapy with apolipoprotein A-I Milano compared with wild-type apolipoprotein A-I in hyperlipidemic mice. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY 48 (7): 1459-1468 OCT 3 2006


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RESULTS Compared with vector control (n = 12), apoA-IMilano gene therapy (n = 15) reduced aortic atherosclerosis by 65% (p < 0.001) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 58% (p < 0.0001), whereas wild-type apoA-I (n = 11) reduced atherosclerosis by 25% (p = 0.1) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 23% (p < 0.05). The apoA-IMilano gene therapy was significantly more effective in reducing atherosclerosis (p < 0.05) and macrophage immunoreactivity (p < 0.001) compared with wild-type apoA-I. The circulating levels of cholesterol, lipoprotein profile, and apoA-IMilano or wild-type apoA-I were comparable among the groups. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano was more effective than wild-type apoA-I in promoting macrophage cholesterol efflux.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Milano reduced atherosclerosis by SIXTY FIVE PERCENT compared to 25% in apoAI.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 22 2006,06:36

          Is "afdave" an impostor?

          I don't know. I only offer the hypothesis. The evidence that can be applied to the question is limited, as is the power of what evidence can be applied. But I submit to you that the hypothesis has more merit than the one that is nominally the focus of this whole months-long, thousands-of-posts-long discussion: that all of geology, biology, and most of science is so obviously wrong that some knucklehead with no training in any of it, and with jaw-dropping gaps in grasp of the basics (e.g. hundreds of alleles/gene/individual! ) can find multiple flaws in it that either (1) escaped the notice of millions of person-hours of research or (2) are being intentionally swept under the rug by a conspiracy of atheist scientists (about half of whom go to the extraordinary length of being regular church-goers - just to promote the scam).

          Some people will, indeed, believe anything!
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,06:46

          Russell: I agree, it's a valid hypothesis. However, the data seem to indicate that Dave Hawkins IS a real person who MAY be the person posting here.
          The sad fact MAY be that Dave Hawkins is simply exactly the kind of knucklehead you mentioned.
          It takes a cornucopia of stupid to produce the posts "AFDave" has left here, pungently reeking of his lies, quotemining, false accusations, plagiarism, backing down on bets, refusals to respond to direct questions, etc., but it may just well be that AFDave is the real ignorantly hubristic deal
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 22 2006,06:52

          Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 22 2006,12:46)
          Russell: I agree, it's a valid hypothesis. However, the data seem to indicate that Dave Hawkins IS a real person who MAY be the person posting here.
          The sad fact MAY be that Dave Hawkins is simply exactly the kind of knucklehead you mentioned.
          It takes a cornucopia of stupid to produce the posts "AFDave" has left here, pungently reeking of his lies, quotemining, false accusations, plagiarism, backing down on bets, refusals to respond to direct questions, etc., but it may just well be that AFDave is the real ignorantly hubristic deal
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Haven't we all known an AFDave?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,07:02



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Haven't we all known an AFDave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          It's interesting--one of the main things I recall about how stupid some people can be was being told, at like 8 years of age, by an adult...that mammals were NOT "animals." The basis of this was that humans are **not animals**, similar to Dave's arguments on primates. Even at 8, I could tell this person foaming at the mouth at me was nuts or stupid. The good thing was that it just made me want to learn more.
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 22 2006,07:29



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Haven't we all known an AFDave?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          I suppose. And I acknowledge that polls consistently indicate that somewhere around half of Americans seem to subscribe to a creationist position, making the "afdave" persona somewhat credible. But I believe the overwhelming majority of those are "casual creationists" - folks who don't know any of the science, don't care to, and don't pretend to care to.

          Things I find suspicious:

          That this guy really thinks he's "won" any of the debates here, despite repeated clear demonstrations of the absurdity of his positions. (Sure, that would pretty much be the definition of "clueless", but that such a clueless boob could be functional enough to feed himself, let alone scour the literature for red herrings like that Bielecki article, stretches my credulity to at least near the breaking point.)

          The provocative use of "unintentional" irony. Case in point: accusing the Scientific/Educational Establishment of "criminal large-scale lying to kids", then (I think within a day or two! ) feigning umbrage at the suggestion that AiG might not be scrupulously honest in its mission to promote The Truth. Such howlers seem like just the sort one would plant in the discussion in order later to be able to say "Bwa-ha! You guys bought that!?!"

          But like I say... it's just an hypothesis. And, like I also said, I'm not averse to playing along. Whatever his motivations,  this has been fun and even educational, for anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think. And, whether it's a cartoon or not, the "afdave" persona illustrates the dangers of religious fundamentalism; there, but for the grace of secular enlightenment, go all of us!
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 22 2006,07:47

          Quote (Russell @ Oct. 22 2006,13:29)
          polls consistently indicate that somewhere around half of Americans seem to subscribe to a creationist position, making the "afdave" persona somewhat credible. But I believe the overwhelming majority of those are "casual creationists" - folks who don't know any of the science, don't care to, and don't pretend to care to.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Russell,

          You could certainly be correct.  It would fit the facts.  But I still have met too many people (even educated ones) who seem unable to grasp the most basic of facts when those facts run counter to their faith.

          Case in point:  I was discussing evolution with my MD a couple weeks ago.  He read Black Box when it came out ('97?) and told me he was impressed by Behe's science.

          I suggested he look at PT to see what scientists are saying about ID and how Behe's "science" falls apart.

          His response made it obvious he didn't care about the facts.  Behe confirmed his faith and that's as far as he wanted to explore.

          Warm milk makes for pleasant dreams.
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 22 2006,08:16

          One more thought...

          Even if AFDave is the real Dave Hawkins, he still may make a "fake" confession at some point in the near future.  It's likely the only way he can save face.

          We'll see.
          Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 22 2006,09:26

          Nah... AFDave is every bit as stupid as he appears.


          Whether he is a fake or real troll is irrelevent.
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 22 2006,09:41

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,07:00)
          APO-AI MILANO AS AN EXAMPLE OF INCREASED SPECIFICITY IS DYING AND IS ON LIFE SUPPORT ... CAN YOU HELP IT LIVE?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Deadman has already kicked your sorry argument in the dèrriere, so I won't add any more to it. But Dave, lets assume that the universe did mold itself to what you stated - how would it help you? The ToE doesn't say that *every* mutation adds "specificity" (which you cannot define consistently) or "information" (which you cannot define consistently). Your "hypothesis", however, *does* claim that every mutation must be "corruptive" (which you somehow define as "better at fighting", "better at running" "better at surviving the cold", "better at catching rats" and so on, which doesn't sound particularly degenerated to me), so all it takes, for us, is to find *one* mutation that does add information and improves anything. We have offered you several, which you have ignored, by the way. So You have lost, lost, lost. Your hypothesis is dead an d you have to revise it to bring it in line with reality. Meanwhile, we've won.

           
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,07:00)

          My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          CORRECTION: your hypothesis has transformed into the following, because of the consequences of the flood which you have yet to acknowledge but that are, nevertheless, there:
          {T}he entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from four parents with no significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 450 years since the Flood.

          This is, of course, obviously false within your own deranged mind since it would require evolution far bigger than you, or any biologist, is ready to accept, so your "position" is ridiculous and false. The fact that you keep repeating your false position without acknowledging the problems is a form of immoral lying called "ignoring inconvenient facts".

           
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,07:00)

          Team Evo is trying to say that ...

          1) Some mutations are good, therefore
          2) If there is such a thing as genetic richness, we have more now than back then
          3) Eric says that Noah would have created a bottleneck
          4) Eric also thinks you can breed Chihuahuas and get Great Dane size dogs
          5) Russell still thinks Grey Wolf was right about eye color
          6) Drew Headley thinks creationists have it wrong about information theory
          7) Improvius is concerned about falsifiability
          8) Cory wants to know my definition of "increasing information"
          9) Mike PSS wants to know about HLA alleles accumulating in only 250 years
          10) AFDave is an imposter who has co-opted the identity of Dave Hawkins

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I see you have managed to forget those inconvenient points that you cannot answer, Dave, so let me add it:
          11) Dave cannot explain how 10 alleles of a single gene became 500 in 13 generations
          12) Dave cannot explain how animals that die outside their very narrow temperature range got from Ararat mountains, in the vicinity of Palestine, to their modern living places (polar bears, penguins, pandas which only eat bambu, kangaroos, any number of insects, etc)
          13) Dave cannot understand that the eye colour isn't evidence for his position, since he cannot tell us Adam's eye colour and how the rest of the colours appeared, genetically. Same with Adam's hair colour, blood type, skin colour and many others
          14) Dave cannot explain how a bacteria capable of digesting nylon evolved without gaining the information of how to digest nylon
          15) Dave cannot explain why it is impossible to breed small dogs to become big, even though any breeder knows is trivially easy, and yet dismises it out of hand as "impossible", without offering any evidence for his position
          16) Dave dismises that an animal with a head is more "human-like" than "worm-like", and that an fish with legs is more "human-like" than "fish-like" and so on along human ancestry, without offering any evidence for his position
          17) Dave cannot answer the easiest question about information theory (what has more information content, white noise or a human speech of same length?), thus showing that any argument he bases on information theory must be wrong, since he doesn't understand the very basis of it.
          18) Dave cannot explain how continents moved thousands of kilometres in hours without boiling the Earth
          19) Dave cannot explain what a "kind" is, since he cannot identify univocally kinds from related animals (are wolves and dogs a kind? two? how about cats and tigers? tigers an lions? bacteria?)
          20) Dave cannot answer the list of 50 questions posed by deadman
          21) Dave cannot answer the list of a bazillion questions posed by eric
          22) Dave doesn't understand how the flood-ice age combination affects his hypothesis, reducing the time he has to evolve all moern species to 450 years, even though it has been explained to him several times
          23) Dave doesn't understand that Adam and any magical properties heve miracles for him are irrelevant to modern genetics due to the ark.
          24) Dave cannot explain how a dog that is better at surviving the cold/faster runner/stronger/etc (and sometimes several of those at once - huskies being a great example) is a "corruption" of his original "mutt" breed
          25) {Tired of typing - others can add their own}

          Just one of these (except 13) is enough to completely destroy your "hypothesis". All together form such an army of problems that any person with a minimum of integrity would stop posting new "facts" (which turn out to be fabrications) and would start at the top and discuss a single one until the people here stopped objecting. Meanwhile, Dave, we have won - your "hypothesis" is dead, based on false facts you mostly made up or copy-pasted from people that made them up, and you lie every time you post that your "hypothesis" is winning in face of all evidence.

          About the only good thing about this is that, if you turn out to be right about God, you will end in He11 for lying. Unfortunately, if *I* turn to be right about God, you will end up in Heaven and we will have to stand you for all eternity. Although it would be worth it just to see your face when you realise that the Universe is more than 10k million years old.

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          Edit: Updated post to reference eric's list of questions
          "{A} bazillion, which {...} can be as high as 100,000,000 if you're counting jellybeans, and as low as 32 if you're counting, say, gunshot wounds." - Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

          ***This post brought to you by the Excessive Use of Inverted Commas Foundation***
          Posted by: Russell on Oct. 22 2006,09:43



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          I was discussing evolution with my MD a couple weeks ago.  He read Black Box when it came out ('97?) and told me he was impressed by Behe's science.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Hmmm... I wonder if I would be guilty of "antireligious bigotry" if I went shopping for a new MD immediately after having that conversation?

          But to be fair: I did read "Black Box" and thought that it was largely well written, and that Behe did a pretty good job conveying the truly impressive complexity of his paradigmatic biochemical systems. My grudging respect for his writing vanished, however, in the last section where he goes off on his "why aren't scientists shouting from the rooftops this most spectacular scientific breakthrough of all time: my revelation of an Intelligent Designer?" shtick. My tentative diagnosis of "seriously delusional" was confirmed last year at the Dover trial.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,10:47

          Grey_Wolf_c:
          I have a list of 50, ericmurphy has a list of more, arranged into categories. I'll add yours, as I'm sure eric will. I'm also sure that anyone, anyone could compile a list of 200 major questions left unaswered and unanswerable my Dave. He's just not very bright-- besides being a plagiarist, quoteminer, liar,etc.
          Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 22 2006,11:40

          Re "Why did god need to rest on the 7th day?"

          Cause after nearly a week of work he felt weak?

          Re "and we could get back to the real issue- which is the history of the portuguese language."

          Wait - that was the main issue here? Huh.

          Re "This thread is a mine of knowledge. "

          Only if one has lots of time to wade through the other stuff and the frequent repetitions* of previous info to find it. :lol:

          *(things repeated because ignored by intended recipient.)

          Re "it's not just me who thinks Noah's ark was a bottleneck;"

          Ah, but bottles probably hadn't been invented yet at the time, so it couldn't have been the neck of one! ;)

          Henry
          Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 22 2006,11:55

          Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 22 2006,16:40)
          Re "This thread is a mine of knowledge. "

          Only if one has lots of time to wade through the other stuff and the frequent repetitions* of previous info to find it. :lol:
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          "For a nugget of gold is worth shifting through a pound of gravel"
          -- Ancient dwarven saying

          "All trees are fell at the same height"
          -- Modern dwarven saying, believed to be a politically correct version of the ancient saying:

          "When his hands are higher than you head, his groin is level with your teeth"
          -- Ancient dwarven saying

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: What do you mean, why did I include the second and third ones? You cannot cite dwarven culture without them, that's why!

          PPD: Shamelessly adapting Pratchett, of course
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 22 2006,12:07

          I think Dave is trying to become a credible reference to the AIG/ICR crowd.  In light of the Dover trial he probably sent off an executive summary :O to the AIG folks with the idea that he would test the admittedly dated AIG website information against a well informed crowd.

          He may have been in contact with some RATE guys before this thread and recognized that RATE II would fare less well unless some contraversial or convincing factoids could be included in the report (we are well past the promised date of publishing RATE II by the way).  Once Dave started rolling he hasn't stopped since our constant refutations of his ideas has made him dig deeper into the AIG cellar for information.  He has also become more particular on references (notice the recent APO-AIMilano) that seemingly support his case.  The fact that posters on this board blow away the arguments within minutes has to be disappointing to Dave.

          Anyway, I think AIG may mildly appreciate his supply of information and treat Dave with a nod and wink, but I don't think they will be bothered to change their attitude too much.  Too much work to change or repaint your stripes.  A lot of their work is preaching to the same audience they have always preached to, so why change the message.
          Quote (ScaryFacts Posted on Oct. 22 2006 @ 13:47)
          His response made it obvious he didn't care about the facts.  Behe confirmed his faith and that's as far as he wanted to explore.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 22 2006,17:27

          I think AliceJohn is right and Afdave is not what he is pretending to be. It is not only the ignorance but also the complete unawareness of the depth of his ignorance, plus being totally oblivious to anything anyone else writes. No-one can possibly have that combination of stupidity and arrogance.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,17:48

          Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 22 2006,23:27)
          I think AliceJohn is right and Afdave is not what he is pretending to be. It is not only the ignorance but also the complete unawareness of the depth of his ignorance, plus being totally oblivious to anything anyone else writes. No-one can possibly have that combination of stupidity and arrogance.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          The he11 they can't. AFDave might be a fraud, but there are absolutely people like him. I have even known a few people who would be worse than AFDave.
          Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 22 2006,17:56

          Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 22 2006,16:55)
          "For a nugget of gold is worth shifting through a pound of gravel"
          -- Ancient dwarven saying

          "All trees are fell at the same height"
          -- Modern dwarven saying, believed to be a politically correct version of the ancient saying:

          "When his hands are higher than you head, his groin is level with your teeth"
          -- Ancient dwarven saying

          Hope that helps,

          Grey Wolf

          PD: What do you mean, why did I include the second and third ones? You cannot cite dwarven culture without them, that's why!

          PPD: Shamelessly adapting Pratchett, of course
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          I will show you a real dwarf, nerd boy! -ds

          ps. I just couldn't help myself.
          Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 22 2006,18:09

          BTW, get used to AFDave. From recent comments I infer that he's not going away any time soon.
          Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 22 2006,18:18



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          BTW, get used to AFDave. From recent comments I infer that he's not going away any time soon.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          hehe...AFDave, the herpes simplex of the ATBC creation/evolution debates.   :D
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 22 2006,18:26

          .
          I'll agree with steve. Like I said earlier, I think Dave's "real" -- he's just nutty, and it's THAT which leads people to think...this guy is a cartoon, he can't be real.
          The scary part is that he CAN be real and there ARE people like him: people that simply block out all contrary data because they have an overweening worldview that CANNOT, in their mind, ever be wrong.

          It seems to me the only real question is this: is Dave learning anything here that *really* can be used against "us?" And if this is even vaguely so, I have no problem with dropping this thread as it is...Dave has made NO headway that I can see, either in refuting modern evolutionary theory, radiometrics, biology/genetics, geology, etc., and he certainly hasn't backed his OWN claims for squat.
          The vast majority of arguments I've made have merely involved searches for data that is already available, although I know some info I gave was... more concealed than other stuff.
           
          To be honest, it's become boring to me, to a large degree, since refuting Dave is actually pretty easy at each turn. His "best" arguments were pretty lame. weren't really his at all, and are long past him-- besides, he definitely can't support his "hypothesis that is better than any other."
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 22 2006,18:32

          Dave,

          I know you want to ignore me but I tore your whole argument down using things less complicated than genetics. Go ahead, AiG the answers. Core samples. I posted, you ignored. Because you can't answer.

          Stupid stupid stupid liar cheat welcher quoteminer plagarist bad bad man. You will go to the bad place for your actions. Where is that again?

          PS did god make sand?
          Posted by: k.e on Oct. 22 2006,19:05



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Did god make sand
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Do you want that in AFDese?

          Well yes...but no...but...but..but...
          Throws dice to pick logical fallacy

          ooops....number 4 ....argument from ignorance ....d@mn dice .....it always gives me that one. OK try another....

          Howabout I just ignore that one BWE...I'm just going to ignore you for no other reason than you make me look stupid

          Meanwhile AFD furiously digs away in the quote mines for some fools gold and burns the midnight oil to prepare another of his tracts...WHICH FOR HIM look no different to real science texts.

          See guys AFD just looks at the big words and the complexity of the sentences to judge whether something looks truthy and sciency enough.

          He knows that the great mindless masses he wants to protect from the devils work (evilution) have no interest or ability to digest the details of one sciency looking tract from another.

          They only ask one question "Does the guy writing it believe in *** (insert favourite cults projected deity, AFD's is the false god of bibliolatry)"

          That to them is the test for "honesty".

          For them "honesty" is not something that can be tested since for them they had to accept the "Big Lie or the Noble Lie" as children, after that it was all down hill.

          "Does god exist" the child asks ..

          Mommy:"Yes"

          Child:"Prove it"

          Mommy:"Accept my lie child and you won't go to h3ll"

          Child:" Fan-fucking-tastic I can lie as much as I want"

          For them the honesty is a lie.


          Got it AFD?

          Now back to our regular program of cold lies served up by a hot aired, hand waving fibber.
          Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 22 2006,19:53

          Davey the Taxi Driver is real. Remember the author of the Pitch article about the monetary shenanigans at Daveys church commented on his frequent use of BOLDED CAPS in correspondance?

          His reponse to a question about Davey was, "Just thinking about ol' Dave gives me a headache."

          Davey's not stupid, he's willfully ignorant (as well as all those other things we call him) which is much worse in my opinion.

          His behavior here makes it clear why his Air Force Career went the way it did despite his protests to the contrary. His comments about a General changing the rules on him after he accepted FAIP duty and avoiding nuclear capable aircraft are also telling.

          I'm sure it would be quite entertaining to read Daveys annual Air Force evals.

          Davey proves he has few original thoughts because he rarely answers questions that don't have ready answers provided for him at AiG or ICR and when he does (see Portuguese Moment) he promptly shoots himself in the foot and retreats from the battlefield (with his hands clasped above his head and his tail between his legs).

          Davey, please explain to me how fossils and sediments can be "sorted" by liquefaction? LIQUEFACTION? Remember we need a sciency explanation and not more hand waving/nose wiggling!


          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 23 2006,04:43

          AFDAVE CAN'T KEEP HIS OWN HYPOTHESIS STRAIGHT!
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:00)
          {NOTE: Edited for content.}
          My position remains that the entire human race with all its variation that we see today could have easily arisen from two parents with a significant amount of heterozygosity (genetic richness) in just 4500 years since the Flood.

          Team Evo is trying to say that ...

          9) Mike PSS wants to know about HLA alleles accumulating in only 250 years


          This post is rather long already, so I will answer some of the other questions later.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Dave,
          The problem above is that this is the timeline YOU proposed for the UCGH.  This isn't my proposal for the 250 years but YOURS.  Your UCGH has only 250 years available for genetic mutation of alleles in ALL the genes, not just HLA.

          Please accept or correct my timeline presented in my < post. >

          THEN REPLY TO THIS QUESTION.  HOW CAN MUTATION ACCOUNT FOR THE HLA VARIABILITY IN THE HUMAN POPULATION IN ONLY 250 YEARS AFTER THE FLOOD!
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,05:12

          Good Morning Dave,

          So, now that you know that Earth is far older than your 6k Years idea, does that make your whole biblical theory bunk?

          I would think that it wouldn't but you have latched on to your inerrancy of the book written 3500 years ago so much that I am wondering if any other parts of your worldview have crumbled. Is there still any reason to be moral? If gOd doesn't care, who does?

          Hope that helps.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,05:33

          ABSURDITY ILLUSTRATED -- WINSTON CHURCHILL VS. WHITE NOISE

          This has got to be the all time winner for dumb questions on this thread.  I won't emabarrass the person who asked it by naming him ... I'll just use it to illustrate how diseased a brain can become when affected by years of "glue sniffing" from the "Brown Bag of Darwinism."

          Here's the question (addressed to me) ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Words fail me ...

          Were it not for the seemingly level headed types like Cory, Drew Headley, Russell and a few others that have at least had some good questions, all might be lost.

          OK, here's an answer ... My answer to this poor questioner would be "Ask the Germans" ... I can assure you that the Nazi Intelligence Division didn't even spend a nano-second trying to decide the answer to this question.  It was quite obvious to them that Churchill's words contained information, white noise did not.  It should be obvious to you also.  I can only hope for your sake that you agree.  If you do not, God help you!

          The source of this poor guy's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of Shannon Information Theory.  He seems to think that "Information = Randomness" which of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.  Here is what Dr. Thomas Schneider of the National Institutes of Health has to say ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Information Is Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty!
          Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
          National Institutes of Health
          National Cancer Institute
          Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
          Molecular Information Theory Group
          Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
          toms@ncifcrf.gov
          < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ >

          There are many many statements in the literature [Talk Origins, for example, although, as I am learning, we unjustly honor this source if we call it "literature"] which say that information is the same as entropy. The reason for this was told by Tribus. The story goes that Shannon didn't know what to call his measure so he asked von Neumann, who said `You should call it entropy ... [since] ... no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage' (Tribus1971).

          Shannon called his measure not only the entropy but also the "uncertainty". I prefer this term because it does not have physical units associated with it. If you correlate information with uncertainty, then you get into deep trouble. Suppose that:

          information ~ uncertainty

          but since they have almost identical formulae:

          uncertainty ~ physical entropy

          so

          information ~ physical entropy

          BUT as a system gets more random, its entropy goes up:

          randomness ~ physical entropy

          so

          information ~ physical randomness

          How could that be? Information is the very opposite of randomness!

          The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

          Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

          If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

          Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:


          R = H(x) - Hy(x)

          "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

          The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure. [like this poor guy here at ATBC and the poor guy at Talk Origins who snookered him]


          As a practical example, consider the sequence logos. Further discussion on this topic is in the < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/bionet.info-theory.faq.html > under the topic I'm Confused: How Could Information Equal Entropy?

          For a more mathematical approach, see the Information Theory Primer.

          Some questions and answers might make these isues more clear.

          < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          BTW, I found this link simply by reading up a little on Shannon Information Theory here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_information > and following the external links at the bottom of the article.

          It is also quite obvious from the example in the Wikipedia article of colored balls that Shannon's "uncertainty" measure most certainly DOES NOT equate to "maximim information" but is in fact the opposite.

          This has got to be one of the most serious gaffes of ATBC members on my threads to date ... even worse than the "Green eyes are the result of a mutation" gaffe.

          It will be quite interesting to see how the originator of this question handles this rebuttal.  Will he admit his error as a gentleman and a scholar should?  Or will he dodge and hide and obfuscate?  

          ********************************************************

          APO AI MILANO: HOW DO ANY OF DEADMAN'S POSTS REFUTE AIG STATEMENTS?

          (Please, Deadman, explain this to my poor little creationist macaque brain)

          APO AI Milano is a mutation ... a random mistake which changes the structure of this protein.  

          A relevant Talk Origins article is found here < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html >
          and the AIG response is found here < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp >

          The main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

          AIG based these points on this 2002 study which talks about the antioxidant activity ...
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis Exhibit an Antioxidant Activity Distinct from That of Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I

          John K. Bielicki* and Michael N. Oda

          Genome Sciences Department, Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, and Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, California 94609-1673

          Received August 23, 2001

          Revised Manuscript Received November 6, 2001

          Abstract:

          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (apoA-IMilano) and apoA-IParis are rare cysteine variants of apoA-I that produce a HDL deficiency in the absence of cardiovascular disease in humans. This paradox provides the basis for the hypothesis that the cysteine variants possess a beneficial activity not associated with wild-type apoA-I (apoA-IWT). In this study, a unique antioxidant activity of apoA-IMilano and apoA-IParis is described. ApoA-IMilano was twice as effective as apoA-IParis in preventing lipoxygenase-mediated oxidation of phospholipids, whereas apoA-IWT was poorly active. Antioxidant activity was observed using the monomeric form of the variants and was equally effective before and after initiation of oxidative events. ApoA-IMilano protected phospholipid from reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated via xanthine/xanthine oxidase (X/Xo) but failed to inhibit X/Xo-induced reduction of cytochrome c. These results indicate that apoA-IMilano was unable to directly quench ROS in the aqueous phase. There were no differences between lipid-free apoA-IMilano, apoA-IParis, and apoA-IWT in mediating the efflux of cholesterol from macrophages, indicating that the cysteine variants interacted normally with the ABCA1 efflux pathway. The results indicate that incorporation of a free thiol within an amphipathic  helix of apoA-I confers an antioxidant activity distinct from that of apoA-IWT. These studies are the first to relate gain of function to rare cysteine mutations in the apoA-I primary sequence.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Gain of function, huh?  Sort of like the guy who lives in Antartica who says "My heater switch on my car broke ... it's stuck on HIGH and HOT!"  OK, so it turns out to be beneficial in his particular sitatuation, but no sane person would say this is an example of improvement.  Broken cars != Improved cars last time I checked.

          As AIG already explained,  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Also, I posted this 1997 study which confirms AIG's statements about cholesterol transport ...
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Evidence That Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Has Reduced Capacity, Compared With Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I, to Recruit Membrane Cholesterol (1997)

          John K. Bielicki; Mark R. McCall; Lori J. Stoltzfus; Amir Ravandi; Arnis Kuksis; Edward M. Rubin; ; Trudy M. Forte

          From the Life Sciences Division 1-213, Department of Molecular and Nuclear Medicine, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley.

          Correspondence to John K. Bielicki, Life Sciences Division 1-213, Department of Molecular and Nuclear Medicine, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

          Abstract Human carriers of apolipoprotein (apo) A-IMilano are heterozygous for an Arg173Cys substitution in the apoA-I primary sequence; despite severe reductions in HDL cholesterol concentrations, affected individuals do not develop coronary heart disease, suggesting that apoA-IMilano may possess antiatherogenic properties. As the beneficial effects of wild-type apoA-I are linked to its role in HDL cholesterol transport, we examined the capacity of apoA-IMilano to recruit cell cholesterol and activate lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) (two key events in the antiatherogenic reverse cholesterol transport pathway). ApoA-IMilano and wild-type apoA-I were expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells, and their ability to recruit membrane phospholipid and cholesterol for the assembly of nascent HDL was compared. Both clonal cell lines exhibited similar levels of apolipoprotein accumulation in serum-free medium (2 µg/mg cell protein per 24 hours), and 15% of each apolipoprotein was associated with membrane lipids to form nascent HDL (d=1.063 to 1.21 g/mL). SDS-PAGE showed that a majority (66±12%) of the lipidated apoA-IMilano was in the homodimer form. Compositional analyses revealed that apoA-IMilano nascent HDL had a significantly lower (P<.001) unesterified cholesterol/phospholipid mole ratio (0.47±0.10) than wild-type apoA-I complexes (1.29±0.14), indicating that apoA-IMilano had a reduced capacity to recruit cell cholesterol. In addition to the reduced unesterified cholesterol/phospholipid ratio, apoA-IMilano nascent HDL consisted mostly of small 7.4-nm particles compared with wild-type apoA-I, in which 11- and 9-nm particles predominated. Despite these changes in nascent HDL particle size and composition, apoA-IMilano activated LCAT normally. We conclude that, even though apoA-IMilano is a normal activator of LCAT, it is less efficient than wild-type apoA-I in recruiting cell cholesterol, suggesting that the putative antiatherogenic properties attributed to apoA-IMilano may be unrelated to the initial stages of reverse cholesterol transport. < http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/atvbaha;17/9/1637 >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So according to this, the mutant form DOESN'T WORK AS WELL as the wild form in the function for which it was designed.  (That's what "less efficient" means).  To my knowledge, no article to date disagrees with this, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

          True, it has an apparent accidental benefit -- better antioxidant qualities, but as we pointed out, this does not represent a gain in specificity, and can only be construed as "beneficial" in the context of our modern, terrible eating habits which cause so much heart disease.

          (Just like if you are stupid enough to subject yourself to the extreme living conditions in Antartica, then yes, it might be a benefit to you for your car heater switch to break on HIGH and HOT.)

          Now Deadman jumps in and says "Nyah, nyah ... you cited a 1997 article, you dummy!" and posts this to refute me ...
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          G. Chiesa, E. Monteggia, M. Marchesi, P. Lorenzon, M. Laucello, V. Lorusso, C. Di Mario, E. Karvouni, R. S.
          Newton, C. L. Bisgaier, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori (2002) "Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Infusion Into Rabbit Carotid Artery Rapidly Removes Lipid From Fatty Streaks." Circ. Res., May 17, 2002; 90(9): 974 - 980.       Quote  

          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (AIM), a natural variant of human apolipoprotein A-I, confers to carriers a significant protection against vascular disease... These results suggest AIM-PL complexes enhanced lipid removal from arteries is the mechanism responsible for the observed plaque changes
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          How does this refute anything AIG has said?  Isn't this article simply talking about the antioxidant thing?  Am I missing something?  Can you cite more of the paper so this question can be answered?  You wouldn't want to be accused of quote mining, now, would you?  I know you are particularly sensitive to that sort of thing.

          Again the main points of the AIG article are that ...

          1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs. (2002 study above, and the 1997 study)
          2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation
          3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
          4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

          You've taken on an enormous burden, guys, to try and convince me that this is a "beneficial mutation" ... many have tried with other examples and failed.

          *************************************

          And again, to bring us back to the relevant discussion ... your team (Team Evo) is claiming that Noah and his colleagues would have caused a great bottleneck.  I think this is based on your erroneous assumption that mutations are the primary source of variability in species.

          On the contrary,the massive variability in species is BUILT IN !!  As can be demonstrated quite easily simply with an easy experiment ...

          Take a male and female "mutt" dog pair and breed them ... what do you get?  Lots of variability.  Now keep breeding and isolate 3 different populations and keep them separate.  What do you think you will get?

          Distinct dog breeds with WIDE VARIATION!

          How many generations does this take to see siginificant variation?  4 or 5 generations, maybe?  Actually, you will see wide variation in color and some variation in size and other features in JUST ONE GENERATION !!!
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,05:50

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,10:33)
          ABSURDITY ILLUSTRATED -- WINSTON CHURCHILL VS. WHITE NOISE

          This has got to be the all time winner for dumb questions on this thread.  I won't emabarrass the person who asked it by naming him ... I'll just use it to illustrate how diseased a brain can become when affected by years of "glue sniffing" from the "Brown Bag of Darwinism."

          Here's the question (addressed to me) ...     "Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?"

          Words fail me ...

          Were it not for the seemingly level headed types like Cory, Drew Headley, Russell and a few others that have at least had some good questions, all might be lost.

          OK, here's an answer ... My answer to this poor questioner would be "Ask the Germans" ... I can assure you that the Nazi Intelligence Division didn't even spend a nano-second trying to decide the answer to this question.  It was quite obvious to them that Churchill's words contained information, white noise did not.  It should be obvious to you also.  I can only hope for your sake that you agree.  If you do not, God help you!

          The source of this poor guy's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of Shannon Information Theory.  He seems to think that "Information = Randomness" which of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.  Here is what Dr. Thomas Schneider of the National Institutes of Health has to say ...    
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, you're an idiot. You don't know what the definition of "information" is, which is why it is utterly pointless to discuss anything about "information" in the context of genetics.

          The proper answer to the question I posed is "b) a digitial recording of broadband white noise." In fact, broadband white noise is the type of signal that has maximal information. It is impossible to construct a signal that has more information than white noise.

          The reason you got this question wrong, Dave, is because you're too freaking lazy to do any research that involves looking anywhere other than AiG. If you looked up the terms "Shannon," or "Kolomogorov," and "information," you could have found the answer to this question in less than five minutes. But instead, in your collossal ignorance, you assumed you knew the answer. You were wrong. As usual.

          Now, your next homework assignment is to explain why it is true that a digital recording of broadband white noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech of the same length. Are you up to the challenge, or are you too lazy?

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          There are many many statements in the literature [Talk Origins, for example, although, as I am learning, we unjustly honor this source if we call it "literature"] which say that information is the same as entropy. The reason for this was told by Tribus. The story goes that Shannon didn't know what to call his measure so he asked von Neumann, who said `You should call it entropy ... [since] ... no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage' (Tribus1971).

          Shannon called his measure not only the entropy but also the "uncertainty". I prefer this term because it does not have physical units associated with it. If you correlate information with uncertainty, then you get into deep trouble. Suppose that:

          information ~ uncertainty

          but since they have almost identical formulae:

          uncertainty ~ physical entropy

          so

          information ~ physical entropy

          BUT as a system gets more random, its entropy goes up:

          randomness ~ physical entropy

          so

          information ~ physical randomness

          How could that be? Information is the very opposite of randomness!

          The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

          Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

          If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

          Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:


          R = H(x) - Hy(x)

          "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

          The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure. [like this poor guy here at ATBC and the poor guy at Talk Origins who snookered him]


          As a practical example, consider the sequence logos. Further discussion on this topic is in the < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/bionet.info-theory.faq.html > under the topic I'm Confused: How Could Information Equal Entropy?

          For a more mathematical approach, see the Information Theory Primer.

          Some questions and answers might make these isues more clear.

          < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

          BTW, I found this link simply by reading up a little on Shannon Information Theory here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_information > and following the external links at the bottom of the article.

          It is also quite obvious from the example in the Wikipedia article of colored balls that Shannon's "uncertainty" measure most certainly DOES NOT equate to "maximim information" but is in fact the opposite.

          This has got to be one of the most serious gaffes of ATBC members on my threads to date ... even worse than the "Green eyes are the result of a mutation" gaffe.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Nice try, Dave. Now, when you do your little research project I assigned you, you might want to look up the term "compressibility," and see what that has to do with Shannon Information. And remember, Dave: you don't get to make up definitions for things that are already defined in the literature. Shannon Information is a well-defined term, it's used constantly in information theory, and you don't get to change it to serve your purposes.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,06:00

          Just to get you started, Dave, you might want to read this little < snippet: >

           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          hi roger

          this is essential reading. although i hadn't read shannon's work before i wrote about binary exchange, it is an excellent discussion of the ideas.

          the important concept is entropy (as in the second law of thermodynamics). basically it's a measure of messiness (i explain to non
          scientists/engineers as "weeds grow"). in a closed system entropy increases. the only way to make entropy decrease is to add energy. that
          was the criticism of my paper on binary xml - entropy applies to energy.

          well it's also used in information theory as a measure if order. something that is well ordered (has little information) has low entropy. something that has a lot of information (not well ordered) has high entropy. this then dictates the degree to which something can be compressed. if there is a lot of information you can't compress it very well. if there's not much information then it compresses very well.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          (my emph.)
          Now, let me ask you this, Dave? Which is more "well ordered": a Winston Churchill speech, or a digital recording of broadband white noise?

          I can see now that this is going to turn into another "Portuguese moment" for Dave, where he will never, ever admit he's wrong here, and months from now will claim he's "won" this particular debate. That's okay, though. At least he answered my question, even though he answered it wrong.

          I wonder if he'll ever answer my question as to whether 500 is a larger number than sixteen, or smaller…
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,06:17

          Hi Dave,

          I notice that you have chosen to ignore my posts. Why are you continuing to argue your position now that you know it is wrong?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,06:21

          Eric ... don't dig your hole any deeper.

          I DID read up on Shannon Information theory before I posted ...

          And so did Dr. Thomas D. Schneider, National Institutes of Health, before HE posted ...

          You have a hopelessly backwards understanding of Shannon's Theory.

          Did you not even read Shannon's own writings that I posted?  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:


          R = H(x) - Hy(x)

          "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

          The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure. [like this poor guy here at ATBC and the poor guy at Talk Origins who snookered him]
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          **************************

          Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.

          ***************************

          And yes, we ARE having another "Portuguese moment" ... I won that one so thoroughly that all Arden could do was call me names ... he was speechless otherwise.

          If you continue to try to say white noise has greater information content than a W. Churchill speech, then you too will look as foolish as Arden did.

          Do you want to become famous on my blog?  How would you like to be known to all future Google searches via my blog as the poster boy for "Most Wacko Understanding of Shannon Information Theory in the History of the Planet" ...??
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,06:24

          DAVE CAN'T READ FOR COMPREHENSION -- CAN ANYONE HELP HIM?
          Yes, that's right. Little Dave is afflicted with a severe form of aphasia that renders him incapable of reading for actual comprehension. Isn't there anyone at AtBC that can use words simple enough (preferably monosyllables) to help him grasp simple concepts?

          Read Dave's posts. He cites the same Bielicki paper twice, apparently thinking they are two different papers. Note that posts the same paper twice and the second time he says "this" paper as if it were different from the same paper he just posted.
          Note that in his first post, he talks about antioxidant properties...but the very Bielicki paper he cites notes a GAIN in antioxidant properties in Milano as opposed to wild-type A-I.
          Okay, so Dave doesn't consider an INCREASE in antioxidative properties an "improvement." Great, Dave's not very bright, as we all know, but even more amusing is the next bit.
          ***********************************************************************
          Dave cites the same Bielicki paper to show that Milano doesn't "assemble" (bind) cholesterol as effectively as apoA-I (the "wild-type" variant). Then he cites the paper I posted. Notice the relevant terms bolded:


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (AIM), a natural variant of human apolipoprotein A-I, confers to carriers a significant protection against vascular disease... These results suggest AIM-PL complexes enhanced lipid removal from arteries is the mechanism responsible for the observed plaque changes.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          AIM-PL is AI-Milano phospholipid. It removes ARTERIAL PLAQUES. This is not "antioxidation". Dave asks " How does this refute anything AIG has said? Isn't this article simply talking about the antioxidant thing? Am I missing something? "

          Yeah, you're missing something, Dave. It's called comprehension

          Dave then asks for more clarification, despite me citing a much more recent paper : Wang L, Sharifi BG, Pan T, et al. (2006). Bone marrow transplantation shows superior atheroprotective effects of gene therapy with apolipoprotein A-I Milano compared with wild-type apolipoprotein A-I in hyperlipidemic mice. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY 48 (7): 1459-1468 OCT 3 2006 which states clearly ( And I had bolded it in my post):


          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RESULTS Compared with vector control (n = 12), apoA-IMilano gene therapy (n = 15) reduced aortic atherosclerosis by 65% (p < 0.001) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 58% (p < 0.0001), whereas wild-type apoA-I (n = 11) reduced atherosclerosis by 25% (p = 0.1) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 23% (p < 0.05). The apoA-IMilano gene therapy was significantly more effective in reducing atherosclerosis (p < 0.05) and macrophage immunoreactivity (p < 0.001) compared with wild-type apoA-I. The circulating levels of cholesterol, lipoprotein profile, and apoA-IMilano or wild-type apoA-I were comparable among the groups. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano was more effective than wild-type apoA-I in promoting macrophage cholesterol efflux.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Remember, AiG's claims were that "the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs" and that "the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation"

          Okay, bright boy...IF the antioxidant property is NOT a function of the mutation....why is the mutation's antioxidation BETTER? And IF the protein LOST function...WHY DOES IT BIND TO AND ELIMINATE CHOLESTEROL MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN THE "WILD-TYPE?"

          Yes, I have lots more citations directly contradicting AiG's claims, but the above is sufficient . The mutation GAINED efficiency in binding AND effluxing cholesterol, Dave, it GAINED in antioxidation properties. The above citation is just the tip of the iceberg that sank your AiG Titanic. It went down with all hands on deck, no survivors.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 23 2006,06:44

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:21)
          Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          How can you tell the difference between a corrupted and uncorrupted allele? This is an important question for your hypothesis, Dave.  If you can't tell the difference, then your whole concept of "corrupted alleles" is garbage.

          Of course, the ramifications of answering this question are just going to be more and more problematic for you.  So you'd probably be better off dodging it like you do most of the others.
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,06:50

          The really funny part is that Dave was given a total of EIGHT citations on cholesterol binding and transport in efflux, all of which contradict his claims. EIGHT so far. And, yep, there's LOTS more.

          AND HOW MANY PAPERS DID THE AIG ARTICLE CITE? NONE.
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,06:53

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,11:21)
          Eric ... don't dig your hole any deeper.

          I DID read up on Shannon Information theory before I posted ...

          And so did Dr. Thomas D. Schneider, National Institutes of Health, before HE posted ...

          You have a hopelessly backwards understanding of Shannon's Theory.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          No, Dave, I'm not digging a hole any deeper; you are. The correct answer to my question remains as I gave it. You still haven't looked at how "compressibility" works into information theory, and you haven't seen how it affects the information content of the human genome. Come back to me when you understand the concept, because until you do, you're lost in yet another "Portuguese moment."



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          So then how do you explain the fact that 500 alleles at the HLA locus is vastly more effective than the 16 alleles that could have been present after the Noachian flood?

          Again: "genetic richness" used to mean "more variability." Now, according to Dave, "genetic richness" means "less variability."

          Try to keep track of your own hypothesis, Dave, and waste less time trying to disprove other theories.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          And yes, we ARE having another "Portuguese moment" ... I won that one so thoroughly that all Arden could do was call me names ... he was speechless otherwise.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          This is exactly why it means absolutely nothing when you say you "won" an argument, Dave.



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          If you continue to try to say white noise has greater information content than a W. Churchill speech, then you too will look as foolish as Arden did.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Yes. Precisely as foolish, Dave. And you'll look just as foolish on this point as you did in your "Portuguese moment."



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Do you want to become famous on my blog?  How would you like to be known to all future Google searches via my blog as the poster boy for "Most Wacko Understanding of Shannon Information Theory in the History of the Planet" ...??
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Sure, Dave. Go right ahead. Not that it will matter; I doubt anyone who reads your blog for anything other than entertainment will ever understand why you're wrong anyway.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,06:55

          Improv...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How can you tell the difference between a corrupted and uncorrupted allele? This is an important question for your hypothesis, Dave.  If you can't tell the difference, then your whole concept of "corrupted alleles" is garbage.

          Of course, the ramifications of answering this question are just going to be more and more problematic for you.  So you'd probably be better off dodging it like you do most of the others.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          What have I dodged?  Not enough time in a day for one guy to answer 20 guys?  True.  Dodged?  No.  

          I think the way you tell the difference is "does it show a loss or a gain in specificity"?  Or is it neutral?  There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of documented harmful ones (loss of specificity), but I know of only two which evolutionists even still try to promote:  the nylon-eating bacteria and this APO AI milano one.

          Grey Wolf assures me that "there must be hundreds of beneficial mutations" but he has yet two show these to me.  He even was trying to recruit some of you to try and think of some examples of multiple alleles of a particular gene controlling some physical feature.  This was after I refuted his "eye color allele" nonsense.  I don't think anyone has responded yet.

          DM...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          RESULTS Compared with vector control (n = 12), apoA-IMilano gene therapy (n = 15) reduced aortic atherosclerosis by 65% (p < 0.001) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 58% (p < 0.0001), whereas wild-type apoA-I (n = 11) reduced atherosclerosis by 25% (p = 0.1) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 23% (p < 0.05). The apoA-IMilano gene therapy was significantly more effective in reducing atherosclerosis (p < 0.05) and macrophage immunoreactivity (p < 0.001) compared with wild-type apoA-I. The circulating levels of cholesterol, lipoprotein profile, and apoA-IMilano or wild-type apoA-I were comparable among the groups. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano was more effective than wild-type apoA-I in promoting macrophage cholesterol efflux.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          Again, the AIG article was based on a 2002 paper, but this 2006 article does not seem to refute the AIG info ...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred.  The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.

          Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I will admit, I am no expert on all this yet ... I just know that Darwinists have been trying for years to find a "beneficial mutation" and I still don't see an convincing case for an increase in specificity with this mutation ... not saying I won't see it in a couple of days after more study, but this one quote does not convince me.

          *********************************

          Deadman ...

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          AND HOW MANY PAPERS DID THE AIG ARTICLE CITE? NONE.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          Deadman ... have you even read the AIG paper?

          They cite the 2002 paper that I gave the abstract for.

          Be careful how arrogant you act.  Pride goeth before a fall.  I'm not finished investigating this thing yet.  Don't be too quick to declare victory!
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,06:58

          Quote (BWE @ Oct. 20 2006,12:59)
          Ha ha ha ha. Boy, I forgot how good google is. This guy already assembled my list. Duh!

          Well, I can't take credit for the work anymore but it is very concise.
           

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             Age Dating Correlations

             For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is:

                 *     8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California
                 *   10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
                 *   45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
                 * ...  corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
                 * 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
                 * 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
                 * 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
                 * ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
                 * Even greater age corroborated by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
                 * ... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites
                 * and a "hmmm" to close with.

             I started with a post on a Netscape Message Board (Msg#110611 [Age Dating] thread, hyperlinked new), making some typo corrections, replacing some broken links (and associated quotes) and reformatting it into a more readable essay and finally, expanded it by adding some further bits of information. It started originally with a discussion of Velikovsky's catastrophe hypothesis as posted on Ginenthals website. I've posted some of this a couple of times now, but felt it should be put together on a webpage, because it is important to understand the kind of thing scientists do to validate their methods.

             All references are hyperlinked for further study.

             The bottom Line? All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap, thus they corroborate each other even though they are based on different environments, different methods and different evidence. For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a short (4-5 day?) period, and it would have to mimic it to such an extent that it would be experienced by any living plant or creature as an actual annual time period.

             Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).

             Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

          < link >
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,

          Your problem is that you are wrong. The subjective stuff even. How can people be wrong about subjective things you might ask. I too, used to ponder this question. But after reading your posts, I am left with other questions about humanity which push the subjective question back to the little dark corners of my mind.

          Please address the stratified dating methods. They do offer conclusive evidence and AiG can't answer them and neither can you. Unless you do it portuguese style.

          PS: I, unlike you, will leave my challenge open to you. Should you wish to engage in a debate about the origins of the portuguese language, I still offer to take either side and offer up a post on the other's blog to the winner.

          Should you choose to accept, I will start a separate thread. I am sure that it would provide a bit of entertainment at the very least.
          Posted by: k.e on Oct. 23 2006,07:00

          Ah DHDave I'm here to tell you, you were conclusively punked on your piss weak Portugese claim.

          I'm quite happy to have that argument all over again.

          And by the way how old is the French Lanuage as spoken in all of France today?

          Hint ....no more than 100 years old .....shocking isn't it.

          For someone who admits to never having studied either language and has never learn't Latin, the parent of both languages your chosen logical fallacy in this case is the argument from ignorance.

          Dave you lost and nothing you can say will change it.

          edit ?Ci Oui?
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 23 2006,07:12

          AFDAVE MUDDIES THE WATERS BUT DOESN'T ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS IN HIS UCGH - NEWS AT 11
          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:21)
          Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave,
          I have a couple questions,

          Which of the....  Ermmm.....

          WHICH 16 HLA ALLELES (I'M BEING GENEROUS HERE) WERE PRESENT ON NOAH'S ARK?

          HOW CAN THE REMAINING 484 ALLELES OF HLA APPEAR IN ONLY 250 YEARS?
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,07:19

          You cited an article, Dave. The article contains no references. The Bielicki article was from 1997. Lots has happened since then, and I further noted that Bielicki was using a different model than other studies, such as those of Franceschini. This is why Bielicki dropped his investigations along those lines and you don't see any follow-ups. Got it? Write that down!

          Oh, and Dave, I gave you a link for LOTS of beneficial human mutations. You just let your aphasia take over there, too and you still haven't dealt with that little nylon-eating mutation, have you?

          WAVING YOUR HANDS WON'T HELP YOU FLY, BABY.

          Here are the facts, Jack:
          1. AIMilano shows INCREASED antioxidant properties.
          2. Milano shows INCREASED binding/efflux properties compared to wild-type apoAI.
          GOT THAT? WRITE IT DOWN, TOO!
          Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2006,07:24

          Dave, information theory is the least of your problems. You've been asked a hundred of questions you cannot answer, the fact that mutation rates must have been hundreds of times higher than they are today, for a start. And this has NOTHING to do with genetic "corruption" or adaptation.

          But you're dodging the question, as always.
          Posted by: improvius on Oct. 23 2006,07:25

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:55)
          Improv...  

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          How can you tell the difference between a corrupted and uncorrupted allele? This is an important question for your hypothesis, Dave.  If you can't tell the difference, then your whole concept of "corrupted alleles" is garbage.

          Of course, the ramifications of answering this question are just going to be more and more problematic for you.  So you'd probably be better off dodging it like you do most of the others.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



          I think the way you tell the difference is "does it show a loss or a gain in specificity"?  Or is it neutral?  There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of documented harmful ones (loss of specificity), but I know of only two which evolutionists even still try to promote:  the nylon-eating bacteria and this APO AI milano one.
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          That still doesn't mean anything.  Loss or gain as compared to what?  Or are you simply saying that less information = corrupted and more information = pure?  In which case, that would make XXYs less corrupted than almost anyone else, right?
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,07:27

          It DOES contains references ... here they are again ...

          For the original paper, see: Bielicki, J.K., Oda, M.N., Apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) and apolipoprotein A-I(Paris) exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I, Biochemistry 41(6):2089-96, 2002.

          It's about 15 lines up from the bottom of the AIG article ...

          In fairness to you, I missed it the first time I read it too.
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,07:36

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,11:55)
          1)What have I dodged?  Not enough time in a day for one guy to answer 20 guys?  True.  Dodged?  No.  

          2)I think the way you tell the difference is "does it show a loss or a gain in specificity"?  Or is it neutral?  

          3)Grey Wolf assures me that "there must be hundreds of beneficial mutations" but he has yet two show these to me.

          4)This was after I refuted his "eye color allele" nonsense.  I don't think anyone has responded yet.

          5)Again, the AIG article was based on a 2002 paper, but this 2006 article does not seem to refute the AIG info ...  

          6)I will admit, I am no expert on all this yet ... I just know that Darwinists have been trying for years to find a "beneficial mutation" and I still don't see an convincing case for an increase in specificity with this mutation ... not saying I won't see it in a couple of days after more study, but this one quote does not convince me.

          *********************************
          7)Deadman ... have you even read the AIG paper?


          8)Be careful how arrogant you act.  Pride goeth before a fall.  I'm not finished investigating this thing yet.  Don't be too quick to declare victory!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ok, I snipped his post up a little here. Let's look at it:

          1) You dodged the part where you lost. That would be annual stratifications.
          2) The way you tell the difference is you turn it over and look.
          3) Ok, I will show them to you. Sickle cells in malaria areas. Shorter limbs in colder areas. Lighter skin where there is less sun. Hibernation where the seasons are extreme. Is that the right kind of thing? I could also point to some interesting things about various kinds of rockfish maturing significantly faster than they used to but the science is waaay too much for you.

          4) Eye color is a combination of genes and therefore a combination of alleles. However, because the point was not strong enough, the poster chose to withdraw the comment's usefulness. The problem actually is your childish understanding of the concepts. It is just too difficult to explain what is going on in dominant and recessive genes. So, since eye color was determined to be a dead end in this discussion, no one has brought it back up.
          5) But AiG is published by idiots who lie for Jesus. Only dumbshots like you give them any credibility.
          6) Yep.
          7) Honestly Dave, It's published at AiG. He doesn't have to. It's wrong or else he can get better info somewhere else. AiG has nothing to offer. They publish deliberately false information in order to perpetuate their provincial jEsus Lie.
          8) And, when you do finish? Do you suspect that you will still have a point?

          Dave,

          Your hypothesis has been flayed, dragged through the mud, jumped up and down on and we've all learned that Fundies have a serious lying problem. Because of you, I will never trust another xian again. Guilty by association.

          I provided the only bit of evidence you need. You don't need to understand genetics to get it. But I have demonstrated that Earth is at least a half a million years old and the c-14 dating does have a calibration tool that makes it effective.

          By all means though, keep posting. It's good to be able to see through the arguments that AiG lies to convince the brainwashed gOd huggers that their brains are mush and:

          Wooden Jesus where are you from?
          Korea or Canada, maybe Taiwan?
          I didn't know it was the holy land.
          But I believed from the minute the check left my hand
          And I pray.

          Can I be saved, I spent all my money
          On a future grave
          Wooden Jesus I'll cut you in on twenty percent of my future sin

          Porcelain Mary her majesties pure
          Looking for virgin territory
          Coat hanger halos don't come cheap
          From television  shepheds with living room sheep,
          And I pray.

          Can I be saved,I spent all my money on a future grave
          Wooden Jesus I'll cut you in on twenty percent of my future sin.

          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,07:45

          Dave, are you ever going to answer the question? How did you get from 16 (max) HLA alleles to 500 in 250 years? At mutation rates that wouldn't drive the species to extinction?

          Actually, I think Mike's being generous. I think you have to go from 16 alleles to 500 instantaneously, given your "flood" timeline. But in any event, it doesn't matter whether you think those 484 extra alleles are good, bad, or indifferent. Your "better explanation" had better come up with an explanation for how they got there, or it's going to be a "worse explanation."
          Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,07:52

          You're absolutely right for the first time that I've had to admit, Dave. The Bielicki paper is mentioned in the text of that AiG "paper.'

          The funny part is that the AiG "paper" is from 2003. The Bielicki research is from 1997. They give NO OTHER citations, just as you did not, Dave.

          Real science papers use standard citations at the END of the article/paper in question. Real science papers do thorough searches to see if anything has changed in the SIX YEARS since Bielicki did his paper. REAL science papers would have noted that all subsequent work showed that Milano was both more efficient in binding and antioxidation.

          This is why AiG is laughed at, baboo. This is why YOU are laughed at. Now go look at the beneficial human mutations I cited. There are a ton of other examples in other species, too, contrary to your vast or should I say HALF-VAST  ignorance. Ah, I like good puns.

          Oh,and Dave...all anyone has to do is show ONE valid example. You lost already.
          Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,08:35

          I'm not sure which paper you are referring to as the 2003 paper ...

          This is the 2002 Bielicki paper that the AIG article refers to ...

          For the original paper, see: Bielicki, J.K., Oda, M.N., Apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) and apolipoprotein A-I(Paris) exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I, Biochemistry 41(6):2089-96, 2002.

          I don't have the full paper yet, so I cannot confirm or deny that any of Bielicki's 2002 conclusions have been proven wrong.

          Understand that I (and AIG) are not arguing that there is not increased antioxidant activity.

          More analysis when I have more data.  Outta time for now.

          ***********************************

          PS Does anybody else want to jump on the "White Noise contains more information that a Winston Churchill speech" bandwagon?
          Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,08:41

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,13:35)
          PS Does anybody else want to jump on the "White Noise contains more information that a Winston Churchill speech" bandwagon?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Dave, everyone's already on that bandwagon. The information content of a signal is directly proportional to its compressibility. How compressible is white noise? How redundant is human speech?

          Did you read the quote I posted? Or does your cognitive dissonance prevent you from reading things that contradict your worldview?
          Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 23 2006,08:41

          Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:55)
          Be careful how arrogant you act.  Pride goeth before a fall.  I'm not finished investigating this thing yet.  Don't be too quick to declare victory!
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Ironic, no?
          Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,08:41



          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
          Dave says:
          PS Does anybody else want to jump on the "White Noise contains more information that a Winston Churchill speech" bandwagon?
          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          Any topic dave. I'll take any side of any topic. You are so stupid that you can't argur that water is wet.

          PS, you are aware that I showed you evidence that Earth (may we bath in her holy nurturing waters) is older than 6k years, right?
          Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 23 2006,08:52

          EASY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UCGH THAT DAVE DOESN'T ANSWER!

          Dave,
          I responded to a lurker a few days back about the post-flood timeline.  I went back to your original UCG hypothesis post to piece together the timeline.  
          LOOK AT THE BOLDED COMMENTS IN THE UCGH POINTS.    
          Quote (afdave @ Original UCGH from May2006)
          C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

          D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

          G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

          H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

          I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

          J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

          K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

          ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


          From these points I had to deduce some facts.  
          I need you to confirm these facts from YOUR hypothesis.

          • THE ARK LANDED IN WHAT IS TODAY TURKEY.
          • THE POST-FLOOD/PRE-ICE AGE TIME WAS ONLY ~50 YEARS.
          • THE TOWER OF BABEL HAPPENED AFTER THE FLOOD BUT BEFORE (OR EARLY INTO) THE ICE AGE.
          • THE ICE AGE LASTED TWO HUNDRED YEARS AT MOST.
          • POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS).
          • WRITTEN HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS THAT ARE VERIFIED IN EGYPT AND SUMERIA POST DATE THE ICE AGE BY 50 TO 100 YEARS (THE TIME NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE NOBILITY HEIERARCHY AND DYNASTIC FAMILIES IN THESE KINGDOMS).

            These are your claims Dave, not mine.  My only question about this is:
            HOW DID HLA ALLELIC DIVERSITY OCCUR IN ONLY 250 YEARS WHEN THE ARK HAD AT MOST ONLY 16 ALLELES (GENETICALLY RICH OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER).

            Oh,
            and Dave,
            WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY < REFUTATION > OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM!
            Posted by: Tim on Oct. 23 2006,09:04

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 22 2006,12:02)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Haven't we all known an AFDave?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            It's interesting--one of the main things I recall about how stupid some people can be was being told, at like 8 years of age, by an adult...that mammals were NOT "animals." The basis of this was that humans are **not animals**, similar to Dave's arguments on primates. Even at 8, I could tell this person foaming at the mouth at me was nuts or stupid. The good thing was that it just made me want to learn more.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Heh.

            This reminds me of my old headmistress in primary school. She was a
            religious nut and used to take us kids for weekly Religious Education
            classes.

            After going through the detail of yet another bible-story, a kid put his
            hand up and asked the question;
            "Where were the dinosaurs while all this was going on?"

            After a brief pause, her straight-faced answer was;
            "They were in other countries"

            Speechless? We certainly were.

            Any young minds in our class with any lingering doubts about the scientific
            merit of biblical allegory had them swiftly dispelled with that little gem.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2006,09:06

            Re "POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS)."

            To continents that didn't then have any local wildlife to serve as food for the migrants? ;) :D  :p  :O
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 23 2006,09:19

            Just dropping by to see whether Dave is keeping his record for consecutive more-moronicism-with-each-successive-post record intact.

            Check.

            Useful information consistently offered by Dave's instructors.

            Check.

            Dave, seriously, dude, it's a good thing that, in real life, you live in a community of people at least as stupid and uneducable as yourself and that the internet affords you the grace of anonymity.  Otherwise, you'd have to walk around with your face hidden behind your jacket, like a politician being dragged off to the Happy Haven for Child Molesters.

            Otherwise, you'd be the laughing stock of the world.  Such a hopeless maroon.  

            Dave, name a single contributor to this thread who agrees that you "won" the PM trouncing--heck, go out and flag down non-aligned people on the street, invite them to come to this thread, demonstrate that they've read just the Portugueses moment" comments, and then see if any of them will agree that you "won."  It simply isn't happening, you hapless maroon.

            You lost.

            You've lost every single dispute that you've had with every single contributor to this topic about every single thing that you've ever claimed (a very few minor matters aside, like the honestly-admitted overlooking of one outdated and feeble "citation" that occurred on this page--too bad you never seem to appreciate how it looks for you when your opponents do freely admit their occasional honest errors, while you are reduced to endlessly recycling your pitiable false claims of having "won" dispute after dispute in which your positions have been reduced to smoking carnage).

            That's how it looks to anyone not trapped inside Dave-world, you maroon.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,09:40

            You want to show us up Dave? Ok, admit that your been AiG'ed. (You know, lied to by xians)

            And, by the way, in case I wasn't clear, I will debate the information thing with you from either side. (White Noise)

            Boy, maybe you don't know how bad it looks to have me keep offering that. :)
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2006,09:44

            Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 23 2006,14:19)
            ... in which your positions have been reduced to smoking carnage).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            While you turn a lovely phrase Steviepinhead, I'm not sure "smoking carnage" is really appropriate, as it seems to imply the wreckage of something substantial that once stood.  Perhaps I might suggest "ephemeral ashes of a small paper house set alight by a cheap bic lighter" to connotate the fragility of the original structure of Dave's "hypothesis", and the ease with which it is destroyed.
            Posted by: Ved on Oct. 23 2006,09:49



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [afdave's] opponents do freely admit their occasional honest errors
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Actually Dave HAS admitted a few errors of the same magnitude, just nothing any larger than those since the one he's contacted AIG about...
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 23 2006,09:53

            BWE...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            3) Ok, I will show them to you. Sickle cells in malaria areas. Shorter limbs in colder areas. Lighter skin where there is less sun. Hibernation where the seasons are extreme. Is that the right kind of thing? I could also point to some interesting things about various kinds of rockfish maturing significantly faster than they used to but the science is waaay too much for you.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes, I'm seeing the pattern of how you guys think ... lump mutations (like sickle cell) in with predesigned variability (like skin color), call it evolution and pretend that it is the great miracle working god that can do all things ... turn a fish into a dinosaur, turn a chimp into BWE, etc., etc.   Hail Darwin!

            BWE...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            4) Eye color is a combination of genes and therefore a combination of alleles. However, because the point was not strong enough, the poster chose to withdraw the comment's usefulness. The problem actually is your childish understanding of the concepts. It is just too difficult to explain what is going on in dominant and recessive genes. So, since eye color was determined to be a dead end in this discussion, no one has brought it back up.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Right it wasn't strong enough, as in ... it fell flat on its face, like all the rest of the nonsense that people have been posting for the past 5 months.

            *********************************

            Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.
            Posted by: thurdl01 on Oct. 23 2006,09:59

            Personal incredulity does not a winning argument make.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,10:02

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,14:53)
            Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Glad to see you've seen the light of day, Dave.

            (yes, I know you're being facetious. That doesn't change the fact that the statement I quoted is correct.)
            Posted by: Ved on Oct. 23 2006,10:03



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,10:11

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,14:53)
            BWE...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            3) Ok, I will show them to you. Sickle cells in malaria areas. Shorter limbs in colder areas. Lighter skin where there is less sun. Hibernation where the seasons are extreme. Is that the right kind of thing? I could also point to some interesting things about various kinds of rockfish maturing significantly faster than they used to but the science is waaay too much for you.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes, I'm seeing the pattern of how you guys think ... lump mutations (like sickle cell) in with predesigned variability (like skin color), call it evolution and pretend that it is the great miracle working god that can do all things ... turn a fish into a dinosaur, turn a chimp into BWE, etc., etc.   Hail Darwin!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            There is certainly a pattern. You are right about that one. But, I have a feeling that you are sort of using the word "inconceivable" and, like Inego said...

            [quote]

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            BWE...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            4) Eye color is a combination of genes and therefore a combination of alleles. However, because the point was not strong enough, the poster chose to withdraw the comment's usefulness. The problem actually is your childish understanding of the concepts. It is just too difficult to explain what is going on in dominant and recessive genes. So, since eye color was determined to be a dead end in this discussion, no one has brought it back up.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Right it wasn't strong enough, as in ... it fell flat on its face, like all the rest of the nonsense that people have been posting for the past 5 months.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And, Dave, I think you missed the point. The point being something entirely different from what you think it is.

            I did show you what is wrong with a young Earth (May we engage in drunken orgies in her blessed name). Physical evidence demonstrates that it is at least a half a million years and this evidence calibrated various radiometric techniques which can then go back much farther. Not to mention the implications of light speed which I will definitely not discuss with you untill you have demonstrated understanding of something simpler. Not that I know much about light speed. Oh, golly, I just got an idea! How bout you debate me on... No, that probably won't work either.

            You see how this works? Dave lies, cheats, quote-mines, plagarizes and is strangely disturbed. Maybe there is some connection?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            um. Do you want to debate this? How 'bout for a post on the loser's blog?
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 23 2006,10:13

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,15:53)
            Yes, I'm seeing the pattern of how you guys think ... lump mutations (like sickle cell) in with predesigned variability (like skin color), call it evolution and pretend that it is the great miracle working god that can do all things ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Thus far you have demonstrated no way of distinguishing between "predesigned variability" and mutations.  Obviously, the distinction is meaningless if you can't define it.
            Posted by: Chris Hyland on Oct. 23 2006,10:17



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            predesigned variability
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Could you please explain how to decide which traits are designed and which evolved.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 23 2006,10:18

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,15:53)
            Oh and don't forget ... White noise contains more information than a Winston Churchill speech.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is correct...

            Shannon described information as the "uncertain" parts of a message.  i.e.:  When a message is sent only the parts unknown or undecipherable to the recipient need to be sent.

            Since white noise consists of the most random information without predictable parts, it must be represented by the greatest amount of information.

            I think Dave is confused over the word "information."  Shannon *defined* information as entropy while Dave seems to think it is the decoded message the recieved on the other end.

            < http://www.lucent.com/minds/infotheory/docs/history.pdf >
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2006,10:19

            Re "One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons. "

            Yeah, maybe he's confusing "information" with "useful information" (which is a subjective judgment).

            Henry
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 23 2006,10:40

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,14:53)
            Right it wasn't strong enough, as in ... it fell flat on its face, like all the rest of the nonsense that people have been posting for the past 5 months.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Really, Dave? If I really "fell flat on my face", you can surely tell us how eye colour is better evidence for your "hypothesis" than for the ToE.

            Remember, to do so you must tell us exactly what eye-colour alleles Adam had and how you can tell. Since you are at it, please identify which HLA alleles are the 2 "not corrupt", and how you can tell. And which one of the three alleles of blood type is "corrupt", and how you can tell. And why you consider dogs with genetic information that allows them to survive cold temperatures, long runs and be great hunters could be "corrupted" versions of "mutt dogs" which would die in the same conditions.

            I.e. stop trying to look like you won that round - at best for you it was a "draw" and in reality I dropped it because there are better examples of how you have no understanding of genetics, information, evolution or mutations. After all, not every mutation has to add information for ToE to be true, but a single one that does makes your pathetic "because I said it, it must be so" declaration a lie.

            Until you can explain 490 mutations of a single allele in 13 generations, you've lost, Dave.

            Oh, by the way, give references. Your word is worthless. You are not a Christian, because you are a liar, distorting reality to serve your ends, just like the farisees.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 23 2006,10:40

            Dave, if i'm understanding you correctly, the creatures on the ark were some sort of perfect form, and all modern species are corrupted versions of this perfect form, correct?  So Noah took two ur-dogs with him on the ark.  The ur-dogs had all the genes that all types of modern dogs do.  They had the genes that gives thick long hair so it could live in cold climates, and genes for short thin hair so that it could live in hot climates.  They had genes that allow them to grow to the size of great danes, and genes that restrain it's size to that of a chiauha.  They had genes that let them smell like a bloodhound, point like setter, herd like a german shepard, and see like a wolfhound.  They were fabulous mythical creatures that were never recorded in any written record, by any people, at any time.

            Once these ur-dogs got off the ark, they rapidly bred and spread out across the supercontinent (apparently very rapidly since according to your timeline the continents broke up in a single day immediately follow the end of the flood).  Once the continents broke up they very rapidly "degraded" into the forms we see today, in time so that all ancient accounts depict them in their modern form.  Then they immediately stopped degrading any further, so that we haven't seen any degrading occuring in modern times.

            Dave, if the ur-dogs had some perfect dna template for it's kind, and a mutation occurs that makes it less like this pefect form, causing it to degrade, what would you call it if a mutation caused a change back towards this original template?  If a point mutation can be negative, how is a point mutation back in the opposite direction not positive?  What about mutations (such as sickle cell anemia) which are positives in some environments and negative in others?  Was sickle cell in the ur-human, or was it not?  If you examined dna from all current species of the same kind, could you build a projected ur-kind genome?

            Why do we not see rapid "degradation" and speciation today?  Conversly what caused massive "degradation" and speciation in the past?

            Did this degradation from a perfect form take place prior to the flood?  If so then where did the perfect forms that Noah found for the ark come from?  If not, then why did this degradation only begin after the flood?

            Why did God build pefect forms with imperfect replication mechanisms so that they would degrade?  Why did God build a perfect inerrant autograph of the bible, then allow it to degrade?
            Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2006,10:55

            Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,15:40)
             The ur-dogs had all the genes that all types of modern dogs do.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Not only that, they had the alleles of virtualy all canids, since in average, a couple of individuals from the arch gave birth to a thousand species. :O
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 23 2006,10:55

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2006,15:06)
            Re "POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS)."

            To continents that didn't then have any local wildlife to serve as food for the migrants? ;) :D  :p  :O
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Ooooo.... Ooooo.... Oooooo..... That ones easy.

            The continents.... they... uhhh....
            The animals went over to..... uhhh.....
            Well, they bred like rabbits (or Rabbit Kinds, AHH HAH).

            Anyway, those garanimals, erm.... animals then raced off, breeding a lot, from the Ark to the edges of the continents.  The ice age came and the animals RACED across the land bridges.  

            Yeeeaaahhhhhh.... That's the ticket.

            Anyway,  the plant seeds were in hybridization, erm.... hydroponics (heh, heh, with the flood and such, I made a funny), erm.... hybernation until the waters receded.  When the land dried the plants germinated and greened the earth BEFORE the mamajamafefifofanimals arrived on the continents.

            Easy...  You see?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,11:18



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Anyway, those garanimals, erm.... animals then raced off, breeding a lot, from the Ark to the edges of the continents.  The ice age came and the animals RACED across the land bridges.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, no, NO! This is WRONG. You're just mixing UP the order.
            The animals bred ,
            THEN they migrated to the edges of what *would BE* the continents, surviving on manna, since all the plants were dead, and couldn't germinate and become food-sized,
            Then the continents TOOK OFF! WHOOSH!!, whizzing across the seas in one day, like speedboats!!!
            THEN the ice age happened.

            By the way, Dave...because I have an ounce of ethics and honor, I'll say that you were quite right about me mixing up the Bielicki articles...mainly because I no longer cared about what the AiG boys said, given that they were flat wrong about "degenerative" (whatever that means) mutations.

            Take a hint from this example and the very few other times you've found people in error. THEY admitted it. You should learn how to. Like with the AIMilano, nylonase, etc. mutations that actually help things...y'know...keep living. Like the information theory bit that you seem to have NO grasp of despite your long study of ...wickipedia ( I know you didn't read any of the tutorials I posted).

            Learn to accept that you can be wrong, Dave. It's not the end of the world...well, for me it's not. For you it means your cherished delusions go bye-bye.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 23 2006,11:25

            afdave wrote:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I will admit, I am no expert on all this yet ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I just thought that was worth repeating, for those suffering a laughter deficit this dreary Monday.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I just know that Darwinists have been trying for years to find a "beneficial mutation"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Let me see if I understand your position correctly:

            Countless genes each have multiple alleles, i.e. versions of the gene with sequence differences.

            Some of those differences are adaptive (e.g. skin color in different latitudes, sickle cell hemoglobin in malaria zones, apo-AIM, etc.)

            Whenever we can show that that adaptivity entails a fitness cost under any set of conditions other than those which pertain in a given case, we can dismiss that as a "degenerative" mutation -  a "loss of information".

            Even if we can't find any conditions where there is a fitness cost to the mutation, it doesn't count because either (1) we haven't yet found the conditions where there is a fitness cost, or (2) if all else fails, it's not a mutation at all, but one of the 4 alleles present in Adam and Eve.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            and I still don't see an convincing case for an increase in specificity with this mutation ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            you're grasping at straws here. What was this protein "designed" to do? Was it "designed" to have maximal binding energy for a particular molecule? Would "The Designer" judge it a success based solely on the dissociation constant for cholesterol? Or was it "designed" to maintain a functional circulatory system to maximize the survival and reproductive success of its bearer?

            Here's some work I did 20 years ago, where we know the mutation is in fact a mutation, that it benefits its bearer, and we don't know of any conditions where it's a drawback:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Virology. 1985 Jul 30;144(2):529-33.
            Sindbis virus mutants able to replicate in methionine-deprived Aedes albopictus cells.Durbin RK, Stollar V.
            Previous work from this laboratory has shown that the replication of Sindbis virus (SV) in Aedes albopictus cells is sensitive to methionine withdrawal. This sensitivity is thought to reflect a diminished concentration of S-adenosylmethionine (Ado Met) resulting from methionine starvation. Serial passage of SV on Ae. albopictus cells maintained in low concentrations of methionine gave rise to a population of mutants whose replication in mosquito cells was resistant to methionine starvation. In vertebrate cells, these mutants were also resistant to inhibition by cycloleucine. We favor the hypothesis that the adaptation to low methionine reflects the accumulation of mutations resulting in a viral RNA "cap" methyltransferase with an increased affinity for Ado Met.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            OK, over to you dave. Are the rules different for viruses and animals? If so, how so?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 23 2006,11:46

            I wrote:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            We favor the hypothesis that the adaptation to low methionine reflects the accumulation of mutations resulting in a viral RNA "cap" methyltransferase with an increased affinity for Ado Met.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Actually, I left you hanging there, didn't I? See, that was a prediction at the time. A prediction based on good ol' atheistic Darwinism. Here's the followup:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Virology. 1989 Dec;173(2):408-14.  
            SVLM21, a Sindbis virus mutant resistant to methionine deprivation, encodes an altered methyltransferase.Scheidel LM, Durbin RK, Stollar V.


            [...] SVLM21, a strain of Sindbis virus derived in our laboratory from SVSTD by serial passage on mosquito cells maintained after infection in low concentrations of methionine, is resistant to methionine starvation. It was proposed that this adaptation to low methionine, and to the resultant low intracellular levels of ado met, reflected the accumulation of mutations which led to the generation of a viral RNA cap methyltransferase with an increased affinity for ado met. We report here kinetic data which distinguished the enzymes coded for by SVSTD and SVLM21. ...[W]e calculated from our results that SVLM21 generated a methyltransferase with a Km for ado met 10-fold lower than that generated by either SVSTD or the related alphavirus, Semliki Forest virus. In addition, we found that BHK cells infected with SVLM21 generated higher levels of methyltransferase activity than did cells infected with SVSTD .... We conclude from these results that the SVLM21 phenotype is associated with an altered methyltransferase and suggest that this is the basis of the resistance of SVLM21 to methionine deprivation.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            and...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Virology. 1989 Jun;170(2):385-91.
            Association of the Sindbis virus RNA methyltransferase activity with the nonstructural protein nsP1.Mi S, Durbin R, Huang HV, Rice CM, Stollar V.

            ...We have obtained evidence that the basis of this low methionine-resistance (LMR) phenotype is the generation of an altered RNA methyltransferase with an increased affinity for S-adenosylmethionine (ado met). We now report that following the substitution of the nucleotide sequence, 126-504, from SVLM21 cDNA for the corresponding sequence of the Toto 1101 plasmid (infectious Sindbis viral RNA can be transcribed from this plasmid) we were able to generate recombinant Sindbis virus (SVMS-65a) with the LMR phenotype. (SVTOTO virus derived from Toto 1101, like SVSTD, lacks the LMR phenotype.) As was the case with SVLM21, SVMS-65a not only possessed the LMR phenotype but also showed an increased sensitivity to Neplanocin A, a potent inhibitor of S-adenosylhomocysteine (ado hcy) hydrolase. Sequencing of the nucleotide 126-504 region from SVLM21 revealed two mutations; these mutations occurred in adjacent codons and lead to two predicted amino acid changes in the SV nsPl protein; at residue 87, from Arg to Leu, and at residue 88 from Ser to Cys. Since the nucleotide sequence 126-504 lies entirely within the gene for nsP1, we conclude that the RNA methyltransferase activity generated by SV is associated with nsP1. We suggest that residues 87 and 88 in nsP1, where the amino acid changes in SVLM21 nsP1 have occurred, are at or near the binding site for ado met; we also suggest that these changes in nsP1 are responsible for the increased affinity of the SVLM21 RNA methyltransferase for ado met and thereby for the LMR phenotype. Alternatively, it is possible that the binding site for ado met is elsewhere on nsP1 or even on another protein, and that the changes at residues 87 and 88 lead to an alteration of the binding site.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Suppose, now, that instead of good ol' atheistic Darwinism, we were using your bible, or your "UCGH" to generate a prediction. What might we have predicted?
            Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2006,12:11

            Dave, we know thousands of cases of beneficial mutations. Just search for "positive selection" in pubmed. Understanding how such mutations are detected requires some knowledge in genetics and evolutionary biology.
            Trying to explain you the underlying concepts would be a waste of time.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,12:35

            Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2006,17:11)
            Dave, we know thousands of cases of beneficial mutations. Just search for "positive selection" in pubmed. Understanding how such mutations are detected requires some knowledge in genetics and evolutionary biology.
            Trying to explain you the underlying concepts would be a waste of time.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And one more time! You are too ignorant to start at this level Dave. Let's go for Tree rings! Dendro, Dendro everybody now! Dendro, Dendro! Chant with me! Dendro, Dendro!

            And Dave, your refusal to address the substantive parts of my posts is starting to make you look like a sissy girl.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 23 2006,13:18

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2006,17:18)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Anyway, those garanimals, erm.... animals then raced off, breeding a lot, from the Ark to the edges of the continents.  The ice age came and the animals RACED across the land bridges.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, no, NO! This is WRONG. You're just mixing UP the order.
            The animals bred ,
            THEN they migrated to the edges of what *would BE* the continents, surviving on manna, since all the plants were dead, and couldn't germinate and become food-sized,
            Then the continents TOOK OFF! WHOOSH!!, whizzing across the seas in one day, like speedboats!!!
            THEN the ice age happened.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            HERETIC!!!!!!!!

            Followers of continental migration AFTER the flood are HERETICS!

            Only true followers believe in continental migration BEFORE the flood fully subsided.

            I banish thee to the lowest levels of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. Dave's web site).

            All those who meet deadman_932 in person are hereby authorized to belittle him and mock him.  He IS NOT WORTHY!
            **********************
            (Follow the holy gourd.... No, follow the shoe)
            **********************
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,13:52

            [quote=Mike PSS,Oct. 23 2006,18:18][quote=deadman_932,Oct. 23 2006,17:18]  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            HERETIC!!!!!!!!
            Followers of continental migration AFTER the flood are HERETICS!
            Only true followers believe in continental migration BEFORE the flood fully subsided.
            I banish thee to the lowest levels of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. Dave's web site).
            All those who meet deadman_932 in person are hereby authorized to belittle him and mock him.  He IS NOT WORTHY!
            **********************
            (Follow the holy gourd.... No, follow the shoe)
            **********************
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            BLASPHEMER!!!! While BWE and I cavort in holy drunken praise of Dionysus and The Sacred Mother Earth (may her furrows always be seeded by the righteous) YOU and your devilish kin PROFANE THE TRUTH.
            Get thee hence, horrible villain, or you shall be whipp'd with wire, and stewed in brine, smarting in lingering pickle. What trick, what device, what starting-hole can you now find out, to hide from this open and painful shame? BLASPHEMER!!! I CAST YOU OUT!!!!
            Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 23 2006,14:18

            I wish I'd been there to watch the sloths galloping across the Sahara Desert to get to South America before it broke off from Africa.
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 23 2006,14:37

            It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 23 2006,14:46

            [quote=deadman_932,Oct. 23 2006,18:52][quote=Mike PSS,Oct. 23 2006,18:18]
            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 23 2006,17:18)
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            HERETIC!!!!!!!!
            Followers of continental migration AFTER the flood are HERETICS!
            Only true followers believe in continental migration BEFORE the flood fully subsided.
            I banish thee to the lowest levels of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. Dave's web site).
            All those who meet deadman_932 in person are hereby authorized to belittle him and mock him.  He IS NOT WORTHY!
            **********************
            (Follow the holy gourd.... No, follow the shoe)
            **********************
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            BLASPHEMER!!!! While BWE and I cavort in holy drunken praise of Dionysus and The Sacred Mother Earth (may her furrows always be seeded by the righteous) YOU and your devilish kin PROFANE THE TRUTH.
            Get thee hence, horrible villain, or you shall be whipp'd with wire, and stewed in brine, smarting in lingering pickle. What trick, what device, what starting-hole can you now find out, to hide from this open and painful shame? BLASPHEMER!!! I CAST YOU OUT!!!!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I've always liked the bit about knowing that, since I am rightous, and by his own admission Deadman is rightous, we get to seed the furrows. That's the part about it I like. I mean, I'd be a xtian if their darn book would just excuse a bit more seeding. Maybe.

            < an interesting game. >

            PS Dave, Tree Rings? Ice Cores? Let's do it baby. When you've realized the truth of my sayings, we can go seed some furrows. (Not the same ones though. You're still a little bit too icky to get that, um, er... nevermind.)
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 23 2006,15:11

            Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,17:37)
            It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 23 2006,15:22

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 23 2006,20:46)
            When you've realized the truth of my sayings, we can go seed some furrows.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Isn’t proselytization forbidden on this board? Shame on you BWE.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 23 2006,15:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            It MIGHT be that you overestimate young Dave. After all, he hasn't disappointed yet! Let's see what the future brings.
            Mother Earth (praise be her nurturing bountiful paps) has granted me the gift of second sight. I foresee pages and pages of laughter-ridden mangling of science ahead!!
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2006,16:06

            Re "I wish I'd been there to watch the sloths galloping across the Sahara Desert to get to South America before it broke off from Africa."

            As I understand it, northern Africa wasn't desert 4500 years ago.

            Henry
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 23 2006,16:06

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,10:33)
            ABSURDITY ILLUSTRATED -- WINSTON CHURCHILL VS. WHITE NOISE

            This has got to be the all time winner for dumb questions on this thread.  I won't emabarrass the person who asked it by naming him ... I'll just use it to illustrate how diseased a brain can become when affected by years of "glue sniffing" from the "Brown Bag of Darwinism."

            Here's the question (addressed to me) ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Words fail me ...

            Were it not for the seemingly level headed types like Cory, Drew Headley, Russell and a few others that have at least had some good questions, all might be lost.

            OK, here's an answer ... My answer to this poor questioner would be "Ask the Germans" ... I can assure you that the Nazi Intelligence Division didn't even spend a nano-second trying to decide the answer to this question.  It was quite obvious to them that Churchill's words contained information, white noise did not.  It should be obvious to you also.  I can only hope for your sake that you agree.  If you do not, God help you!

            The source of this poor guy's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of Shannon Information Theory.  He seems to think that "Information = Randomness" which of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.  Here is what Dr. Thomas Schneider of the National Institutes of Health has to say ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Information Is Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty!
            Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
            National Institutes of Health
            National Cancer Institute
            Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
            Molecular Information Theory Group
            Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
            toms@ncifcrf.gov
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ >

            There are many many statements in the literature [Talk Origins, for example, although, as I am learning, we unjustly honor this source if we call it "literature"] which say that information is the same as entropy. The reason for this was told by Tribus. The story goes that Shannon didn't know what to call his measure so he asked von Neumann, who said `You should call it entropy ... [since] ... no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage' (Tribus1971).

            Shannon called his measure not only the entropy but also the "uncertainty". I prefer this term because it does not have physical units associated with it. If you correlate information with uncertainty, then you get into deep trouble. Suppose that:

            information ~ uncertainty

            but since they have almost identical formulae:

            uncertainty ~ physical entropy

            so

            information ~ physical entropy

            BUT as a system gets more random, its entropy goes up:

            randomness ~ physical entropy

            so

            information ~ physical randomness

            How could that be? Information is the very opposite of randomness!

            The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

            Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

            If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

            Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:


            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

            The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure. [like this poor guy here at ATBC and the poor guy at Talk Origins who snookered him]


            As a practical example, consider the sequence logos. Further discussion on this topic is in the < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/bionet.info-theory.faq.html > under the topic I'm Confused: How Could Information Equal Entropy?

            For a more mathematical approach, see the Information Theory Primer.

            Some questions and answers might make these isues more clear.

            < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            BTW, I found this link simply by reading up a little on Shannon Information Theory here < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_information > and following the external links at the bottom of the article.

            It is also quite obvious from the example in the Wikipedia article of colored balls that Shannon's "uncertainty" measure most certainly DOES NOT equate to "maximim information" but is in fact the opposite.

            This has got to be one of the most serious gaffes of ATBC members on my threads to date ... even worse than the "Green eyes are the result of a mutation" gaffe.

            It will be quite interesting to see how the originator of this question handles this rebuttal.  Will he admit his error as a gentleman and a scholar should?  Or will he dodge and hide and obfuscate?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave,
            It seems some confusion has developed over coding of information and communication of information. This is a tricky subject, and one which I will not pretend to be an expert in since I am not. However, I do have some familiarity with it and hopefully we can smooth out the issues that have arisen.

            Dr. Thomas D. Schneider is absolutely correct when he says that information increases as uncertainity decreases on the end of a receiver. Everytime a symbol is sent over a communication channel, it provides information to the reciever. The maximum information it can provide is equal to H(xi) = -pi * log2(pi), which is the uncertainity of transmission. This makes sense because once a symbol is sent, the uncertainity of it coming is converted into certainity at the end of the reciever. However, this is only the maximum information that can be recieved. If our channel is noisy, then the information on the recieving end will be less than this because there is a chance the symbol sent by the transmitter was not the same as the one received.

            Now, once we have a signal, and assuming it was sent without noise, it has as much information as uncertainity before it was sent. For example, if I send you a sequence of 8 coin toses over a noiseless transmission cable, then there are 2^8 possible tosses that you can receive. If we quantify the uncertainity for this, we get 8 bits of information. Now, I send you the result of the first coin toss. You now have only 7 bits of uncertainity, but 1 bit of information. Feel free to check my math. Again and again I send you the results of my coin tosses until all 8 have been sent. At that point, you have 0 bits of uncertainity, since the entire signal has been sent, and 8 bits of information. Again, it is important to remember that if the channel was noisy you would have less than 8 bits of information because there would still be some uncertainity in the transmission.

            This is what Dr. Schneider is refering to. However, we are not done yet. Say the sequence of coin tosses just so happened to be 00000000. If you wanted to transmit this signal to somebody else, you could either send it one bit at a time or you could tell the person on the other line, there are 8 zeros. This is called compression, and is where Churchill and whitenoise come in. There is more to information theory than just measuring information and uncertainity. Much of it is the study of codes that seek to reduce the uncertainity of transmission, since all channels have noise.

            A code is decided upon by both the sender and reciever before transmission occurs. Thus, if I was sending English text to a person who knew English, we would have error correction built in to the language. One example might be the rule "i before e except after c", or words in general. If you got the string of symbols: "becausq", it would be resonable to assume given the rules of English that the q is not the correct symbol, and in fact the proper word is "because". Thus, codes allow us to send information across noisy channels with less uncertainity by adding redundancy to the signal. The most simple code for a noisy channel is to send each symbol more than once. So if I wanted to send the word "cat" over a noisy channel it might be a good idea to send "cccaaattt", after we have agreed that I will each character 3 times.

            Now, what does this have to do with Churchill and whitenoise, well it turns out that human speech has a lot of redundancy to it. Langauge has a lot of patterning and characteristic sounds that repeat themselves. Thus, one could ascribe a sequence of sounds that make up the letter A to a single character. On the other end, the receiver would put that sequence of sounds whenever they see the character A. This is obviously simplified, but it gets the point across. On the other hand, statistically whitenoise has no guarenteed redundancy, and so when one gets all the information of a whitenoise transmission you will typically have to keep all of it, or you will lose information. An important thing to remember, and which is stressed in an excellent primer writen by Dr. Schneider:
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Information and uncertainty are technical terms that describe any process that selects one or
            more objects from a set of objects. We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of
            the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/ >

            Winston Churchill's speech definitely has implications, and probably more so than whitenoise, but meaning and implication cannot be adequetly studied mathematically. If we converted Churchill's speech and the whitenoise to a binary file, you could not use information theory to tell which had meaning and which did not. And this is what seems to be the major hangup here, it is your position that information is the same as meaningful information. According to information theory and Dr. Schneider, this is not the case.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 23 2006,16:11

            Has there been discussion of the geographic correlation between fossil (pre-Flood?) species and living species?

            I don't recall seeing this discussed, but then I've been forced to skip something like half this thread since it's onset.

            Henry
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 23 2006,16:22

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 23 2006,21:11)
            Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,17:37)
            It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think we could see that pretty soon.  After his recent posts, he's just a hop, skip and jump from slogging in Sanford.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 23 2006,16:48

            I just realized a leap was made when I went from compression to error-correcting codes. To clarify, an if one knows the error correcting code (e.g. repeat each letter 3 times), than it is possible to take a transmission that seems to have nine characters ('cccaaattt';) and compress it to one with three, 'cat'.

            This does not just have to apply to messages per se, any string of symbols can be compressible. [Now, we lead into speech versus whitenoise.]
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,18:23

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 23 2006,21:48)
            This does not just have to apply to messages per se, any string of symbols can be compressible. [Now, we lead into speech versus whitenoise.]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            …and remember, perfectly random (i.e., broadband) white noise is completely incompressible.

            Which is sort of the whole point.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 23 2006,18:30

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 23 2006,23:23)
            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 23 2006,21:48)
            This does not just have to apply to messages per se, any string of symbols can be compressible. [Now, we lead into speech versus whitenoise.]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            …and remember, perfectly random (i.e., broadband) white noise is completely incompressible.

            Which is sort of the whole point.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes, statistically speaking it will be incompressible. I forgot to qualify for that!
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 23 2006,18:31

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,10:33)
            It will be quite interesting to see how the originator of this question handles this rebuttal.  Will he admit his error as a gentleman and a scholar should?  Or will he dodge and hide and obfuscate?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Just out of curiosity, Dave—what did you think you were accomplishing with your clumsy attempt to hide my identity? Did you think anyone was going to be mystified as to who, exactly, asked you yet another question you managed to get wrong?

            If anyone is going to be "dodging," and "hiding," and "obfuscating," it's going to be you. But if you try, you'll be doing it solo. I've said all that needs to be said on the subject, and I'm frankly not willing to get dragged into another "Portuguese" debate with you. Given that you're uneducable, there's no point in trying. There are much more interesting errors in your "hypothesis" than your misunderstanding of information theory. And I'd really ask that you spend more (i.e., any) time defending your own "hypothesis" rather than stumbling around in yet another topic you know nothing about.
            Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 23 2006,18:33

            "ABSURDITY ILLUSTRATED -- WINSTON CHURCHILL VS. WHITE NOISE

            This has got to be the all time winner for dumb questions on this thread.  I won't emabarrass the person who asked it by naming him ... I'll just use it to illustrate how diseased a brain can become when affected by years of "glue sniffing" from the "Brown Bag of Darwinism."
            "

            You gotta love AFDave's logic.  A question is put to him and he goes off on a rant about the 'brown bag of Darwinism".  It never occurs to him to actually, ya know, THINK about the question for a second.  As if, ya know, there might be a point behind it!
            Thanks for the info Drew.
            Wasted on "Portugese Dave" of course.  Yet I'm sure the lurkers found it informative, including myself.

            (...now what else was there...)
            (Hmmmm, something about lies and integrity, hmmmm...)

            Ah, yes.

            So Dave... :)
            About that letter to AIG... :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 23 2006,20:22

            I suspect EE DH AFD was  handing out his lies for jesus cards when he attended his information theory classes.

            AFD when biologists talk about Shannon information they are not talking about a subjective meaning in a message i.e. knowledge or interpretation of sensory stimulus such as sound or reading a blog,   but  statistical probabilities of a symbol being corrupted in a physically limited medium that has a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome from one state to another e.g. transmitter to receiver, the medium can be anything such as DNA.

            I know you don't understand that but look at it this way suppose the bible was only ever written in Ancient Swahili using an unknown script and no one was allowed to read it because the first page had the warning in all languages past and present (in Ancient Greek script) that the wrath of Hog would be visited upon  anyone who did read it and it had been documented that those who tried were instantly burned to a cinder.

            Now .....does that bible contain information as defined by Shannon as a message/knowledge independent set of symbols containing relationship order  OR a subjective  message with meaning communicating an understanding?

            AFD you have NO CONCEPT of CONTEXT, your message contains a lie however it is still 'information' but NOT in the Shannon context.

            Now AFD back to prothelizing for pseudoscience, where lies ARE it's information.

            When are you bringing up  Flat Earthism  and Geocentrism you old Arkist?
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 23 2006,20:49

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2006,21:06)
            Re "I wish I'd been there to watch the sloths galloping across the Sahara Desert to get to South America before it broke off from Africa."

            As I understand it, northern Africa wasn't desert 4500 years ago.

            Henry
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            It was the day after a year long global flood....I'd guess it was a least a bit damp.
            Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 23 2006,20:58

            Davey says,



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You've taken on an enormous burden, guys, to try and convince me the record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.

            I will admit, I am no expert on all this yet ... Don't be too quick to declare victory!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            WOW! Davey refutes himself COMPLETELY! We can all declare victory and banish Davey to the dunce corner forever.

            Now do you understand what quote mining is Davey?

            Why wasn't the Ice Age (and the Continental sleigh ride, WOOHOO le's do it again, that was FUN! ) recorded Davey? Was god plum tuckered from all that majik? How many begats are missing from the bible?

            Why do Native Americans have a completely different set of domesticated flora and fauna from the rest of the world (except dogs)?

            Did we forget our seeds and goats and engraved stone tablets with the inerrent bible in our haste to get away from YOUR crazy progenitors?

            I'm still open to suggestions for a type specimen name for Davey and his comrads, I'm leaning towards Homo simplex at this time.

            Fossil and sedimentary sorting by liquefaction Davey?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,04:44

            SHANNON INFORMATION THEORY: RANDOMNESS IS NOT INFORMATION

            Yesterday, the question was asked ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Now it is quite clear the questioner believes the answer to this question is the latter, and to take this position is a stark illustration of the death of intuition and common sense.  Possibly this explains why this is the same person who has said probably no less than 50 times "Dave, the evidence you have given is not evidence."  OK.  Now that I see how your brain works, I see why you think that.  In your world, White Noise = Information, Supporting Facts != Evidence but Group Think == Evidence.

            Again, to quote Dr. Thomas D. Schneider, National Institutes of Health,National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
            Molecular Information Theory Group
            Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
            toms@ncifcrf.gov
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ >

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            There are many many statements in the literature which say that information is the same as entropy ... [reason for the term described] Shannon called his measure not only the entropy but also the "uncertainty". I prefer this term because it does not have physical units associated with it. If you correlate information with uncertainty, then you get into deep trouble.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Did you hear that, Eric?  DEEP TROUBLE.  Continuing with Dr. Schneider's piece ...
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Suppose that:

               information ~ uncertainty

            but since they have almost identical formulae:

               uncertainty ~ physical entropy

            so

               information ~ physical entropy

            BUT as a system gets more random, its entropy goes up:

               randomness ~ physical entropy

            so

               information ~ physical randomness

            How could that be? Information is the very opposite of randomness!

            The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

            Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

            If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

            Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:

            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

            The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure. [Like Eric Murphy]

            < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            SHANNON INFORMATION:  THE SOURCE OF ERIC'S CONFUSION?
            I got to the piece above by starting with this Wikipedia article on Shannon Information found here ... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_information >
            which contains a good paragraph illustrating the problem with some people's understanding ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Introduction
            The concept of entropy in information theory describes how much information there is in a signal or event. Shannon introduced the idea of information entropy in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

            An intuitive understanding of information entropy relates to the amount of uncertainty about an event associated with a given probability distribution. As an example, consider a box containing many coloured balls. If the balls are all of different colours and no colour predominates, then our uncertainty about the colour of a randomly drawn ball is maximal. On the other hand, if the box contains more red balls than any other colour, then there is slightly less uncertainty about the result: the ball drawn from the box has more chances of being red (if we were forced to place a bet, we would bet on a red ball). Telling someone the colour of every new drawn ball provides them with more information in the first case than it does in the second case, because there is more uncertainty about what might happen in the first case than there is in the second. Intuitively, if there were no uncertainty as to the outcome, then we would learn nothing by drawing the next ball, and so the information content would be zero. As a result, the entropy of the "signal" (the sequence of balls drawn, as calculated from the probability distribution) is higher in the first case than in the second.

            Shannon, in fact, defined entropy as a measure of the average information content associated with a random outcome.
            < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_information >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Here's where the confusion lies ... the article (and Shannon) state that the UNCERTAINTY is maximal in the first case (many random colors). Therefore, if someone tells the color of every new ball drawn, they are conveying MORE information than in the second case.   Why?  Because in the 2nd case, we already know they are all red balls, so telling someone "a red ball was drawn" isn't giving them any new information.  Eric (and many of you) are making the mistake of thinking that the random colored balls inherently contain more information.  Not so. It is the MESSAGE CONCERNING the random balls that contains more information.  Don't confuse the two.  In Case 1, the message "The ball is red" contains MORE information than Case 2 "The ball is red" because there is more uncertainty in Case 1.  Why?  Because we already know that Case two is all red balls.  Note that the message itself is identical.  But in Case 1 it contains more information.  So hopefully that clears up your misunderstandings.  Note also that the practical application of Shannon Information theory is communication, which of course concerns itself a lot with transmitting information reliably.  One more note in that last sentence ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Shannon, in fact, defined entropy as a measure of the average information content associated with a random outcome.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            ..."information content associated with a random outcome?"  Is this author confused also?  Dr. Schneider noted that the confusion is common.  Or does this Wiki author mean "the information content of the message ABOUT the random data which has a random outcome." ??

            Now this discussion of the basics leads into the next logical topic.

            INFORMATION VS. MEANINGFUL INFORMATION
            Drew brings up a the next logical issue which is also quite important ... Information vs. Meaningful Information. In Case 1 above with random colored balls, we really do not know how much information is contained there.  Before the balls are drawn out, they are not arranged in any particular order ... they are just sitting there randomly placed.  However, when an intelligent agent begins drawing the balls out and communicating the color, now we have the potential for Meaningful Information (which I simply abbreviate as Information ... I fail to see how Information is Information at all unless it is meaningful to SOMEONE).  Be that as it may, when an intelligent agent begins drawing balls out, he has the choice of drawing at random, OR, he can draw according to a code, or pattern.  The code could be most anything, for example, if there are 4 ball colors, then each color could represent a digit (0-3) of numbers in Base 4.  Every group of 3 balls drawn could thus represent a Base 4 number, which, when added to 64 (Decimal) would yield an ASCII code character (65-90 Decimal) which represents A - Z and one could communicate messages in the English language.  What is the key ingredient to transform these random balls into Meaningful Information?  

            It's the Intelligent Agent and the Code.

            Note that Eric's White Noise is very much analogous to the Random Colored Balls before an Intelligent Agent gets involved.  

            Now how does all of this apply to biological systems?

            Well of course the reason it applies is because ...

            All life that we know of is built from a blueprint contained in a code - DNA.

            It's a marvelous code and we are beginning to understand many things about it.  But we are far from understanding it completely and it is exciting to see more and more mysteries about this remarkable code unveiled as our knowledge progresses.

            So the central question which truly separates Methodological Naturalists (such as yourselves) and Theists (such as me) is ...

            DID THIS CODE (DNA) REQUIRE AN INTELLIGENT AGENT TO COME INTO EXISTENCE?

            My answer is 'Yes' and yours is 'No.'

            That's pretty much the essence of the last 250 pages of debate.

            Which answer is more reasonable and probable to be true?  This of course depends on your criteria for determining truth.  If our criteria is empirical evidence, i.e. we make inferences based upon our actual experience and the evidence in the world around us, then the 'YES' answer is the most reasonable.  

            If you want to engage in speculation and say things like "Yes, we know that human innovations require an intelligent agent to design them, but we think it could be different with biological innovations.  We haven't ever experimentally confirmed this but we still believe it could be true.  (The fruit flies all got mangled and/or died, but they might not have given enough time and just the right conditions)" and so on.  

            Now this is not to say that my requirement to invoke miracles is easy either.  It's just easi-ER.  Not easy. EasiER.  Does that make sense?  IOW it's easier (more intellectually fulfilling, less contradictions with all of human experience) for me to imagine an Infinite God outside of the universe creating the DNA code out of His own Mind.  I know of humans who make codes by using their minds, so it is a logical extension to assume there might be a God who has a much more intelligent mind who could come up with a much more sophisticated code.  And of course the evidence for the much more sophisticated code is right there under our electron microscopes, plain as day.  And Bill Gates (Mr. Computer Software) has even written that DNA is far more complicated software than any human software.

            To me, the DNA Code BY ITSELF is about as close to a Proof for a Brilliant Designer as you will ever get.  Of course, the DNA Code by itself is a long ways from a proof for the God of the Bible.  You have to consider many other phenomena to arrive there, but at least it is proof for a brilliant designer.

            BRINGING IT BACK TO THE CURRENT DEBATE -- BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, VARIATION, BOTTLENECKS, ETC.
            This discussion really brings us back to mutations and variation and the question of whether there are any "beneficial mutations" and so on.  Currently we are debating APO-AI Milano and "nylon eating bacteria" and so on.  ToE advocates NEED beneficial mutations for their theory to work, but the ironic thing is that the term "beneficial" or "harmful" or neutral implies value judgments that are being made about organisms.  This in itself brings up some interesting questions.  For example, I believe that humans are "at the pinnacle of God's creation" which has all kinds of implications: humans have civil rights, receive sophisticated medical care, are punished for committing murder, and so on.  I observe that there is such a thing as a "harmful mutation." This necessarily implies design.  Why?  Because how else would you be able to tell if it is harmful or not?  In the worldview of a dedicated materialist, "harmful" should be dependent on point of view or have no meaning at all.  From a mouse's point of view a lethal human mutation is a "beneficial" thing because that's one less human in the world to potentially set mousetraps.  A mutation that weakens the human immune system would actually be viewed as "beneficial" to a disease causing microbe.  "Whoopee!  It's streptococcus party time!  None of those pesky little leukocytes to bother us!  We're takin' over, boys!"

            So it becomes obvious that to even have a meaningful discussion of "harmful mutations" and determine if there is such a thing as "beneficial mutations" (which are absolutely a requirement for ToE to be true), one must have agreement upon a criteria for determining if a mutation is "beneficial" or not.  This is where specificity comes in and it explains why I am so interested in the ID Movement (many YECs are not to my dismay).  I think it is critically important work that Dembski and Behe and others are doing because what they are doing is trying to show in mathematical terms what has been intuitively obvious to previous generations of scientists ... that life requires an Intelligent Designer.

            So going back to the APO AIM discussion, what we have is the AIG Guys vs. Deadman and Cory.  AIG read Bielicki's 2002 paper and said ... "OK, Milano is less effective at assembling HDLs, but is an effective anti-oxidant.  Less specificity.   Loss of information.  No proof for Macro-evolution."  Their points are ...

            1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs. [Confirmed in the first sentence of the 2002 abstract below--"HDL deficiency"]
            2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation [Can we confirm from this study?  Don't know. I haven't read the whole paper.  I am going to try to get it today.]
            3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants) [I think this is true.]
            4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information. [The question which is not completely answered is simply "Is an increase in antioxidant activity = increase in specificity?]

            Neither Deadman or I realized at the time I posted this AIG article that AIG's information was based on Bielicki's 2002 study (we both do now) the abstract of which is posted below.  Note that I think I simply confused the issues (unintentionally) by posting the 1997 paper which I think is unrelated to AIG's claims (they did not refer to it ... they referred to the 2002 paper cited below.)

            Now Deadman's contention is "Look, Milano is a more effective antioxidant than Wild.  Therefore, this is evidence of 'upward evolution.' "

            But several questions remain, namely, the ones in the numbered points above, plus ...
            1) Isn't the monomeric form an unnatural, genetically engineered form?  Isn't the natural form a dimer?
            2) Is the natural form a better antioxidant?
            3) Is Better Antioxidant Properties = Increased Specificity? (AIG claims it is not ... how do you refute their claim?)  

            Remember, the broken heater switch--HIGH & HOT--in Antartica could be construed as "beneficial" under those extreme circumstances.  It seems entirely possible to me that "Increased Antioxidant Behavior" = "Beneficial" only because we are considering it within the context of the extreme circustances in which western culture finds itself in -- lousy eating and exercise habits and commensurate high incidence of heart attacks.

            Here's the 2002 article that AIG bases their statements upon ...
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis Exhibit an Antioxidant Activity Distinct from That of Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I
            John K. Bielicki* and Michael N. Oda

            Genome Sciences Department, Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, and Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, California 94609-1673

            Abstract:

            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (apoA-IMilano) and apoA-IParis are rare cysteine variants of apoA-I that produce a HDL deficiency in the absence of cardiovascular disease in humans. This paradox provides the basis for the hypothesis that the cysteine variants possess a beneficial activity not associated with wild-type apoA-I (apoA-IWT). In this study, a unique antioxidant activity of apoA-IMilano and apoA-IParis is described. ApoA-IMilano was twice as effective as apoA-IParis[twice as effective as another mutant? I thought Deadman was saying it's more effective than the wild version?  Is it ALSO more effective than the wild version?] in preventing lipoxygenase-mediated oxidation of phospholipids, whereas apoA-IWT was poorly active. Antioxidant activity was observed using the monomeric form of the variants and was equally effective before and after initiation of oxidative events. ApoA-IMilano protected phospholipid from reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated via xanthine/xanthine oxidase (X/Xo) but failed to inhibit X/Xo-induced reduction of cytochrome c. These results indicate that apoA-IMilano was unable to directly quench ROS in the aqueous phase. There were no differences between lipid-free apoA-IMilano, apoA-IParis, and apoA-IWT in mediating the efflux of cholesterol from macrophages, indicating that the cysteine variants interacted normally with the ABCA1 efflux pathway. The results indicate that incorporation of a free thiol within an amphipathic  helix of apoA-I confers an antioxidant activity distinct from that of apoA-IWT. These studies are the first to relate gain of function to rare cysteine mutations in the apoA-I primary sequence.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            If I can get the paper today, maybe we shall have ore insight into the issues.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 24 2006,05:10

            SFBDave blindly gropes along with:    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Remember, the broken heater switch--HIGH & HOT--in Antarctica could be construed as "beneficial" under those extreme circumstances.  It seems entirely possible to me that "Increased Antioxidant Behavior" = "Beneficial" only because we are considering it within the context of the extreme circustances in which western culture finds itself in -- lousy eating and exercise habits and commensurate high incidence of heart attacks.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            It's amazing how you accidentally come so close to 'getting it', only to stumble away at the last minute.  The definition of a beneficial mutation is one that increases an animal's survival potential in its specific environment.  OF COURSE you have to consider the circumstances when determining 'beneficial' you moron.

            The mutation that allowed certain bacteria to digest nylon was beneficial to them because the bacteria live in an environment where nylon is present, so tapping it as a food source it increased the chance of survival.  If there was no nylon, the mutation would have been neutral or even detrimental.

            The APO-AI Milano is beneficial to those who carry it because it increases the chance of survival in an area where fatty foods are common.  Had it occurred on a pacific island where the diet is mainly low-fat fish, it may well have been neutral or even detrimental.

            Even your "stuck heater" in Antarctica is beneficial if it gives you a better chance of survival in -60 deg weather that a heater that fails 50% of the time and you freeze to death.

            SFBDave, you operate at a stupidity level almost beyond human comprehension.
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 24 2006,05:14

            Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 24 2006,11:10)
            SFBDave, you operate at a stupidity level almost beyond human comprehension.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave's humongous misunderstanding of 'information' would have pushed me over the edge into thinking that he was just a troll having fun trying to argue that every single thing in science is wrong. Except for that journalist's comment about Dave's bold CAPS. I think that is pretty solid evidence that Dave is the real deal.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,05:34

            OA...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Even your "stuck heater" in Antarctica is beneficial if it gives you a better chance of survival in -60 deg weather that a heater that fails 50% of the time and you freeze to death.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Agreed.  That's why I gave the example.  But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).  I see you have grasped my illustration.  I'm making progress!  In spite of the fact that you have not grasped the application to biology yet, there appears to be hope for you!

            Steve...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave's humongous misunderstanding of 'information' would have pushed me over the edge into thinking that he was just a troll having fun trying to argue that every single thing in science is wrong. Except for that journalist's comment about Dave's bold CAPS. I think that is pretty solid evidence that Dave is the real deal.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            It would sure be fun to hear you give a detailed rebuttal of my individual points ... as opposed to always just hearing "Dave's a troll ... Dave's stupid" etc.  

            Are you able to do this?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 24 2006,05:41



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ToE advocates NEED beneficial mutations for their theory to work, but the ironic thing is that the term "beneficial" or "harmful" or neutral implies value judgments that are being made about organisms.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well, now, that's just silly. Get over the shorthand that biologists use, Dave. When we say a "beneficial" virus mutation, obviously we're not talking about "the greater good" or whether or not God is pleased by this development. We're talking about whether this mutation is helpful or hurtful for that organism's survival and reproduction. How many times do you suppose this point has been made in this thread? ? ?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I believe that humans are "at the pinnacle of God's creation" which has all kinds of implications: humans have civil rights, receive sophisticated medical care, are punished for committing murder, and so on.[/  I observe that there is such a thing as a "harmful mutation." This necessarily implies design.  Why?  Because how else would you be able to tell if it is harmful or not?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Now, does this make any sense, in light of what I just explained to you, for the Nth time? ? ?

            But if you're going to use your anthropocentric, nonscientific criteria, can't you at least be consistent?  Look: If you can only judge harmful or helpful by the intent of the putative designer, which would you choose for a benchmark for a better Apo-A: (1) one that does a better job at keeping the circulatory system healthy, or (2) one that has a particularly high ration of isoform 1 to isoform 2?


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            1) Isn't the monomeric form an unnatural, genetically engineered form?  Isn't the natural form a dimer?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) Is the natural form a better antioxidant?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Huh? I thought that part was clear: Apo-AIM is better at antioxidant activity than the non-mutant.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            3) Is Better Antioxidant Properties = Increased Specificity? (AIG claims it is not ... how do you refute their claim?)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            First, who cares? (see above). Does it do a better job from your precious teleological perspective, or not? Second, if you really want to go down this road, we're going to need numbers. How do you quantify "specificity"?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            It seems entirely possible to me that "Increased Antioxidant Behavior" = "Beneficial" only because we are considering it within the context of the extreme circustances in which western culture finds itself in -- lousy eating and exercise habits and commensurate high incidence of heart attacks.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            That's just ridiculous. Look. I, personally, get a fair amount of exercise, I'm really careful about what I eat (and drink), I'm not overweight, I don't smoke, and I have high cholesterol. If I happened to have the gene for apo-AIM, I probably wouldn't.

            Oh, and can we all just drop the "information theory" stuff? It's clear we're talking past each other, and it's also clear that the terminology is confusing even for people relatively well informed on the topic, as Schneider points out. Let alone people who haven't a clue.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,05:46

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,09:44)
            SHANNON INFORMATION THEORY: RANDOMNESS IS NOT INFORMATION

            Yesterday, the question was asked ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Here, Dave, let me distill this down to a few bullet points for you:

            • Information != "meaning"
            • Low information = low entropy
            • High information = high entropy
            • High compressibility  = low information
            • Low compressibility = high information
            • High redundancy = low information
            • Low redundancy = high information
            • Digital recording of human speech is highly compressible (MP3s, anyone?)
            • Digital recording of human speech is highly redundant
            • Digital recording of broadband white noise is incompressible
            • Digital recording of broadband white noise has no redundancy
            • Digital recording of human speech has less entropy than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech has more redundancy than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech is more compressible than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech contains less information than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.


            There. Now, aren't you a little chagrined at calling my question the "stupidest question of all time," Dave?
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 24 2006,05:55

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 24 2006,10:46)
          • Digital recording of human speech is highly compressible (MP3s, anyone?)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I would not go with MP3s since they are an example of lossy compression. A better example might be WinZip or another file compression algorithm which is not lossy.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,05:58

            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Well, now, that's just silly. Get over the shorthand that biologists use, Dave. When we say a "beneficial" virus mutation, obviously we're not talking about "the greater good" or whether or not God is pleased by this development. We're talking about whether this mutation is helpful or hurtful for that organism's survival and reproduction. How many times do you suppose this point has been made in this thread? ? ?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            So according to you, Beneficial = Benficial for that orgainsm's survival and reproduction in that organism's situation.  Fine.  But my point is that this definition of beneficial mutation has nothing to do with "upward evolution."  Let me revise my previous statement, now that I understand your definition more clearly:  What ToE really needs is mutations which increase specificity.

            To my knowledge they have none.  Is APO AIM one?  Don't know.  Is it beneficial in that it helps avoid heart attacks.  We think so.  But we have no idea what overall harmful efffects the loss of specificity might have on the whole species, do we?

            So is it benficial?  Or not?

            I would say no.  Why?  Because it represents and example of LOSS of originally designed function.

            Are we getting clearer or muddier?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,05:59

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 24 2006,10:55)
             
            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 24 2006,10:46)
          • Digital recording of human speech is highly compressible (MP3s, anyone?)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I would not go with MP3s since they are an example of lossy compression. A better example might be WinZip or another file compression algorithm which is not lossy.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Good point. LZW would be a good choice, or if you're a Mac person, Apple Lossless Compression would be another good choice.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 24 2006,06:01



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            On the other hand, if the ice built up rapidly, as in the creationist model during the Ice Age, the annual layers would be very thick at the bottom and thin upward to the present average annual layer thickness. There would be some compression of ice during this short time, of course, but far less than the uniformitarian model suggests.2 Figure 12.4 shows these contrasting views of the annual layer thickness with depth.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < AiG page >
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.

            Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < AiG link >

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            However, the critics (who in any case err by relying on the incomplete data of fallible scientists, rather than the infallible God who knows all data) leave out some vital information that sheds light on the origin of ‘varves’. As long ago as 1961, creationists were pointing out features of the Green River Formation that were difficult to reconcile with the conventional varve interpretation.5 For instance, well-preserved fossils are abundant and widespread throughout the sediments. According to two conventional geologists:

               ‘. . . fossil catfish are distributed in the Green River basin over an area of 16,000 km2 . . . The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm, with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved.’6

            Another evolutionist stated:

               ‘During the early to mid-1970s enormous concentrations of Presbyornis [an extinct shorebird] have been discovered in the Green River Formation.’7

            This should tell us that the Green River Formation is no ordinary lake deposit! Modern-day lakes do not provide the conditions needed for the preservation of abundant fossil fish and birds.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < AiG link >  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Two creationists have done much to provide a satisfactory response to these objections against Flood geology—geologists Dr Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute (Loma Linda, California) and John Woodmorappe. Both agree that biological productivity does not appear to be the limiting factor. Roth10 suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production rates could produce all the calcareous ooze on the ocean floor today in probably less than 1,000 or 2,000 years. He argues that, if a high concentration of foraminifera of 100 per litre of ocean water were assumed,11 a doubling time of 3.65 days, and an average of 10,000 foraminifera per gram of carbonate,12 the top 200 metres of the ocean would produce 20 grams of calcium carbonate per square centimetre per year, or at an average sediment density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre, 100 metres in 1,000 years. Some of this calcium carbonate would be dissolved at depth so the time factor would probably need to be increased to compensate for this, but if there was increased carbonate input to the ocean waters from other sources then this would cancel out. Also, reproduction of foraminifera below the top 200 metres of ocean water would likewise tend to shorten the time required.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < AiG link >  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            for Bible-believers but for which there are now clear answers include:

               *

                 Coral reefs need millions of years to grow.32 [Actually, what was thought to be ‘coral reef’ turns out to be thick carbonate platforms, most probably deposited during the Flood.33 The reef is only a very thin layer on top. In other cases, the ‘reef’ did not grow in place from coral but was transported there by water.34]
               *

                 Chalk deposits need millions of years to accumulate.35  [Chalk accumulation is not steady state but highly episodic. Under cataclysmic Flood conditions, explosive blooms of tiny organisms like coccolithophores could produce the chalk beds in a short space of time.36]
               *

                 Granites need millions of years to cool.37 [Not when the cooling effects of circulating water are allowed for.38]
               *

                 Metamorphic rocks need million of years to form.39  [Metamorphic reactions happen quickly when there is plenty of water, just as the Flood would provide.40]
               *

                 Sediment kilometres thick covering metamorphic rocks took millions of years to erode.41 [Only at the erosion rates observed today. There is no problem eroding kilometres of sediment quickly with large volumes of fast-moving water during the Flood.]

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < AiG link >

            And these only work individually (I am using the term "work" in the sense of "don't work").

            The cross-correlation and examples that AiG chose not to use make AiG look like a verb that means "To lie in order to deliberately make the reader stupid".

            THe only responses I get from you Dave are challenges to my person. I have offered to accept any challenge you wish to offer but you are to chicken to accept.

            The problem is that you have chosen to believe people who are wrong. You have allowed their arguments to brainwash you. The evidence for annual (or daily in some cases) strata cross-correlated with eacxh other is enough to show the stupidity of AiG. I am not using that as any kind of a personal attack. Rather, it is a statement of fact.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 24 2006,06:02

            Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,06:05

            The AiG makes TWO points, not just one.

            First, it claims that antioxidation is relatively unimportant, since it is a function of "shape." Bielicki's 2002 paper addresses this issue of antioxidation and concludes that the Milano and Paris variants are simply  better at antioxidation.
            They are comparing 1) Milano , (2) Paris and (3) apoA-IWT "wild-type"
            The conclusion is that Milano is better than Paris AND both of those function more effectively than wild type AI.  
            Okay THAT is the FIRST part.
            *********************************************
            The SECOND part of The AiG argument is that regardless of whether Milano shows increased antioxidation, the oxidation is a function of shape ---- AND the Milano variant has LOST function in "assembling" (binding) High Density Lipoproteins.

            THIS is their MAJOR point. THIS is the point that they think forms the essence of their argument -- that the Milano variant is "degenerate" in the sense of having LOST what the AiG thinks it was "created " for.  
            This was the focus of Bielicki's 1997 article, which used a different binding/transport model (you will see references to the "belt" model versus the "picket fence" model in the lit, if you read it)
            This claim that Milan has LOST the ability to bind as effectively as AIwildtype is what is contradicted by the literature, particularly the 8 references you were given. There are more, including human studies.
            That is the second part of the AiG argument, drawn to a conclusion.
            *********************************************
            So, what is AiG left with? They conceded by using Bielicki (2002) that Milano has increased antioxidant properties.
            AND.........AND......in direct contradiction  to the ESSENCE of their claims...Milano shows increased ability to bind to and transport cholesterol from plaques AND in serum and move it OUT of the system.
            HOW this happens is not fully understood, there are at least two competing theories on this, but the fact is that Milano DOES "assemble" HDL's and bind to cholesterol and move it out of the system more effectively than AIwild-type.
            Studies on Milano now use either plasma-derived OR, more commonly, recombinant (genetically engineered) AIMilano.
            By introducing this Milano variant, the studies show DECREASED CHOLESTEROL LEVELS AND DECREASED ATHEROSCLEROTIC PLAQUES in comparison to AIwild-type.
            No matter how it is framed, this mutation does exactly what it is "supposed" to do, and does it more efficiently than wild-typeAI. It does this in-vitro, in animal and in human studies.  The questions that remain are the mechanism by which this is accomplished and the particle size affinity of the Milano versus other variants.
            **********************************************
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 24 2006,06:07



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Let me revise my previous statement,...  What ToE really needs is mutations which increase specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No, it doesn't. It needs mutations to increase the reproductive success of their bearers. There certainly are  mutations that increase specificity, or association constants, or this or that. I quoted you some of my own work that shows that - only because I'm too lazy to go look up the thousands of other papers that have done the same thing.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But we have no idea what overall harmful efffects the loss of specificity might have on the whole species, do we?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            What loss of specificity?


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So is it benficial?  Or not? I would say no.  Why?  Because it represents and example of LOSS of originally designed function.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            And what, pray tell, was the originally designed function? And how do you know?
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 24 2006,06:17

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,11:34)
            But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This doesn't make any sense at all.  A given allele codes for a set of proteins.  How is one set of proteins more "specific" than another?  Your "specificity" term is meaningless.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,06:19

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,10:58)
             Let me revise my previous statement, now that I understand your definition more clearly:  What ToE really needs is mutations which increase specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Why, Dave? What does "specificity" have to do with it? What the ToE really needs is a mechanism by which organisms can become better adapted to their environment, which it has: Natural Selection. If this happens by a gain of specificity, fine. If this happens by a loss of specificity, that's fine too.

            Which organisms are more successful, Dave? Those that can only live in a rigidly-defined environment, dependent on a particular type of food? Pandas and Koalas spring to mind as examples. Lots of specificity there! Or organisms that have less specificity, like rats or cockroaches?

            Your "specificity" requirement is a strawman, just like your requirement of "hominid civilizations." Neither one is a requirement or a prediction of evolutionary theory.

            And you still haven't explain why your increase from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark to a few million species today doesn't amount to hyper-mega-macroevolution.

            "A few dozen new species a day: that's all we ask." (a friend of mine actually knows the guy who came up with that ad campaign.)
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,06:19

            I want to make a couple of things clear, Dave. The scientists working on this don't give a rat's a$$ about AiG and your all-important "creationism." They care that
            according to the 2003 stats, 71 MILLION americans have cardiovascular disease of some sort.
            They care that 495 THOUSAND people died in 2003 from Coronary heart disease, based on preliminary figures--more than any other cause.
            For them to be "making up" the efficacy of recombinant AIMilano as a treatment...just to "fit" an "evolutionary agenda" verges on the utterly insane.

            I will reiterate the facts as they now stand:
            1) Milano is more efficient at antioxidation and preventing pro-apoptotic effects than wild-type AI
            2) Milano shows increased levels of activity in preventing and reversing atherosclerosis and plaques. This is shown in human and other animal studies.

            I don't care HOW you frame it, AiG is dead wrong.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 24 2006,06:21

            Dave, is it acceptable or insulting to point out that I have offered to debate you on either side of any issue and that you have avoided my challenge and, instead, actually declared victory on one of the challenges-one that you initiated?

            BTW, you lost.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,06:22

            For anyone who is interested in this issue, I suggest first looking over this article :
            "Gene therapy with apoA-1 Milano better for reducing atherosclerosis than wild-type apoA-1"
            < http://www.theheart.org/article/745723.do >

            Here is a brief overview of the situation and some more references:

            [quote]  P. K. Shah, S. Kaul, J. Nilsson, and B. Cercek (2001). Exploiting the Vascular Protective Effects of High-Density Lipoprotein and its Apolipoproteins: An Idea Whose Time for Testing Is Coming, Part II. Circulation, November 13, 2001; 104(20): 2498 - 2502.
            In fact, there is evidence to suggest that one such mutant, apolipoprotein A-IMilano, which is inherited as an autosomal-dominant trait among a small number of inhabitants of Limone Sul Garda in Northern Italy, may actually be associated with longevity and protection from vascular disease.(40,41)
            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano is the result of a point mutation, with an arginine to cysteine substitution at position173.(41) The carriers of this mutation are all heterozygotes who exhibit hypertriglyceridemia with markedly reduced HDL and apolipoprotein A-I levels, and mutant apolipoprotein A-I constitutes 80% of the total apolipoprotein A-I content. The presence of a cysteine residue at position 173 results in the formation of homodimers with wild-type apolipoprotein A-I and heterodimers with apolipoprotein A-II. The absence of vascular disease in the carriers of apolipoprotein A-IMilano has been attributed to the increased efficiency of the mutant in promoting reverse cholesterol transport. This conjecture is supported by in vitro data from our laboratory and by data reported by Franceschini et al.(42) However, opposite results have been reported by Bielicki et al (43) using a different in vitro model system.
            A more direct approach for exploiting the vascular protective effects of HDL and apolipoprotein A-I would be the actual administration of plasma-derived or recombinant HDL/apolipoprotein A-I as a drug. The feasibility and efficacy of this approach has been demonstrated in our laboratory in the animal model. Studies in our laboratory have shown that repeated administration of the recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano-phospholipid complex substantially reduces ileofemoral atherosclerosis in cholesterol-fed rabbits subjected to balloon injury(53) and prevents the progression of atherosclerosis.(54) At high doses, it promotes the regression of aortic atheromatosis in cholesterol-fed apolipoprotein E-null mice, despite severe hypercholesterolemia.(54) Furthermore, the recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano-phospholipid complex therapy was also shown to decrease lipid and macrophage content, thus promoting a more stable plaque-phenotype in apolipoprotein E-null mice, both during repeated administration and after single high-dose administration.(54,55) Furthermore, in vitro studies have demonstrated that both wild-type apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein A-IMilano reduce the proapoptotic effect of oxysterols

            (40.) Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso AD, et al. A-IMilano apoprotein: decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family. J Clin Invest. 1980; 66: 892-900
            (41.) Weisgraber KH, Bersot TP, Mahley RW, et al. A-IMilano apoprotein: isolation and characterization of a cysteine-containing variant of the A-I apoprotein from human high density lipoproteins. J Clin Invest. 1980; 66: 901-907
            (42.) Franceschini G, Calabresi L, Chiesa G, et al. Increased cholesterol efflux potential of sera from ApoA-IMilano carriers and transgenic mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999; 19: 1257-1262
            (43.) Bielicki JK, McCall MR, Stoltzfus LJ, et al. Evidence that apolipoprotein A-IMilano has reduced capacity, compared with wild-type apolipoprotein A-I, to recruit membrane cholesterol. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997; 17: 1637-1643
            (53.) Ameli S, Hultgardh-Nilsson A, Cercek B, et al. Recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano reduces intimal thickening after balloon injury in hypercholesterolemic rabbits. Circulation. 1994; 90: 1935-1941
            (54.) Shah PK, Nilsson J, Kaul S, et al. Effects of recombinant apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) on aortic atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Circulation. 1998; 97: 780-785.
            (55.) Shah PK, Yano J, Reyes O, et al. High-dose recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano mobilizes tissue cholesterol and rapidly reduces plaque lipid and macrophage content in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Circulation. 2001; 103: 3047-3050.

            Additional references:


            Nissen, Stephen E., MD; Taro Tsunoda, MD, et. al. (2003). Effect of Recombinant ApoA-I Milano on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2292-2300.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "ApoA-I Milano is a variant of apolipoprotein A-I identified in individuals in rural Italy who exhibit very low levels of HDL. Infusion of recombinant ApoA-I Milano-phospholipid complexes produces rapid regression of atherosclerosis in animal models."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Cesare R. Sirtori (2004) ApoA-1 Milano and Regression of Atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2004;291:1319. My colleagues and I reported that a 90-minute infusion of 1 g of recombinant protein in rabbits resulted in a 30% mean reduction of plaque volume.

            Hyuntae Kim, Elaine L. Jacobson, Myron K. Jacobson, and Andras G. Lacko (2004). ApoA-1 Milano and Regression of Atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2004;291:1319.

            Nissen SE, Tsunoda T, Tuzcu EM, et al. Effect of recombinant ApoA-I Milano on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290:2292-300.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now that we have preliminary evidence of a rapid regression of atherosclerosis in human subjects, we hope that our study will encourage further exploration of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action of ApoA-1 Milano. Such efforts could provide important insights into the process of reverse cholesterol transport and lead to development of other approaches to achieve regression of coronary disease. Currently, the same team that developed ETC-216 is beginning human studies of a small molecule that appears to provide similar benefits and would be much easier to manufacture than a recombinant protein such as ApoA-1 Milano (letter to JAMA, from Nissen et. al.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 24 2006,06:26

            Today's Party Day on AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis thread. At some point it passed the UD thread to become Biggest Thread of All Time on this here messageboard. Currently it adds up to 7603 posts.

            stevestory Pops open a bottle of cheap champagne for you.

            Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 24 2006,06:41

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,10:58)
            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Well, now, that's just silly. Get over the shorthand that biologists use, Dave. When we say a "beneficial" virus mutation, obviously we're not talking about "the greater good" or whether or not God is pleased by this development. We're talking about whether this mutation is helpful or hurtful for that organism's survival and reproduction. How many times do you suppose this point has been made in this thread? ? ?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            So according to you, Beneficial = Benficial for that orgainsm's survival and reproduction in that organism's situation.  Fine.  But my point is that this definition of beneficial mutation has nothing to do with "upward evolution."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Which is why we told you to quit using this ridiculous "upward evolution" term (which you seem to have pulled out of your orifice of miscomprehension) back when you first started using it many months ago. Duh.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Let me revise my previous statement, now that I understand your definition more clearly:  What ToE really needs is mutations which increase specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Oh, reeaallllyy? Tell me, Dave, what would ToE have to say about about a mutation that drastically increased the specificity (affinity) of human haemoglobin for oxygen, hmm? Say one that had so much specificity, oxygen did not unbind once bound? Like carbon monoxide. (Or something like that -- I'm a little rusty with this stuff.) Did Adam's perfect genome include this rather suffocating specificity? Or are you maybe jumping between Spetner's enzyme specificity and Dembski's unmeasureable CSI, stopping off at a few AIG tidbits in between? If so, what is the information content in your use of the word "specificity", hmm?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To my knowledge they have none.  Is APO AIM one?  Don't know.  Is it beneficial in that it helps avoid heart attacks.  We think so.  But we have no idea what overall harmful efffects the loss of specificity might have on the whole species, do we?

            So is it benficial?  Or not?

            I would say no.  Why?  Because it represents and example of LOSS of originally designed function.

            Are we getting clearer or muddier?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Clear as day, Davey. Please define the "originally designed function" of every (any?) gene and we're golden. Tell us how you know this (chapter and verse, please). If that holds up, we'll check it against observed genetics, cellular biology and evolution. If it all checks out, you win. Thanks.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,06:46

            stevestory = cheap bastard, it's probably Thunderbird and Bubble-Up***  . Not that I haven't HAD any T-bird in my life. :p
            Here's to 7603 posts of stomping Dave's ideas in the face, again and again, with a hob-nailed boot.

            ***A very cheap, rotgut wine and a brand of sweet carbonated soda,respectively, for those outside the States. (Yeah, I know, it even sounds bad, that's why it's better with a squeeze of lemon when you're young and have an iron liver. Not that I ever did such things, nope, nuh-uh )
            Posted by: Ved on Oct. 24 2006,07:03

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,11:34)
            OA...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Even your "stuck heater" in Antarctica is beneficial if it gives you a better chance of survival in -60 deg weather that a heater that fails 50% of the time and you freeze to death.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Agreed.  That's why I gave the example.  But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            A stuck heater is ENTIRELY MORE SPECIFIC than one that is controllable. Can it be set to any temperature? No, it's specifically set to ONE setting: Specificity.
            Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 24 2006,07:36



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Thunderbird and Bubble-Up.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I've not heard of the latter, but I do remember overindulging in Thunderbird in my teens. I don't know if they still sell it in the UK, though.

            +++++++

            I just saw this:

            < Amazon river 'switched direction' >

            Explanation please, Dave.
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 24 2006,08:03

            information huh?

            < http://www.usingenglish.com/resources/text-statistics.php >

            Random AIG article (the one about the "ark", 1st link)

            Fog Index:   11.02

            Random Article I found < here >  
            that I got to via a search for "Gene therapy with apoA-1 Milano"

            Fog Index:   18.46

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            The Fog Index is a readability test designed to show how easy or difficult a text is to read. It uses the following formula:

            Reading Level (Grade) = (Average No. of words in sentences + Percentage of words of three or more syllables) x 0.4

            The resulting number is your Gunning Fog Index.

            The Gunning Fog Index gives the number of years of education that your reader hypothetically needs to understand the paragraph or text. The Gunning Fog Index formula implies that short sentences written in plain English achieve a better score than long sentences written in complicated language.

            For reference, the New York Times has an average Fog Index of 11-12, Time magazine about 11. Typically, technical documentation has a Fog Index between 10 and 15, and professional prose almost never exceeds 18.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Now, if anybody has a paid sub to any of these type of services, i'd be most interested to see a big chunk of the AIG site examined.

            But davey, can you see where i'm going here? Using AIG for "research" is like using the ladybird books for reference material. Quite the wrong resource. There is an objective difference between the quality and scope of the data from AIG and from *any other serious research paper* - dont believe me, go to the link and do your own tests.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 24 2006,08:16

            Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 24 2006,10:36)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Thunderbird and Bubble-Up.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I've not heard of the latter, but I do remember overindulging in Thunderbird in my teens. I don't know if they still sell it in the UK, though.

            +++++++

            I just saw this:

            < Amazon river 'switched direction' >

            Explanation please, Dave.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I remember Bubble-Up from listening to When Radio Was, that show that replayed old timey radio from the 30's and 40's.  Just how old are you, Deadman?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,08:31



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I remember Bubble-Up from listening to When Radio Was, that show that replayed old timey radio from the 30's and 40's.  Just how old are you, Deadman?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, technically, so long as I continually replenish my eerie powers with the blood of virgins, I'm ageless.

            Seriously, though, they still make Bubble-Up...along with Moxie, possibly the foulest-tasting beverage on Earth, and Kickapoo Joy Juice, for you fans of Li'l abner and Al Capp. (I'm actually close to 40 now, Argmeister, I just like weird things) < http://www.monarchbeverages.com/brand.asp >
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 24 2006,08:32

            the wordcloud for that AIG noah article is teh funny
            < >
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 24 2006,09:44

            The correct question may not be, in what species or subspecies of Homo to place Dave and fellow tards (comtards?).

            First, it appears possible that Dave forms a unique outlier, even more tarded than all "comparable" Creotards.

            Second, even if Dave does indeed have company in his tarditude, and even if Homo remains arguable as the proper genus--based on descent, if nothing else (possibly Dave's parents were well within the range of sapien[t]-ness, and he is simply a "hopeless monster," a "perfect storm" of deleterious mutations)--then I would suggest that  H. tardus or (my favorite of the moment) H. refluxus come closer to capturing the essence of the new species than H. simplex.

            I have to agree, though, that "carnage" may be an overly-stiff term to describe the "ruins" of dave's "positions."  In fact, all these terms are overly-substantial for claims transiently molded in jello.  Perhaps, "reduced to their essential slime"?
            Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 24 2006,10:41

            Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 24 2006,14:44)
            The correct question may not be, in what species or subspecies of Homo to place Dave and fellow tards (comtards?).

            First, it appears possible that Dave forms a unique outlier, even more tarded than all "comparable" Creotards.

            Second, even if Dave does indeed have company in his tarditude, and even if Homo remains arguable as the proper genus--based on descent, if nothing else (possibly Dave's parents were well within the range of sapien[t]-ness, and he is simply a "hopeless monster," a "perfect storm" of deleterious mutations)--then I would suggest that  H. tardus or (my favorite of the moment) H. refluxus come closer to capturing the essence of the new species than H. simplex.

            I have to agree, though, that "carnage" may be an overly-stiff term to describe the "ruins" of dave's "positions."  In fact, all these terms are overly-substantial for claims transiently molded in jello.  Perhaps, "reduced to their essential slime"?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yeehaaww! Been a while since I've seen a good public dustup over nomenclature. Brontosaurus redux? If someone comes up with a good design for an H. tardus postage stamp, the challenger might just take the field despite those silly little rules of priority. That would of course leave the progenitor H. simplex out in the cold, sore testament to the blistering pedants.  ;)
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,10:53

            H. simplex is very nice.
            I think Mencken used "Booboisie" to refer to the group in common parlance.
            "H. cretinus" has the advantage of good solid Latin roots and the added bonus of the double meaning (look up cretin for those that don't know).
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 24 2006,11:02

            Hmm.  The usual scientific nomenclatural rule of first-in-time is first-in-right momentarily eluded my pinhead.

            I agree that H. simplex was first in time, and will gladly defer.

            ...though d'man's H. cretinus does have a certain ring about it.

            Maybe we need to wait for the DNA results to properly map this new sprig onto the Homo clade...
            Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 24 2006,11:09

            Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 24 2006,16:02)
            Maybe we need to wait for the DNA results to properly map this new sprig onto the Homo clade...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Bah! The new type specimen himself would be the first to tell you that we know all that we need to know about the genetics of this new clade:

            THEY HAVE LOST INFORMATION.

            Done. Tag 'im and pin 'im.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,11:19

            Since this is the creationist thread, I thought this was on-topic. Besides, it's funny, damm your eyes.
            Posted by: jupiter on Oct. 24 2006,11:48



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            (which you seem to have pulled out of your orifice of miscomprehension)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Is that anything like the< moustache of understanding >? They both seem to have similar functions, e.g., allowing an organism to maintain an unwarranted sense of superiority within a hostile environment of scientific research, basic reasoning, and reality. Clearly these are beneficial mutations for the individual organisms, but harmful (or at least deeply annoying) to the larger population.
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 24 2006,12:08

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,10:34)
            It would sure be fun to hear you give a detailed rebuttal of my individual points ... as opposed to always just hearing "Dave's a troll ... Dave's stupid" etc.  

            Are you able to do this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I am, at least most of them. But I won't bother until you give us the detailed explainations about 10 alleles becoming 500, how continents moved thousands of miles in a day without boiling the Earth, and all the others you have been ignoring. This is your topic - you are the one that should be giving detailes defending your theory.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,12:09

            DEADMAN FAILS TO THUMP AIG ON APO AI MILANO EXAMPLE OF "UPWARD" EVOLUTION

            AIG's points below are based on the 2002 Bielicki paper appearing in the Feb issue of Biochemistry...

            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis Exhibit an Antioxidant Activity Distinct from That of Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I
            John K. Bielicki* and Michael N. Oda
            Genome Sciences Department, Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, and Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, California 94609-1673
            Revised Manuscript Received November 6, 2001...

            To summarize yet again, they are ...

            AIG Point 1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs. THIS IS CORRECT ACCORDING TO THIS 2002 PAPER.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Apolipoprotein A-I Milano and apoA-I Paris are examples of natural variants of apoA-I that manifest HDL deficienciencies (p. 2089)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But Deadman says ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            THIS is their [AIG's] MAJOR point. THIS is the point that they think forms the essence of their argument -- that the Milano variant is "degenerate" in the sense of having LOST what the AiG thinks it was "created " for.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well, yes, Deadman, that's what it says ... how do YOU interpret "HDL deficiency"? ... last time I checked that meant the same thing as what AIG is saying.  Lest there be no misunderstanding, the article continues ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dimerization of the cysteine variants inhibits HDL maturation via mechnisms related, in part, to impaired activation of lecithin ... ApoA-I Milano and [Paris] are rapidly cleared from the plasma compartment in humans, thus contributing to the HDL deficiency in vivo.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Note that AIG talks about this "dimerization" in their article also ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I guess Deadman is confused judging by this statement he makes ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            This was the focus of Bielicki's 1997 article, which used a different binding/transport model (you will see references to the "belt" model versus the "picket fence" model in the lit, if you read it)
            This claim that Milan has LOST the ability to bind as effectively as AIwildtype is what is contradicted by the literature, particularly the 8 references you were given. There are more, including human studies.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            AIG did not refer to a 1997 article.  I told you that yesterday.  I was the one that referred to that one before I knew what article AIG was referring to.  I said this morning that it is irrelevant to AIG's case, which it is, so we should disregard it.

            So ... best I can tell, AIG is correct on their main point and it appears that Deadman is confusing "HDL assembly" with "cholesterol transport" (1997 paper)

            AIG Point 2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation. CORRECT ALSO. See the following paper ...


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Cysteine mutants of human apolipoprotein A-I: a study of
            secondary structural and functional properties
            (2005)
            Xuewei Zhu, Gang Wu, Wuwei Zeng, Hong Xue, and Baosheng Chen
            Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of
            Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China 100005
            Journal of Lipid Research Volume 46, 2005

            "By coincubating monomeric A-IM or apoA-IParis with the lipoxygenase-mediated oxidation system, Bielicki and Oda (29) concluded that free cysteine
            residue in the monomers of the mutants endowed the mutants with protection against peroxidation, and A-IM wastwice as effective as apoA-IParis in preventing the oxidation of phospholipids. Almost at the same time, Bielicki et al.
            (30) observed that the synthesized peptides with a single cysteine, based on the sequences of A-IM and apoA-IParis, exhibited antioxidation activity like that of full-length proteins."
            < http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/46/6/1303.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Looks to me like it's saying that the synthesized peptides--AIM and AIP--exhibited antioxidation activity like that of the full-length (i.e. Wild Type) protein.  Is this not what it is saying?  Sounds like AIG is right to me.

            AIG Point 3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
            I do know this to be true ... don't think citing a study on this is necessary.  Also the 2005 Zhu study cited above says this in closing ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Finally, whether A-IM possesses antioxidation activity still remains to be determined.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So do they REALLY know why the Milano people don't have heart attacks?  No, they do not not.  They are guessing at this point and they are testing various hypotheses, best I can tell.  Furthermore, they have no idea what will happen to a person that is HOMO-zygous, because the known mutants are heterozygous.

            4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

            That's right ... Loss of Specificity = Loss of Information. (Ved's comment about the broken heater switch being MORE specific will be addressed tomorrow.)

            And ... best I can tell, AIG is proven right once again.  What is it?  Something like 50 to 1 now?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,12:15

            Read those papers again v e r y    c a r e f u l l y , Deadman before you post   ;-)
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 24 2006,12:26

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
            Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            One more time, in case you missed it
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 24 2006,12:32

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,17:15)
            Read those papers again v e r y    c a r e f u l l y , Deadman before you post   ;-)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Since that might take a while, won't do you use that time to read about HLA genes and what it means to your "hypothesis" that 10 alleles mutate 490 times in 250 years, Dave? Since we know that that is impossible by normal genetic means (39 mutations per generation in a single gene!;), you need to tell us what miracle you will be using and thus where it is in the Bible, or else try and come with an observable way to explain it.

            I'd also demand that you explain how continents moving thousands of miles in a day manage to not destroy Earth. Pretty central to your whole delussion, Dave, explaining how Pangea broke up in a day when geologists agree it took millions of years.

            Until you do, we win by dafault, Dave.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,12:48

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,17:09)
            And ... best I can tell, AIG is proven right once again.  What is it?  Something like 50 to 1 now?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, except for all the big things, Dave. Like the earth (and the universe) being 6,000 years old, the flood, Adam and Eve, the universe being created in six days, created "kinds," that sort of thing. You know, the things that are supposed to be a "better" explanation?

            So when are you going to get around to explaining how we get from 10 HLA alleles to 500 in a year, or 250 years, or even 4,500 years? Or is that just too hard a question to even attempt?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,13:13

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,17:09)
            AIG Point 1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, your whole argument depends on assuming its conclusion. You're assuming the protein was "designed" to do something. The protein wasn't "designed" to do anything; or at least you haven't even begun to prove it was designed. Whether the protein has "lost" function or not, it's developed another function, which argues against your point, not for it.

            Your argument is chasing its own tail, Dave. You assume this protein was created to perform some particular function, and now has lost that function. But how in the world would you go about proving that a particular protein was "designed" to perform some particular function?

            This is exactly where ID slams into a brick wall.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,13:41

            Gee, Dave. I didn't think you could get more stupid, but here you are.

            It is shown in in-vitro, human and other animal studies that AIMilano reconstitutes and transports HDL using a single disulfide monomer, yes. It is shown that somehow this is accomplished more efficiently in Milano than wild-type AI.

            I would like you to tell me how this is not prima facie evidence of the increased ability of Milano to do exactly what it does...form HDL ? How else are the serum levels and arterial plaques reduced more efficiently, Dave? Got a model?

            I told you there were two primary models for this ...the "picket fence" and "belt" models.  There is a novel carboxy domain that Milano has, that AI wild-type does not. The Milano dimers alter the chemical and functional properties of the molecule so that the association of dimeric ApoA-IMilano with the endogenous HDL apparently changes the properties of HDL particles themselves. This is what is basically thought to account (partly) for the increased ability of Milano to form HDL that then takes cholesterol out of the system, and reduces plaques. This end result is not in question. End of story. The clinical and lab data support this.

            Oh,and you'll note that Milano shows **increased** antioxidant properties in comparison to AI wildtype. Read the damm citations I gave you.

            I could keep on giving you details about this, including a course in biochem, but I suggest you buy the books and articles. For Biochem, I used Robert Abeles, Perry Frey and William Jencks' "Biochemistry." Which I bought way back in '92 for a class. I'd suggest you get an updated text.

            Try learning on your own for a change instead of sucking up to AiG idiots like "Dr." Don Batten.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 24 2006,13:47

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,17:09)

            AIG Point 1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Look SFB, the primary "function" of any protein is to keep its owner alive.  THAT'S THE ONLY GOAL.  If a mutation raises the owner's chance of survival, then the mutation was BENEFICIAL because it is MORE EFFECTIVE at its primary job.

            And as far as your other stupidity about "mutations can't add information, only lose it" - here's an example even a idiot like you should understand

            here is a genetic sequence 1)  AABBCC

            next generation it mutates to 2) AABBCD

            next generation it mutates again to 3) AABBCC

            sequences 1) and 3) have identical information

            now if going from 1)--> 2) lost information (according to SFBDave), and going from 2)--> 3) lost information also, then

            how did 1) and 3) end up with identical information?


            Holy Christ on a stick Dave, you're a dumb f*ck.
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2006,14:10

            Wow, you guys are still arguing about the informational load in mutations. I've got a question for everybody: Has Dave explained why gene duplication + mutation doesn't increase the functional complexity of the genome? If he has, does he believe that the duplicate gene is always silenced before it can mutate into something useful? Or that the new gene(s) just partition the old functions? Or that the process is too rare to be of any use?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,14:17

            Deadman...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Gee, Dave. I didn't think you could get more stupid, but here you are.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Oh really now ... are you sure?  Read carefully  :-)
            Deadman says ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            1. It is shown in in-vitro, human and other animal studies that AIMilano reconstitutes and transports HDL using a single disulfide monomer, yes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Really?  Please show me a quote from your sources that contradicts this quote from the 2002 study cited by AIG ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Apolipoprotein A-I Milano and apoA-I Paris are examples of natural variants of apoA-I that manifest HDL deficienciencies (p. 2089)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            What part of this are you having a hard time understanding?  You do know what a "deficiency" is, don't you?
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            It is shown that somehow this is accomplished more efficiently in Milano than wild-type AI.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            What is accomplished more efficiently?  Antioxidant activity.  "Somehow" is a key word there also, Deadman.  This is not settled science yet ... oh except for one thing ... that Milano manifests an HDL deficiency ... let me give you that other quote again ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dimerization of the cysteine variants inhibits HDL maturation via mechnisms related, in part, to impaired activation of lecithin ... ApoA-I Milano and [Paris] are rapidly cleared from the plasma compartment in humans, thus contributing to the HDL deficiency in vivo.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Deadman ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I would like you to tell me how this is not prima facie evidence of the increased ability of Milano to do exactly what it does...form HDL ?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I don't know how to make it any more plain than this that ...

            You are wrong and AIG is right. ---> The mutation caused the protein to LOSE function ... inhibited maturation of HDL ... impaired activation of lecithin

            Would you like me to have God himself call you on the phone to make it a little plainer?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I told you there were two primary models for this ...the "picket fence" and "belt" models.  There is a novel carboxy domain that Milano has, that AI wild-type does not. This is what accounts for the increased ability of Milano to form HDL. End of story. The clinical and lab data support this.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dimerization of the cysteine variants inhibits HDL maturation via mechnisms related, in part, to impaired activation of lecithin ... ApoA-I Milano and [Paris] are rapidly cleared from the plasma compartment in humans, thus contributing to the HDL deficiency in vivo.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            HDL MATURATION IS INHIBITED... THERE IS HDL DEFICIENCY IN VIVO.  END OF STORY.

            Hello ... Earth to Deadman!!

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Oh,and you'll note that Milano shows **increased** antioxidant properties in comparison to AI wildtype. Read the #### citations I gave you.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Maybe.  Not sure about that yet.  Did you read this 2005 Zhu study?  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Finally, whether A-IM possesses antioxidation activity still remains to be determined.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            And even if they finally agree that there is increased antioxidant qualities, you still have no evidence from this mutation because of reasons already stated.

            And how come all you give me is references and you say "trust me, these references support my point" ???

            I give you actual quotes from the papers ... not just references that I have to go waste my time looking up chasing your wrong ideas.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,14:18

            Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2006,19:10)
            Wow, you guys are still arguing about the informational load in mutations. I've got a question for everybody: Has Dave explained why gene duplication + mutation doesn't increase the functional complexity of the genome? If he has, does he believe that the duplicate gene is always silenced before it can mutate into something useful? Or that the new gene(s) just partition the old functions? Or that the process is too rare to be of any use?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave is still hung up on the distinction between "information" and "meaning." Until he gets those two detangled, he's not going to get anywhere talking about an increase or decrease in "information."
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,14:39

            No, Dave, I don't know what an HDL deficiency is, particularly when there are multiple methods to detect HDL's, some of which are more efficient than others.

            Why don't you tell me about HDL deficiency and binding and how it is that Milano consistently outperforms wild type in efflux if it is not via HDL? Go ahead, Dave, I've read Zhu. Show me what you know about this. Be bold
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 24 2006,14:42

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,15:26)
            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
            Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            One more time, in case you missed it
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, I'll ask one more time before I go to bold caps...  it's a pretty simple question, requiring just 2 or 3 letters to answer.  Granted, of course there will be a followup.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,14:54

            Remember, Dave, ever since oh, abut 1980, it's been known that AIMilano carriers show low serum HDLs.

            It's also been known for years that Milano causes increased macrophage cholesterol efflux.

            But this increased efflux via macrophages doesn't account for the increased efficiency overall for AIMilano to remove plaques and serum cholesterol.

            So , if it's not via HDL's, what is it, Dave?
            Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Oct. 24 2006,15:04



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            3. russ // Oct 24th 2006 at 4:51 pm

            If I’m not mistaken, Tusekee University is an historically black college. As such, it is immune from attacks by the ACLU on the issue of religion/creation. They’re members of the same politically liberal coalition.

            Comment by russ — October 24, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            ACLU = satan worshipping darwin loving atheists

            black folk = ACLU

            You do the math.

            I've been reading UD more than usual lately and good god (space alien if you prefer) those people have got to be some of the dumbest folks walking the earth.  Seriously, I don't know if I have ever seen a dumber bunch of people in my life.

            And Demsbki may be one of the best educated dunces in north america.  It's almost creepy yet highly amusing.
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 24 2006,15:23

            Earth to afdave: hello, you're utterly wrong on the information thing.  So totally, utterly, basically, fundamentally wrong that everyone here is rolling around on the floor, in between bouts of banging their heads against the nearest convenient hard surface to try to think of yet another way to drive the simplest point through your impenatrable cranium.

            It's astonishing what a maroon you are.  Ever consider marketing yourself as a kind of Girl Scout cookie?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,15:31

            You know, one of the things I find most irritating about Dave is that he'll latch onto one of these infinitesimally-minor issues, like whether Apolipoprotein A-I Milano manifests an "HDL deficiency," which even if true wouldn't advance his "hypothesis" one millimeter, while failing utterly to deal with disastrous shortcomings in his own "hypothesis," like his failure to find evidence for a "global catastrophic flood," a failure to explain how 5,000 feet of water could have deposited 5,000 (or 17,000) feet of sediment, a failure to account for the mountain of evidence demonstrating the earth and the universe are billions of years old, a failure to account for how several tens of thousands (at most) of "kinds" on the ark differentiated to tens of millions (at least) of species in less than five millennia, a failure to explain how all the genetic diversity annihilated in his "flood" managed to reappear in at best a few hundred years, a failure to explain how the continents could have surged to their current positions thousands of miles from their origin in 24 hours, etc. etc. etc. (This might be the longest sentence I've ever posted here.)

            Dave is the most perfect example I have ever seen of failing to perceive the forest for the trees. And yet he's the one who claims that his "hypothesis" might not be able to account for every last detail but is a "better explanation" for the "big picture." All Dave ever talks about is details. He never even discusses the Big Picture, which is his "hypothesis's" failure to account for even the most obvious features of our world.
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 24 2006,15:32

            Dave, when you get around to it you really need to address gene duplication. If point mutations were all there were, that might be a problem for evolution, but gene duplication is a very powerful way to build new systems, especially the "irreducible" ones Behe writes about. Plus, this will avoid semantic arguments because "information" has several definitions, even in the technical literature, while every biologist agrees on what a duplication event is. I think that Spetner equivocates the definition of "information" at crucial points in his book and that this sinks his argument.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,15:38

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You know, one of the things I find most irritating about Dave is that he'll latch onto one of these infinitesimally-minor issues, like whether Apolipoprotein A-I Milano manifests an "HDL deficiency," which even if true wouldn't advance his "hypothesis" one millimeter,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I see ... since Deadman lost that one, now it's an "infinitesimally minor issue."

            No, Eric, it's a very big issue and it's one that Talk Origins has been using to mislead people like you for a long time.

            In fact, it's a critical issue for you ... you have to have a mechanism for ToE to work.  And my job is to show you that you don't have one.

            Argy and others ... I will try to get to your information questions tomorrow.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,15:38

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,19:17)
            And how come all you give me is references and you say "trust me, these references support my point" ???

            I give you actual quotes from the papers ... not just references that I have to go waste my time looking up chasing your wrong ideas.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Once again Dave demonstrates a) his unforgivable laziness, b) his failure to understand that you can't learn science via soundbites, and c) his insistence that he be spoon-fed everything. We already know you're uneducable, Dave; why would anyone waste their time spoon-feeding you quotes from a paper you can't be bothered to read?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,16:03

            The funny part is that all anyone has to do is look at what I posted and you'll see quotes from the articles. See page 50, 52, 53 of this thread.

            Nissen, Stephen E., MD; Taro Tsunoda, MD, et. al. (2003). Effect of Recombinant ApoA-I Milano on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2292-2300.
            Quote  
            "ApoA-I Milano is a variant of apolipoprotein A-I identified in individuals in rural Italy who exhibit very low levels of HDL. Infusion of recombinant ApoA-I Milano-phospholipid complexes produces rapid regression of atherosclerosis in animal models."


            Cesare R. Sirtori (2004) [b] ApoA-1 Milano and Regression of Atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2004;291:1319. My colleagues and I reported that a 90-minute infusion of 1 g of recombinant protein in rabbits resulted in a 30% mean reduction of plaque volume.[b/]

            Hyuntae Kim, Elaine L. Jacobson, Myron K. Jacobson, and Andras G. Lacko (2004). ApoA-1 Milano and Regression of Atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2004;291:1319.

            Nissen SE, Tsunoda T, Tuzcu EM, et al. Effect of recombinant ApoA-I Milano on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290:2292-300. Quote  
            [b]Now that we have preliminary evidence of a rapid regression of atherosclerosis in human subjects, we hope that our study will encourage further exploration of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action of ApoA-1 Milano. Such efforts could provide important insights into the process of reverse cholesterol transport and lead to development of other approaches to achieve regression of coronary disease. (letter to JAMA, from Nissen et. al.)

            Somehow, he just can't "see" citations contrary to his stupid view.

            He thinks because "Dr." Don Batten claims that the  "original purpose" of AI wild is to "assemble" HDL's...well, that ends it...despite the fact that HDL's are used to transport cholesterol out of the system and reduce to bile or other metabolites.

            Here's a hint, Dave. The reason why you find low serum HDL in carriers of Milano is because ...Milano is simply more efficient in cholesterol efflux.

            What happens to HDL when it reaches the Liver, Dave?

            Why does Batten say the "primary" "purpose" of Apolipoproteins is assemblage of HDL's when in fact, it's all about lipid binding by any means neccessary?

            Why does AIMilano efflux cholesterol more efficiently, Dave? Why does it show increased antioxidation properties, not JUST in Bielicki's article, but many others?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,16:09

            Here's your favorite online sources, Dave: Wikipedia...maybe you'll be more inclined to accept that, since it's made for folks like you.
            Apolipoproteins are lipid-binding proteins which are the constituents of the plasma lipoproteins, sub-microscopic spherical particles that transport dietary lipids through the bloodstream from the intestine to the liver < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein >
            High-density lipoproteins (HDL) form a class of lipoproteins, varying somewhat in their size (8-11 nm in diameter) and contents, that carry cholesterol from the body's tissues to the liver. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_density_lipoprotein >

            Of course, that's not all APO's do, or HDL's for that matter. But see how it's all about binding lipids and moving them to the liver? What does Milano do better than AI wildtype with regard to cholesterol?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 24 2006,16:10



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Argy and others ... I will try to get to your information questions tomorrow.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Please don't. Unless you intend to get quantitative.

            Meanwhile, there are several very interesting questions you've dodged on this Apo-AI story. Like how do you know what this protein was "designed to do"? Like how do the mutations I showed you from my own work not constitute "increased specificity"?

            You keep talking about an "HDL deficiency". Deficiency, relative to what? These people are healthy, no? Maybe the rest of us have an HDL surplus. Perhaps you characterize unusually intelligent people as suffering from a "stupidity deficiency".

            Just to be really clear: no one is conceding that you've "won" anything here, not even a minor tangential point.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 24 2006,16:49

            Deadman ... you could do something novel and admit you were wrong for once instead of still trying to act all tough.  I've done it here several times.  It's not that bad.  And it's not like I'm going to reciprocate all your vitriol now and start calling you an idiot.

            I know you are not an idiot, just like I know I am not one.  You just misread the papers and made an honest mistake about AIG.  Could happen to anyone.

            I'm your friend even though you have said you don't want me to be.
            Posted by: incorygible on Oct. 24 2006,16:51

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 24 2006,21:10)
            Just to be really clear: no one is conceding that you've "won" anything here, not even a minor tangential point.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Now, now, Russell, that's not entirely true.

            For instance, I once asked Dave to show his math in a probability calculation. Since he quite correctly replied that his stated probability was "one in a gazillion", there was no mathematical rigor involved, and asking for such was outrageous. I was forced to concede the point and apologize. What's more, I can recall a few additional "points" of similar magnitude.

            So if he isn't rearranging the deck chairs, he's at least had the opportunity to lounge in one now and then. Whether or not he's got a boat able to withstand a global flood and preserve a complete sample of the planet's future biodiversity...well, that of course is a different story. If you ask me, the odds of that are about one in a gazillion.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 24 2006,17:28

            In reply to < this > post by AFDave.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            SHANNON INFORMATION THEORY: RANDOMNESS IS NOT INFORMATION

            Yesterday, the question was asked ...  


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Which has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech; or an equally-long digital recording of broadband white noise?

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Now it is quite clear the questioner believes the answer to this question is the latter, and to take this position is a stark illustration of the death of intuition and common sense.  Possibly this explains why this is the same person who has said probably no less than 50 times "Dave, the evidence you have given is not evidence."  OK.  Now that I see how your brain works, I see why you think that.  In your world, White Noise = Information, Supporting Facts != Evidence but Group Think == Evidence.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFDave, when you use the word randomness I assume you are referring to a signal that was generated by a random process. Here is where the confusion lies. Shannon defined two things, information and uncertainty. Information is the received signal on the receiver's end. Uncertainty is the opposite of information and is either the ambiguity of the signal that remains to be sent or in the case of a noisy channel the information lost during transmission. Uncertainty is only what the reciever does not know, and is independent of how the signal being sent was generated. Shannon information theory starts once a signal is being transmitted, not during it generation. In other words, how that signal came to be, whether by flipping a coin or written by a person, is not the concern of Shannon's information theory.

            Let me give you an example.
            I have two messages, one was generated randomly by flipping a coin, the other is part of my social security number. One was guided by chance, the other intelligence (or so I like to think).
            01001101
            10110101

            Now, if we were to send these over a noiseless channel, and the receiver assumes an equal probability of either a 0 or 1, the amount of information received would be the same. You do agree that 8 bits were sent in both cases? Yet, according to you, one has more information than the other because it has meaning. Now, I do not know of an equation in information theory that would tell me which one has more "meaningful" information than the other. Dr. Schneider agrees with me on this. Please, read his primer on information theory. It is very good.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Here's where the confusion lies ... the article (and Shannon) state that the UNCERTAINTY is maximal in the first case (many random colors). Therefore, if someone tells the color of every new ball drawn, they are conveying MORE information than in the second case.   Why?  Because in the 2nd case, we already know they are all red balls, so telling someone "a red ball was drawn" isn't giving them any new information.  Eric (and many of you) are making the mistake of thinking that the random colored balls inherently contain more information.  Not so. It is the MESSAGE CONCERNING the random balls that contains more information.  Don't confuse the two.  In Case 1, the message "The ball is red" contains MORE information than Case 2 "The ball is red" because there is more uncertainty in Case 1.  Why?  Because we already know that Case two is all red balls.  Note that the message itself is identical.  But in Case 1 it contains more information.  So hopefully that clears up your misunderstandings.  Note also that the practical application of Shannon Information theory is communication, which of course concerns itself a lot with transmitting information reliably.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave, the point is not that a "random colored ball" (I assume you mean a ball whose state we are uncertain about) has more information. It is that a ball picked out of a collection of balls with an equal distribution of being any of a given set of colors would require more information to represent it. If we have and equal number of 4 types of balls, Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow, and there is an equal probability of any of them  being picked, our uncertainty the balls state will be:
            H = 4*(-1/4*log2(1/4)) = -4 * (1/4 * -2) = 8/4 = 2 bits
            But, once we get a ball, that 2 bits of uncertainty is turned into two bits of information.  You can do the math yourself, but it turns out that whenever we randomly select a symbol  (randomly pick out a ball) and each symbol has equal probability of being selected (there are the same number of each type of ball), then the amount of uncertainty for each symbol sent will be maximal. Of course, this is assuming our channel has no noise.

            Now, what does this have to do with whitenoise. Well, it turns out that whitenoise is defined by every value within its range having an equal probability of being selected. Whitenoise is a great approximation for randomly picking out balls from a box where each color is equally likely to be picked. On the other hand this is not the case for text (e.g. English). Certain letters occur more often then others, like the letter 'e'.

            AFDave, what does this tell you about the uncertainty of a written text sent to a receiver versus using a whitenoise source to randomly send characters? You are an engineer designing a communication and your specification says to use Shannon information theory to decide how many bits (pretend you can store fractions of a bit) to use for each symbol received. You have to build two devices, one will be getting text from famous novels, the other from a whitenoise source randomly selecting characters. Which device will require a larger buffer for each character sent?
            For simplicity with both cases you can ignore spaces and punctuation.

            Anybody else feel free to try this out. The math is not too bad. You can find information to help with this here: < http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/frequency >
            And remember, a whitenoise source will choose each letter with equal probability.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,17:29

            I just thought of something, Dave...how is the Zhu article about HDL assembly, as the AIG describe it? Can you show where the article describes HDL assembly and not just binding by APO's?

            The Zhu article is online, Dave, not just PDF form. it's here: < http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/46/6/1303#BIB50 >
            I'd like you to show me where the article is about HDL assembly.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 24 2006,17:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You are wrong and AIG is right. ---> The mutation caused the protein to LOSE function ... inhibited maturation of HDL ... impaired activation of lecithin



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.

            IF they posted actual non pseudo science they would be absolutely irrelevant, they would literally disappear in a puff of logical smoke.

            It would cease to exist, there would be no reason for its IP address, it would have passed on, carked it, turned up its toes, shuffled off its mortal coil........

            They have never once posted a peer reviewed document that supports a literal interpretation of Genesis AND NEVER WILL it is a physical impossibility.

            Genesis is a MYTH mere words from the dreams of ancient men, entertainment for camel herders and sand farmers. Always has been and always will be.





            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Would you like me to have God himself call you on the phone to make it a little plainer?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Bwhahahahahahahahaha


            Dave, dave, dave...mentioning the lord in vain?

            Reducing her to a mere turn of phrase?

            A cartoon deity for a cartoon believer?

            tch tch...get thee to a synagogue thou spawn of Satan.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 24 2006,17:56


            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 24 2006,17:56



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm your friend even though you have said you don't want me to be.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, you're not my "friend" in any sense. You don't know me. You chose to lie about me. You avoid directly responding to issues that count. You are a plagiarist and a quoteminer. Your avoidance and posting of two whole articles will not save AiG, Dave. Particlarly when the Bielicki article
            (Bielicki, J. K., and M. N. Oda. 2002. Apolipoprotein A-I (Milano) and apolipoprotein A-I (Paris) exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I. Biochemistry. 41: 2089–2096)

            supports the notion of increased antioxidation

            And the Zhu article ...isn't about the assemblage of HDL's ...they were looking at how the APO proteins they used would bind to lipids  (moving them from a macrophage) but not as HDL's

            Remember what the AIG says about their objections, Dave:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the enzyme has lost activity for making HDLs. So the mutant enzyme has sacrificed a lot of specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the net result of this mutation has been a huge loss of specificity
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Remember, Dave, actual HDL's require additional proteins...like ApoAII in a complex. This was not about assembling HDL's, it was a comparison of how well various natural (AI wildtype, Paris and Milano) and 5 lab-created forms... bound to lipids all by themselves

            You cannot be my friend, because I reject your fake friendship, and friendship is not one-sided.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,18:26

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,20:38)
            Eric...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You know, one of the things I find most irritating about Dave is that he'll latch onto one of these infinitesimally-minor issues, like whether Apolipoprotein A-I Milano manifests an "HDL deficiency," which even if true wouldn't advance his "hypothesis" one millimeter,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I see ... since Deadman lost that one, now it's an "infinitesimally minor issue."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, he didn't lose the argument. You did. Even if you hadn't lost it, it wouldn't help your case in the slightest, but you did lose. As usual.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            No, Eric, it's a very big issue and it's one that Talk Origins has been using to mislead people like you for a long time.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Except that it's not. Loss of function means absolutely nothing, and isn't even a tiny problem for the ToE, if it confers an adaptive advantage. But, in this case, there isn't even a loss of function anyway.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In fact, it's a critical issue for you ... you have to have a mechanism for ToE to work.  And my job is to show you that you don't have one.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You're a little late to that party, Dave. There have been multiple mechanisms for evolution for at least 150 years, and if you think you've given anyone a reason for thinking it can't work, you're even dumber than you think I think you are.

            And in the meantime, your problem is vastly, astronomically more difficult to explain than standard evolutionary theory, because you've got the same amount of evolution to explain in about a millionth of the time. You still don't have a mechanism for the sort of explosive growth in biodiversity your "hypothesis" requires, especially now that your "genetically-rich" argument has collapsed under the weight of its own illogic.
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 24 2006,18:31

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,20:38)
            Argy and others ... I will try to get to your information questions tomorrow.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Will one of those questions you'll be addressing is how 5000 ft of water could lay down 5000 feet of sediment?  I hope so, because we've been waiting quite a while for you to address that one.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 24 2006,18:31

            incidental info on noise.

            AFD will be aware that engineers use noise to test radio receivers.

            To determine the actual residual noise introduced by a receivers own circuits a calibrated wideband random noise source is hooked up to the receiver and the average power is compared between the noise source on and off thus giving the receivers own noise relative to the calibrated source.

            The noise source has to have more noise power output than the inherent noise power of the receiver.

            The receivers noise power is described in degrees Kelvin.
            This value then can be used to determine the receivers minimum discernible signal sensitivity.
            By definition 0 degrees Kelvin is zero noise power.

            AFD what is the information contained in that noise?

            As long as the receivers own noise is lower than the back ground cosmic noise then the background noise can be measured (as power and thus temperature) .....imagine the surprise of Robert Wilson when he and his partner Arno Penzias at Bell Labs in 1965 hooked up their new super low noise microwave receiver, pointed it at the sky and discovered  noise when none was expected. They thought that pidgeon poo on the antenna was the cause at first.

            Robert Wilson later won the 1978 Noble Physics prize for his part in the discovery of CMB.


            It turned out they had discovered the background heat energy left over from the Big Bang 13-15 billion years ago first theoretically proposed in 1952.


            As with information in the scientific sense, noise itself has many different definitions and uses.

            Now here is a question AFD how many years before your GENESIS YEAR ZERO was the BIG BANG? (snicker, giggle)
            pssst ...its OK to describe it in NEGATIVE YEARS ...tossbag.


            And while you are at it...... quick get an email off to NASA they haven't heard about AFDism


            < Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background >

            Also WHAT is the information contained in CMB?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 24 2006,18:35

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,21:49)
            Deadman ... you could do something novel and admit you were wrong for once instead of still trying to act all tough.  I've done it here several times.  It's not that bad.  And it's not like I'm going to reciprocate all your vitriol now and start calling you an idiot.

            I know you are not an idiot, just like I know I am not one.  You just misread the papers and made an honest mistake about AIG.  Could happen to anyone.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Except that it would be wrong for him to admit he was wrong, because he isn't wrong, Dave. Given that you still insist you "won" your "Portuguese moment," how much credibility do you think you have when you say you "won" an argument? Especially when we can read the quotes DM posted, for the second or possibly third time, that you somehow missed, just as you missed everyone's posts on information, and see that deadman is entirely correct when he says that there is no loss of function or specificity. Your arguments simply aren't supported by the best evidence, Dave, and it's always the best evidence that carries the day, not the evidence that says what you want it to say.

            You're accusing deadman of making an honest mistake when he's done no such thing. Meanwhile, you've made a dishonest mistake by ignoring contrary evidence that's placed right under your nose.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 24 2006,19:54

            Eric said:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You're(afd) accusing deadman of making an honest mistake when he's done no such thing.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Well of course he would AFD has ZERO CREDIBILITY so the only way forward for him is the REDUCE the credibility of the adversary... the classic ad hominem.




            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Meanwhile, you've (afd) made a dishonest mistake by ignoring contrary evidence that's placed right under your nose.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Hah! dishonest mistake?


            oh no no no Eric a calculated, malicious and deliberate attempt to subvert proven scientific TRUTH's.

            aside..to AFD ....your so called trvth is the opposite of TRUTH your's is the PRAVDA (The propaganda organ of the old Soviet State)of science.

            AFD ignoring contrary evidence ??

            AFD DOES NOT DO EVIDENCE he is incapable, he would have to give up the lie he has lived his whole life.

            His own unique form of creationism REQUIRES its own religion ...AFDism.

            Very similar to early christianity....say that of a 5 or 6 year old ....completely unworldly and completely convinced they are right at the same time.

            Pathetic.
            Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 24 2006,21:43

            Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 24 2006,14:44)
            The correct question may not be, in what species or subspecies of Homo to place Dave and fellow tards (comtards?).

            First, it appears possible that Dave forms a unique outlier, even more tarded than all "comparable" Creotards.

            Second, even if Dave does indeed have company in his tarditude, and even if Homo remains arguable as the proper genus--based on descent, if nothing else (possibly Dave's parents were well within the range of sapien[t]-ness, and he is simply a "hopeless monster," a "perfect storm" of deleterious mutations)--then I would suggest that  H. tardus or (my favorite of the moment) H. refluxus come closer to capturing the essence of the new species than H. simplex.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hmmm, I see part of your point, Davey is more likely a sub species of H. sapiens at this point, in which case I'll insist we go with H sapiens simplex.

            Obviously much more study is required. Will the known (and unknown) specimens of H sapiens simplex willfully isolate themsleves and rapidly evolve/devolve/speciate lose information/specificity like salmonids (or Branch Davidians)? I smoked a salmon for supper tonight, the #### things are hard to get lit but once you do it's to die for!



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If someone comes up with a good design for an H. tardus postage stamp, the challenger might just take the field despite those silly little rules of priority.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Cory, you leave your sticky handed philatelists out of this! H tardus is well, ... juvenile, not that that doesn't apply to Davey but we do have standards here don't we?

            DM, H cretinus, I get it but we NEED something better.

            Davey, when are you going to address organisms that have been alive longer than your "hypothesis" can explain? I'm not talking about Ents if that will help.
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 24 2006,21:43

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,20:38)
            In fact, it's a critical issue for you ... you have to have a mechanism for ToE to work.  And my job is to show you that you don't have one.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Did the gene mutate? Yes. Does it allow the carrier to survive in its environment? Yes Does it provide an insurmountable disadvantage? No. According to the ToE, it is fine, Dave.

            Do tell us, Dave, why, if you were right, you have shown that the mutation + natural selection mechanism is not working in this case. Indeed, please tell us how a single example of this type somehow shows that mutation + natural selection doesn't ever work. Wait - you can't. you are fighting rearguard actions. If you loose, your "hypothesis" is shown wrong from yet another angle. If you "win", all you manage is to force us to change examples. Meanwhile, all the other times when you lost (which you refuse to acknowledge, btw), have still sunk your theory. You are just to self-deluded to notice.

            By the way, your objective in this thread wasn't to prove evolution wrong, was to defend your own "hypothesis". Mind you, you cannot see the difference, which is telling about your intelligence and understanding. Hint: fallacy of false dichotomy.

               
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,20:38)
            Argy and others ... I will try to get to your information questions tomorrow.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            But you are not going to even attempt to explain how 10 alleles became 500 in 13 generations? Or how continents rushed through the world? Or any of the other *huge*, "hypothesis"-killing issues?

            See, Dave, I already know you have no understanding of what Information Theory says. But even if you were right, it is of no moment: no matter how you define information, you cannot show that mutations only "reduce information" because what one mutation does, another can undo. There is no "law of conservation of information".

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,01:17

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            No, Dave, he didn't lose the argument. You did. Even if you hadn't lost it, it wouldn't help your case in the slightest, but you did lose. As usual.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

            k.e summed it up pretty well ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            *****************************

            Deadman ... quit trying to squirm and wiggle ... I try to let you lose graciously and what do you do? ... in effect spit in my face and resume lying about me.  Nice.

            The Zhu article didn't focus on HDL assembly I assume because this was old news by 2005.  It was the 2002 Bielicki article that talked about that.

            Now, just lick your wounds, dust yourself off, and forget it.  We're moving on for the sake of everyone else here.  I'm guessing they are tired of this topic.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 25 2006,01:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman ... quit trying to squirm and wiggle ... I try to let you lose graciously and what do you do? ... in effect spit in my face and resume lying about me.  Nice.
            ...
            Now, just lick your wounds, dust yourself off, and forget it.  We're moving on for the sake of everyone else here.  I'm guessing they are tired of this topic.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            This is the irritating sort of "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" that makes me think afd must be doing it consciously, knowing that it's irritating.

            No, dave, Deadman didn't lose anything here, for precisely the reasons Grey Wolf just summarized. Here. Let me repeat:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Did the gene mutate? Yes. Does it allow the carrier to survive in its environment? Yes Does it provide an insurmountable disadvantage? No. According to the ToE, it is fine, Dave.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Now, if you can point to anything that proves that this gene has lost any functionality, your information will be duly considered. If you can't, that constitutes your less than gracious concession.
            Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 25 2006,02:01



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave, your violin playing is boring.  Stop playing the martyr.  
            "Mommy, mommy, they all hate me because I believe in Jesus."
            (yawn)
            Once again, nobody cares that you are a creationist.  It's your arguements that stink!
            AIG is lying to you Dave.
            I knew you wouldn't send them an e-mail about the article because in your heart you knew there wouldn't be a response.
            In your heart you already knew that they would not take down the article.
            Such a refusal would fatally challange your world-view.
            So you didn't even bother to send the e-mail.
            Sad and pitiful.  
            You know and I know that Christians are supposed to be honest.
            100% honest.   ALL  THE TIME,  EVEN IF THE OTHER GUY IS A LIAR AND A SNEAK!
            The article is still there.  They are bearing false witness.  That's wrong.  Isn't there a part of your conscience that is just a tiny, teeny, weeny bit uncomfortable with the the idea of a Christian organisation lying to it's followers?
            Have I got it wrong, AFDave?
            Are you an honest man?
            Are you disappointed with AIG... even just a little bit?
            I guess we'll all know soon enough when you continue to ignore the issue.  Running from this won't make it go away.  Surprise us all, AFDAve.  Take the bull by the horns and answer your critics.  You started this thread.
            Take some responsibility for it.
            Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2006,02:15

            Crabby,



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Hmmm, I see part of your point, Davey is more likely a sub species of H. sapiens at this point, in which case I'll insist we go with H sapiens simplex.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Not a subspecies, a different species H. ludens. To keep this comment relevant to the broad topic of this board and thread, I am not proposing a new species concept, I am proposing that Dave and ilk are providing us with an example of speciation occuring as we watch.

            No one but another member of H. ludens will reproduce with him or indeed any other member of H. ludens. Granted I'm sure creationists can physically reproduce with H. sapiens should the situation arise, but due to perhaps non genetic factors and/or sexual selection it rarely, if ever,  does.

            Is this evidence for sympatric speciation? Discuss!

            Louis
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,05:49

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,06:17)
            Eric...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            No, Dave, he didn't lose the argument. You did. Even if you hadn't lost it, it wouldn't help your case in the slightest, but you did lose. As usual.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

            k.e summed it up pretty well ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes, Dave, in general, a young-earth creationist can never be right, because young-earth creationism itself is wrong. Would you agree that a flat-earther cannot be right?

            Now, granted, a creationist could be right about some things. Not about the age of the earth, for example, but there's nothing to prevent you from being right about some things. And that's what's so astonishing about you, Dave: you're almost never right about anything. I'd think just the law of averages would have you right more often than you are, but somehow you've managed to beat the odds. I'd like to know your secret—or, maybe I'm better off not knowing.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman ... quit trying to squirm and wiggle ... I try to let you lose graciously and what do you do? ... in effect spit in my face and resume lying about me.  Nice.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Uh, no, Dave. Did you read the quotes he posted? They blow your argument away, and everyone (I think including you) knows it.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,07:34



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman ... quit trying to squirm and wiggle ... I try to let you lose graciously and what do you do? ... in effect spit in my face and resume lying about me.  Nice.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Please name any lie that I posted about you, Dave. You plagiarized. You lied about me. You quotemined. These things are demonstrable.
            Bielicki, 2002 merely says that Milano has greater antioxidant effects and that "There were no differences between lipid-free apoA-I(Milano,) apoA-I(Paris), and apoA-I(WT) in mediating the efflux of cholesterol from macrophages." < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract >
            Zhu says it doesn't have increased antioxidation based on his use of a soy-derived oxidant. Both were working in the lab. Both are irrelevant, since what actually counts is the quote from Bielicki above.
            If you actually DID know about this, you'd simply acknowledge that Milano has been shown to bind and transport cholesterol faster than AI wildtype in actual clinical trials, but no, you pretend to "win" in the most childish ways possible.

            Here's the proof in the pudding...money. Here's some news for those interested in investments.

            Pfizer and Lipid Sciences Co. are working (separately) on synthetic apoA-1's related to apoMilano.

            Pharmacia & Upjohn Companies retained an exclusive joint option for co-development and marketing of ApoA-I Milano gene therapies outside of the U.S. and Canada.

            Roche just bought the rights (for a billion dollars) to a trimeric form of Milano from Borean Pharma, a reasearch and development company.
            ***************************************************************
            And just in case you don't remember this, Dave...here's all the citations you've been given on how effective Milano is at what it does:

            Ameli S, Hultgardh-Nilsson A, Cercek B, et al.(1994) Recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano reduces intimal thickening after balloon injury in hypercholesterolemic rabbits. Circulation. 1994; 90: 1935-1941

            Calabresi, L., G. Tedeschi, C. Treu, S. Ronchi, D. Galbiati, S. Airoldi, C. R. Sirtori, Y. Marcel, and G. Franceschini. (2001)Limited proteolysis of a disulfide-linked apoA-I dimer in reconstituted HDL. J. Lipid Res. 2001. 42: 935-942.

            Calabresi L, et al. (1999) "Cell cholesterol efflux to reconstituted high-density lipoproteins containing the apolipoprotein A-IMilano dimer." Biochemistry 38, 16307-14

            Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Reconstituted high-density lipoproteins with a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer: evidence for restricted particle size heterogeneity." Biochemistry 36, 12428-33

            Calabresi L, et al. (1997) "Activation of lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase by a disulfide-linked apolipoprotein A-I dimer." Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 232, 345-9

            Chiesa, G.,  E. Monteggia, M. Marchesi, P. Lorenzon, M. Laucello, V. Lorusso, C. Di Mario, E. Karvouni, R. S. Newton, C. L. Bisgaier, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori (2002) "Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Infusion Into Rabbit Carotid Artery Rapidly Removes Lipid From Fatty Streaks." Circ. Res., May 17, 2002; 90(9): 974 - 980.      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (AIM), a natural variant of human apolipoprotein A-I, confers to carriers a significant protection against vascular disease... These results suggest AIM-PL complexes enhanced lipid removal from arteries is the mechanism responsible for the observed plaque changes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Cole, T.G.,  W. L. Nowatzke, C. L. Bisgaier, and B. R. Krause (2002). Method-dependent Changes in ""HDL-Cholesterol"" with Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Infusion in Healthy Volunteers. Clin. Chem., April 1, 2002; 48(4): 680 - 681.

            Franceschini G, Calabresi L, Chiesa G, et al.(1999) Increased cholesterol efflux potential of sera from ApoA-IMilano carriers and transgenic mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999; 19: 1257-1262

            Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso AD, et al (1980). A-IMilano apoprotein: decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family. J Clin Invest. 1980; 66: 892-900

            Li D, Weng S, Yang B, Zander DS, Saldeen T, Nichols WW, Khan S, Mehta JL.(1999) Inhibition of arterial thrombus formation by ApoA1 Milano.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1999 Feb;19(2):378-83.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Treatment of rats with apoA1 Milano markedly delayed time to thrombus formation (38.8+/-11.9 versus 21.2+/-4.1 minutes, P<0. 01), inhibited platelet aggregation (25+/-7% versus 50+/-11%, P<0. 01), and reduced weight of the thrombus (18.5+/-1.8 versus 23.7+/-2. 3 mg/cm, P<0.01). Total cholesterol and HDL levels remained similar in both groups of rats, but plasma apoA1 Milano levels were elevated in apoA1 Milano-treated rats. In in vitro studies, incubation of platelets with apoA1 Milano reduced ADP-induced platelet aggregation by about 50%
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Nissen, Stephen E., MD; Taro Tsunoda, MD, et. al. (2003). Effect of Recombinant ApoA-I Milano on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2292-2300.
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "ApoA-I Milano is a variant of apolipoprotein A-I identified in individuals in rural Italy who exhibit very low levels of HDL. Infusion of recombinant ApoA-I Milano-phospholipid complexes produces rapid regression of atherosclerosis in animal models."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            and  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now that we have preliminary evidence of a rapid regression of atherosclerosis in human subjects, we hope that our study will encourage further exploration of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of action of ApoA-1 Milano. Such efforts could provide important insights into the process of reverse cholesterol transport and lead to development of other approaches to achieve regression of coronary disease. Currently, the same team that developed ETC-216 is beginning human studies of a small molecule that appears to provide similar benefits and would be much easier to manufacture than a recombinant protein such as ApoA-1 Milano (letter to JAMA, from Nissen et. al.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Shah, P.K., S. Kaul, J. Nilsson, and B. Cercek (2001). Exploiting the Vascular Protective Effects of High-Density Lipoprotein and its Apolipoproteins: An Idea Whose Time for Testing Is Coming, Part II. Circulation, November 13, 2001; 104(20): 2498 - 2502.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This suggests the presence of a novel carboxy-terminal domain in A-IM/A-IM, not organized in a compact structure and not shared by wild-type apoA-I, which may account for the unique functional properties of A-IM/A-IM
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Shah, P.K., J. Yano, O. Reyes, K.-Y. Chyu, S. Kaul, C. L. Bisgaier, S. Drake, and B. Cercek (2001). "High-Dose Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mobilizes Tissue Cholesterol and Rapidly Reduces Plaque Lipid and Macrophage Content in Apolipoprotein E-Deficient Mice : Potential Implications for Acute Plaque Stabilization." Circulation, June 26, 2001; 103(25): 3047 - 3050.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Repeated doses of recombinant apolipoprotein A-IMilano phospholipid complex (apoA-Im) reduce atherosclerosis and favorably change plaque composition in rabbits and mice. In this study, we tested whether a single high dose of recombinant apoA-Im could rapidly mobilize tissue cholesterol and reduce plaque lipid and macrophage content in apoE-deficient mice. Conclusions-A single high dose of recombinant apoA-Im rapidly mobilizes tissue cholesterol and reduces plaque lipid ...in apoE-deficient mice
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Shah, P.K., J. Nilsson, S. Kaul, M. C. Fishbein, H. Ageland, A. Hamsten, J. Johansson, F. Karpe, and B. Cercek (1998) "Effects of Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano on Aortic Atherosclerosis in Apolipoprotein E-Deficient Mice." Circulation, March 3, 1998; 97(8): 780 - 785.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In comparison with 20-week-old untreated control mice, 25-week-old apo A-IMilano/PC-treated mice demonstrated no increase in aortic atherosclerosis (11±1% versus 10±4%, P=NS), a 40% reduction in lipid content (22±8% versus 13±8%, P=.01)...Conclusions-Recombinant A-IMilano/PC prevented progression of aortic atherosclerosis and reduced lipid and macrophage content of plaques in apo E-deficient mice despite severe hypercholesterolemia. Thus, A-IMilano/PC may have a role in inhibiting progression and promoting stabilization of atherosclerosis
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Sirtori, C.R., L. Calabresi, G. Franceschini, D. Baldassarre, M. Amato, J. Johansson, M.
            Salvetti, C. Monteduro, R. Zulli, M. L. Muiesan, and E. Agabiti-Rosei (2001)
            "Cardiovascular Status of Carriers of the Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mutant : The Limone sul Garda Study." Circulation, April 17, 2001; 103(15): 1949 - 1954.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Structural changes in the carotid arteries were defined as the intima-media thickness (IMT) measured by B-mode ultrasound. HA subjects, both recruited among patients attending our Lipid Clinic and blood donors, showed significant thickening of the carotids (average IMT, 0.86±0.25 and 0.88±0.29 mm, respectively) compared with control subjects (average IMT, 0.64±0.12 mm); the apoA-IM carriers instead showed normal arterial thickness (average IMT, 0.63±0.10 mm). Moreover, a significantly higher prevalence of atherosclerotic plaques was found in patients and blood donors with HA (both 57%) compared with apoA-IM carriers (33%) and control subjects (21%).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Wang L, Sharifi BG, Pan T, et al. (2006). Bone marrow transplantation shows superior atheroprotective effects of gene therapy with apolipoprotein A-I Milano compared with wild-type apolipoprotein A-I in hyperlipidemic mice. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 48 (7): 1459-1468 OCT 3 2006  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            RESULTS: Compared with vector control (n = 12), apoA-IMilano gene therapy (n = 15) reduced aortic atherosclerosis by 65% (p < 0.001) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 58% (p < 0.0001), whereas wild-type apoA-I (n = 11) reduced atherosclerosis by 25% (p = 0.1) and plaque macrophage immunoreactivity by 23% (p < 0.05)...CONCLUSIONS: Macrophage-specific expression of the apoA-IMilano gene is more effective than wild-type apoA-I in reducing atherosclerosis and plaque inflammation despite comparable circulating levels of the transgene and lipid profile.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Weisgraber KH, Bersot TP, Mahley RW, et al. (1980)A-IMilano apoprotein: isolation and characterization of a cysteine-containing variant of the A-I apoprotein from human high density lipoproteins. J Clin Invest. 1980; 66: 901-907

            Remember AiG's ( well, rather "Dr." Don Batten, the plant physiologist's) claim:  
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the enzyme has lost activity for making HDLs. So the mutant enzyme has sacrificed a lot of specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the net result of this mutation has been a huge loss of specificity, or, in other words, information
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Now let's review what we know. apoAIMilano is an apolipoprotein that binds to lipids. That is what it does. Apolipoproteins also form a large , but not complete, part of High Density Lipoproteins.

            Now, we know of only TWO pathways by which HDL's are created to encapsulate cholesterol and transport it out of the system, to the liver where it is broken down into things like bile, etc.

            Both of those pathways involve HDL's, but the MILANO carriers seem to have LOW HDL's in serum (this is what the AiG calls "reduced ability to assemble" HDL's)

            But all recent work points to Milano being MORE effective than wildtype AI in binding and transport...and HDL's are needed for that (although apo's can bind and transport too, and attach lipid-laden macrophages called "foam cells") Zhu's article specifically invokes a surface site on the macrophages that may be more responsive to Milano

            Recent studies show that not only does Milano have a different structure, it has a carboxy terminal not found in AI wildtype. As shown in the studies cited above, it works better. What is the precise mechanism? No one knows exactly, but it DOES seem to work, in trial after trial.

            You're left with AiG saying "but it doesn't assemble HDL's....because we don't see it in the blood serum of carriers" when in fact the Milano mutation works BETTER and there is low HDL because it works THAT efficiently in moving cholesterol to the liver, where the HDL is also broken down, to be later reconstituted by...that's right, apoAIMilano.

            You didn't know about this in the beginning and you still don't know squat. Shah and his team work right out of UCLA Medical Center. I'm sure he, as a devout man , would be interested in your claims that his work is against god...except it's not against god...it's against disease. It's AiG and AFDave that is against reason, logic and decency in favor of biblical literalism.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,07:40



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Eric...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             
            No, Dave, he didn't lose the argument. You did. Even if you hadn't lost it, it wouldn't help your case in the slightest, but you did lose. As usual.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

            k.e summed it up pretty well ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             
            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





            Quote mined by AFD, I suppose I should feel gratified.

            You missed out the important bit, AFD... the bit about Genesis is a MYTH and thus creationism being RELIGIOUS DOGMA and AiG being pure crap pseudo science.

            But then you already knew that, and to try and make it seem it is science (coff....splutter) you ...er claim martyrdom?....boo  hoo  hoo.

            No ...but really I feel for you AFD, what did JJ fromm Dover say ...deeply held beliefs etc etc....where is the faith?

            Give us some old fashioned faith bro, give us a few Halleluya's and everlasting glory b'jesus...give us some o' dat wrapture ....man.

            Come on Davey get down on your knees and turn your eyes up inside your skull and show us all how god works.

            Make fools out of us, pray fo' de smiting an' de nibbling of our own arms off.

            Glory be Davey, get some o' dat god juice down yer throat and cast out the demos...yes davey ...demos..god has a special offer on demo demons today only....get your demo demons while the dogmas hot.

            hey did that guy hand out those flyers at your church of the one true word of the designer?

            It would have been pretty funny watching you run around trying to get them all.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,07:42

            SHANNON INFORMATION THEORY, BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION, SPECIFICITY AND "BENEFICIAL" MUTATIONS
            Drew Headley...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFDave, when you use the word randomness I assume you are referring to a signal that was generated by a random process. Here is where the confusion lies. Shannon defined two things, information and uncertainty. Information is the received signal on the receiver's end. Uncertainty is the opposite of information and is either the ambiguity of the signal that remains to be sent or in the case of a noisy channel the information lost during transmission. Uncertainty is only what the reciever does not know, and is independent of how the signal being sent was generated. Shannon information theory starts once a signal is being transmitted, not during it generation. In other words, how that signal came to be, whether by flipping a coin or written by a person, is not the concern of Shannon's information theory.

            Let me give you an example.
            I have two messages, one was generated randomly by flipping a coin, the other is part of my social security number. One was guided by chance, the other intelligence (or so I like to think).
            01001101
            10110101

            Now, if we were to send these over a noiseless channel, and the receiver assumes an equal probability of either a 0 or 1, the amount of information received would be the same. You do agree that 8 bits were sent in both cases? Yet, according to you, one has more information than the other because it has meaning. Now, I do not know of an equation in information theory that would tell me which one has more "meaningful" information than the other. Dr. Schneider agrees with me on this. Please, read his primer on information theory. It is very good.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Here's where the confusion lies ... the article (and Shannon) state that the UNCERTAINTY is maximal in the first case (many random colors). Therefore, if someone tells the color of every new ball drawn, they are conveying MORE information than in the second case.   Why?  Because in the 2nd case, we already know they are all red balls, so telling someone "a red ball was drawn" isn't giving them any new information.  Eric (and many of you) are making the mistake of thinking that the random colored balls inherently contain more information.  Not so. It is the MESSAGE CONCERNING the random balls that contains more information.  Don't confuse the two.  In Case 1, the message "The ball is red" contains MORE information than Case 2 "The ball is red" because there is more uncertainty in Case 1.  Why?  Because we already know that Case two is all red balls.  Note that the message itself is identical.  But in Case 1 it contains more information.  So hopefully that clears up your misunderstandings.  Note also that the practical application of Shannon Information theory is communication, which of course concerns itself a lot with transmitting information reliably.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFDave, the point is not that a "random colored ball" (I assume you mean a ball whose state we are uncertain about) has more information. It is that a ball picked out of a collection of balls with an equal distribution of being any of a given set of colors would require more information to represent it. If we have and equal number of 4 types of balls, Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow, and there is an equal probability of any of them  being picked, our uncertainty the balls state will be:
            H = 4*(-1/4*log2(1/4)) = -4 * (1/4 * -2) = 8/4 = 2 bits
            But, once we get a ball, that 2 bits of uncertainty is turned into two bits of information.  You can do the math yourself, but it turns out that whenever we randomly select a symbol  (randomly pick out a ball) and each symbol has equal probability of being selected (there are the same number of each type of ball), then the amount of uncertainty for each symbol sent will be maximal. Of course, this is assuming our channel has no noise.

            Now, what does this have to do with whitenoise. Well, it turns out that whitenoise is defined by every value within its range having an equal probability of being selected. Whitenoise is a great approximation for randomly picking out balls from a box where each color is equally likely to be picked. On the other hand this is not the case for text (e.g. English). Certain letters occur more often then others, like the letter 'e'.

            AFDave, what does this tell you about the uncertainty of a written text sent to a receiver versus using a whitenoise source to randomly send characters? You are an engineer designing a communication and your specification says to use Shannon information theory to decide how many bits (pretend you can store fractions of a bit) to use for each symbol received. You have to build two devices, one will be getting text from famous novels, the other from a whitenoise source randomly selecting characters. Which device will require a larger buffer for each character sent?
            For simplicity with both cases you can ignore spaces and punctuation.

            Anybody else feel free to try this out. The math is not too bad. You can find information to help with this here: < http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/frequency >
            And remember, a whitenoise source will choose each letter with equal probability.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing the receiver for the white noise will require a larger buffer because there is greater uncertainty in the white noise.  How did I do?  Am I right?  Now the astute folks here will notice that this is quite a different matter from Eric's position that "White noise has greater information content than a Winston Churchill speech." What Drew is talking about (and what Shannon's theory is about) is "What is the smallest size I can build my communications channel?"  This of course is the bread and butter of communications engineers trying to build better, more efficient and less costly comm channels.  Notice that there are two quite different issues here ...
            1) How much information content does a message have? (Churchill or Noise?)
            2) How much uncertainty does a message have? (This is directly related to the required size of the channel)

            Now of course Origins researchers are not interested in building the smallest possible comm channels, so Shannon's theory doesn't apply to them.  The "comm channels" have already been built in living systems.  The question is only "Did Someone (God perhaps) build these comm channels and design the systems which use the information transmitted in these comm channels? Or not?"  What people interested in Origins questions are interested in are questions such as ...

            Argy...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OA...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            here is a genetic sequence 1)  AABBCC

            next generation it mutates to 2) AABBCD

            next generation it mutates again to 3) AABBCC

            sequences 1) and 3) have identical information

            now if going from 1)--> 2) lost information (according to SFBDave), and going from 2)--> 3) lost information also, then

            how did 1) and 3) end up with identical information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            To answer Argy's question, no this is not my position.  Chance is certainly able to provide "correct" outcomes and of course the probabilities involved become quite high if the possible "correct outcomes" are few in number.

            In OA's example above, if we assume that "AABBCC" is the "correct" sequence (this needs to be defined as Russell points out), then step 2) represents a loss and step 3) represents a gain regardless of HOW this occurred -- chance or intelligent agent.

            Now why is "AABBCC" the "correct" sequence?  I maintain that this is an assumed convention.  Russell says ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Meanwhile, there are several very interesting questions you've dodged on this Apo-AI story. Like how do you know what this protein was "designed to do"? Like how do the mutations I showed you from my own work not constitute "increased specificity"?

            You keep talking about an "HDL deficiency". Deficiency, relative to what? These people are healthy, no? Maybe the rest of us have an HDL surplus. Perhaps you characterize unusually intelligent people as suffering from a "stupidity deficiency".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            and he is right that we need to identify a standard by which we judge whether a mutation is beneficial, neutral or harmful and this is a different issue than the question of whether the mutation represents an increase or decrease in information.  Note that the researchers in the papers I cited were the ones who used the term "deficiency" -- this was not MY term.  (And I don't think they are YECs).  So they have assumed a standard by which they judge capacity to assemble HDLs.

            The thing about biological systems is that the probabilities involved in assembling even the most simple single celled organism are so incredibly low that it defies logic to rule out an Intelligent Designer ... especially since we have first hand every day experience that tells us that complicated manmade systems which are analogou to systems found in the most simple cells did NOT assemble themselves by chance.  They required an extraordinary amount of human intelligent input to come into existence.  And our intuition tells us that it should be the same with biological systems.

            Now you say that a "beneficial mutation" is one which helps the organism survive and/or reproduce in the context in which it finds itself.  OK fine.  Under this definition you say that the Milano mutation is "beneficial" if it in fact does lower incidence of heart attacks.  Now of course I would agree that from our limited perspective, this seems correct.  I know I don't want to have a heart attack and neither do you.  So I'd be glad to have this mutation myself given our present knowledge of it.  But what if we find out later that the Milano mutation causes some other problem which outweighs the benefits of reduced risk for heart attacks?  Then is it beneficial?  No, not any more.  We just thought it was at first, but now it's not.

            If I were a cardiac researcher, my focus would be on "How is the human heart DESIGNED?" and "How is the human body DESIGNED to interact with the heart?" and "How do other systems, lifestyle choices and other factors affect the heart?"

            This would be a similar approach to an aircraft maintainer who is interested in "How was this aircraft, engines and avionics DESIGNED to work?" and "What can I do to help maintain that functionality envisioned by the DESIGNER?"

            Now whether cardiac researchers conciously take this approach or not, I think the fact is that they DO take this approach, and by doing so, they are acknowledging the marvelous design in living systems.  Now of course, some of them think that the "design" came about by chance and some think there was an intelligence involved, but I think if they want to be effective cardiac researchers, they have to take the approach that the heart is a marvelously ingenious design (many would say "adaptation") ... call it what you will ... it's marvelous and it works great!

            So where does all this leave us in the Creation vs. Evolution debate?  I think it brings us back to SPECIFICITY.  Creationists say that complex systems have a high degree of specificity, i.e. the human heart has to made SPECIFICALLY of this type of material, not that type.  The eye has to SPECIFICALLY have this shape, not that shape.  Your blood pressure has to be SPECIFICALLY within this range, not just any old range, and so on and so forth with the gazillions of details of living systems.  The facts of biology are that IF these gazillions of details ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY equal to certain values, then the organism will be sick or might die.  I have not read many formal definitions of Specificity, but this would be my preliminary defintion.

            So ToE really needs something different than "beneficial" mutations in order for the theory to be plausible.  What ToE needs in order to get from a "simple" single celled organism up to a complex vertebrate such as a human, is massive increases in specificity.

            To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated.  

            Next on my agenda is to look at nylon-eating bacteria up close and personal and see if this fits the requirement as ToE advocates claim it does.

            ******************************************************
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,07:52

            QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

            Ved...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            A stuck heater is ENTIRELY MORE SPECIFIC than one that is controllable. Can it be set to any temperature? No, it's specifically set to ONE setting: Specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You are misunderstanding specificity.  Which is a more specific set of design instructions?  

            1) "Install a heater with a switch that allows the heater to be turned to OFF, 1, 2, 3 or HIGH.  Also install a lever that controls the amount of heat from NO HEAT to MAXIMUM HEAT in continuous increments."

            or

            2) "Install a heater in the car."  (No switches, no heat selection, just HIGH and HOT all the time)

            Of course (1) above is the most specific.  

            So a car heater that is stuck on HIGH and HOT has LOST specificity.  Now ... a separate question ... Is this "mutation" beneficial, harmful or neutral?  Well, it depends.  In Antartica it might be beneficial.  In the Sahara desert it would be harmful.

            Improvius...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).

            This doesn't make any sense at all.  A given allele codes for a set of proteins.  How is one set of proteins more "specific" than another?  Your "specificity" term is meaningless.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would not say that this protein is more specific than that protein.  This would be a misnomer.  The proteins are the products analogous to the car components referred to above.  The alleles are the instructons analogous to the two examples of instructions given above, one being more specific than the other.  I think if once you understand this, now it will be quite clear how one allele (instruction) can be more specific than another one.

            Chris Hyland...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Could you please explain how to decide which traits are designed and which evolved.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Since we only have the product (analogous to the car above) to examine, this is obviously more difficult to do.  With a car, we can actually go to the car factory and talk with the engineers who designed the car.  But with a living organism we cannot.  (At least I've never had God speak to me personally)  So truly all we can do is make observations and draw inferences to the best explanation based on our experience.  Both the Creation hypotheses and the Evolution hypotheses (in all their various forms) are outside of testable science that you can perform experiments on.  Evolutionists don't admit this, but Creationists do.  Evolutionists say they are scientific and creationists or not, but the fact is neither side can design an experiment which proves what really happened.  All we can do is make observations and draw inferences, which is what I do.  I also have a historical record (Genesis), the historicity of which, I have no reason to doubt which gives an account of what happened.  If I can show that this account does not violate any known fact of science, then why should I doubt it?

            So back to your question ... how do we tell?  We tell by noting that the probability of any biological mechanism assembling itself is astoundingly low.  Thus, there is an incredibly high probability that ALL biological mechanisms are designed.  Now your word was "traits" not "mechansims."  Traits can be expressed in an organism with no increase in specificity whatsoever.  Why?  Because the information is all there.  It is just expressed differently in all organisms.  You will note that the key difference between a trait and a mechanism is they are different classes of terms.  A trait can have various values, i.e. the hair color trait could be brown, black, blonde, etc.  But a typical mechanism cannot.  You either have a flagellum, or you do not.  No conceivable intermediate will work and thus be selected for.


            Oldman...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now, if anybody has a paid sub to any of these type of services, i'd be most interested to see a big chunk of the AIG site examined.

            But davey, can you see where i'm going here? Using AIG for "research" is like using the ladybird books for reference material. Quite the wrong resource. There is an objective difference between the quality and scope of the data from AIG and from *any other serious research paper* - dont believe me, go to the link and do your own tests.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Believe me, I understand the difference between scientific literature and the AIG website.  Two points here ... first, the AIG scientists ALSO know the difference -- you will note that they base their (more readable) papers on (harder to read) scientific papers in the scientific literature, and secondly, I have found that most people here draw from Talk Origins, which is a rough equivalent to the AIG website.  And I do mean "rough" ... I have found far more factual errors at Talk Origins than at AIG.  To this day I have found only one factual error at AIG.  And Cedric, your imagination is running wild.  I most certainly did contact AIG about their error and I will get a response.  In fact, I have a meeting at their headquarters next month.  If I have not heard back by then, I will inquire while I am there.

            Russell ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I was discussing evolution with my MD a couple weeks ago.  He read Black Box when it came out ('97?) and told me he was impressed by Behe's science.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hmmm... I wonder if I would be guilty of "antireligious bigotry" if I went shopping for a new MD immediately after having that conversation?

            But to be fair: I did read "Black Box" and thought that it was largely well written, and that Behe did a pretty good job conveying the truly impressive complexity of his paradigmatic biochemical systems. My grudging respect for his writing vanished, however, in the last section where he goes off on his "why aren't scientists shouting from the rooftops this most spectacular scientific breakthrough of all time: my revelation of an Intelligent Designer?" shtick. My tentative diagnosis of "seriously delusional" was confirmed last year at the Dover trial.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Really?  What specifically made you think this?

            Diogenes...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, if i'm understanding you correctly, the creatures on the ark were some sort of perfect form, and all modern species are corrupted versions of this perfect form, correct?  So Noah took two ur-dogs with him on the ark.  The ur-dogs had all the genes that all types of modern dogs do.  They had the genes that gives thick long hair so it could live in cold climates, and genes for short thin hair so that it could live in hot climates.  They had genes that allow them to grow to the size of great danes, and genes that restrain it's size to that of a chiauha.  They had genes that let them smell like a bloodhound, point like setter, herd like a german shepard, and see like a wolfhound.  They were fabulous mythical creatures that were never recorded in any written record, by any people, at any time.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Stop right there.  You are betraying your ignorance of population genetics.  I refer you again to an Ayala article I posted previously, but I insert my comments this time ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
            p. 58
            “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.” [I don't think this has changed since 1978, prove me wrong if you like]
            p. 59
            “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.” [Still true in 2006]
            p. 63
            “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations [he is making the standard ToE assumption here that the variability originated from random mutation, not an Intelligent Designer--he and I would differ on that point, but we would agree that the source of variation is the resuffling] by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,[I disagree, I say it's the Designer, but that's OK for now ... Ayala still proves the point I am making now] it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Stop the tape!  Yes, Diogenes, those "ur-dogs" had all kinds of "hidden variation" which was only manifested by separation, isolation and environmental selection pressure.  They were not "Super dogs" since much of the potential variation was hidden.  It is quite important that you understand this concept.  This is one concept you can actually go out and verify by breeding experiments.  There have been many recent studies confirming that population bottlenecks do not in and of themselves cause a drastic decrease in genetic diversity.  If you still do not understand this after this post, I can post some of these studies for you.

            Continuing with Ayala's quote ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            p. 64
            “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
            “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Do you see that?  The variablity was already "apparently present."



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Once these ur-dogs got off the ark, they rapidly bred and spread out across the supercontinent (apparently very rapidly since according to your timeline the continents broke up in a single day immediately follow the end of the flood).  Once the continents broke up they very rapidly "degraded"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Nope.  Another misunderstanding of basic population genetics.  They diversified.  Let me ask you something, Diogenes.  Have you even had a cat that had kittens?  I have many times.  We have a momma cat with no tail (a manx they call it) and she got pregnant and had kittens.  Guess what we discovered.  Lots of variability in ONE GENERATION!  We got no-tail kittens, long tail kittens, medium tails kittens, runty, small kittens, big fat kittens, black kittens, white kittens, multi-colored kittens, etc. etc.  ALL FROM THE SAME LITTER!  This is not degredation.  This is standard variability within populations -- just like Ayala described.  

            Are they degrading also?  Yes, of course, but as Ayala points out, this is a mere trickle compared to the innate variability potential already existing.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [degrading] into the forms we see today, in time so that all ancient accounts depict them in their modern form.  Then they immediately stopped degrading any further, so that we haven't seen any degrading occuring in modern times.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Actually, the degrading part continues to this day--all populations--humans, cats, dogs, everything is gradually accumulating harmful mutations which I guess would kill us all one day if God does not intervene (He will intervene, BTW, but that's another story), and the variability continues also.  Artificial selection of organisms--plants and animals is big business.

            Again, your problem is you have this weird idea of a Superdog being required on the ark.  You would not think this if you truly understood basic population genetics.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, if the ur-dogs had some perfect dna template for it's kind, and a mutation occurs that makes it less like this pefect form, causing it to degrade, what would you call it if a mutation caused a change back towards this original template?  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            That would be a good thing.  Highly improbable, but a good thing if it indeed occurred.  


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If a point mutation can be negative, how is a point mutation back in the opposite direction not positive?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            It is.  See discussion above.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            What about mutations (such as sickle cell anemia) which are positives in some environments and negative in others?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Again, see discussion above.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Was sickle cell in the ur-human, or was it not?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            There is no way to tell.  It certainly could have been.  Noah was born 1000 or so years after Adam (10 generations I think) so he would have had been carrying some mutations.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If you examined dna from all current species of the same kind, could you build a projected ur-kind genome?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Maybe.  SOunds like a big project though.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Why do we not see rapid "degradation" and speciation today?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Because founder populations are not being initiated today as they were right after the Flood.  There is not much dispersal and subsequent geographic isolation going on today.  SO there is not much variation and speciation going on today.  But the degredation is happening at the same rate it always has -- a trickle according to Ayala.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Did this degradation from a perfect form take place prior to the flood?  If so then where did the perfect forms that Noah found for the ark come from?  If not, then why did this degradation only begin after the flood?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            The perfect forms occurred at Creation.  The Curse began the process of degredation as far as I can tell.  So Noah did not take any perfect forms on the ark.  Genetically rich, meaning a large degree of heterozzygosity, yes, but not perfect forms.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Why did God build pefect forms with imperfect replication mechanisms so that they would degrade?  Why did God build a perfect inerrant autograph of the bible, then allow it to degrade?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I cannot tell you for sure why an Independent Mind such as God would choose to do the things in the way that He chose, any more than I can tell you why some teenagers choose to spray paint their hair green.  God and people are free agents.  And I can only make educated guesses as to WHY they do what they do.  My job is to observe what God has done and then respond sensibly.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,07:56

            October 4, 2006 Los Angeles, CA - New experimental data has shown that apolipoprotein A-1 (apoA-1) Milano provides superior atheroprotective effects compared with wild-type apoA-1. In a unique head-to-head gene-transfer study in mice, researchers showed that apoA-1 Milano, a naturally occurring mutant of apoA-1, is significantly more effective than wild-type apoA-1 for reducing atherosclerosis and plaque inflammation.
            "There have never been any comparative studies between wild-type apoA-1 and apoA-1 Milano, even through indirect evidence seemed to suggest that apoA-1 Milano was more effective," senior investigator Dr Prediman Shah (University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA]) told heartwire. "Some of the scientists in the field felt that in the absence of any clear-cut evidence maybe there wasn't that much of a difference between the two. So we wanted to investigate this in a head-to-head comparison...the Milano mutant is more effective, almost two-and-a-half times more effective, for reducing atherosclerosis when using the gene-transfer strategy." < http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545580 >
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,07:59

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing the receiver for the white noise will require a larger buffer because there is greater uncertainty in the white noise.  How did I do?  Am I right?  Now the astute folks here will notice that this is quite a different matter from Eric's position that "White noise has greater information content than a Winston Churchill speech." What Drew is talking about (and what Shannon's theory is about) is "What is the smallest size I can build my communications channel?"  This of course is the bread and butter of communications engineers trying to build better, more efficient and less costly comm channels.  Notice that there are two quite different issues here ...
            1) How much information content does a message have? (Churchill or Noise?)
            2) How much uncertainty does a message have? (This is directly related to the required size of the channel)

            Now of course Origins researchers are not interested in building the smallest possible comm channels, so Shannon's theory doesn't apply to them.  The "comm channels" have already been built in living systems.  The question is only "Did Someone (God perhaps) build these comm channels and design the systems which use the information transmitted in these comm channels? Or not?"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, it's not a different matter. It's the same thing. I warned you earlier that "information" is a defined term, and you don't get to make up your own ad hoc definitions for it.

            My question was, which contains more information: a digital recording of Winston Churchill speech, or a digital recording of broadband white noise of the same length? The correct answer is, and has always been, "a digital recording of white noise of the same size." The reason I asked this question in the first place, Dave, was to demonstrate that you're unclear on the accepted definition of the term "information," and are using it incorrectly in the context of the information content of organismal genomes. Your claim was that any mutation always entails a loss of information, which is incorrect, for the reasons I gave. A totally random genome, i.e., one made entirely of random sequences of nucleotides, contains more information than any other possible configuration. This is because such a hypothetical genome has no redundancy and is incompressible. Actual genomes of actual organisms are highly redundant, and extremely compressible.

            Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why a mutation, such as a duplication and subsequent nucleotide substitution, cannot add information (yes, even "meaningful information," which is a different thing entirely) to a genome. Moreover, "specificity" has absolutely nothing to do with information content, and the least specific signal possible, a random stream of bits, has maximum information content.

            You're misapplying information theory to biological systems, Dave, and as a result your conclusions are erroneous. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,08:03

            Nice one  AFD  a full page of thruthy c&p'ed BS

            2 can play that game

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Eric...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, he didn't lose the argument. You did. Even if you hadn't lost it, it wouldn't help your case in the slightest, but you did lose. As usual.  


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

            k.e summed it up pretty well ...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             
            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.

             
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------






            Quote mined by AFD, I suppose I should feel gratified.

            You missed out the important bit, AFD... the bit about Genesis is a MYTH and thus creationism being RELIGIOUS DOGMA and AiG being pure crap pseudo science.

            But then you already knew that, and to try and make it seem it is science (coff....splutter) you ...er claim martyrdom?....boo  hoo  hoo.

            No ...but really I feel for you AFD, what did JJ fromm Dover say ...deeply held beliefs etc etc....where is the faith?

            Give us some old fashioned faith bro, give us a few Halleluya's and everlasting glory b'jesus...give us some o' dat wrapture ....man.

            Come on Davey get down on your knees and turn your eyes up inside your skull and show us all how god works.

            Make fools out of us, pray fo' de smiting an' de nibbling of our own arms off.

            Glory be Davey, get some o' dat god juice down yer throat and cast out the demos...yes davey ...demos..god has a special offer on demo demons today only....get your demo demons while the dogmas hot.

            hey did that guy hand out those flyers at your church of the one true word of the designer?

            It would have been pretty funny watching you run around trying to get them all.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,08:06

            Eric ... so I guess you, a guy with no college degree who works in a law office, are more of an authority than this guy ...

            Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
            National Institutes of Health
            National Cancer Institute
            Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
            Molecular Information Theory Group

            (extensive quote completely refuting Eric posted previously)

            Got it!
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,08:08

            Nov. 4, 2003 -- An amazing new treatment promises to unclog arteries -- even in people with advanced heart disease.
            It's called ApoA-I Milano. The original molecule was found in the blood of an Italian family with unusually healthy arteries -- despite high levels of fats in their blood and low levels of protective "good" HDL cholesterol. Now a genetically engineered version of this "good" HDL cholesterol protein has been tested in a small human trial.
            The results -- published in the Nov. 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association --astounded even the doctors who performed the trial. Steven E. Nissen, MD, medical director of The Cleveland Clinic's cardiovascular coordinating center, gave five weekly injections of ApoA-1 Milano to patients with acute heart disease caused by plaque-clogged arteries.
            "We really didn't think it was going to work," Nissen tells WebMD. "Nobody was more shocked than I was when the statisticians handed me the data. ... It is unprecedented. Nobody has ever seen this kind of plaque regression. It really is an epiphany."

            Surprise -- and Vindication

            The findings exceed even the most optimistic expectations, says Daniel J. Rader, MD, director of preventive cardiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia. Rader's editorial comment on the Nissen study appears in the same issue of JAMA.
            "This is, frankly, very surprising. I haven't talked to a single person in the field who isn't surprised," Rader tells WebMD. "And the speed with which the change occurred is remarkable. Nobody ever expected you could impact plaque in that short a time. This opens door to treating atherosclerosis in a more acute way to try to stabilize and regress plaque in patients with acute heart disease. This paper suggests it's no longer theory but reality."

            But one person isn't surprised. That's Prediman K. (PK) Shah, MD, director the atherosclerosis research center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and professor of medicine at UCLA.
            Shah has been studying ApoA-I Milano for nine years. He's the first major researcher to argue in favor of the once-laughed-at theory behind the new treatment. His animal studies led directly to the new treatment, dubbed ETC-216 by Esperion Therapeutics Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. Shah serves as a consultant to the company.
            "We've seen this in animal studies over the last eight years: Plaque regression in five weeks, with positive changes in 48 hours," Shah says. "For us, it was not a surprise. The unprecedented nature of the human study is the rapid plaque regression in just five weeks. It's never been seen before."
            ***********************************************************


            Hmmm...1% reduction in arterial plaques per week. But AiG -- (okay, actually, "Dr." Don Batten, the same plant physiologist that claimed dendrochronology was invalid, based on studies of farmed trees in a non-seasonal environment, and three rejected dendro studies out of tens of thousands) -- says it's "corrupted" so Dave sucks it up like a good lap dog
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,08:10

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:52)
            I also have a historical record (Genesis), the historicity of which, I have no reason to doubt which gives an account of what happened.  If I can show that this account does not violate any known fact of science, then why should I doubt it?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This is why you have no credibility, Dave. You have been given literally hundreds of reasons to doubt the biblical account of creation. You have been given mountains of evidence that the earth and the universe is billions of years old. You have been shown that there is no conceivable source (or sink) for your Noachian floodwaters. You have been shown that that there is no way a biblical flood can account for things like the amount of sediment covering the continental cratons. You have been shown that there is simply no way you could get from a few thousand "kinds" to tens of millions of species in the time the Bible gives you. You've been shown that Noah's ark would amount to an incredibly tight genetic bottleneck that would have left unmistakable evidence in the genomes of living creatures. You yourself have admitted that the bible is not inerrant, and you have no way of determining which parts are correct and which are not.

            In short, you've been inundated with evidence that the Bible cannot possibly be correct, because it repeatedly violates well-known scientific facts and conflicts massively with observation. That's why you should doubt it.

            But you don't doubt it. Why not?

            Faith. Pure and simple.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,08:15

            Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.—Miguel de Unamuno
            Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. --Paul Tillich
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,08:20

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:06)
            Eric ... so I guess you, a guy with no college degree who works in a law office, are more of an authority than this guy ...

            Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
            National Institutes of Health
            National Cancer Institute
            Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
            Molecular Information Theory Group

            (extensive quote completely refuting Eric posted previously)

            Got it!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Nope, not more of an authority, Dave. But I have a better understanding of what they're saying than you do. Tell me which of these bullet points is incorrect, and why:

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 24 2006,10:46)

            • Information != "meaning"
            • Low information = low entropy
            • High information = high entropy
            • High compressibility  = low information
            • Low compressibility = high information
            • High redundancy = low information
            • Low redundancy = high information
            • Digital recording of human speech is highly compressible
            • Digital recording of human speech is highly redundant
            • Digital recording of broadband white noise is incompressible
            • Digital recording of broadband white noise has no redundancy
            • Digital recording of human speech has less entropy than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech has more redundancy than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech is more compressible than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.
            • Digital recording of human speech contains less information than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Appeals to authority don't get you anywhere, Dave, if you misinterpret what those authorities are saying.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 25 2006,08:27

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:52)
            Improvius...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).

            This doesn't make any sense at all.  A given allele codes for a set of proteins.  How is one set of proteins more "specific" than another?  Your "specificity" term is meaningless.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would not say that this protein is more specific than that protein.  This would be a misnomer.  The proteins are the products analogous to the car components referred to above.  The alleles are the instructons analogous to the two examples of instructions given above, one being more specific than the other.  I think if once you understand this, now it will be quite clear how one allele (instruction) can be more specific than another one.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, this is EXACTLY what you are saying.  You are insisting that one set of proteins (or components - whatever) is somehow more "specific" than another.

            How is one set more ambiguous than the other?  Where is the ambiguity that you think the mutant allele is coding?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,08:33

            How thick is de de de dave?

            AFD what is a digital recording made up of?

            0#10 things right?

            How much Shannon Information is in a DIGITAL recording of white noise?

            AFD looks in mirror and percieves the designer left out eyes for reading and a brain for comprehension.

            How much faith does one creationist need when reason is missing? Well in AFD's case not a lot, about as much as a 5 year old.
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 25 2006,08:49

            I'm going to try something new, Dave. I'm going to give you the name of the fallacy you are using in each false statement you use, so you can then go back and fix it.

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            The thing about biological systems is that the probabilities involved in assembling even the most simple single celled organism are so incredibly low that it defies logic to rule out an Intelligent Designer
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: Unsuported assertion/Proof by assertion
            Hint: The simplest biological system is a self-replicator, and the probability of one self-assembling given the proper environment and enough time is huge.
            Fallacy: Appeal to probability
            Hint: You (Dave) can't calculate the odds of "the simplest biological system"

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            ... especially since we have first hand every day experience that tells us that complicated manmade systems which are analogou to systems found in the most simple cells did NOT assemble themselves by chance.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: False analogy
            Hint: The most important characteristic of biological systems is imperfect reproduction, which manmade systems do not posses

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            They required an extraordinary amount of human intelligent input to come into existence.  And our intuition tells us that it should be the same with biological systems.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: Argument from ignorance
            Fallacy: Special Pleading
            Hint: mass distorting timespace continuum is counterintuitive.
            Fallacy: Faulty generalization
            Hint: Just because you " intuitive feel" it is designed, it doesn't mean we all do


             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            Now you say that a "beneficial mutation" is one which helps the organism survive and/or reproduce in the context in which it finds itself.  OK fine.  Under this definition you say that the Milano mutation is "beneficial" if it in fact does lower incidence of heart attacks.  Now of course I would agree that from our limited perspective, this seems correct.  I know I don't want to have a heart attack and neither do you.  So I'd be glad to have this mutation myself given our present knowledge of it.  But what if we find out later that the Milano mutation causes some other problem which outweighs the benefits of reduced risk for heart attacks?  Then is it beneficial?  No, not any more.  We just thought it was at first, but now it's not.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This is not even a fallacy: it is called "making $hit up". You used it before, when you added points to a graph because you couldn't deal with the real data. Fact is that if you have the mutation, you get fewer heart attacks. Even if there are strings attached, if those strings come later than a heart attack, it is positive.
            Hint: Deal with reality as it is, not as you would like it to be.
            Hint: sickle-cell anemia

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            If I were a cardiac researcher, my focus would be on "How is the human heart DESIGNED?" and "How is the human body DESIGNED to interact with the heart?" and "How do other systems, lifestyle choices and other factors affect the heart?"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            We are all very thankful you are not, in fact, a cardiac researcher. By now you would've published a study were you made up 15 cases were prayer helped cardiac arrests, and a second study saying that if someone gets cardiac arrest it is their sins and the fall - again by putting the points on a graph were they best suit your "hypothesis".
            Fallacy: Affirming the consequence
            Hint: You have not yet demonstrated living systems are designed
            Hint: modern cardiology asks "how did the heart evolve?"

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            This would be a similar approach to an aircraft maintainer who is interested in "How was this aircraft, engines and avionics DESIGNED to work?" and "What can I do to help maintain that functionality envisioned by the DESIGNER?"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: False analogy
            Hint: See same fallacy above

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            Now whether cardiac researchers conciously take this approach or not, I think the fact is that they DO take this approach,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: false premise
            Hint: You don't know and yet you say they do?

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            and by doing so, they are acknowledging the marvelous design in living systems.  Now of course, some of them think that the "design" came about by chance and some think there was an intelligence involved, but I think if they want to be effective cardiac researchers, they have to take the approach that the heart is a marvelously ingenious design (many would say "adaptation") ... call it what you will ... it's marvelous and it works great!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: Bad logic
            Hint: if P then Q; P; conclussion: Q. But P might be false - nothing can be concluded.

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            So where does all this leave us in the Creation vs. Evolution debate?  I think it brings us back to SPECIFICITY.  Creationists say that complex systems have a high degree of specificity, i.e. the human heart has to made SPECIFICALLY of this type of material, not that type.  The eye has to SPECIFICALLY have this shape, not that shape.  Your blood pressure has to be SPECIFICALLY within this range, not just any old range, and so on and so forth with the gazillions of details of living systems.  The facts of biology are that IF these gazillions of details ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY equal to certain values, then the organism will be sick or might die.  I have not read many formal definitions of Specificity, but this would be my preliminary defintion.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: strawman
            Hint: ToE builds on simpler systems
            Fallacy: Argument from ignorance
            Hint: There are many different shaped eyes, yet they all work
            Fallacy: Equivocation
            Hint: you have not properly defined "SPECIFICITY", opening the door to changing definitions later
            Non-fallacy: Does not fit the known facts

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            So ToE really needs something different than "beneficial" mutations in order for the theory to be plausible.  What ToE needs in order to get from a "simple" single celled organism up to a complex vertebrate such as a human, is massive increases in specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy (implied): argument from ignorance
            Fallacy: Irrelevant Conclussion
            Hint: The mutations increase "specificity" as defined above
            Hint: Specificity (aka "irreducible complexity") has been long debunked

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Fallacy: Appeal to ignorance

            Other fallacies you have used lately include:
            Affirming the consequence
            Argument from belief
            Proof by assertion
            Shifting the burden of proof
            (others feel free to add their own)

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,08:55

            Deadman...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Please name any lie that I posted about you, Dave.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Here's one right here ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You didn't know about this in the beginning and you still don't know squat. Shah and his team work right out of UCLA Medical Center. I'm sure he, as a devout man, would be interested in your claims that his work is against god...except it's not against god...it's against disease. It's AiG and AFDave that is against reason, logic and decency in favor of biblical literalism.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I DO in fact know "squat" ... lots more than squat.  I also never claimed that his work is against God. A lie.  Want another example?  Your whole "Dave is a quote miner" lie which is thoroughly refuted here < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3384 >

            Here's another lie ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Bielicki, 2002 merely says that Milano has greater antioxidant effects and that "There were no differences between lipid-free apoA-I(Milano,) apoA-I(Paris), and apoA-I(WT) in mediating the efflux of cholesterol from macrophages."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Bielicki says FAR more than that.  As I pointed out yesterday ...

            DEADMAN UNABLE TO THUMP AIG ON APO AI MILANO EXAMPLE OF "UPWARD" EVOLUTION

            AIG's points below are based on the 2002 Bielicki paper appearing in the Feb issue of Biochemistry...

            Apolipoprotein A-IMilano and Apolipoprotein A-IParis Exhibit an Antioxidant Activity Distinct from That of Wild-Type Apolipoprotein A-I
            John K. Bielicki* and Michael N. Oda
            Genome Sciences Department, Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, and Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, California 94609-1673
            Revised Manuscript Received November 6, 2001...

            To summarize yet again, they are ...

            AIG Point 1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs. THIS IS CORRECT ACCORDING TO THIS PAPER.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Apolipoprotein A-I Milano and apoA-I Paris are examples of natural variants of apoA-I that manifest HDL deficienciencies (p. 2089)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But Deadman says ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            THIS is their [AIG's] MAJOR point. THIS is the point that they think forms the essence of their argument -- that the Milano variant is "degenerate" in the sense of having LOST what the AiG thinks it was "created " for.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well, yes, Deadman, that's what it says ... how do YOU interpret "HDL deficiency"? ... last time I checked that meant the same thing as what AIG is saying.  Lest there be no misunderstanding, the article continues ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dimerization of the cysteine variants inhibits HDL maturation via mechnisms related, in part, to impaired activation of lecithin ... ApoA-I Milano and [Paris] are rapidly cleared from the plasma compartment in humans, thus contributing to the HDL deficiency in vivo.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Note that AIG talks about this "dimerization" in their article also ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I guess Deadman is confused judging by this statement he makes ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            This was the focus of Bielicki's 1997 article, which used a different binding/transport model (you will see references to the "belt" model versus the "picket fence" model in the lit, if you read it)
            This claim that Milan has LOST the ability to bind as effectively as AIwildtype is what is contradicted by the literature, particularly the 8 references you were given. There are more, including human studies.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            AIG did not refer to a 1997 article.  I told you that yesterday.  I was the one that referred to that one before I knew what article AIG was referring to.  I said this morning that it is irrelevant to AIG's case, which it is, so we should disregard it.

            So ... best I can tell, AIG is right on with their main point and now Deadman is confusing "HDL assembly" with "cholesterol transport"

            AIG Point 2) the anti-oxidant activity is a function of the already existing protein structure, not the mutation. CORRECT ALSO. See the following paper ...


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Cysteine mutants of human apolipoprotein A-I: a study of
            secondary structural and functional properties
            (2005)
            Xuewei Zhu, Gang Wu, Wuwei Zeng, Hong Xue, and Baosheng Chen
            Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of
            Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China 100005
            Journal of Lipid Research Volume 46, 2005

            "By coincubating monomeric A-IM or apoA-IParis with the lipoxygenase-mediated oxidation system, Bielicki and Oda (29) concluded that free cysteine
            residue in the monomers of the mutants endowed the mutants with protection against peroxidation, and A-IM wastwice as effective as apoA-IParis in preventing the oxidation of phospholipids. Almost at the same time, Bielicki et al.
            (30) observed that the synthesized peptides with a single cysteine, based on the sequences of A-IM and apoA-IParis, exhibited antioxidation activity like that of full-length proteins."
            < http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/46/6/1303.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Looks to me like it's saying that the synthesized peptides--AIM and AIP--exhibited antioxidation activity like that of the full-length (i.e. Wild Type) protein.  Is this not what it is saying?  Sounds like AIG is right to me.

            AIG Point 3) antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants)
            I do know this to be true ... don't think citing a study on this is necessary.  Also the 2005 Zhu study cited above says this in closing ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Finally, whether A-IM possesses antioxidation activity still remains to be determined.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So do they REALLY know why the Milano people don't have heart attacks?  No, they do not not.  They are guessing at this point and they are testing various hypotheses, best I can tell.

            4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

            That's right ... Loss of Specificity = Loss of Information. (Ved's comment about the broken heater switch being MORE specific will be addressed tomorrow.)

            And ... best I can tell, AIG is proven right once again.  What is it?  Something like 50 to 1 now?

            ************************************

            Deadman, it doesn't help you to keep repeating over and over that Milano helps prevent heart attacks.  We acknowledge that.  You are missing the point.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 25 2006,08:55



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But what if we find out later that the Milano mutation causes some other problem which outweighs the benefits of reduced risk for heart attacks?  Then is it beneficial?  No, not any more.  We just thought it was at first, but now it's not.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Right. And what if we don't find out later (as we haven't) that it causes some other problem? Well, then we have no way of knowing that we won't find out still later that it causes some other problem. In other words, it's pointless to argue with you, and it's disingenuous for you to pretend you're open to evidence on a "beneficial mutation", because we can never know whether some deleterious effect will be discovered next year, can we? But you, armed with your biblical understanding of the universe, assume that some such deleterious effect must exist. Well, I think there are generally trade-offs; I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turns out apo-AIM turns out to cause, say, hypolipidemia on an exclusive diet of anchovies. For you, and maybe for all those who are committed to an exclusive diet of anchovies, that will constitute proof that it's a degenerative change. For the rest of us, I think it would still be a "beneficial mutation".


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            My tentative diagnosis of "seriously delusional" was confirmed last year at the Dover trial.  
            Really?  What specifically made you think this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Oh, I don't know. I think it was the fact that he thought he had made a pretty persuasive case after the entire rest of the world was laughing at such gems as "astrology is science", and that there's no research on evolution of the immune system, despite a stack of published literature sitting right in front of him consisting of publications of research on, well, evolution of the immune system. Or the truly comical defense of the rigor of the "peer-review" of Darwin's Black Box.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The facts of biology are that IF these gazillions of details ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY equal to certain values, then the organism will be sick or might die.  I have not read many formal definitions of Specificity, but this would be my preliminary defintion.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well, let me help you out, then. You see, here we're talking about the binding between a protein and cholesterol, i.e. a biochemical context. In biochemistry,  specificity has a much more definite meaning. It would be measured in terms of dissociation constant (Kd) of the complex, relative to the corresponding Kd for other potential candidates for binding. If you're talking about some other definition of specificity, well, you're going to have to define it a lot more precisely than you did here. Because, you see, just like the all-purpose get-out-of-the-argument-free dodge above (i.e. you can never know some serious drawback to mutation won't be discovered... tomorrow), this kind of sloppy, hand-wavy (non)definition of specificity allows you to dismiss any counterexample brought to your attention as - somehow - not matching your goalpost-on-wheels idea of "specificity".

            And speaking of mobile goalposts:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So ToE really needs something different than "beneficial" mutations in order for the theory to be plausible.  What ToE needs in order to get from a "simple" single celled organism up to a complex vertebrate such as a human, is massive increases in specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Wait a minute. I thought that any increase in specificity was impossible, since, as you know, ToE involves cumulative changes. I.e. unless you can convince anyone that no increase in "specificity" is possible, what's to prevent less-than-massive increases from adding up? So are we wasting our time here talking about specifics, like apo-AIM, or my viral methyltransferases (that you, for some reason, seem to be ignoring)? Does it have be a one step mutation converting a fin into an arm in order to count?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,09:07

            Grey_Wolf_c don't forget the logical fallacy of circular reasoning

            The flud really happened
            -How do you know?
            The Bible says so
            -How do you know the Bible is correct?
            The Bible says it is correct.

            logical fallacy Ad Hominem-
            Trying to cast aspertions on deadmans character and not addressing the argument.

            AFD you are the logical  fallacy gift that just keeps giving.

            A real freak show.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 25 2006,09:08

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 25 2006,14:55)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But what if we find out later that the Milano mutation causes some other problem which outweighs the benefits of reduced risk for heart attacks?  Then is it beneficial?  No, not any more.  We just thought it was at first, but now it's not.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Right. And what if we don't find out later (as we haven't) that it causes some other problem? Well, then we have no way of knowing that we won't find out still later that it causes some other problem. In other words, it's pointless to argue with you, and it's disingenuous for you to pretend you're open to evidence on a "beneficial mutation", because we can never know whether some deleterious effect will be discovered next year, can we?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            The funny thing is, using that same rationalizing, Dave can never know if the Milano mutation is truly a "corruption" or merely a reversion back to the original "designed" allele.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 25 2006,09:08



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Grey_Wolf_c   Posted on Oct. 25 2006,13:49
            I'm going to try something new, Dave. I'm going to give you the name of the fallacy you are using in each false statement you use, so you can then go back and fix it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Bravo.

            SFBDave,


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The Ice Ages

            Scientific Authorship:
            Thomas G. Andrews

            The quest to understand the cause of the Pleistocene ice ages is a fascinating example of how scientists have used different types of evidence to understand earth processes. This slide set traces history of investigation of the ice ages, from the discovery of glacial erratics and moraines in the 1800s, and the theories of orbital variations in solar radiation, to recent investigations of the glacial-interglacial cycles using evidence found in ice cores and deep sea sediments. This slide emphasizes how different types of geologic evidence can be used to understand how earth climate has varied in the past. The set includes photos of evidence of glaciers, pictures and graphs from ice cores and marine sediment cores, and pictures illustrating changes in the earth's orbit. Accompanied by a comprehensive narrative. Includes bibliography and glossary. Appropriate for college-level audiences.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            That's too bad for you about that last sentence. But if you are interested, follow < this link > to see some exquisite slide shows. PS, they are good enough for everyone :)

            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,09:09

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:55)
            That's right ... Loss of Specificity = Loss of Information. (Ved's comment about the broken heater switch being MORE specific will be addressed tomorrow.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave. Wrong, Dave. "Specificity" != "information." It is a fundamental tenet of information theory that meaning of a character string has nothing whatsoever to do with the information content of that string. You keep equating "specificity" (a term you don't even really have a good definition for) with "information" despite being told time and time again that the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman, it doesn't help you to keep repeating over and over that Milano helps prevent heart attacks.  We acknowledge that.  You are missing the point.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And what point is that, exactly, Dave? You've already been shown that mutations can be beneficial. You've been shown that mutations can increase the "information" of a genome. What's left of your argument?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,09:09

            Anyone see a pattern here? Dave simply recycled his post, and reposted it. And he never answered what I asked about "deficiencies" then, either.

            As I said, the fact that carriers of Milano showed low serum HDL's is not in question. That is what Bielicki is referring to when he says "deficiencies."

            The sheer fact that Milano DOES what it does shows that something is going on that involves efflux of cholesterol and arterial plaques in greater amounts than AI wildtype.

            I'm sorry that you really can't read for comprehension, Dave.
            I'm sorry that you have delusions of adequacy in this regard.
            I'm sorry that Milano must in fact be utilizing HDL assembly, and effluxing lipids ( as it is supposed to do, as all Apo's are "supposed" to do)
            I'm sorry that you rely on AiG, a known fraud factory.
            I'm sorry that you rely on "Dr." Don Batten, the plant physiologist, to tell you about things directly contrary to available data.
            I'm sorry that you can't understand that the MEANS by which Milano inhibits heart attacks is by reduction of plaques, protection against thrombus, and removal of serum cholesterol.
            I'm sorry that you think this means "degeneration and corruption"  
            I'm sorry that you "believe" in something called "upward evolution," which has no meaning.
            I'm sorry that you muddled information theory.
            I'm sorry that You have never learned to say you were simply wrong in things.
            I'm sorry that you don't know that the only function of APO's that is valid in this context is the removal of lipids.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,09:17

            AFD you really have to try harder AiG is a pure bullshit pseudo science website.

            Subscribe to a real science website and give us some real anti-evolution stuff, since it is 'fact' then there must be hundreds of articles out there.

            How about wiki (smirk) where are all the flud proofs?

            Did you sent an email to NASA to tell them that Cosmic Microwave Background radiation does not prove a 13-15 billion year old universe?

            If not,why not?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,09:23

            Dear Dave. Since you are dense, I've decided to post a popular review of Bielicki's 2002 paper, so that you can read it and begin to understand why your selective interpretation is both humorous and false. John Bielicki can be contacted at LBNL Life Sciences Dept., (510) 495-2208, jkbielicki@lbl.gov  

            "Bielicki's research solves a paradox that has puzzled the medical world since 1980, when a middle-aged Italian man was referred to Milan's Lipid Center with high blood triglyceride levels, a risk factor for heart disease. Further testing revealed the patient also possessed very low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), a good cholesterol that exports excess cholesterol from coronary arteries. This process prevents plaque buildup that impedes blood flow and contributes to heart attacks.
            Patients with low levels of HDL are susceptible to heart disease, yet the Italian exhibited no signs of pathology. This unlikely combination intrigued scientists, who determined that the patient and a few dozen people from his region possess a mutated form of apolipoprotein A-I protein.
            This important protein, known as apoA-I, both manufactures HDL particles and is responsible for their structure. In the mutated form, dubbed apoA-I Milano because of its origin, one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group. Somehow, this tiny change enables a handful of Italians to possess low HDL levels and remain free of cardiovascular disease. But how?
            In pursuit of the answer, most researchers have focused on the most common form of the protein. About 70 percent of proteins with the Milano mutation come in pairs: one protein attaches to another to form a dimeric complex. The key to this pairing is a disulfide bridge in which the sulfhydryl group from one protein links with the sulfhydryl from another. This pairing restricts HDL size and growth and has been attributed to the HDL deficiency observed in people who have the mutation.
            But 30 percent of proteins with the Milano mutation don't form dimeric complexes. They remain unattached as monomeric complexes. In this solo configuration, the sulfhydryl isn't occupied in a disulfide bond. It's free, which enables it to partake in other reactions, says Bielicki. And one of these reactions is quenching ions with unpaired electrons. In other words, the free sulfhydryl form of the Milano mutation is a powerful antioxidant, and Bielicki had a hunch it played a role in the mutation's ability to fight cardiovascular disease.
            In a laboratory setting, he compared the mutated protein with the normal apoA-I protein, and determined that only the monomeric form of the mutation protects lipids from oxidation. This confirmed Bielicki's hypothesis. In most people, free radicals can go unchecked as they grab electrons from lipids that line arterial walls. But for the less than 50 people lucky enough to possess the Milano mutation, the monomeric form, with its free sulfhydryl, mops up free radicals' unpaired electrons. This satisfies free radicals' need to scavenge electrons from arterial lipids and prevents a series of reactions that lead to cholesterol deposition.
            "We identified a new activity associated with the Milano protein that suggests how it protects against heart disease," Bielicki says. "Next, we can use this knowledge to develop better therapies."
            Simply stated, Bielicki believes a mutation found in a handful of Italians could add a powerful component to today's peptide-based cardiovascular disease therapies. Conventional apoA-I protein therapies remove cholesterol from arteries using HDL. Next-generation therapies, however, could couple this process with the antioxidant mechanism found in the mutation, creating a one-two punch that both cleans out cholesterol and prevents oxidation that leads to future rounds of deposition-"a long-term solution," says Bielicki.
            So far, he has isolated the structural domain from the mutation that contains the functional cysteine residue. The next step is to include this cysteine in a therapy that homes in on heart disease. Fortunately, apoA-I already possesses this crucial targeting mechanism, providing a pathway on which researchers can model a pharmaceutical. It works like this: when an artery wall suffers oxidative damage and cholesterol deposition, its cells trigger the upregulation of a receptor called ABCA1. This receptor exports cholesterol from the cell. The apoA-I protein is specifically designed to sense this upregulation and attach itself to receptor sites.
            This binding process signals the protein to manufacture the HDL that whisks cholesterol out of the arteries.
            The mutated protein also targets this receptor, which means its antioxidant powers concentrate where oxidation and cholesterol deposition occur. This ensures its ability to guard against the earliest stages of atherosclerosis.
            The trick is to develop a simple pharmaceutical peptide that targets the upregulation of the ABCA1 receptor, exports cholesterol like the conventional protein, and fights arterial wall oxidation like the Milano mutation. It would work best where it's needed most, says Bielicki. And to underscore the effectiveness of such a therapy, he adds that more than 20 years after the discovery of the Milano mutation, its carriers remain free of cardiovascular disease.
            "It has stood the test of time, promising new therapies to combat the nation's leading cause of death," Bielicki says. " < http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php >
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,09:27

            As we have seen, Apo-AIM has not lost the ability to make HDLs, so it has not sacrificed "specificity." Indeed, as Apo-AIM HDL particles are more effective at promoting cholesterol removal from cells, one could reasonably claim that there has been an increase in "specificity." < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html >

            So, Dave...What I'd like you to do is to post the entire section of Bielicki's paper that you say shows that AIMilano creates deficiencies...and why.

            See, Bielicki is simply observing that dimers have a lessened ability to activate LCAT. So? There are other routes to creating HDL's, and those Milano Apo's are effluxing cholesterol MUCH MORE RAPIDLY, as we have seen in clinical and lab studies, in both humans and other animals.

            Bielicki's study was dealing with efflux from macrophages, similar to Zhu's study. They take Milano and other variants, purify them and put them in a soup of lipid-loaded macrophages and LCAT, along with some other chemicals. The variants of Apo are then subjected to analysis after an amount of time to determine which worked "best" at effluxing lipids from macrophage foam cells.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            There were no differences between lipid-free apoA-IMilano, apoA-IParis, and apoA-IWT in mediating the efflux of cholesterol from macrophages, indicating that the cysteine variants interacted normally with the ABCA1 efflux pathway (from Bielicki, 2002)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,09:31

            Oh for Christ's sake BWE now AFD is going to have to send another email, those ice core guys are claiming that the cores were laid down up to 160,000 years ago, God help us AFD is never going to have time to feed us all with his faith based bullshit.
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 25 2006,09:40

            The only thing degenerating around here--despite every appearance that it's already degraded to the max--is dave's ability to assemble evidence with non-fallacious logic to reach a tenable conclusion.

            On this page alone, dave started out his first few paragraphs of his first post sounding--refreshingly--as if he was at least being "intelligently" (potentially remediably) wrong.

            But it's been all downhill from there.

            dave, based on the outward indicia, you are in serious need of confession, because you are evidently being afflicted by your deity for an immense pile of offenses.

            Help is available, guy, but first (barring involuntary commitment--which may not be too far off) you've got to ask for it.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 25 2006,09:43

            I'm not sorry. The only things SFBDave ever says to me anymore are nasty, mean and stupid. Hmmm. I guess everything he says is stupid. Well, anyway, you ask, I answer. I ask, you say you've won. I'm still up for the portuguese debate. I have some info I think might make you a little less sure of your winner's status but, because I am not going to do any research until you acknowledge that I took your bet and that you will then have to debate it, I am not sure how good my info is.

            On the other hand, lying cheating welching quotemining plagarizing Dave, am pretty sure of my information on various ice core techniques and some of the ways that coral reefs are dated was incedental to my research in college. I might remember a little bit about that if I think real hard.

            I already showed you why you are wrong about the age of Earth (may she bless our evening debaucheries). I gave you links to the relevant AiG articles. What more can I do to help you understand the data Dave?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,09:47

            So let's see where we are here. Dave's original claim appeared to be that there are no "beneficial" mutations. He was promptly given an example of a "beneficial" mutation: the Milano variant of the apoA-I protein. Dave first tried to argue that the mutation was not, in fact, beneficial, because it resulted from a "loss of specificity" and hence of information. But even if it were true that the mutation resulted in a loss of either "specificity" or "information," however Dave decided to redefine the term, that wouldn't have changed the fact that the mutation itself is, in fact, beneficial.

            But in classic Dave style, Dave just wheeled the goalposts a little further back. Now, he concedes that the Milano mutation is, in fact, beneficial, but claims that that's not the point. Now he claims the point is that the mutation results in a loss of "specificity," and hence of "information," which is really his point. But how did that get to be the point, and why is it relevant anyway?

            Dave claims that the ToE has no mechanism for generating adaptive mutations, despite being shown an example of exactly that. So what's left of Dave's claim (his original claim, not his moved-goalposts claim)? Anything at all?

            And all of this is merely a long, long, LONG detour down dead-end road to a false assumption anyway, which is that evidence against the theory of evolution (if he could find some) would somehow be evidence for his young-earth creationism. Which, somehow, Dave just can't seem to find support for.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,10:01

            eric: yeah, it's that blatant false dichotomy fallacy thing that Creationists like to use. "If I can show what I think are flaws in the modern Theory of Evolution, it means my version is right"

            Weird. ICR and AiG are solely dependent on this fallacy, really.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 25 2006,10:07



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ericmurphy   Posted on Oct. 25 2006,14:47
            And all of this is merely a long, long, LONG detour down dead-end road to a false assumption anyway, which is that evidence against the theory of evolution (if he could find some) would somehow be evidence for his young-earth creationism. Which, somehow, Dave just can't seem to find support for.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Which is why it seems best (for me-I am aware that I am adding the the noise, er... information) to show Dave that a young Earth (blessed are we who take delight in her joys) is a ridiculous idea. We're not even talking about tectonics, simply annual accumulations and cross-referencability.

            Dave, you gonna acknowledge that I took the portuguese bet? If you do, you'll have to debate it with me! Wouldn't it feel good to make me look foolish? I leave so many obvious openings, I'm surprised you don't take advantage of them.
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2006,10:13

            Dave:



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Eric ... so I guess you, a guy with no college degree who works in a law office, are more of an authority than this guy ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, I realise that you've been treated poorly on this board from time to time, but that's no reason to ignore a good argument when you hear one. If you think Eric's wrong, refute him. Wouldn't his background make that "easy" to do? So deal with his argument, not his credentials.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 25 2006,10:13

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 25 2006,16:07)
             
            Which is why...them.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Maybe the earth is like my wife and just stopped counting the birthdays:

            "How old are you this year earth?"

            "5,999 and counting..."

            This information theory thing with Dave is interesting.  While I have thought Dave (at times) reflects intelligence, his posts on this topic seem as if he is finding it impossible to grasp the concept.

            Kinda like me and string theory...
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,10:19

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 25 2006,15:01)
            eric: yeah, it's that blatant false dichotomy fallacy thing that Creationists like to use. "If I can show what I think are flaws in the modern Theory of Evolution, it means my version is right"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This is why I keep pointing out to Dave, for example, that it wouldn't be enough to chip away at things like various radiometric dating methods, ice cores, varves, dendrochronology, paleomagnetism, etc. He would have to come up with a series of independent data that all point to a particular date. If Dave maintains that the universe is 6,000 years old, he would need to find multiple data points based on geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, etc. which all point to a universe and an earth that is 6,000 years old. Even if he could refute all of the evidence for a universe 13.7 billion years old and an earth 4.55 billion years old, that still wouldn't get him to where he needs to be. He still wouldn't have any evidence that the earth and the universe is 6,000 years old (or whatever figure he finally picks; he still doesn't seem to have narrowed his error bars to much less than 50%).

            And if he can't prove this fundamental element of his "hypothesis"—that the earth is 6,000 (or 8,000, or 15,000) years old—then what's left of his "hypothesis"?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 25 2006,10:34



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            And to underscore the effectiveness of such a therapy, he adds that more than 20 years after the discovery of the Milano mutation, its carriers remain free of cardiovascular disease.
            "It has stood the test of time, promising new therapies to combat the nation's leading cause of death," Bielicki says. "
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            "However, noted biochemist/information theorist/biochemist/geologist AFDave cautioned that unanticipated drawbacks could turn up at some point in the future, at which point the bottom fell out of the biotechnology market as panicked investors suddenly rushed to dump their stocks and asked themselves 'what can we have been thinking?' "
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 25 2006,10:39

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 25 2006,15:13)
            This information theory thing with Dave is interesting.  While I have thought Dave (at times) reflects intelligence, his posts on this topic seem as if he is finding it impossible to grasp the concept.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, in fairness, it isn't exactly intuitive.  Without getting too far into my biography, I have spent much time managing business operations and one thing I am fond of saying is that I need information, not data.  For workaday folks, like myself, the word "data" means a pile of numbers and "information" implies meaningful content extracted from the data.  In the context being used here, the distinction is turned on it's ear.

            Of course, I did understand the explanation regarding compressibility and why white noise has more information than a recorded speech.  But, then again, I don't have a stake in not going where the discussion is leading either.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 25 2006,11:04

            Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 25 2006,16:39)
            Well, in fairness, it isn't exactly intuitive.  Without getting too far into my biography, I have spent much time managing business operations and one thing I am fond of saying is that I need information, not data.  For workaday folks, like myself, the word "data" means a pile of numbers and "information" implies meaningful content extracted from the data.  In the context being used here, the distinction is turned on it's ear.

            Of course, I did understand the explanation regarding compressibility and why white noise has more information than a recorded speech.  But, then again, I don't have a stake in not going where the discussion is leading either.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Maybe that's the problem.  Maybe Dave has trouble grasping concepts that are counter-intuitive.  As you mentioned, once it was explained to you it made sense, but you didn't have a vested interest in it being otherwise.

            But I think it's possible it's just not easy for some people to grasp a concept beyond their own "gut feeling" or "common sense."  I have met a number of technical types who have trouble thinking abstractly.

            I'll bet you could get many liberal arts college students to swear a rock will fall faster than a feather in a vacuum.  "It just makes common sense."

            Words mean things and I suspect one can't have even a basic discussion of everything from genetics to geology if one doesn't take time to grasp the meanings of the terms.

            If one is discussing "information theory" it probably makes sense to first know the definition of "information."
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,11:05

            Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 25 2006,15:39)
             Of course, I did understand the explanation regarding compressibility and why white noise has more information than a recorded speech.  But, then again, I don't have a stake in not going where the discussion is leading either.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'll try this one more time—not really for Dave's benefit, because he has a vested interest in not understanding my point—but for the benefit of lurkers.

            Let's take a stream of bits; in this case, a Microsoft Word Document entiteled "AF Dave's Unanswered Questions by Category." It's 55,000 bytes, more or less. I don't think even Dave would argue that this stream is "meaningless." It certainly has more "meaning" than a random stream of bits.

            I then take this file, and create a compressed version of it using the commercially-available utility WinZip. WinZip uses lossless compression, which means that all of the information, in the Shannon sense of the term as well as in Dave's sense of the term, is preserved. This compressed version of the file, which again contains all the information of the original file, is a bit more than 11,000 bytes. About 20% of the size of the original file.

            Now I take a photoshop file that is basically noise: a 1-bit (i.e., monochrome) image of black and white speckles, resembling static on a TV screen. This file is also 55,000 bytes. Using LZW compression (another lossless compression algorithm), the compressed file is 52,000 bytes long. In other words, the file is nearly incompressible.

            Again, this compressed file contains all the information of the original file, in both the Shannon sense of the term and in Dave's sense of the term.

            Now let's look at the two compressed files: one a compressed version of an English-language text, and one a compressed version of what amounts to visual noise. One is meaningful, one meaningless.

            But which one has more information? Well, one has 11,000 bytes of information, and the other has 52,000 bytes of information. Given that simple arithmetic will demonstrate that 11,0000 < 52,000, I think we can rest assured that the compressed version of the text file has less information than the compressed version of the graphics file.

            But the compressed version of each file contains exactly the same information as the uncompressed version. Therefore, the uncompressed version of the text file contains less information than the uncompressed version of the graphics file.

            I know this won't make any sense to Dave, because he can't allow it to make sense to him. But what about everyone else?
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 25 2006,11:29

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,16:05)
            [quote=carlsonjok,Oct. 25 2006,15:39]  
            I know this won't make any sense to Dave, because he can't allow it to make sense to him. But what about everyone else?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Couldn't have said it better myself.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 25 2006,11:48

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,17:05)
            I know this won't make any sense to Dave, because he can't allow it to make sense to him. But what about everyone else?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I can follow that.

            And, frighteningly enough, I can follow Dave's "specificity" train of thought as well.  He's referring to what he believes is a genetic signal-to-noise ratio.  The signal in this case is the genetic pattern of Adam & Eve.  The noise (and thereby loss of the original signal) comes from mutations that have been piling up over the last 6000 years.

            But personally, I don't know why he's even bothering with this approach.  As soon as he accepts that you can follow modern genetic patterns to determine that original "signal", he's putting himself right back in with the other great apes.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,12:02

            So here's a question for Drew--

            Do you, Drew Headley--who is working on a PhD in neuroscience (I think)--think there is more information contained in white noise that in a Winston Churchill speech?

            I'd like to have you on record with a simple YES or NO.  Thx!

            ********************************

            Deadman-- I have a treat for you tomorrow.  Thank you for your latest post.

            ********************************

            Paley-- I already did refute Eric on evidence.  You missed it apparently.  He's simply babbling on about compression in spite of it.  Frankly I'm at a loss to know what he thinks his statement about Noise vs. Churchill (which is wrong) has to do with biology.  My point is simply ...

            1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
            2) we can

            Let me rephrase that ...

            I can.

            I'm not sure that someone who believes that white noise has more info than a speech is capable of identifying information in biological system.

            IOW ... I have had confirmed for me again today what huge mental barriers Darwinism erects.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,12:05

            Quote (improvius @ Oct. 25 2006,16:48)
            But personally, I don't know why he's even bothering with this approach.  As soon as he accepts that you can follow modern genetic patterns to determine that original "signal", he's putting himself right back in with the other great apes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh, it's worse than that. If you want to go back to high S/N ratio genomes, you're going all the way back to bacteria. And I really, really don't think Dave wants to go there.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,12:15



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman-- I have a treat for you tomorrow.  Thank you for your latest post.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yawn. Would it involve actually posting the relevant paragraphs of Bielicki, Dave? That's basically all you have to "show" that the Milano mutation is "deficient"
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm not sure that someone who believes that white noise has more info than a speech is capable of identifying information in biological system.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            HAHAHAHAHA. Man, it's hard to imagine that you don't need someone to tie your shoelaces for you.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 25 2006,12:17

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,17:02)
            So here's a question for Drew--

            Do you, Drew Headley--who is working on a PhD in neuroscience (I think)--think there is more information contained in white noise that in a Winston Churchill speech?

            I'd like to have you on record with a simple YES or NO.  Thx!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes, I do think that white noise has more information than a speech by Winston Churchill, where information is defined by Shannon's metric. It is a consequence of the probability distributions, since whitenoise by definition has a flat distribution for all symbols and speech does not.

            Yes, I am pursuing a Ph.D. in neuroscience.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 25 2006,12:22

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,18:02)
            1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
            2) we can

            Let me rephrase that ...

            I can.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, you can't.  And you won't.  You, Dave, are utterly incapable of distinguishing between your concepts of "signal and noise" in biological systems.

            But please, feel free to prove me wrong here.

            (And yes, Dave, this is a trap.)
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,12:24

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,17:02)
            Paley-- I already did refute Eric on evidence.  You missed it apparently.  He's simply babbling on about compression in spite of it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, you didn't. I posted a list of < 15 bullet points > yesterday. The final point, that a "Digital recording of human speech contains less information than digital recording of broadband white noise of same size" is a logical consequence of all the preceding points. If you want to refute my conclusion, you need to refute all of the points leading up to it. This, you have signally (pun entirely unintentional) failed to do. Nor have you managed to find holes in the illustration I posted today. You have no more "refuted" my claims in information theory than you have "refuted" deadman's quote-mining claims, and endless repetition that you have done so fools no one.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Frankly I'm at a loss to know what he thinks his statement about Noise vs. Churchill (which is wrong) has to do with biology.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Actually, Dave, it has little at all to do with biology. What it does have to do with is your fundamental misapprehensions about information theory, and why those misapprehensions are fatal flaws in your attempt to apply information theory to biology.

            And, btw, my point about noise vs. speech is not wrong, as I have amply demonstrated. That you don't get it is your problem, not mine.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            My point is simply ...

            1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
            2) we can
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            1) No we don't, and
            2) No you can't. You don't know what "information" means, and you persist in your mistaken belief that "information" is synonymous with "meaning." It isn't.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm not sure that someone who believes that white noise has more info than a speech is capable of identifying information in biological system.

            IOW ... I have had confirmed for me again today what huge mental barriers Darwinism erects.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, in case you haven't noticed, information theory has little if anything to do with biology. So why in the world would you think that my understanding of information theory (which is pretty bare-bones, but strangely enough, a lot more accurate than yours) has anything whatsoever to do with my understanding of evolutionary theory (which is also much more accurate than yours)? You suffer from the same delusion GoP's creationist simulacrum suffered from: the idea that "Darwinism" means "anything I disagree with."

            But I think ScaryFacts made a good observation about you, Dave. When it comes to complex scientific theories (quantum physics would be a good example, but so would evolutionary theory), intuition is a very, very suspect guide. Intuition gets you nowhere in quantum theory, and it gets you worse than nowhere in evolutionary theory.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2006,12:27



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFDave:  
            1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
            2) we can
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            Are there any natural processes that allow the quantity of biological information to increase?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 25 2006,12:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But what about everyone else?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I'm pretty sure I'm with you. Basically, your definition of "information" is what is the minimum number of yes/no questions one would have to answer (well, actually the log2 of that number) to completely describe the sequence in question. It would take far more with the white noise, because the Churchill speech is, to some extent, "predictable" (e.g. there will be redundancy, and a lot of rules governing what sound can follow what, and having processed, say, "the Nazis..." you can be pretty sure the next sounds will NOT be "are not so bad once you get to know them".)

            If you've ever heard computer data being transmitted over a phone line, you probably agree that it sounds a whole lot more like "white noise" like a Churchill speech.

            What does this have to do with DNA, one might ask? Well, if you can glance at the sequence and it looks "regular" (e.g. AGCTAGCTAGCTAGCT...) it almost certainly doesn't "mean" anything. I.e. it's much more likely to be some kind of "filler", or polymerase "stuttering" than to be part of a gene for a "specific" (in Dave's or anyone elses sense) enzyme.In the same way, to the extent that a DNA sequence is at all regular, or predictable, or compressible (all pretty much synonymous) - as is a Churchill speech relative to white noise - to that extent it is unlikely to carry the kind of highly dense "information" necessary to construct an enzyme containing a whole lot of "information" (or "specificity" for that matter).

            So, Dave, does that help you understand why this was not the "stupidest question" in the thread? Or, to put it another way, can you treat the question and the questioners with a little more respect? Because I, for one, find your repetitious "anyone who sees more information in white noise than in a Churchill speech must be an idiot" very tedious and obtuse.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,12:44

            This will be a very perilous time for Dave. When Dave is cornered, he has tried several tactics in the past to "escape." He has
            1. Switched his definitions
            2. Switched his entire claims (often to the complete opposite , as we saw on alleles).
            3. Tried to claim victory and bluff his way out.
            4. Made up "charts" out of thin air.
            5. Quotemined deliberately, and at least once from a pdf (about the Egyptian chronology) that he thought would not be discovered.

            Yes, Dave has been caught at all those things. It's a dangerous point for Dave whenever Dave is cornered...because he resorts to faking his way out.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 25 2006,12:49

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 25 2006,14:43)
            I'm not sorry. The only things SFBDave ever says to me anymore are nasty, mean and stupid. Hmmm. I guess everything he says is stupid. Well, anyway, you ask, I answer. I ask, you say you've won. I'm still up for the portuguese debate. I have some info I think might make you a little less sure of your winner's status but, because I am not going to do any research until you acknowledge that I took your bet and that you will then have to debate it, I am not sure how good my info is.

            On the other hand, lying cheating welching quotemining plagarizing Dave, am pretty sure of my information on various ice core techniques and some of the ways that coral reefs are dated was incedental to my research in college. I might remember a little bit about that if I think real hard.

            I already showed you why you are wrong about the age of Earth (may she bless our evening debaucheries). I gave you links to the relevant AiG articles. What more can I do to help you understand the data Dave?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, you are being duped.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,12:58

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 25 2006,17:44)
            It's a dangerous point for Dave whenever Dave is cornered...because he resorts to faking his way out.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And frankly, why he wastes his time on these digressions is something of a mystery.

            Dave could have given what he thought was the correct answer ("the Churchill speech"), and then when shown that's not the correct answer, said, "Oh, okay. Well, whatever. It's not important to my point anyway." Then he could have continued in his frantic (or, actually rather lackadaisical) efforts to find support to shore up his moribund "hypothesis."

            Instead, he's gone round and round on the issue, burning up bandwidth, trying to support an unsupportable position. He ends up making himself look foolish, even if he doesn't see it that way.

            Why does Dave do this? It's because he simply cannot admit that he was wrong about anything (well, near as dammit, anyway—considering the number of things he's been wrong about, the number of things he's admitted he was wrong about may as well be zero). This puts him in the position of having to defend indefensible positions over and over again. Just in the last few weeks, he's been forced to defend his failure to understand why Michael Denton's chart actually supports evolutionary theory; he's had to try to explain why his "genetically rich" characterization isn't completely meaningless; he's had to try to weasel out of his misunderstanding of heterozygosity and his failure to understand that no organism can have more than two alleles for any given gene, he's been forced to backtrack on his claims that there are no beneficial mutations and morph his claim into one that there are no mutations which increase "specificity" or his broken definition of "information."

            In many ways, it's a tragic waste of bandwidth. But in other ways, it's some of the best free entertainment I've had the pleasure of enjoying in a long, long time.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 25 2006,13:17

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,18:58)
            Why does Dave do this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Could it be Dave is the incarnation of "The Straw Man"?  He appears real, but is easily dismissed.
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 25 2006,16:00

            Dave:



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Paley-- I already did refute Eric on evidence.  You missed it apparently.  He's simply babbling on about compression in spite of it.  Frankly I'm at a loss to know what he thinks his statement about Noise vs. Churchill (which is wrong) has to do with biology.  My point is simply ...

            1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
            2) we can

            Let me rephrase that ...

            I can.

            I'm not sure that someone who believes that white noise has more info than a speech is capable of identifying information in biological system.

            IOW ... I have had confirmed for me again today what huge mental barriers Darwinism erects.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Well, I'm no electrical engineer and I don't even play one on the internet, but isn't the multiplicity of definitions part of the problem? Does anyone really agree on how information load translates to biological systems, I wonder? Perhaps a better approach would be to analyse whether or not evolutionary mechanisms can build systems, cascades, and organs. Gene duplication (for example) seems to be a pretty powerful mechanism of change, and especially pertinent to biological complexity. Do you think gene duplication + mutation adds information to the genome? If not, why not? If you've addressed this, would you mind pointing to where?
            Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 25 2006,16:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            And Cedric, your imagination is running wild.  I most certainly did contact AIG about their error and I will get a response.  In fact, I have a meeting at their headquarters next month.  If I have not heard back by then, I will inquire while I am there.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ....?!?.........?!?......
            I'm flabbergasted, gobsmacked and amazed!
            I actually got a response to my questions.  Thanks for replying.
            (Ok, so it took me a couple of weeks of jumping up and down to get Dave to answer and as answers go it's not much in terms of detail, but...I'll take it.  Never look a gift horse in the mouth, I say.)
            So, you did send an e-mail.?  Seriously?  Good for you.  I'll admit I didn't think you had it in you.  Don't worry.  I won't demand proof, I'll take your Christian word for it.
            You have a meeting with them next month?
            Better and better.  Once again, I'm happy to hear you're going to follow this one up. I stand corrected.
            Now here's the thing.  You said "Next Month", so let's be generous and say by "the end of November" perhaps?
            Can we expect the article to be removed by then?  Is that reasonable? Let me know if you want more time. After all, deleting a web-page article can sometimes take whole minutes of back-breaking work.
            Now, if you get them to take down the article I will credit you with having done a good thing and having kept your word.  You may very well be the first person EVER to have gotten AIG to retract ANYTHING AT ALL.
            If you can do this then... well...it would be pretty bloody impressive and I will be the first to admit it.
            Yet, what if they don't?
            What if they brush you off or give a litany of excuses or endless delays?  Will you hold their feet to the fire or will you let them worm their way out of it?
            Can you, as a Christian, permit them to pull a fast one?
            Will you shrug it off if/when they give you the run around?  Will your conscience allow it?
            Or will you rethink your attitude towards AIG?
            Please note, I'm not asking you to renounce your faith in God.  I'm not asking you to deny Christ.  However, I am asking you to hold an ostensibly Christian organisation to account according to the principles of your faith.
            Oh yes, and would it be alright if you would volunteer the results of your meeting when it happens rather than me or someone else having to badger you for it?
            In the absence of a reasonable reply and faced with a mysterious silence, imaginations will indeed run wild.  What else should they do?
            We're both adults so let's not play the "I can't hear you/I can't recall" game, shall we?
            Thanks again for your reply.

            Remember, remember, the end of November...
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2006,16:50

            Quote (GOP @ Oct. 25 2006,21:00)
            Well, I'm no electrical engineer and I don't even play one on the internet, but isn't the multiplicity of definitions part of the problem? Does anyone really agree on how information load translates to biological systems, I wonder? Perhaps a better approach would be to analyse whether or not evolutionary mechanisms can build systems, cascades, and organs. Gene duplication (for example) seems to be a pretty powerful mechanism of change, and especially pertinent to biological complexity. Do you think gene duplication + mutation adds information to the genome? If not, why not? If you've addressed this, would you mind pointing to where?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            In case anyone missed it, SFBDave has admitted that mutations can indeed add information to a genome; it just may not be the "correct" information (whatever that means).

             
            Quote (OA @ Oct. 24 2006,18:47[/quote)


            here is a genetic sequence 1)  AABBCC

            next generation it mutates to 2) AABBCD

            next generation it mutates again to 3) AABBCC

            sequences 1) and 3) have identical information

            now if going from 1)--> 2) lost information (according to SFBDave), and going from 2)--> 3) lost information also, then

            how did 1) and 3) end up with identical information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


             
            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42[/quote)

            In OA's example above, if we assume that "AABBCC" is the "correct" sequence (this needs to be defined as Russell points out), then step 2) represents a loss and step 3) represents a gain regardless of HOW this occurred -- chance or intelligent agent.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Please feel free to use this tidbit when beating ShitForBrainsDave about the head and shoulders, or I can do the job myself.   :p
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,16:56

            You know Cedric ... it's interesting what has transpired here over the last several months.  I have been increasingly amazed at some of the enormous knowledge gaps that people here have had in areas I was led to believe they were experts in ... the latest two examples being a guy that's in a PhD program in neuroscience having a completely backwards idea of what information is and a guy that really seems intelligent otherwise who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of population genetics.  What I'm saying to you is that way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.  It is beginning to appear to me that many of you have a very backwards view of reality.  But we'll see.  I assure you I am anxious to hear Dr. Wieland's reply in any case.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 25 2006,17:02

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,19:56)
            You know Cedric ... it's interesting what has transpired here over the last several months.  I have been increasingly amazed at some of the enormous knowledge gaps that people here have had in areas I was led to believe they were experts in ... the latest two examples being a guy that's in a PhD program in neuroscience having a completely backwards idea of what information is and a guy that really seems intelligent otherwise who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of population genetics.  What I'm saying to you is that way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.  It is beginning to appear to me that many of you have a very backwards view of reality.  But we'll see.  I assure you I am anxious to hear Dr. Wieland's reply in any case.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, you little cutie, you don't need to take our word for it that Wieland is atrociously wrong.  You can look it up yourself.  Try googling "DNA antiparallel" and see what you get.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,17:02

            OA...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In case anyone missed it, SFBDave has admitted that mutations can indeed add information to a genome; it just may not be the "correct" information (whatever that means).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            So what does this do for your advocacy of ToE?  I put "correct" in quotes for your sake because according to your theory there is no such thing as "correct" sequences, right?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,17:10



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you little cutie, you don't need to take our word for it that Wieland is atrociously wrong.  You can look it up yourself.  Try googling "DNA antiparallel" and see what you get.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes, I agreed with the explanation I was given at the time.  But the recent "atrociously wrongness" here does give one pause.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 25 2006,17:10

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,21:56)
            You know Cedric ... it's interesting what has transpired here over the last several months.  I have been increasingly amazed at some of the enormous knowledge gaps that people here have had in areas I was led to believe they were experts in ... the latest two examples being a guy that's in a PhD program in neuroscience having a completely backwards idea of what information is and a guy that really seems intelligent otherwise who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of population genetics.  What I'm saying to you is that way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.  It is beginning to appear to me that many of you have a very backwards view of reality.  But we'll see.  I assure you I am anxious to hear Dr. Wieland's reply in any case.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I am sorry that you feel that way. If you think that we have such backwards views on information theory, why not actually talk with an information theorist. See if he agrees with you. I really do not know what to do at this point, you have not specifically rebutted any of my points. I know that nature is counter-intuitive, it is what it is. We cannot change the data to whatever we want to believe.

            Again, I think it should be stressed that information theory does not concern the meaning or implications of whatever is transmitted. As far as Shannon was concerned, transmissions are just sequences of symbols. Again, I have to post the quote by Dr. Schnieder which reinforces this:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Information and uncertainty are technical terms that describe any process that selects one or
            more objects from a set of objects. We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of
            the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            This is from his wonderful primer on information theory, I highly recommend you read it. < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/primer.pdf >
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 25 2006,17:20

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,23:02)
            So what does this do for your advocacy of ToE?  I put "correct" in quotes for your sake because according to your theory there is no such thing as "correct" sequences, right?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This isn't where the ToE is defended, it is where your hypothosis is defended.  I began reading this thread back in August hoping for you to show how the Biblical account can be reconciled with current science.  What I have found, instead, is a staggering lack of evidence presented by you in support of the Biblical account.

            Please understand what I am saying:  I came here rooting for you.  I wanted the Biblical account to be reconciled with the facts.  You have completely disappointed me and any other lurkers who were reading this with the same hope.

            Your posts have consistently demonstrated the lies propagated in the name of Christ.  How can you not see the lies and obfuscations?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2006,17:22

            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            Dave, what is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?
            Posted by: Artist in trainig on Oct. 25 2006,17:23

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 25 2006,18:17)
            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,18:58)
            Why does Dave do this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Could it be Dave is the incarnation of "The Straw Man"?  He appears real, but is easily dismissed.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This might be the most perceptive comment on the entire double thread. How interesting.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 25 2006,17:24

            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So, Dave, does that help you understand why this was not the "stupidest question" in the thread? Or, to put it another way, can you treat the question and the questioners with a little more respect? Because I, for one, find your repetitious "anyone who sees more information in white noise than in a Churchill speech must be an idiot" very tedious and obtuse.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Sorry, but it is important to point out such an atrocious error in a very big way.  How does one have a rational discussion about biological information if one party completely inverts the normally accepted definition of "information" and then tries to say that Shannon himself accepted this inverted definition, even after a highly qualified individual from the NIH in the Molecular Information Theory Group no less, Dr. Thomas Schneider (see link here < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >) completely refutes this inverted idea and furthermore points out that Shannon himself didn't even say this!!!  

            Words fail me, Russell !!  What am I to think but that you guys are committed to sticking to your ToE brethren (Eric in this case) no matter how wrong they are simply because the alternative is worse -- admitting a creationist is right.

            And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            Posted by: Artist in trainig on Oct. 25 2006,17:29

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
            And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That's what we call "learning".
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2006,17:33



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFDave:  And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

            Third time asking.  I know it normally takes at least five tries to get an answer from you, so pretend this is 3x as long.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,18:23

            Eric
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            .....Instead, he's gone round and round on the issue, burning up bandwidth, trying to support an unsupportable position. He ends up making himself look foolish, even if he doesn't see it that way.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yeah looks like AFD jumped another (Portuguese) shark but AFD is nothing if not Clintonian on his stain, DNA evidence not withstanding or Bushite on WMD's instead of Oil as the reason for going into Iraq.  

            He makes Bush look like a rank amateur on claiming victory though ..eh?


            Mission accomplished ..what o ..Davey? The flud proved?    Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            AFD has the integrity, morals and conscience of a politician, where even the definition of 'is' is malleable and goodthink/doublethink rules.

            Heck afd makes some politicians look like saints.

            AFD ............Science sets it's  integrity, morals and conscience far beyond your corruption of those values AND YOUR RELIGION , you are an absolute disgrace standing there in your cum stained dress wearing your dunces hat declaring victory ...again.

            Mission accomplished?... AFD?

            ....It hasn't happened yet but here is my guess..the US declares 'peace with honor' and leaves Iraq. (Forced out By its own population who have woken up to the LIES of A FUNDY CREATIONIST GOD TALKING president)

            The Iraqi factions all declare victory (over the US)and continue to fight each other even though they have 'won'.

            .... AFD keeps lying and declaring victory (peace with honor) but no one listens THEN HE DIES LIKE NIXON.

            ....oh the absurdity of it.

            ...oh the pseudo sciencey private definition of information of it.

            Give up AFD you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you have proven it every single time.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 25 2006,18:29

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So, Dave, does that help you understand why this was not the "stupidest question" in the thread? Or, to put it another way, can you treat the question and the questioners with a little more respect? Because I, for one, find your repetitious "anyone who sees more information in white noise than in a Churchill speech must be an idiot" very tedious and obtuse.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Sorry, but it is important to point out such an atrocious error in a very big way.  How does one have a rational discussion about biological information if one party completely inverts the normally accepted definition of "information" and then tries to say that Shannon himself accepted this inverted definition, even after a highly qualified individual from the NIH in the Molecular Information Theory Group no less, Dr. Thomas Schneider (see link here < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >) completely refutes this inverted idea and furthermore points out that Shannon himself didn't even say this!!!  

            Words fail me, Russell !!  What am I to think but that you guys are committed to sticking to your ToE brethren (Eric in this case) no matter how wrong they are simply because the alternative is worse -- admitting a creationist is right.

            And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave, I really think you are misunderstanding what Dr. Schneider and Shannon said. When they talk about uncertainty, they are not saying randomness, they are saying the part of the signal we have yet to receive. I do not know any other way to put this.

            Schneider says:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Imagine that we are in communication and that we have agreed on an alphabet. Before I send you a bunch of characters, you are uncertain (Hbefore) as to what I'm about to send. After you receive a character, your uncertainty goes down (to Hafter). Hafter is never zero because of noise in the communication system. Your decrease in uncertainty is the information ® that you gain.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms....Entropy >
            This is in agreement with what I have said above.

            It does not matter how the signal was generated, whether by a random source or a person writing. All that matters to calculate the information is the distribution of symbols.

            If you can refute any of these points, please do so.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,18:48

            AFD did your own personal little god (in a fragranced dispenser with your churches logo on it.... one presumes)send a message in your DNA?

            Did the first begat have its vibrating neurons synchronize with the great Flying Spaggetti Monster to produce the first ever DNA replication when Adam Jumped EVE? oops chicken before the egg.


            Tell us all AFD when was the very first DNA replication?

            Take a deep breath and enlighten us ...give all the good oil.

            Show us how de lard writ de life on de land.

            Give us some old fashioned hand waving AFD, and de finger pointing wit de miracle and de k-nashing o' de teeth.

            Come on jesus boy.


            FIRST DNA REPLICATION........PLEASE EXPLAIN.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 25 2006,18:50

            Quote (Artist in trainig @ Oct. 25 2006,20:29)
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
            And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That's what we call "learning".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Ouch, Dave.  You've just been given the proverbial smackdown by both Scary and Artist, both of whom (if I'm not mistaken) came here as creationists.  So why are they laying into you, Dave?  Are they blind and cannot see the evidence for creationism, because they have the need for Darwin to be right?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 25 2006,19:04

            Hey Dave, explain something to me.

            First you say ToE needs an increase in specificity to work, but that you’ve never seen it.
                   
            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            What ToE needs in order to get from a "simple" single celled organism up to a complex vertebrate such as a human, is massive increases in specificity.

            To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Then, when talking about the A-IMilano mutation, you claim loss of information = loss of specificity
                   
            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:55)


            4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

            That's right ... Loss of Specificity = Loss of Information. (Ved's comment about the broken heater switch being MORE specific will be addressed tomorrow.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But you already agreed that mutations can add information
                 
            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
            then step 2) represents a loss and step 3) represents a gain regardless of HOW this occurred -- chance or intelligent agent.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So if

            A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
            loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
            gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

            Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  

            And before you start in with “but I said MASSIVE increase in specificity”, please explain how to measure specificity to tell if it increased or decreased, and how much is “massive”.

            Which of these has more specificity Dave?  This?

            or this?

            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 25 2006,19:12

            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

            *************************************************************
            Maybe if lots of people ask the same thing, Dave will "see" the questions. I doubt it, though---he's trying to avoid here, which means he knows he can't respond.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 25 2006,20:30

            Mommy's boy AFD should have taken English as a subject at school, then he would know what <i>Hoist with his own petard </i> means.

            There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
            Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
            They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
            And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
            For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
            Hoist with his own petar:
            and 't shall go hard
            But I will delve one yard below their mines
            And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
            When in one line two crafts directly meet.


            Hoist by his own private fundy engineer pseudo science definitions.

            AFD your bullcrap specificity is just subjective nonsense change hands for christ's sake.

            WHEN DID DNA FIRST REPLICATE?

            The 3rd day of creation or not?

            IF NOT> THEREFORE YOUR CREATION HYPOTHESIS IS FALSE.

            END OF STORY.
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 25 2006,20:32

            Crikey. K.E.'s posts are starting to make sense to me.

            I'm spending too much time on this damm site.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 25 2006,20:33

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
            Russell...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So, Dave, does that help you understand why this was not the "stupidest question" in the thread? Or, to put it another way, can you treat the question and the questioners with a little more respect? Because I, for one, find your repetitious "anyone who sees more information in white noise than in a Churchill speech must be an idiot" very tedious and obtuse.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Sorry, but it is important to point out such an atrocious error in a very big way.  How does one have a rational discussion about biological information if one party completely inverts the normally accepted definition of "information" and then tries to say that Shannon himself accepted this inverted definition, even after a highly qualified individual from the NIH in the Molecular Information Theory Group no less, Dr. Thomas Schneider (see link here < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >) completely refutes this inverted idea and furthermore points out that Shannon himself didn't even say this!!!  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, I told you at the beginning of this discussion that "information" has a well-defined meaning, and that meaning has nothing to do with the informal meaning of "information." You ignored my warning, and blithely stumbled right into the minefield. It's pretty clear that you're entirely clueless about what information means, in the context of information theory. Which is why it is entirely pointless even to discuss the matter with you. The only "atrocious error" you're pointing out is your own.

            Just one more "Portuguese moment," Dave.

            In the meantime, will you please read what Thomas Schneider actually says about "information," and try to understand it? Because it completely contradicts your point.
            Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Oct. 25 2006,21:09

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 25 2006,23:50)
            Quote (Artist in trainig @ Oct. 25 2006,20:29)
             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
            And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That's what we call "learning".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Ouch, Dave.  You've just been given the proverbial smackdown by both Scary and Artist, both of whom (if I'm not mistaken) came here as creationists.  So why are they laying into you, Dave?  Are they blind and cannot see the evidence for creationism, because they have the need for Darwin to be right?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Davey, even Paley is trying to show you how you can reconcile your belief in god/jesus/creator/designer with real science.

            Go view some paleosols in Missouri and thereabouts, Davey. Go look at the St. Francois/Ozark/Ouchita Mountains yourself. See how complex that orogeny really is. Crack some rocks in Elmo Kansas and find a beautifully preserved Permian insect that COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been preserved in a massive flud. Drive up to Nebraska and see some tuff covered by paleosol covered by tuff covered by paleosol, etc.

            Step away from your 'puter and do some field work Davey.

            The evidence is there if you'll open your eyes and work with your hands and (an open) mind.

            We're trying hard to be your friend here Davey but you're making it awfully hard.
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2006,21:57

            dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 26 2006,00:51

            So, Dave.  If everyone else here is wrong and you are right, then this causes me no end to confusion.  You see because those here who claim familiarity with information theory have provided a very specific definition of information.  But, you have not provided any rigorous definition of information.  So, if you are going to make any headway in convincing me, then perhaps you could answer me some questions:

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            What is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            These are really important questions and I don't think you can rightly claim your well deserved victory without them.  Please help.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,03:54

            Oh dear. It looks like the one tiny baby step forward that Davy made in this whole discussion - recognition that AiG was wrong, wrong, wrong on the chimp/human chromosome fusion story - he now wants to backpedal on:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ...way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You know, Davy likes to portray himself as 100% sure that science is wrong on some extremely basic stuff, and undaunted by the fact that his view is contradicted every time he reads a newspaper science article, opens a textbook, sees "Nova" on PBS... etc.

            I don't buy it.

            I think there is a little metaphorical figure on each of Davy's shoulders, whispering, or shouting, into the corresponding ear. One is a kindly, balding old man with a long frizzy beard whose face radiates the kind of patience that comes from deep understanding, resulting from deep thought. The other is all red, goat-hooved, carries a trident, has a barbed tail, and looks and sounds just like Ned Flanders.  So far, Davy's only letting the second one speak, but you know he's troubled by the fact that the first one makes a lot more sense.

            Now look, Davy. I can understand how the whole "information" thing can be confusing. I've seen lots of smart people confused by it. I tried to point out to you how the technical definition of information that ericmurphy is talking about can be understood intuitively, without having to somehow accept that white noise makes more "sense" than a Churchill speech.

            But you appear to be determined to use this seeming paradox as an excuse to weasel out of holding AiG responsible for the one howler that even you had to acknowledge was clearly a howler. I'm not buying it. I think it's that Ned Flanders figure desperately trying to avert your gaze from the probability that all of science is probably not involved in a conspiracy to mislead kids and thwart Jesus.

            Even if you think Schneider is saying what you claim to think, you would have to admit that the fact he's going to all the trouble of explaining it would indicate there is widespread confusion over the terminology. That makes me think that your ostentatious disrespect for eric's point is so much bravado; so much "la-la-la-I-can't hear-you".
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,04:00

            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?
            ****************************************************************
            Please help me, Dave, I'm floundering in the evil pit of satanic misinformation and I need you to answer those questions above . Rescue me with your words of wisdom. REMEMBER, I'M YOUR FRIEND, DAVE--YOU SAID SO. Don't abandon your FRIEND.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,04:05

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 26 2006,01:32)
            Crikey. K.E.'s posts are starting to make sense to me.

            I'm spending too much time on this damm site.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Uh-oh.  I had that exact same thought yesterday...
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,04:10

            OK, I'M GOING TO REACH DOWN DEEP INTO MY WELL OF PATIENCE AND TRY EXPLAINING THIS ONE MORE TIME

            First, Eric and Drew maintain that Random Noise (Signal X) has more information content that a Winston Churchill Speech (Signal Y).

            Secondly, Drew has the odd notion that I (AFDave) think Uncertainty = Randomness.

            ******************************************

            To utterly refute these notions, let me first present (again) Dr. Thomas Schneider of the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health.

            Random Noise DOES NOT contain more information than  Churchill Speech
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [from Schneider's Pitfalls in Information Theory and Molecular Information Theory]
            Thinking that information ® is the same as uncertainty (H).

            Because of noise, after a communication there is always some uncertainty remaining, Hafter and this must be subtracted from the uncertainty before the communication is sent, Hbefore. In combination with the R/H pitfall, this pitfall has lead many authors to conclude that information is randomness.

            Examples:

            [Eric and Drew's thinking would be examples of this pitfall]

            [Schneider gives several examples ... Dembski, Seth Lloyd, then Hubert Yockey]

            Hubert Yockey (molecular biologist/information theorist) said (Thu, 26 Jan 1995 00:39:52 GMT)
            Information' is, of course, not the very opposite of randomness. Elitzur is using the word 'information' in the semantic sense as synonym for knowledge or meaning. Everyone knows that a random sequence, that is, one chosen without intersymbol restrictions or influence, carries the most information in the sense use by Shannon and in computer technology. ...

            to which I (Tom Schneider) responded:

            Here you have made the mistake of setting Hafter to zero. So a random sequence going into a receiver does not decrease the uncertainty of the receiver and so no information is received. But a message does allow for the decrease. Even the same signal can be information to one receiver and noise to another, depending on the receiver!
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pitfalls.html >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Please read the bolded statements over to yourselves several times so I do not have to explain this again.  Thank you very much!

            Now if you still do not believe me, please read this short primer on Information Theory written for Molecular Biologists. < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/primer.pdf >
            It is quite accessible and should help clear up any misunderstandings you may still have.

            You may also want to re-read this paper < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

            OK, SO WHAT IS AFDAVE'S DEFINITION OF INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS?

            First, Information != Randomness (And I realize that Uncertainty is also != Randomness.  I didn't ever say that it was.)

            I think I like Francis Crick's definition pretty well ...

            INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO BIOLOGY = PRECISE DETERMINATION OF SEQUENCE
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein” [32, pp. 144, 153].
            < http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Note this is different from the Shannon definition ...

            INFORMATION IS THE DECREASE IN UNCERTAINTY (Rigorous Shannon Definition)
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Information and Uncertainty
            Information and uncertainty are technical terms that describe any process that selects one or more objects from a set of objects. We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically. Suppose we have a device that can produce 3 symbols, A, B, or C. As we wait for the next symbol, we are uncertain as to which symbol it will produce. Once a symbol appears and we see it, our uncertainty decreases, and we remark that we have received some information. That is, information is a decrease in uncertainty.
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/primer.pdf > (p. 2)


            ... or from Shannon's own work ...

            Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:

            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            ... and this is different from the popular definition ...

            INFORMATION IS KNOWLEDGE OR MEANING (Popular Definition)

            NOTE:  The discussion about Data Compression seems to be unrelated to this discussion.  I'm not sure why Eric brought it up.  I think Eric would be correct in the conclusion of his compression essay if he had used the word "data" instead of "information."  It is quite clear that there is more "data" in a 52K compressed file than in an 11k compressed file.  But in his example, there is zero "information" in the 52k file and non-zero in the 11k file.  Why?  Because again, Shannon Information is defined as the DECREASE IN UNCERTAINTY.  If you transmit Eric's 52k file over a channel, the information, R = H(x) - H(y) = maximum - still maximum = 0.  Eric is simply failing to do the subtraction, thus concluding that R = maximum for this file, which is incorrect, as Dr. Schneider pointed out.

            ********************************************

            OK, LET'S SUMMARIZE

            * AFDave says that Biological Information is Precise Determination of Sequence (Crick's Definition)
            * AFDave says that Shannon Information is the Decrease in Uncertainty
            * AFDave says that Randomness != Information
            * AFDave says that Uncertainty != Randomness
            * AFDave says that Information (popular def) = Knowledge

            Note that there truly are several defintions of Information.  But none is the same as Eric and Drew's erroneous definition.

            Whew!  That was tiring!  Are we all on the same page now?

            BTW ... Why do we care?  Because biology ultimately comes down to INFORMATION as we shall see in future posts ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In reading an mRNA, if the ribosome encounters any one of 4 equally likely bases, then the uncertainty is 2 bits.
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/primer.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            ********************************************

            OK.  HOW ABOUT SPECIFICITY? INCREASES, DECREASES, AND HOW THIS RELATES TO ORIGINS.
            Let's begin with a question from OA...
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
            loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
            gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

            Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            "SPECIFICITY" goes in the blank.

            Again, as with the term "information" there is the popular definition and more rigorous definitions.  A more rigorous definition given by Dembski is ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            According to Dembski, a specification occurs when (a) an event or object
            falls within an independently given pattern or domain or (b) when an object or event “matches” or exemplifies a (conditionally) independent pattern or © meets a conditionally independent set of functional requirements [33, pp. 1-35, 136-74].
            < http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            You can also read the definition from Answers.com below.  My definition as a layman would closely resemble Dembski's but I personally have not done the heavy math.  My definition would be more intuitive.  IOW, I can intuitively tell the difference in specificity between two biological systems with large differences, but I may not be able to tell the difference if the differences are very small.  I think we in the ID camp SHOULD be able to do this and I am not yet up to speed on how this is done.  

            With that said, let me address the three examples of differences in specificity which we have already considered ...

            THE STUCK CAR HEATER SWITCH IN ANTARTICA
            Ved...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            A stuck heater is ENTIRELY MORE SPECIFIC than one that is controllable. Can it be set to any temperature? No, it's specifically set to ONE setting: Specificity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You are misunderstanding specificity.  Which is a more specific set of design instructions?  

            1) "Install a heater with a switch that allows the heater to be turned to OFF, 1, 2, 3 or HIGH.  Also install a lever that controls the amount of heat from NO HEAT to MAXIMUM HEAT in continuous increments."

            or

            2) "Install a heater in the car."  (No switches, no heat selection, just HIGH and HOT all the time)

            Of course (1) above is the most specific.  

            So a car heater that is stuck on HIGH and HOT has LOST specificity.  Now ... a separate question ... Is this "mutation" beneficial, harmful or neutral?  Well, it depends.  In Antartica it might be beneficial.  In the Sahara desert it would be harmful.

            KEN HAM VS. A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM -- WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC?
            Answer:  Ken Ham  

            Why?

            Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism which is why the genome is much larger.

            AND FINALLY, BRINGING IT BACK HOME ... APO AI MILANO ... LOSS OF DESIGNED FUNCTION = LOSS OF SPECIFICITY = NO HELP FOR ToE
            Deadman has attempted to say AIG is wrong in their analysis of this mutation and he has attempted to say that I am "in a corner" when the truth is that HE is in a corner and he is projecting this predicament onto me in the hopes that all of you will be too stupid to recognize the shenanigan he is pulling.  Will his hopes be realized?  Alas, probably so, judging from history on this thread.

            Oh well ... what will be will be, and regardless of whether all of you unlearn any of your erroneous thinking and actually find some truth here in these thread or not, the encouraging thing is that I have learned a great deal, and I can spare future generations (today's kids) a great deal of ignorance by educating them intelligently.

            Now Deadman posted a review of Bielicki's work yesterday which he thinks helps his case, when in reality it helps mine (and AIG's).  Let's look at it point by point and compare it to what AIG said here in 2003
            < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp > ...

            Deadman ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dear Dave. Since you are dense, I've decided to post a popular review of Bielicki's 2002 paper, so that you can read it and begin to understand why your selective interpretation is both humorous and false. John Bielicki can be contacted at LBNL Life Sciences Dept., (510) 495-2208, jkbielicki@lbl.gov  

            "Bielicki's research solves a paradox that has puzzled the medical world since 1980, when a middle-aged Italian man was referred to Milan's Lipid Center with high blood triglyceride levels, a risk factor for heart disease. Further testing revealed the patient also possessed very low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), a good cholesterol that exports excess cholesterol from coronary arteries. This process prevents plaque buildup that impedes blood flow and contributes to heart attacks.
            Patients with low levels of HDL are susceptible to heart disease, yet the Italian exhibited no signs of pathology. This unlikely combination intrigued scientists, who determined that the patient and a few dozen people from his region possess a mutated form of apolipoprotein A-I protein.
            This important protein, known as apoA-I, both manufactures HDL particles and is responsible for their structure. In the mutated form, dubbed apoA-I Milano because of its origin, one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group. Somehow, this tiny change enables a handful of Italians to possess low HDL levels and remain free of cardiovascular disease. But how?
            In pursuit of the answer, most researchers have focused on the most common form of the protein. About 70 percent of proteins with the Milano mutation come in pairs: one protein attaches to another to form a dimeric complex. The key to this pairing is a disulfide bridge in which the sulfhydryl group from one protein links with the sulfhydryl from another. This pairing restricts HDL size and growth and has been attributed to the HDL deficiency observed in people who have the mutation.
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [Exactly what AIG said ...] What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But 30 percent of proteins with the Milano mutation don't form dimeric complexes. They remain unattached as monomeric complexes. In this solo configuration, the sulfhydryl isn't occupied in a disulfide bond. It's free, which enables it to partake in other reactions, says Bielicki.
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [Again, exactly what AIG said ...]The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And one of these reactions is quenching ions with unpaired electrons. In other words, the free sulfhydryl form of the Milano mutation is a powerful antioxidant,  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [again what AIG said ...]The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            and Bielicki had a hunch it played a role in the mutation's ability to fight cardiovascular disease.

            [Good hunch.  Good work.  God bless Bielicki! Creationists have nothing against beneficial mutations.  Sign me up!  I want this treatment as long as we can be pretty sure there are no problems.  All we are saying is that this is no proof for ToE.]


            In a laboratory setting, he compared the mutated protein with the normal apoA-I protein, and determined that only the monomeric form of the mutation protects lipids from oxidation. This confirmed Bielicki's hypothesis. In most people, free radicals can go unchecked as they grab electrons from lipids that line arterial walls. But for the less than 50 people lucky enough to possess the Milano mutation, the monomeric form, with its free sulfhydryl, mops up free radicals' unpaired electrons. This satisfies free radicals' need to scavenge electrons from arterial lipids and prevents a series of reactions that lead to cholesterol deposition.

            [Wonderful!  Seriously ... I'm not being sarcastic.  I am truly happy that this has been discovered.  But as AIG points out, A GREAT VARIETY OF SIMPLE CHEMICALS WILL ACT AS ANTI-OXIDANTS ... this mutation is not increasing specificity.  Something went wrong somewhere with the copying of the correct formula for this protein (a mutation happened) and now it does not do what it was designed to do as effectively.  Luckily (at least with our preliminary understanding) it has a new, not-very-specific, but beneficial effect]

            "We identified a new activity associated with the Milano protein that suggests how it protects against heart disease," Bielicki says. "Next, we can use this knowledge to develop better therapies."
            Simply stated, Bielicki believes a mutation found in a handful of Italians could add a powerful component to today's peptide-based cardiovascular disease therapies. Conventional apoA-I protein therapies remove cholesterol from arteries using HDL. Next-generation therapies, however, could couple this process with the antioxidant mechanism found in the mutation, creating a one-two punch that both cleans out cholesterol and prevents oxidation that leads to future rounds of deposition-"a long-term solution," says Bielicki.
            So far, he has isolated the structural domain from the mutation that contains the functional cysteine residue. The next step is to include this cysteine in a therapy that homes in on heart disease. Fortunately, apoA-I already possesses this crucial targeting mechanism,  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [AIG said this also...] Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred.  The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            providing a pathway on which researchers can model a pharmaceutical. It works like this: when an artery wall suffers oxidative damage and cholesterol deposition, its cells trigger the upregulation of a receptor called ABCA1. This receptor exports cholesterol from the cell. The apoA-I protein is specifically designed to sense this upregulation and attach itself to receptor sites.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            WHOA!  STOP THE TAPE!  DID YOU HEAR THAT?  DEADMAN HIMSELF -- MR. "THERE IS NO DESIGNER" -- HAS POSTED A REVIEW WHICH ADMITS WHAT AIG SAID ABOUT THIS PROTEIN 3 YEARS AGO!!

            Again ... AIG said in 2003 ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred.  The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Continuing with Deadman's review ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This binding process signals the protein to manufacture the HDL that whisks cholesterol out of the arteries. The mutated protein also targets this receptor, which means its antioxidant powers concentrate where oxidation and cholesterol deposition occur. This ensures its ability to guard against the earliest stages of atherosclerosis.
            The trick is to develop a simple pharmaceutical peptide that targets the upregulation of the ABCA1 receptor, exports cholesterol like the conventional protein, and fights arterial wall oxidation like the Milano mutation. It would work best where it's needed most, says Bielicki. And to underscore the effectiveness of such a therapy, he adds that more than 20 years after the discovery of the Milano mutation, its carriers remain free of cardiovascular disease.
            "It has stood the test of time, promising new therapies to combat the nation's leading cause of death," Bielicki says. " < http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            So ... once again ... AIG was correct in every intricate detail of their analysis and Deadman is wrong when he says AIG is mistaken, AFDave has aphasia, blah, blah blah.

            Of course, Deadman is correct that this is a wonderful finding and hopefully many people will be helped by this.  Creationists have no problem with "beneficial mutations."  It's just that they don't prove ToE which requires INCREASES IN SPECIFICITY, not decreases in specificity which may happen to have some lucky benefit, an example of which the Milano mutation clearly is.

            AIG goes on after explaining all of this with the following caution ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Of course it remains to be seen if this mutation is completely beneficial. The fact that the persons with it are unable to produce normal levels of HDLs, which are known to perform a valuable role in moving ‘bad’ cholesterol, suggests that there could be a health down side to this mutation (as there is with sickle-cell anemia).

            Apparently this mutation has only been seen in heterozygotes.  That is, all those who have the mutation have a normal gene pairing the mutant gene.  The homozygous state (both genes the same) could be lethal.  This would then parallel sickle-cell anemia, which evolutionists often put up as an example of evolution in action.  Here the heterozygote has an advantage, but the homozygote is lethal.  This cannot be an example of upward evolutionary progression since the mutant form can never take over the population; it will always be limited to a small percentage of individuals in the population.  

            However, with the A-I Milano mutation, there are not yet many people with the mutation, so the chances of two people with the mutation marrying and having children so that a homozygote could be produced (1 in 4 of the children) would be very low—it probably has not happened yet.  The ‘jury remains out’ on whether a homozygote would be viable.*

            Needless to say, if someone follows a healthy lifestyle, eats the right things (something like the food pyramid as recently revised by Harvard Medical School, although this could be improved further), exercises, maintains a healthy weight and does not abuse their body by smoking, the A-I Milano mutation will likely be of no use. Epidemiological studies show that heart disease can probably be avoided.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OK.  That's about as plain as day for anyone who does not have an agenda to "fight creationists no matter what the evidence may say."

            Back to you!

            (Does anyone have an ounce of intellectual honesty here?  Or is everyone so #### bent on bashing creationists no matter what that you will all refuse to admit even the slightest knowledge gap that you may have had concerning these issues?)

            **********************************************

            BTW Here's a definition of biological specificity from Answers.com ...
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Biological specificity
            The orderly patterns of metabolic and developmental reactions giving rise to the unique characteristics of the individual and of its species. Biological specificity is most pronounced and best understood at the cellular and molecular levels of organization, where the shapes of individual molecules allow them to selectively recognize and bind to one another. The main principle which guides this recognition is termed complementarity. Just as a hand fits perfectly into a glove, molecules which are complementary have mirror-image shapes that allow them to selectively bind to each other.

            This ability of complementary molecules to specifically bind to one another plays many essential roles in living systems. For example, the transmission of specific hereditary traits from parent to offspring depends upon the ability of the individual strands of a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecule to specifically generate two new strands with complementary sequences. Similarly, metabolism, which provides organisms with both the energy and chemical building blocks needed for survival, is made possible by the ability of enzymes to specifically bind to the substrates whose interconversions they catalyze. During embryonic development, individual cells associate with each other in precise patterns to form tissues, organs, and organ systems. These ordered interactions are ultimately dependent upon the ability of individual cells to recognize and specifically bind to other cells of a similar type. See also Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA); Enzyme; Metabolism.

            In addition to binding to one another, cells can interact by releasing hormones into the bloodstream. Though all of an organism's cells are exposed to hormones circulating in the bloodstream, only a small number of target cells respond to any particular hormone. This selectivity occurs because the specific receptor molecules to which hormones bind are restricted to certain cell types. Thus each hormone exerts its effects on a few selected cell types because only those cells contain the proper receptor. Specific receptors are also involved in interactions between neurotransmitters and the cells they stimulate or inhibit, between certain types of drugs and the cells they affect, and between viruses and the cells they infect. This last phenomenon has an important influence on the susceptibility of individuals to virally transmitted diseases. See also Hormone.

            Although most examples of biological specificity are based upon interactions occurring at the molecular level, such phenomena affect many properties manifested at the level of the whole organism. The ability of individuals to defend against infectious diseases, for example, requires the production of antibody molecules which specifically bind to bacteria and viruses. The fertilization of an egg by a sperm is facilitated by specific recognition between molecules present on the surfaces of the sperm and egg cells. Even communication between organisms can be mediated by specific chemical signals, called pheromones. Such chemical signals are utilized in trail marking by ants and bees, in territory marking by certain mammals, and as sexual attractants. Specific molecular interactions thus exert influences ranging from the replication of genes to the behavior of organisms. See also Immunology; Molecular biology; Pheromone.
            < http://www.answers.com/topic/biological-specificity >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,04:31

            AFDave's however, are a different story.

            Still.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2006,04:47

            Well, whatta ya know.  If enough people pile on Davie, he'll actually give a half-assed answer!  Let's recap

            Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

            Dave says the information on a biological system is defined as the sequence of base pairs in the genome.  Dave gets 1 point.

            How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

            Dave says it's the number of bits required to define the DNA sequence, i.e. 4 base pairs = 2 bits.  Dave gets 1 point.

            What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

            Dave gives Dembski's generalize definition of specificity as how closely an object matches an independently given pattern, but doesn't explain how it applies to biological systems.  Dave gets 1/2 point.

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

            Dave totally avoids this one, Dave gets 0 points.

            63% Dave - that's a flunking "D" in most schools.  Tsk

            Another recap:

            Dave has defined information in biological systems.
            Dave has agreed that information in biological systems can increase by natural means.
            Dave has defined specificity, but not for biological systems
            Dave has agreed that an increase in information = an increase in specificity.

            Time for more questions Davie!

            How do you determine the independently given pattern for a DNA sequence in order to determine its specificity?  You can't just measure the pattern after the fact and say "see, it matches itself!".  Where do you go to determine what the independent pattern should be before the fact?

            You have been using 'information' and 'specificity' interchangeably.  Are they the same thing?  How do they correlate?

            Which has more information, Ken Ham or the amoeba?

            Why do you have a problem with evolution creating new functions, when you have admitted that both information and specificity can increase by natural means?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,04:57

            OA ... you are beginning to be a little more intellectually honest, but you still committed a foul here ... you say ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave gives Dembski's generalize definition of specificity as how closely an object matches a independently given pattern, but doesn't explain how it applies to biological systems.  Dave gets 1/2 point.

            How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

            Dave totally avoids this one, Dave gets 0 points.

            63% Dave - that's a flunking "D" in most schools.  Tsk
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            This thread is not some kind of "final exam" for AFDave to get his PhD in Creationism and/or Anti-evolutionism.  This is a learning process for me and I have clearly stated many times that I do not know everything.  Also, if I find that ToE is true, I will become an advocate.  How about a little of the same attitude from you?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,05:03

            Oh, poor, poor Dave. So young, so dim. While reposting exactly what I posted, Dave fails to "see" several things in the Bielicki article. Let's look at the most important first, remembering that AiG claimed that Milano has sacrificed ability to form HDL's.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This binding process signals the protein to manufacture the HDL that whisks cholesterol out of the arteries. The mutated protein also targets this receptor
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Now... remeber that Zhu said he didn't find increased antioxidant activity...so Dave used that article to downplay any increase in it .
            Yet the Milano variant is still signalling for HDL formation and whisking it out of the system at a higher rate than other variants.
            This seems to directly contradict AiG's Don Batten ( I refuse to call him a "doctor," he's not an MD, and he's not much of a plant physiologist, either) who said that Milano had decreased ability to bind HDL's together. This is because...there is more than one pathway to creation of HDL's, Dave...look up rHDL and Milano.
            As far as your definition of information [in bio systems] is concerned, you really should read your own source, this time for comprehension, little macaque. You DO realize Schneider has written on this, eh?
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,05:03

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:57)
            OA ... you are beginning to be a little more intellectually honest, [snip]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            What would YOU know about THAT?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,05:20



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            First, Eric and Drew maintain that Random Noise (Signal X) has more information content that a Winston Churchill Speech (Signal Y).

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFD you complete cockhead read the friggin statement A DIGITAL RECORDING of Random Noise (Signal X) has more information content that a Winston Churchill Speech (Signal Y).
            both are made up of ONES and ZERO's.

            The noise is converted to symbols and becomes 'information'.

            Jesus friggin Christ.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,05:36

            Here's a quote you might want to read, Dave...want to guess who it's from?




            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists  (R. Truman, < http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm > ; 08-Jun-1999) but only qualitatively addressed by biologists. The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy (H = –sigmaplog2p, sigmap = 1) implies that neither can be negative (H =" greater or equal to 0), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequence and Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists....Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, ~9 months , but it could be much faster because the enormous titer [1010 new virions/day/person ] provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 109 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an over­estimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse world-wide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution. So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            You get three guesses who wrote that, Dave.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,05:44

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:10)
            OK, I'M GOING TO REACH DOWN DEEP INTO MY WELL OF PATIENCE AND TRY EXPLAINING THIS ONE MORE TIME

            First, Eric and Drew maintain that Random Noise (Signal X) has more information content that a Winston Churchill Speech (Signal Y).

            Secondly, Drew has the odd notion that I (AFDave) think Uncertainty = Randomness.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, look. If you think I'm wrong about whether or not a digital recording of broadband white noise has more information that a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, there's a very simple way to demonstrate that. Two days ago, I posted < 15 bullet points, > the last one of which made exactly that claim. If you can show why those bullet points are wrong (you'll note that none of those bullet points says "information = randomness"), then you'll have demonstrated that I'm wrong.

            Alternatively, you could take the < demonstration > I posted yesterday, and show why it's wrong. It's a pretty straightforward demonstration, and everyone else here seemed able to understand it. You, on the other hand, gave every indication of just having skimmed it, without reading it for content at all. It seems that the only word you even saw in it was "compressibility," and once you saw that, your brain just shut down.

            And remember, Dave, you don't get to make up your own definition of "information" in this context. Francis Crick's definition is irrelevant, and the popular definition is irrelevant. The fact that you can't understand why I brought up compressibility shows how limited your understanding of information theory really is, because it's part of the definition of information. Your attempt to make a distinction between "data" and "information" is similarly worthless in this context.

            You brought up the term "information" in an information-theoretical context, Dave, and you're now stuck with the formal sense of that term. You can't just change it midstream to suit your own purposes.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,05:47

            DM...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Oh, poor, poor Dave. So young, so dim.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Mudslinging.  Name calling.  One of Deadman's few remaining anti-creationist weapons.  The factual weapons are all pretty much broken.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            While reposting exactly what I posted,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Another weapon ... let's imply that Dave is unoriginal and lazy and obfuscate the fact that Dave clearly stated that he was going to analyze Deadman's review point by point.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave fails to "see" several things in the Bielicki article.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No, I haven't failed to see anything there.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Let's look at the most important first, remembering that AiG claimed that Milano has sacrificed ability to form HDL's.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Which of course has been confirmed by Bielicki and YOUR REVIEW of Bielicki now.  Again, do you want a phone call from God?  Or what?


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This binding process signals the protein to manufacture the HDL that whisks cholesterol out of the arteries. The mutated protein also targets this receptor
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yup.  And the remaining 30% is what does it as your review and AIG said.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now... remeber that Zhu said he didn't find increased antioxidant activity...so Dave used that article to downplay any increase in it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yup. Why not?  It's not settled science.  And even if Zhu was wrong, AIG is still correct in every detail of their analysis.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yet the Milano variant is still signalling for HDL formation and whisking it out of the system at a higher rate than other variants.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Uh huh.  We covered that already.  It's still signalling for HDL at a reduced rate and it has this new, cool NON-SPECIFIC antioxidant feature.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This seems to directly contradict AiG's Don Batten
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Only in Bizarro World where it's the norm to MAKE UP things that your opponent says or thinks, then refute THAT.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ( I refuse to call him a "doctor," he's not an MD, and he's not much of a plant physiologist, either)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            That's fine.  Be a bigot if you like. I've given you my challenge now several times to be a man and to a conference call with Batten and me so we can settle your dendro gripes.  Would you like me to see if I can arrange the call while I am there at AIG headquarters next month?


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            who said that Milano had decreased ability to bind HDL's together.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yup.  As did Bielicki.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As far as your definition of information [in bio systems] is concerned, you really should read your own source, this time for comprehension, little macaque.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Old standby weapon when all else fails.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You DO realize Schneider has written on this, eh?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I'm sure he did.  I'll be quite happy to read it.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 26 2006,05:51

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:57)
            This thread is not some kind of "final exam" for AFDave to get his PhD in Creationism and/or Anti-evolutionism.  This is a learning process for me and I have clearly stated many times that I do not know everything.  Also, if I find that ToE is true, I will become an advocate.  How about a little of the same attitude from you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Gee Dave, you gave a real answer! And kudos to you for saying you are learning. I'm sure you have a lot to share with us and we could learn something from you if you can continue to respond like your answer to the information theory question.

            I give you a better grade than Occam's Aftershave did because my grading system is based on your personal best. I believe you gave an honest answer and did pretty well explaining your thinking. I'm starting to get my hopes up about the portugese thing and I retract part of my first statement in this post:
             
            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 25 2006,17:49)
             
            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 25 2006,14:43)
            I'm not sorry. The only things SFBDave ever says to me anymore are nasty, mean and stupid. Hmmm. I guess everything he says is stupid. Well, anyway, you ask, I answer. I ask, you say you've won. I'm still up for the portuguese debate. I have some info I think might make you a little less sure of your winner's status but, because I am not going to do any research until you acknowledge that I took your bet and that you will then have to debate it, I am not sure how good my info is.

            On the other hand, lying cheating welching quotemining plagarizing Dave, am pretty sure of my information on various ice core techniques and some of the ways that coral reefs are dated was incedental to my research in college. I might remember a little bit about that if I think real hard.

            I already showed you why you are wrong about the age of Earth (may she bless our evening debaucheries). I gave you links to the relevant AiG articles. What more can I do to help you understand the data Dave?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, you are being duped.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I am interested in the ice core thing. Would you be willing to go over that with us?  If you are interested, follow < this link > to see some exquisite slide shows.  :)

            I am looking forward to finding out how these don't disprove your young Earth (may we walk on her waters and swim on her land) theory.

            And, as always, I am looking forward to exploring the philology of portuguese in a debate format with you. You could really prove yourself in that kind of a format, not to mention you could make me look silly which I obviously need.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,05:52

            More “La-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you”



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            The apoA-I protein is specifically designed to sense this upregulation and attach itself to receptor sites.
            WHOA!  STOP THE TAPE!  DID YOU HEAR THAT?  DEADMAN HIMSELF -- MR. "THERE IS NO DESIGNER" -- HAS POSTED A REVIEW WHICH ADMITS WHAT AIG SAID ABOUT THIS PROTEIN 3 YEARS AGO!!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, dave, dave. What did I tell you about the shorthand that biologists use?  The colloquial use of “such and such protein was designed to do X” does not validate AiG nonsense. When biologists use that formula, they are talking about the apparent design of evolution. Do you really not understand that? Or are you intentionally trying to muddy the discussion and derail the conversation?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So ... once again ... AIG was correct in every intricate detail of their analysis and Deadman is wrong when he says AIG is mistaken, AFDave has aphasia, blah, blah blah.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Uh… no. The gist of AiG’s analysis, if I remember correctly, was that there is a loss of genetic information, or of “specificity”. You can’t possibly have missed the multiple requests for you to justify this claim: what “specificity” is supposed to have been lost?

            What was this protein “designed” to do that it does worse? And, unless your answer is one of the more obvious conceivable purposes (e.g. scavenging cholesterol, preventing/reversing arterial plaque formation) what makes you think that’s its purpose?

            I notice, incidentally, that you have fastidiously ignored my questions from yesterday. Let me recap.

            (1) How can you claim to be open to evidence that apo-AIM – or any other evolutionary novelty – is a “beneficial mutation”, whenever there remains the possibility that some future research will reveal a down side? What possible evidence can be offered that is exempt from that possibility? Doesn’t that render the very term “beneficial mutation” meaningless?
            (2) Are you shifting the goalposts? Are you now claiming that increases in information, or specificity if you will, can result from mutation, but that it doesn’t count unless it converts a fin into an arm, or a Ken Ham into an amoeba, or some similarly dramatic “improvement”?
            (3) My viral methyltransferase mutant is feeling awfully neglected. Do you contend that that is not an example of a mutation resulting in increased specificity, in this case for S-adenosylmethionine? If so, how so?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,05:58

            SteveS


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Crikey. K.E.'s posts are starting to make sense to me.

            I'm spending too much time on this damm site.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Lou FCD


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Uh-oh.  I had that exact same thought yesterday...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            hmmmm.

            Well.....

            I'm trying to work out if that is a good sign or a bad sign :)

            ...not to worry ...they make perfect sense to me...snicker.

            AFD may be the last wretch of the creationist stomach on PT and AtBC.

            His Nixonian glory days are past and we can look foward to a long twilight of '...nobody understood me, and as for an apology?.... go and get &^%*(#@'

            Glut of Paley is a complete waste of space.

            I notice Larry Farterman the loony internet lawyer has had the last 2 posts up at PT for over a day. Nobody can even be bothered to answer him, he must think he 'won' (gaffaw).

            As for the dozen delerious denizens of Unremittingly Dense ....would the last to leave turn out the lights.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,06:08

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, look. If you think I'm wrong about whether or not a digital recording of broadband white noise has more information that a Winston Churchill speech, there's a very simple way to demonstrate that. Two days ago, I posted 15 bullet points, the last one of which made exactly that claim. If you can show why those bullet points are wrong (you'll note that none of those bullet points says "information = randomness"), then you'll have demonstrated that I'm wrong.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No, Eric.  I've demonstrated quite clearly why you are wrong already, thankyou.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Alternatively, you could take the demonstration I posted yesterday, and show why it's wrong. It's a pretty straightforward demonstration, and everyone else here seemed able to understand it. You, on the other hand, gave every indication of just having skimmed it, without reading it for content at all. It seems that the only word you even saw in it was "compressibility," and once you saw that, your brain just shut down.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No.  I understood it quite well and I addressed it quite thoroughly in my post this morning and you are just plain wrong.  You should have said "data" not "information."


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            And remember, Dave, you don't get to make up your own definition of "information" in this context. Francis Crick's definition is irrelevant, and the popular definition is irrelevant. The fact that you can't understand why I brought up compressibility shows how limited your understanding of information theory really is, because it's part of the definition of information. Your attempt to make a distinction between "data" and "information" is similarly worthless in this context.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Now you are obfuscating.    You know quite well what the context was when I brought up Crick's definition.  And you know quite well that I DID NOT apply Crick's definition to YOUR scenario.  I applied SHANNON'S definition, which you youself appealed to.  Alas, for you your appeal didn't work because you don't even understand Shannon's definition.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You brought up the term "information" in an information-theoretical context, Dave, and you're now stuck with the formal sense of that term. You can't just change it midstream to suit your own purposes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Again, I'm not changing anything.  I clearly delineated all the various definitions and I know how to apply them appropriately to various scenarios.

            Now you are just whining.

            Get up, lick your wounds, and move on.

            *****************************

            BWE-- I will be most happy to discuss ice cores some time.  I cannot take the time right now though.  Sorry!

            PS-- You make me laugh a lot!  Keep it up!
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,06:08

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,10:58)
            Well.....

            I'm trying to work out if that is a good sign or a bad sign :)

            ...not to worry ...they make perfect sense to me...snicker.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So are we.

            :D

            Seriously, some of the stuff you come up with is an obvious reference to something, I just have no idea what.  I figure I'm pretty well-read, for a Christian high school gradidigiot, but apparently not well-read enough.

            Some of the other stuff you come up with is like the lingering after-effects of a really good acid trip.

            Some of the other stuff just totally loses me.

            Lately, however, I've understood a much larger percentage of what you say, and more importantly, what you're driving at - your point, as it were.

            So either you are becoming more lucid, or I'm becoming more educated...

            Or I'm becoming less lucid.

            It's the third option that scares me.

            :D
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,06:09

            Come on Jesus boy I'm still waiting


            WHEN DID DNA FIRST REPLICATE..

            5999 years and 4 days ago?
            Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 26 2006,06:09

            People have been busy since I last looked at this thread!

            Afdave: writing about the animals on the ark, you say they were "Genetically rich, meaning a large degree of heterozzygosity".

            As has been pointed out to you before, you cannot talk about an individual as being genetically rich. It reads as though you are still confused as to the implications of there being multiple alleles.

            Think of the genes as being strung along a chromosome, each at its specific location, or locus. The gene at one locus might control, for example, ABO blood type, at another it might control the presence or absence of a tail, at a third it might control a blood clotting factor.

            At some loci it is possible to have more than one variant at the locus that is not lethal. These variants are called alleles. (Be careful about the use of the word 'gene' as sometimes it is used to mean 'locus', sometimes to mean 'allele'.)

            There are some loci at which hundreds of alleles have been identified, yet each individual can only contain two alleles, one for each chromosome of a pair. On the ark, therefore, there can have been at most 4, 14 or 16 alleles at any one locus (depending on the 'kind' of organism). The question is, how did all the other alleles arise? The degree of heterozygosity in the organisms, except for the locus in question, is completely irrelevant.

            Your example of a cat having kittens that were tailed/tailless, fat/thin, different colours, etc. fails in two ways. First, these are traits carried at different loci. Secondly, my understanding is that cats can mate more than once, so the sires may have been different.

            You keep talking about specificity. I’ve no idea what this means in practice. Who (or what) does the specifying? Please give an example of something that has been specified then found to exist.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,06:11

            Let me try this one more time, Dave, since you're not getting it:

            You've got two digital files. One is a 20-minute recording of a Winston Churchill speech. The other is a 20-minute recording of broadband white noise (let's say it's nearly-random noise from a radio telescope). You need to transmit both of these files over the Internet. You compress both files with a lossless compression algorithm.

            Which is going to take more time to send over the Internet, Dave? And what do you think Claude Shannon would have had to say about this situation?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,06:28

            No, Dave, Bielicki's article said something quite different than what you want it to say. It is still signalling...and as the other references I gave you show...it is binding and removing cholesterol-laden HDL's at a higher rate. And according to the Zhu article you posted, it has no increased antioxidant activity. You posted that Zhu article yourself to show this.
            You can't have it both ways, Dave. You can't claim both increased and unchanged antioxidant activity.
            You can't mix up things like  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Apolipoprotein A-IMilano (apoA-IMilano) and apoA-IParis are rare cysteine variants of apoA-I that produce a [b]HDL deficiency in the absence of cardiovascular disease in humans."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And claim this means an decrease in ability to form HDL's automatically, particularly when Milano is "forming HDL's and whisking it out of the arteries" at an increased rate.

            You left OUT the part about "in humans" because it means just this: that Milano carriers have a low HDL count ...but this DOESN'T MEAN IMPAIRED ABILITY TO MANUFACTURE HDL's...IN FACT BIELICKI'S NEXT QUOTE EXPLAINS JUST THAT BUT YOU RUN IT TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER SECTION "ApoA-I Milano and [Paris] are rapidly cleared from the plasma compartment in humans, thus contributing to the HDL deficiency in vivo" (from Bielicki, 2002)

            THEY ARE RAPIDLY CLEARED FROM PLASMA, BLOOD PLASMA, BROKEN DOWN BY THE LIVER AND THIS IS WHY YOU SEE LOW COUNTS ...IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT  A LOWERED ABILITY TO FORM HDL'S
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,06:30

            Lou FCD



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ...So either you are becoming more lucid, or I'm becoming more educated...

            Or I'm becoming less lucid.

            It's the third option that scares me.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OR IF I'm becoming more lucid am I becoming less educated? Now THAT REALLY worries me.

            Granted tho' I accept dredging out the deeper recesses of my grey folded matter  for literary gems lodged in the sludge and offering them up without their long forgotten sources could seem slightly Joycean.

            I agree ...too long on the same subject dulls the mind
            still 'tis fun to poke holes in AFD's straw.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,06:35

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Let me try this one more time, Dave, since you're not getting it:

            You've got two digital files. One is a 20-minute recording of a Winston Churchill speech. The other is a 20-minute recording of broadband white noise (let's say it's nearly-random noise from a radio telescope). You need to transmit both of these files over the Internet. You compress both files with a lossless compression algorithm.

            Which is going to take more time to send over the Internet, Dave? And what do you think Claude Shannon would have had to say about this situation?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Heavens to Betsy!  Eric ... you would appear so much smarter if you would give this up and just admit defeat.  I'm going to answer this for you, but would you kindly re-read my post this morning and fill in your knowledge gaps on Shannon information?  Then move on?

            Answer:  The white noise file will take longer because it has more data ... DATA, Eric  ... not info, i.e. it's a bigger file size.

            Claude Shannon would say that the information, R = 0 for the noise because R = H(x) - Hy(x) and H(x) and Hy(x) are both at maximal uncertainty at the transmitter AND the receiver.  And he would say that R > 0 for the speech because H(x) > Hy(x) in that case.

            In short, Shannon would agree with me.

            Now would please go do your homework?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,06:36

            You also never replied to the quote I posted, Dave. Which directly contradicts your (and Spetner's) claims and which has never been addressed by Spetner.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists  (R. Truman, < http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm > ; 08-Jun-1999) but only qualitatively addressed by biologists. The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy (H = –sigmaplog2p, sigmap = 1) implies that neither can be negative (H =" greater or equal to 0), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequence and Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists....Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, ~9 months , but it could be much faster because the enormous titer [1010 new virions/day/person ] provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 109 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an over­estimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse world-wide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution. So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Furthermore, as I noted previously, SPETNER has never quantified his "other" biological measures of information. And by the way, Dave, should you want to contact Bielicki, you should remember he's an actual MD and quite busy. Don't expect a quick response.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,06:44

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,11:35)
            Heavens to Betsy!  Eric ... you would appear so much smarter if you would give this up and just admit defeat.  I'm going to answer this for you, but would you kindly re-read my post this morning and fill in your knowledge gaps on Shannon information?  Then move on?

            Answer:  The white noise file will take longer because it has more data ... DATA, Eric  ... not info, i.e. it's a bigger file size.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, are you ever going to get over the idea that information has anything to do with  meaning? It doesn't, and Shannon was quite clear about that. You're still hung up on this idea that because the speech has meaning to you, it has information, and white noise doesn't. This is about the most basic error you can make in your understanding of information theory, Dave, and until you get over it, you will continue to be wrong. It has nothing to do with "uncertainty," either. It has to do with how much bandwidth the damned thing takes to transmit, which is what Shannon was concerned with. But you'll never understand that, because that would require that you admit you were wrong, something you are congenitally incapable of doing.

            Your claims that you've "won" this debate ring just a little hollow given your continued claims to have won your "Portuguese" debate, don't you think?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,06:44

            Yes, Dave, there is a Santa Claus, and he, in the form of Tom Schneider...wrote that quote I just gave you, which directly mentions and contradicts Spetner. QED, baby.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 26 2006,06:46

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,11:08)
            BWE-- I will be most happy to discuss ice cores some time.  I cannot take the time right now though.  Sorry!

            PS-- You make me laugh a lot!  Keep it up!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'm not being funny. :(

            :) Here's the deal with ice cores and the like:

            A looooong time ago (early 80's) I took a two term course in genetics. It was required for my program. It seemed a lot like chemistry or differential equations or music in that the simple part is relatively simple but there is a threshold where there is just too much expertise necessary to even use the information to make generalized statements. Now, I know that a lot has happened in the field since then and it is even more detailed today. It is a waste of time to use genetic arguments or to respond to them because anyone who knows genetics is implying volumes of background knowledge in every statement. They will be frustrated by your lack of knowledge and you will be frustrated by their lack of clarity.

            But you don't need genetics. If you can show that core samples do not demonstrate that Earth (may we ever remain unshaven in her honor) is older than 10,k years, you will have taken the rug out from under all the rest of the arguments. If you can use science to show that they actually date Earth (may we never lack for her precious fluids) to ~6k years then you win. And the science is mostle engineering so you have an advantage.

            My position is that I can (and probably others here too) defend the science and demonstrate that various core samples not only demonstrate roughly a half a million years by themselves, but that they actually can be used to calibrate radiometric methods and thus give solid evidence as to their efficacy.

            And PS, k.e. I have always understood what you are saying. And I don't think the references are too far out of the norm although you do tend to include a lot of romantic author's quotes. That can be a little jarring to those of us who spend a lot of time in this concrete world of reports and numbers and data and the like.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            A Memorable Fancy.
            An Angel came to me and said: 'O pitiable foolish young man! O horrible! O dreadful state! consider the hot burning dungeon thou art preparing for thyself to all eternity, to which thou art going in such career.'
            I said: 'perhaps you will be willing to shew me my eternal lot & we will contemplate together upon it and see whether your lot or mine is most desirable.'
            So he took me thro' a stable & thro' a church & down into the church vault at the end of which was a mill: thro' the mill we went, and came to a cave: down the winding cavern we groped our tedious way till a void boundless as a nether sky appear'd beneath us & we held by the roots of trees and hung over this immensity; but I said, 'if you please we will commit ourselves to this void, and see whether providence is here also, if you will not, I will?' but he answer'd: 'do not presume, O young-man, but as we here remain, behold thy lot which will soon appear when the darkness passes away.'
            So I remain'd with him, sitting in the twisted root of an oak; he was suspended in a fungus, which hung with the head downward into the deep.
            By degrees we beheld the infinite Abyss, fiery as the smoke of a burning city; beneath us at an immense distance, was the sun, black but shining; round it were fiery tracks on which revolv'd vast spiders, crawling after their prey; which flew, or rather swum, in the infinite deep, in the most terrific shapes of animals sprung from corruption; & the air was full of them, & seem'd composed of them: these are Devils, and are called Powers of the air. I now asked my companion which was my eternal lot? he said, 'between the black & white spiders.'
            But now, from between the black & white spiders, a cloud and fire burst and rolled thro' the deep black'ning all beneath, so that the nether deep grew black as a sea, & rolled with a terrible noise; beneath us was nothing now to be seen but a black tempest, till looking east between the clouds & the waves, we saw a cataract of blood mixed with fire, and not many stones' throw from us appear'd and sunk again the scaly fold of a monstrous serpent; at last, to the east, distant about three degrees appear'd a fiery crest above the waves; slowly it reared like a ridge of golden rocks, till we discover'd two globes of crimson fire, from which the sea fled away in clouds of smoke; and now we saw, it was the head of Leviathan; his forehead was divided into streaks of green & purple like those on a tyger's forehead: soon we saw his mouth & red gills hang just above the raging foam tinging the black deep with beams of blood, advancing toward us with all the fury of a spiritual existence.
            My friend the Angel climb'd up from his station into the mill; I remain'd alone, & then this appearance was no more, but I found myself sitting on a pleasant bank beside a river by moonlight, hearing a harper who sung to the harp; & his theme was: 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.'
            But I arose, and sought for the mill, & there I found my Angel, who surprised, asked me how I escaped?
            I answer'd: ' All that we saw was owing to your metaphysics; for when you ran away, I found myself on a bank by moonlight hearing a harper, But now we have seen my eternal lot, shall I shew you yours?' he laugh'd at my proposal; but I by force suddenly caught him in my arms, & flew westerly thro' the night, till we were elevated above the earth's shadow; then I flung myself with him directly into the body of the sun; here I clothed myself in white, & taking in my hand Swedenborg's, volumes sunk from the glorious clime, and passed all the planets till we came to saturn: here I staid to rest & then leap'd into the void, between saturn & the fixed stars.
            'Here,' said I, 'is your lot, in this space, if space it may be call'd.' Soon we saw the stable and the church, & I took him to the altar and open'd the Bible, and lo! it was a deep pit, into which I descended driving the Angel before me, soon we saw seven houses of brick; one we enter'd; in it were a number of monkeys, baboons, & all of that species, chain'd by the middle, grinning and snatching at one another, but witheld by the shortness of their chains: however, I saw that they sometimes grew numerous, and then the weak were caught by the strong, and with a grinning aspect, first coupled with, & then devour'd, by plucking off first one limb and then another till the body was left a helpless trunk; this after grinning & kissing it with seeming fondness they devour'd too; and here & there I saw one savourily picking the flesh off of his own tail; as the stench terribly annoy'd us both, we went into the mill, & I in my hand brought the skeleton of a body, which in the mill was Aristotle's Analytics.
            So the Angel said: 'thy phantasy has imposed upon me, & thou oughtest to be ashamed.'
            I answer'd: 'we impose on one another, & it is but lost time to converse with you whose works are only Analytics.'
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < The marriage of heaven and #### -William Blake. >
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2006,06:49



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFDave:  This thread is not some kind of "final exam" for AFDave to get his PhD in Creationism and/or Anti-evolutionism.  This is a learning process for me and I have clearly stated many times that I do not know everything.  Also, if I find that ToE is true, I will become an advocate.  How about a little of the same attitude from you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This thread was suppose to be about you presenting evidence for AFDave’s Creator God Hypothesis, remember?  Since you failed miserably at that - why do you keep making claims using a term like 'specificity of biological systems' when you can't even define what it means?

            Now, how about answering these questions about your previous statements:

            How do you determine the independently given pattern for a DNA sequence in order to determine its specificity?  You can't just measure the pattern after the fact and say "see, it matches itself!".  Where do you go to determine what the pattern should be before the fact?

            You have been using 'information' and 'specificity' interchangeably.  Are they the same thing?  How do they correlate?

            Which has more information, Ken Ham or the amoeba?

            Why do you have a problem with evolution creating new functions, when you have admitted that both information and specificity can increase by natural means?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,06:50

            DM...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You can't have it both ways, Dave. You can't claim both increased and unchanged antioxidant activity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I don't claim this.  And AIG doesn't claim this.  You are using one of your many weapons -- this one is putting words in our mouths.  We see that Bielicki claims increased anti-oxidant.  We see Zhu claims no change.  We don't care.  If you would actually read my post of this morning you would see exactly why we don't care a whit if it's increased or the same.  How many times do I have to tell you that increased antioxidant activity is NOT an increase in specifity?

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            THEY ARE RAPIDLY CLEARED FROM PLASMA, BLOOD PLASMA, BROKEN DOWN BY THE LIVER AND THIS IS WHY YOU SEE LOW COUNTS ...IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT  A LOWERED ABILITY TO FORM HDL'S
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Oh yes it does. Right there in your own review of Bielicki's article that YOU posted.  Wanna see it again?
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This pairing restricts HDL size and growth and has been attributed to the HDL deficiency observed in people who have the mutation.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            [Exactly what AIG said ...] What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Man, I don't know what more I can do to make you see it.

            Then if you keep reading your own post ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            But 30 percent of proteins with the Milano mutation don't form dimeric complexes. They remain unattached as monomeric complexes. In this solo configuration, the sulfhydryl isn't occupied in a disulfide bond. It's free, which enables it to partake in other reactions, says Bielicki.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ...you see that the other 30% does the anti-oxidant job.

            **************************

            Three guesses?  I give up.  Tell me.
            Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 26 2006,07:03

            Dave, let's try this "Churchill/white noise" stuff another way.  Nothing about mathematics, compressibility or Shannon.

            Imagine you're sitting there listening to a Winston Churchill speech.  You're having no problems understanding it - there's information in the speech which you're able to process.  But then, while Churchill continues his speech, Franklin Roosevelt starts talking about something completely different.  Now there's twice as much information, but it's quite difficult to keep track of what they're both saying.

            Then Charles de Gaulle joins in.  Even more information.  Even harder to understand.

            One by one, other people start speaking.  Every time someone starts, they're adding more information to what you're hearing.  But it's now becoming impossible to make sense of anything - all you can hear is the babble of thousands of people talking at once.  You're overwhelmed with information.

            Eventually, everyone in the world is talking - billions of people, all adding information to what you're hearing.  But what you're hearing sounds like... white noise!

            Does that help?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,07:06

            As Occam noted, Dave, you have been equivocating specificity and information. Tom Schneider, who you use as a definitive source on information in biological systems and information theory in general...contradicts Spetner directly on the creation of information. Thomas D. Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information.Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This pairing restricts HDL size and growth and has been attributed to the HDL deficiency observed in people who have the mutation

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            size and growth of hdl's, Dave...meaning in diameter, (read about particle size of cholesterol and Milano) which makes little difference in terms of evacuation of cholesterol, since Milano does it more efficiently. NOR DOES IT MENTION lessened ABILITY TO FORM HDL'S as efficiently. The smaller HDL's are simply broken down more quickly, as Bielicki noted. This is why Milano carriers have low plasma HDL counts. AND Milano is using a rHDL pathway, too, Dave.
            Posted by: ck1 on Oct. 26 2006,07:08

            Dave,

            You said that Ken Ham's "genome is much larger" than that of an amoeba.

            Actually, the human genome has ~2.9 billion base pairs.
            Amoeba dubia has 670 billion bp.

            So which genome has more "information" by your definition?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,07:14

            The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists  (R. Truman, < http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm > ; 08-Jun-1999) but only qualitatively addressed by biologists. The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy (H = –sigmaplog2p, sigmap = 1) implies that neither can be negative (H =" greater or equal to 0), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequence and Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists....Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, ~9 months , but it could be much faster because the enormous titer [1010 new virions/day/person ] provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 x 109 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an over­estimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse world-wide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution. So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selectionThomas D. Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information.Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,07:22

            I like JohnW's new tack on the info thing ...

            I think I'll throw my own new tack in for grins ...

            Churchill Speech = Maximum Info

            FDR Speech = Minimal Info

            Bill Clinton Speech = Zero Info

            :-)
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,07:24

            JK Bielicki, TM Forte, MR McCall, LJ Stoltzfus, G Chiesa, CR Sirtori, G Franceschini and EM Rubin.  High density lipoprotein particle size restriction in apolipoprotein A- I(Milano) transgenic mice.
            Journal of Lipid Research, Vol 38, 2314-2321
            The mere idea that the particle size of HDL is affected doesn't mean that HDL PRODUCTION is lessened. It means that the size of cholesterol particles that the HDL picks UP is affected, but this results in and INCREASE in transport out of the system. The unique conformation of the Milano protein as opposed to AI wild type  means that it hits the surface activation sites of foam cells more readily, too. In fact, it is believed that Milano actually alters the physicochemical properties of HDL in other ways, too, but I am not here to give you a tutorial.

            All the quotes you used from Bielicki are simply wrong in YOUR INTERPRETATION. There is NO reduced ability to FORM HDL's..merely a reduction in SIZE...which actually contributes to an INCREASE in cholesterol transport , as YOU yourself noted.

            Furthermore, Schneider has directly contradicted Spetner which then slaps the crapola out of your equivocation of information and specificity, Dave.

            You lost on all counts, macaque-boy.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,07:28

            This information vs. data thing is really boring.

            Let me distract you all with this interesting (well, I think so, anyway) digression on Davism.

            Afdave concedes that mutations happen. Good!

            But afdave says that mutations can never add (information, complexity, specificity), only subtract. I.e. over time genomes can only become more and more degenerate relative to their prototypes.

            So to the extent that we can read the history of life, we should see a continuous degradation in pretty much all life forms over time.

            According to Davism, this ongoing decay of every biological lineage, from aardvarks to zebras, results somehow from a tragic menu choice by one member of one of those lineages.

            OK. I can see we're not going to get Dave to concede on any individual mutation, like apo-AIM or my viral methyltransferase. So far as I can tell, dave is simultaneously claiming that (1) our inability to provide an example that he is willing to concede constitutes a "beneficial mutation" constitutes damning evidence against evolution and (2) in order for him to concede such an example, we have to be able to somehow guarantee that future research will, indeed could never turn up a drawback. I see that. It's the little Ned Flanders on Dave's shoulder, talking through Dave.

            But - and I think it's worth remembering that this thread is where Dave provides positive evidence for his alternate "hypothesis", rather than sophistic quibbles with the mainstream view - shouldn't there be some evidence for less degenerate aardvarks, or zebras, or hominids, for that matter, having existed in the past? Surely dave is not going to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record as an excuse.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Man, I don't know what more I can do to make you see it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Neither do I. But I'm pretty sure repasting the same demonstrably wrong quote from a source no one here accords the credibility of a convicted scam-artist is going to do the trick.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,07:31

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,12:22)
            I like JohnW's new tack on the info thing ...

            I think I'll throw my own new tack in for grins ...

            Churchill Speech = Maximum Info

            FDR Speech = Minimal Info

            Bill Clinton Speech = Zero Info
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            By the way, "Bush speech = negative info."

            Of course, I could generalize that to "AF Dave post = negative info," too, and for the same reasons.

            And in the meantime, did you kind of skip over the "redundancy" part of my bullet points, Dave?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,07:33

            BWE ..


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            And PS, k.e. I have always understood what you are saying. And I don't think the references are too far out of the norm although you do tend to include a lot of romantic author's quotes. That can be a little jarring to those of us who spend a lot of time in this concrete world of reports and numbers and data and the like.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Ha ..I have been found out.

            Indeed ....I confess to jar-ing numbers and data and uncorking sweet scented subjectivity.

            and BWE I am a fan of Blake's poetry.

            AFD the man from the department for a factualized bible thinks more numbers and silly anti-science 'facts' are contained in his bible when  in reality it is pure subjectivity.

            His technocratic dystopia is completely devoid of subjective meaning to him that would be relativism.

            The Bible AFD IS A STORY, fiction.

            Words without objects, the language of public dreams, Mythology. A masculine sky and the missing feminine ocean (in Genesis the old Camel drivers forgot to say anything about the creation of water) , the old Egyptian cosmology turned upside down and crafted to put Man back on top.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,07:33

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 26 2006,12:31)
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,12:22)
            I like JohnW's new tack on the info thing ...

            I think I'll throw my own new tack in for grins ...

            Churchill Speech = Maximum Info

            FDR Speech = Minimal Info

            Bill Clinton Speech = Zero Info
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            By the way, "Bush speech = negative info."

            Of course, I could generalize that to "AF Dave post = negative info," too, and for the same reasons.

            And in the meantime, did you kind of skip over the "redundancy" part of my bullet points, Dave?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I hate flood control.
            Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 26 2006,07:38

            And as we have all seen ad infinitum, afDave's posts are anti-information.

            Dave's done a good job of fooling us all -- the 'af' doesn't stand for air force, it stands for anti-factual.

            no hugs for thugs,
            Shirley Knott  

            ps.  Take heart, davey-poo -- you're not yet as contemptible as the ghast of Paley.  But look -- even he's correcting you...
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,07:38

            Just clue me in here guys, has AFD got some mindlock on the creo definition of 'information' because of 'The Fall'?

            The woe is me, all is grief and pain, school of theology?

            I've never got my head around that bit of nonsense.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,07:38

            Bielicki said ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This pairing [in Milano] restricts HDL size and growth and has been attributed to the HDL deficiency observed in people who have the mutation.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And AIG read this and said ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And Deadman Clinton responds with ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            size and growth of hdl's, Dave ... meaning in diameter,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Ah swar, ya honor ... less affectiv don't mean the same thang as rastricted sahz and growth!  Those AIG boys iz lyin' scumbags!  Honest!
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,07:41

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,12:35)
            Claude Shannon would say that the information, R = 0 for the noise because R = H(x) - Hy(x) and H(x) and Hy(x) are both at maximal uncertainty at the transmitter AND the receiver.  And he would say that R > 0 for the speech because H(x) > Hy(x) in that case.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think that's where you've messed up in this particular case, Dave.  There is no uncertainty at the transmitter.

            Now, I can see the point that you think you're making, but you should probably change your terminology.  You aren't getting anywhere with information theory.  I think your particular hypothesis would be best put in terms of singal-to-noise ratio and generational degradation.  I've spent a bit of time as a sound technician, and it seems to me that you are thinking along analogous lines.  You seem to be looking at organic reproduction as a process similar to digital recording.  Does that sound about right?
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 26 2006,07:44

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,12:33)
            Indeed ....I confess to jar-ing numbers and data and uncorking sweet scented subjectivity. ...

            and BWE I am a fan of Blake's poetry. ...

            Words without objects, the language of public dreams, Mythology. A masculine sky and the missing feminine ocean (in Genesis the old Camel drivers forgot to say anything about the creation of water) , the old Egyptian cosmology turned upside down and crafted to put Man back on top.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You mean, you are actually writing in your style,... on purpose? As in, there are other ways you express yourself in writing?

            Your signature is quite apt.

            :)
            You must teach philosophy or english or literature in a private school.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,07:46

            JK Bielicki, TM Forte, MR McCall, LJ Stoltzfus, G Chiesa, CR Sirtori, G Franceschini and EM Rubin.(1997) High density lipoprotein particle size restriction in apolipoprotein A- I(Milano) transgenic mice.
            Journal of Lipid Research, Vol 38, 2314-2321

            You claimed that it meant ability to PRODUCE HDL's Dave. It doesn't, and in fact, what citation do you think Bielicki uses when he noted that the "size and growth" of HDL's were affected...why, the one I just mentioned of his.

            Yes, Particle SIZE is affected, so? this doesn't mean a loss of information, Dave, the same parts are all there. the SIZE of an Zebra means less information? A 2 year old  zebra has "less information" than a 3 year old?

            Why not address what I mentioned about Schneider bitch-slapping Spetner, thus destroying your entire arguments as a whole, too?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,07:47

            AFD


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Ah swar, ya honor ... less affectiv don't mean the same thang as rastricted sahz and growth!  Those AIG boys iz lyin' scumbags!  Honest!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            NOW DO THAT ON A STACK OF BIBLES...snicker
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,07:49

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,13:38)
            And Deadman Clinton responds with ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            size and growth of hdl's, Dave ... meaning in diameter,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Ah swar, ya honor ... less affectiv don't mean the same thang as rastricted sahz and growth!  Those AIG boys iz lyin' scumbags!  Honest!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Are you seriously suggesting that there is no advantage to being smaller and requiring fewer resources, yet being just as effective as something larger?
            Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 26 2006,07:55

            I don't bother much with this thread, as I think we exhausted AFDave's limited repertoire of evasions and denials long ago.

            But I thought I'd make an observation:  Dave has, of course, no conception of how to come to origins issues just trying to understand the evidence and how it fits together.  What he is doing, what many IDists/creationists are doing, is asking just what evidence there is that could make his fear of loss of heaven, and of damnation to eternal torment for doubting the Bible, go away.  And there isn't any.

            It's all mortal fear on the one hand, meaningless scientific conclusions on the other.  OK, sure, they're not meaningless, but they certainly don't mean anything to him.  

            For us there is the kind of evidence that makes the unevidenced fears go away, but AFDave is barely competent even to begin to question the Bible's statements.  There is an intense asymmetry in consequences already for him (loss of soul vs. theories he doesn't understand or value), and no scientific capacity in him to demonstrate that the fearful statements of the Bible are not so.  The balance for him is hugely in favor of denying science in favor of fable, and no mere facts compare with the sense that he must maintain fealty with a powerful and fearsome entity.

            What is unusual is how many losses he is willing to take.  It seems that his psyche is set to find reward in receiving punishing treatment, perhaps to gain a greater portion in heaven someday.  What is not unusual is "erring on the safe side," though, agreeing with the side that might use fire against him if he disagrees with them, not with the people who pose no threat to him at all.  If you begin with his beliefs, this is the safe course.

            Like IDists and "scientific creationists", however, this is not his usual argument, even though we get a peek into their psyches every time they bring up Pascal's Wager.  Nevertheless, it is almost entirely about that wager, which is all the more threatening for those who believe in hellfire.  Believe what "evolutionists" say and you gain understanding, believe the Bible and secure yourself against eternal torment (unfortunately this equation demonstrates why understanding does not come to AFDave and his like).

            Thus they don't ever begin to look at the evidence through unbiased eyes, and therefore these people never become competent in science in general (they may be able to effect the motions in non-threatening sciences).  So if they might turn out to be wrong often (or constantly, like AFDave), it is much safer to lie about those who will not do harm, than the God who threatens to do so.

            This is not new stuff, I know.  I just thought I'd say it again to put things into perspective and to try to show how pointless it is to treat AFDave as if he were teachable.  He is not, for he is working to escape d@mnation and gain heaven, hence his ministry to us here.  Plus, stalwartness in the face of "apparently convincing evidence" is to be rewarded someday, to those who refuse to believe whatever goes against the Holy Bible.  Loyalty is what matters, especially when he is tested by the "lies of the godless".

            It just seems that this should be said ever so often.

            Glen D
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,07:59

            I'm simply saying for the umpteenth time that AIG's statement was

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            ... which has been confirmed by Bielicki and by the review of Bielicki that Deadman Clinton posted.  Does it wind up helping people in spite of this?  Luckily, yes, it appears it does.  How does this help ToE?  It doesn't.


            Russell and Improvius (and others) have asked some questions which reveal that you have not read my long post of this morning around 9 am.  Please go back and read it and see if you still have the same questions.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,08:04

            Apo-AIM does form a more restricted size range of HDL, with predominant sizes of 7.8, 12.7 nm (and a rare 10.8 nm form), whereas Apo-AI forms particles of 7.8, 9.6, 12.7 and (mostly only seen at high lipid concentrations) 17.6 nm (see Bielicki, 1997 and 2002). This is not a loss in PRODUCTION.

            AiG's Claims are for a LOSS IN PRODUCTION  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the enzyme has lost activity for making HDLs.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            This smaller particle size results, in various ways, as YOU HAVE NOTED, DAVE, in the INCREASED efflux and transport of cholesterol, baby.

            Now how about addressing Schneider and his assault on Spetner? Spetner's lying bleeding in the streets, after being beaten to a pulp, Dave.
            CAN ANYONE RESCUE LEE SPETNER AND HIS ONLY QUANTIFIED CLAIM ON BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION???
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,08:06

            Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2006,12:55)


            It just seems that this should be said ever so often.

            Glen D
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Agreed, Glen.  Insight that needs to be mentioned every now and again.

            And yet...

             
            Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2006,12:55)
            What is unusual is how many losses he is willing to take.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I wonder if AFDave's willingness to take on so many losses is a sign of his utter desperation, and thus a sign that he secretly doesn't accept all that he espouses.  Are his ridiculous attempts here just a manifestation of his fear, his knowing that when he dies he will not be rewarded in heaven?  Is it possible that this is a desperate search for any point, just one, that will ease his aching doubts?

            Whereas other creationists are content to swallow the bullshiite whole and relax, is this thread in itself proof that AFDave WANTS to believe, but deep down doesn't?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,08:07

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,12:59)
            I'm simply saying for the umpteenth time that AIG's statement was    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            ... which has been confirmed by Bielicki and by the review of Bielicki that Deadman Clinton posted.  Does it wind up helping people in spite of this?  Luckily, yes, it appears it does.  How does this help ToE?  It doesn't.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, what do you mean, "what it's supposed to do"? There is no "supposed to do" in biology. Proteins do what they do, not what they're "supposed" to do.

            You're looking at biology and evolution from an impermissibly teleological perspective. Why impermissible? Because looking at biology or evolution from a teleological perspective invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. Like yours here. You made a very simple claim: that no mutations are ever beneficial. Deadman immediately provided you with a counterexample, and no amount of tapdancing around, making claims that the mutation results in a protein with reduced capacity to do what it's "supposed" to do, will ever change that.

            Your initial claim, the only one that matters in this context, was that no mutations are ever beneficial. A single counterexample, which has now been provided (even you don't deny that the Milano variant is a) a mutation and b) benefical), is enough to falsify that claim.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,08:07

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,13:59)
            I'm simply saying for the umpteenth time that AIG's statement was  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And that's your whole problem.  You have no way of knowing what it's "supposed to do".  You are assuming that there is some initial, perfect genotype that these mutations are deviating from.  That is what you need to start finding evidence for.
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 26 2006,08:11

            Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,13:06)
            I wonder if AFDave's willingness to take on so many losses is a sign of his utter desperation, and thus a sign that he secretly doesn't accept all that he espouses.  Are his ridiculous attempts here just a manifestation of his fear, his knowing that when he dies he will not be rewarded in heaven?  Is it possible that this is a desperate search for any point, just one, that will ease his aching doubts?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Maybe. Maybe not.  I think the recent revelation that he has a meeting at AIG in November has more to do with it.   He may just be building his street cred as a culture warrior.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,08:14

            Well, I didn't provide the Milano example, it's just something I'm interested in because I have a couple of  buddies over at UCLA medical center, one in neurology and one in cardiology ( he's a crazy irishman that I used to drink with and watch the world cup with at a bar in Westwood. I'll have to tell the story of when the English side were playing the Irish back then and these two brits walked in talking crap as much as Dave there) along with some grad students there, too.

            Ah, yes, Dave's AiG meeting. Undoubtedly, the subject of Dave gaining access to AiG's contributor base will be brought up. But this isn't about $ for ol' Dave and his "Kids4Truth" supplies, which sell for the paltry sum of a mere --- no, no...it's not about money.
            Posted by: Glen Davidson on Oct. 26 2006,08:14

            You may certainly be right about that, Lou.  He seems to be fighting off "the devils" afflicting him.  However, it may be his perpetuum mobile, his Sisyphean punishment for denying the sense and senses of human perception.

            Glen D
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,08:20

            DM...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes, Particle SIZE is affected, so? this doesn't mean a loss of information, Dave, the same parts are all there. the SIZE of an Zebra means less information? A 2 year old  zebra has "less information" than a 3 year old?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You're kidding, right?  Are you telling me you don't know about any mutations that affect size of body parts and pieces?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Spetner's lying bleeding in the streets, after being beaten to a pulp, Dave.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            In Bizarro World, yes.  Just like I'm an idiot in Bizarro World.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,08:23

            Quote (improvius @ Oct. 26 2006,13:07)
             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,13:59)
            I'm simply saying for the umpteenth time that AIG's statement was      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And that's your whole problem.  You have no way of knowing what it's "supposed to do".  You are assuming that there is some initial, perfect genotype that these mutations are deviating from.  That is what you need to start finding evidence for.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            …and what this really is, is an attempt by Dave to avoid admitting he was wrong. His original claim, that no mutations are ever beneficial, is dead, buried, and in Incorygible's immortal phrase, starting to stink.

            So Dave attempts to find something he wasn't wrong about, in this case, that the Milano variant isn't as efficient at HDL assembly. Of course, he still is wrong about that, but the scale and grandeur of his wrongness isn't quite as glaringly apparent.

            But Dave will continue this argument for as long as he possibly can, in the hopes that everyone will eventually have forgotten his original argument, which he hopes will eventually stop stinking, in the same way that road kill stops stinking after a few months.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,08:32

            Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 26 2006,13:11)
            Maybe. Maybe not.  I think the recent revelation that he has a meeting at AIG in November has more to do with it.   He may just be building his street cred as a culture warrior.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2006, 13:14)
            You may certainly be right about that, Lou.  He seems to be fighting off "the devils" afflicting him.  However, it may be his perpetuum mobile, his Sisyphean punishment for denying the sense and senses of human perception.

            Glen D

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hmm... I'm not sure these are mutally exclusive.

            After a few minutes reflection, I believe that my comments may have been more self-referential than I would have cared to admit.

            I believe I've mentioned that I was involved in fundyism when I was a teenager, and though I hate to give Dave the "You were never a Real Christian" opening, I have to say that my comments above were truly reflective of myself at the time, though I would never have admitted that.  Not even to myself.

            It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living god.

            It is an even more fearful thing to realize that when you die, there may be no "I" any more.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 26 2006,08:34

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2006,10:51)
             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:57)
            This thread is not some kind of "final exam" for AFDave to get his PhD in Creationism and/or Anti-evolutionism.  This is a learning process for me and I have clearly stated many times that I do not know everything.  Also, if I find that ToE is true, I will become an advocate.  How about a little of the same attitude from you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Gee Dave, you gave a real answer! And kudos to you for saying you are learning. I'm sure you have a lot to share with us and we could learn something from you if you can continue to respond like your answer to the information theory question.

            I give you a better grade than Occam's Aftershave did because my grading system is based on your personal best. I believe you gave an honest answer and did pretty well explaining your thinking. I'm starting to get my hopes up about the portugese thing and I retract part of my first statement in this post:
                   
            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 25 2006,14:43)
            I'm not sorry. The only things SFBDave ever says to me anymore are nasty, mean and stupid. Hmmm. I guess everything he says is stupid. Well, anyway, you ask, I answer. I ask, you say you've won. I'm still up for the portuguese debate. I have some info I think might make you a little less sure of your winner's status but, because I am not going to do any research until you acknowledge that I took your bet and that you will then have to debate it, I am not sure how good my info is.

            On the other hand, lying cheating welching quotemining plagarizing Dave, am pretty sure of my information on various ice core techniques and some of the ways that coral reefs are dated was incedental to my research in college. I might remember a little bit about that if I think real hard.

            I already showed you why you are wrong about the age of Earth (may she bless our evening debaucheries). I gave you links to the relevant AiG articles. What more can I do to help you understand the data Dave?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            I am interested in the ice core thing. Would you be willing to go over that with us?  If you are interested, follow < this link > to see some exquisite slide shows.  :)

            I am looking forward to finding out how these don't disprove your young Earth (may we walk on her waters and swim on her land) theory.

            And, as always, I am looking forward to exploring the philology of portuguese in a debate format with you. You could really prove yourself in that kind of a format, not to mention you could make me look silly which I obviously need.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,08:34



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            You're kidding, right?  Are you telling me you don't know about any mutations that affect size of body parts and pieces?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This isn't about homeobox genes, Dave, it's about you and AIG's claims on information theory and "degenerate" genes and their "degenerate" products. AiG claimed that PRODUCTION efficiency was affected, which is why they pointed to the low serum HDL counts...but Bielicki's article doesn't deal with that,except to note the  SIZE of HDL's, why they are broken down more rapidly, and their antioxidant activity.

            Dave. Help Lee Spetner, who lies bleeding and calling out to you to rescue him after the brutal assault by Schneider.

            Don't you think it's kind of telling that every time you declare "victory" and do your little "superior dance" you get kicked in the teeth, Dave? Can you honestly point to ANY major topic that you have been "right" in? It's not Portuguese, it wasn't radiometrics, it wasn't the geology and dating of the Grand Canyon layers, it's not information theory and "degenerate" mutants...you seem to have a knack for shooting off your mouth and sticking your foot in it at the same time.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,08:38

            Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,14:32)
            After a few minutes reflection, I believe that my comments may have been more self-referential than I would have cared to admit.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Great post Lou.

            One of the things that amazes me about the people here is their openness and honesty.  It's refreshing.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 26 2006,09:02

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2006,12:44)
            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,12:33)
            Indeed ....I confess to jar-ing numbers and data and uncorking sweet scented subjectivity. ...

            and BWE I am a fan of Blake's poetry. ...

            Words without objects, the language of public dreams, Mythology. A masculine sky and the missing feminine ocean (in Genesis the old Camel drivers forgot to say anything about the creation of water) , the old Egyptian cosmology turned upside down and crafted to put Man back on top.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You mean, you are actually writing in your style,... on purpose? As in, there are other ways you express yourself in writing?

            Your signature is quite apt.

            :)
            You must teach philosophy or english or literature in a private school.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            k.e. that wasn't intended as an insult. I just re-read my post and realized it sounded insulting. I am, in fact, delighted with your comments. Often you are the only commenter I can understand. It was intended as a complement. I hope it sounded that way.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,09:04



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Russell and Improvius (and others) have asked some questions which reveal that you have not read my long post of this morning around 9 am.  Please go back and read it
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I did.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            and see if you still have the same questions.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I do.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,09:07

            BWE: I, too, enjoy ke's posts. I think I mentioned a while ago that they're like little riddles to be unwrapped and pondered. Plus I like his "Joycean playfulness." People take this whole posting bit too seriously sometimes, and a good dose of surrealism is nice, for me.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,09:15

            eric: Yeah, amidst all the shifting of Dave's claims, it's easy to forget that he originally claimed that NO mutation is beneficial, then says, okay, there's one that helps people live more.
            I think it was Russell that called it the "Goalpost on Wheels,"  and apparently for Dave, he sees no problem with that, as well as adding a booster rocket to make it whizz around...kinda like his speedboat continents.
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 26 2006,09:25

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2006,15:07)
            BWE: I, too, enjoy ke's posts. I think I mentioned a while ago that they're like little riddles to be unwrapped and pondered. Plus I like his "Joycean playfulness." People take this whole posting bit too seriously sometimes, and a good dose of surrealism is nice, for me.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I like K.E's posts too. They used to frustrate me, until i started reading them as if they were written in < strine > and punctuated with a random number generator.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,10:40

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 26 2006,13:38)
             
            Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,14:32)
            After a few minutes reflection, I believe that my comments may have been more self-referential than I would have cared to admit.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Great post Lou.

            One of the things that amazes me about the people here is their openness and honesty.  It's refreshing.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well thanks.  I wish I could claim some sort of moral high ground here, but the truth is that the girls (Kate in particular) have made it abundantly clear that anything short of complete honestly would reflect badly on them, for which I would get my ass kicked.

            :D
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 26 2006,10:48

            I am going to try again to explain this distinction to AFDave. Dr. Schneider says in his primer


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The amount of information that gets
            through is given by the decrease in uncertainty, equation (20).
            Unfortunately many people have made errors because they did not keep this point clear. The
            errors occur because people implicitly assume that there is no noise in the communication. When
            there is no noise, R ) Hbe f ore, as with the completely cleared computer memory. That is if there
            is no noise, the amount of information communicated is equal to the uncertainty before communication.

            When there is noise and someone assumes that there isn't any, this leads to all kinds of
            confusing philosophies. One must always account for noise.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            This is important. In the examples and discussion I have had with you, I have always stipulated that there is no noise during transmission, just that the message we are sending is of noise. It is a definite signal, just like any other definite signal. It is being transmitted without corruption. Moving on, if I were to transmit a message containing whitenoise all the symbols being transmitted would have equal probability of occuring. This is not the case with speech, where some symbols occur more often than others.
            According to Dr. Schneider, if we are sending these two messages over a transmission line that does not introduce noise or corrupt the signal then the information on the recievers side after transmission will be the recievers uncertainty before the signal was sent. Uncertainty associated with each sent symbol is detemined by the weighted average of each symbols surprisal. When you do the math, the maximum uncertainty occurs when there is an equal probability of all symbols occuring, as is the case with whitenoise. On the other hand, when the probability of each symbol occuring is different, we get less than the maximum uncertainty. This makes sense since we know to expect some symbols more than others (i.e. our uncertainty about which symbol will be sent is less) .

            Therefore, whitenoise will have more initial uncertainty that is converted to information than speech.

            Just to reiterate, information theory does not care about the meaning or implications of the symbols, only their probability distribution.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,11:06

            Drew ... you are mistaken.  I showed that already quite thoroughly.

            But what point are you trying to make?  And how does this relate to Points C&D of my CGH?  Or in proving that ToE is true?  Tell me why I should go to the trouble of refuting you ... AGAIN.

            Eric ... why do you keep making up things that you want me to believe but that I do not believe?  Like beneficial mutations.  I have said several times that there are a few lucky ones.  

            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 26 2006,11:08

            Hey dave, another question.

            If we start with a pair of perfect creatures on the ark, would there not be heavy selective pressure to maintain this perfect form?  If they are litterally pefect, ideal in form and function, than every single mutation with a phenotypic change would move them away from perfection, and therefore be deleterious?  Would the decendants of this mutated child not be less fit, and therefore more likely to die, and less likely to breed than his perfect brethren?  Even if a mutation did become fixed, at some future point could a mutation occur that returns the particular gene back to it's former form, and would this newly reperfected form not have a selective advantage (and would this not be an example of a beneficial mutation)?

            If we look at the genetic differences within a single kind could we estimate the historic mutation rate necessary to produce the modern diversification of life within 4500 years?  Is the historic mutation rate the rate we see today?  If not, why has the mutation rate changed, and when did it change?

            Why did mutations only begin after the flood?  Were mutations caused by The Fall?

            Of the hundreds of millions of species God created, why are 99.9% of them extinct?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2006,11:15

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:10)
            KEN HAM VS. A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM -- WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC?
            Answer:  Ken Ham  

            Why?

            Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism which is why the genome is much larger.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Well, since new poster ck1 went and ruined the little trap I set for Dave  :angry: I guess we can look at the data

            Dave, assuming Ken Ham is a human, his human genome has around 2.9 billion base pairs.

            The amoeba that I pictured, amoeba dubia, has over 670 billion base pairs.

            That's right Dave - the amoeba genome is over 230 bigger than that of Ham-bonehead, and even by your logarithmic formula contains almost 5 1/2 times more information

            Now I'll ask you again - which one has more specificity, and why?
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,11:25

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,17:06)
            But what point are you trying to make?  And how does this relate to Points C&D of my CGH?  Or in proving that ToE is true?  Tell me why I should go to the trouble of refuting you ... AGAIN.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, you were the one who started down this information theory rabbit hole.  Why the #### are you asking Drew how it relates to your hypothesis?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Still no idea how you think you're calculating specificity.  And I don't know why you aren't switching over to signal/noise terminology - I honestly think it's more appropriate for what you think "specificity" means.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2006,11:27

            Dave, you lying sack of shit

            How can you claim this
                 

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            When not one day before you said this

                 

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
            loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
            gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

            Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            "SPECIFICITY" goes in the blank.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            You put in right here in writing that gain of information due to mutation = gain of specificity

            You agreed on a definition of information based on genome size and we showed you a mechanism (gene duplication and point mutations) that increases genome size.

            You agreed that information can increase.

            Look again ShitForBrains:

            Dave says information can increase.
            Dave says information = specificity
            That means Dave says specificity can increase.

            It boggles my mind that you can sit there and lie your ass off without one bit of remorse or shame.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,11:32



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Drew ... you are mistaken.  I showed that already quite thoroughly. What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You equated,as did Spetner, specificity to information. Don't deny that. And Spetner got slapped around as thoroughly as you did, Dave.
            Deal with the harsh facts as they stand, Dave.
            Let me reiterate this, macaque-boy...the very source YOU USED on information theory...Schneider...roundly disciplined Spetner by showing him that information can increase in systems under evolutionary change. This means change in specificity, which Spetner agrees is "information" change.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,11:34

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,16:06)
            Eric ... why do you keep making up things that you want me to believe but that I do not believe?  Like beneficial mutations.  I have said several times that there are a few lucky ones.  

            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, it is not my job on this thread to "advocate" for the ToE.

            It is your job on this thread to advocate for your "hypothesis."

            Are you ever going to get around to doing that? I've posted a big long list of questions and objections to your "hypothesis" that you have been unable to address, and will post it again at the end of the month. This list has become so voluminous that it is no longer possible to fit it into one post without causing problems with the software.

            Your requirement that mutations increase specificity or "information" is, aside from being wrong, a canard. It's no more a requirement of the ToE than "hominid civilizations" are.  All the ToE requires is a method by which organisms can become statistically more likely to reproduce. The evidence that there are such methods (there are more than one that has been observed to work) is unassailable. All your floundering around in the thickets of information theory and protein analysis doesn't change any of that.

            Furthermore, why do you think it's a problem for the ToE that there are only a "few lucky" mutations? That's a prediction of the ToE! Your own "hypothesis" predicts no such thing. It doesn't even predict mutations at all!

            And as I pointed out yesterday, and as Deadman amplified, all this rigamarole about the ToE is nothing but one big, huge detour around your manifest inability to find support for your own "hypothesis." You've spent almost six months and several hundred posts trying to find holes in extremely well-supported areas of science, in the meantime completely failing to support any of your own claims. Every time you try, whether it's with your "global catastrophic flood," or radiometric dating, or "genetic richness," or even "information loss,"" your claims get dynamited at their foundations as soon as you make them.

            But I'm glad you're deluded into thinking you're winning. Otherwise you would have bailed a long time ago, and my days would be a lot more boring.
            Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 26 2006,11:48

            Anti-Fact Dave is pictured in the dictionary next to 'delusions of adequacy'.
            The only people he has shown to be in error, or dishonest, are AIG, Gish, Morris, and their ilk, and his only insignificant little self.

            Keep hammering it home guys -- nothing Dave says about the ToE has any bearing on demonstrating the truth of his soi disant 'hypothesis'.

            BTW, Davie-poo, many of us pointed out that your hypothesis, so called, is jam-packed full of undefined terms, which fact alone renders it worthless.
            Just like you.

            no hugs for thugs,
            Shirley Knott
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,11:49

            this is what Spetner said, Dave:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            There is no question about it: SPECIFICITY = INFORMATION.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html >
            Now Schneider, who you used as the nee plus ultra of info theory:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection Thomas D. Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information.Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Notice the date on Schneider's refutation of Spetner. It was from the year 2000. That was six years ago, Dave.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,12:02

            Just to ram it home to your macaqu....er brain Dave. Do a search and find where Spetner has contradicted Schneider, anywhere. Here's a quote:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Spetner, L. M. (1998) NOT BY CHANCE! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Judaica Press, New York. As with Dembski, Spetner's basic premise of the entire book is built upon this error, so it appears repeatedly. For example, Page 130:
            "For just a moment let's look at the chance of a species evolving into a new one if at each step there is only one potential copying error that can be adaptive. What we've found above is the chance of just one of the small steps occurring. To get a new species, 500 of them have to occur without any failures. As we shall soon see, for successful evolution the probability of each has to be very nearly one. The chance of 500 of these steps succeeding is 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. The odds against that happening are about 3.6×102,738 to one, or the chance of it happening is about 2.7×10-2,739. That's a very small chance! It's more than 2,000 orders of magnitude smaller than the chance of the event I call impossible."

            The only reason that Spetner found this impossible is that he made an inappropriate computation, one that is not relevant to the situation at hand. The same quote appears at Chance - Probability Alone Should End the Debate, www.WindowView.org. So it indeed does end the debate, Spetner and www.WindowView.org have made a fatal error.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And see everything at : < http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm >
            I'll simplify, Dave, by quoting the conclusions:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Conclusion:  
            So to summarize, although Spetner's arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws. Spetner is wrong in the details of the biology, ligand specificity is not directly governed by binding string length as required by Spetner's theory, and ligand binding is not and "all or nothing affair". This invalidates his analyses. Even then, Spetner's own examples do not support his claims. Furthermore, when using his metrics Spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient changes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 26 2006,12:05

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,16:06)
            Drew ... you are mistaken.  I showed that already quite thoroughly.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDaves quote of Dr. Schneider:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Thinking that information ® is the same as uncertainty (H).
            Because of noise, after a communication there is always some uncertainty remaining, Hafter and this must be subtracted from the uncertainty before the communication is sent, Hbefore. In combination with the R/H pitfall, this pitfall has lead many authors to conclude that information is randomness.
            [...]
            Here you have made the mistake of setting Hafter to zero. So a random sequence going into a receiver does not decrease the uncertainty of the receiver and so no information is received. But a message does allow for the decrease. Even the same signal can be information to one receiver and noise to another, depending on the receiver!
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pitfalls.html >

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFDave then says:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Please read the bolded statements over to yourselves several times so I do not have to explain this again.  Thank you very much!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I assume this is what he is referring to as his refutation of my points. Unfortunately for him, this quote does not invalidate my point. In fact, I have already accounted for it. When D.r Schneider is talking about randomness in the signal, he is referring to noise introduced by transmission. That is why he prefaces this statement with:  


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Because of noise, after a communication there is always some uncertainty remaining.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            He is not referring to the signal itself being generated by noise, he is talking about the noise in the transmission line. The more noise you have in the transmission line, the greater uncertainty one has about the symbols being sent. The sigal itself could be noise, but as long as it is transmitted without noise introduced it will convey information.

            Am I crazy, does anybody else agree with me on this?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,12:26

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 26 2006,17:05)
            He is not referring to the signal itself being generated by noise, he is talking about the noise in the transmission line. The more noise you have in the transmission line, the greater uncertainty one has about the symbols being sent. The sigal itself could be noise, but as long as it is transmitted without noise introduced it will convey information.

            Am I crazy, does anybody else agree with me on this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave had this same problem when he was discussing radiocarbon dating of quarter-billion-year-old coal seams. He got tripped up by failing to distinguish between noise in the testing apparatus and noise in the environment. The reason no one uses C14 dating in excess of 50,000 years is because below that level, C14 will show up in irreducibly-minimum amounts due to environmental manufacture of C14 by, e.g., high-energy cosmic rays or background radioactive decay.

            Dave mistook this environmental noise for noise in the testing apparatus, and continually confused the two. His claim was that modern testing apparatus had a sufficiently low noise floor to not be able to account for the excess C14, when in fact it was not the noise floor in the testing equipment, it was the noise floor in the environment itself.

            Analogously, Dave is confusing noise in the transmission channel, i.e., the signal/noise ratio, with a signal that is in itself noise. I was pretty sure Dave would do this, which is one of the reasons I posed the question the way I did.

            As you have pointed out, I believe, there is no way for information theory to distinguish between a 20-minute digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech and a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise in terms of "meaningfulness." The reason "meaning" is completely disregarded when talking about Shannon information is because there is no mathematical method for determining "meaning." As I've pointed out to Dave half a dozen times, information theory is not concerned in any way with the semantic content of a given signal.

            What you can discern, using information theory, is the probability of any given symbol (and here, there are only two possibilities; 0 and 1) appearing in the data stream. In the case of a digital recording of broadband white noise, the probability of either a 0 or a 1 appearing at any given point in the data stream is exactly the same. In the digital recording of the speech, the probabilities are very different depending on where in the data stream you are. This is why one of these signals is very much more redundant, and very much more compressible, than the other. Since Shannon was concerned primarily with minimizing the bandwidth requirements of a given signal, this distinction between the two types of data stream was very important. As I also pointed out to Dave today, it takes much more bandwidth to transmit a digital file of broadband white noise than it does to transmit a digital file of human speech. This is exactly why the human speech has less information (not data, information) than the white noise does. Dave's attempt to make a distinction between "data" and "information," in an information-theoretical context, is meaningless. His equation of "information" and "meaning" is equally ill-advised.

            But Dave will never see this, because he cannot allow himself to see it.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,12:27

            "because of noise"  summarizes it. Schneider already decimated Spetner's (and hence Dave's) claims. It's over.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,12:34

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 26 2006,18:05)
            Am I crazy, does anybody else agree with me on this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh, I absolutely agree.  This is exactly why I keep saying Dave should be presenting his current hypothesis in terms of signal-to-noise.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,12:35



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The reason "meaning" is completely disregarded when talking about Shannon information is because there is no mathematical method for determining "meaning."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            THAT is the failure on Dave's part that leads to all subsequent errors. The determination of "noise" in HIS mind is not via Shannon metrics
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,12:45



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Am I crazy, does anybody else agree with me on this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No, you're not crazy. I see exactly what you're saying. But then, I still don't think Portuguese is descended from French. Hopefully we can move on to the more entertaining pending questions, recognizing that this is just another one of those things afdave just doesn't get. Meanwhile, think of all the great quote-mining opportunities this diversion has provided for his ministry:

            "Get this kids. Evolutionists are so addled they insist that there's more information in white noise than in a Churchill speech".
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,12:55

            One more thing on this ridiculous information theory detour, then I'm done.

            Think about this, Dave: as you are probably aware, many encryption techniques take an input stream (the plaintext), and output a stream (the cyphertext) that is nearly perfectly random. In fact, the closer to perfect randomness, the better, in general, the encryption algorithm. Now, if you've got the decryption key, you can get the plaintext back, but otherwise you've got a digital file that is—wait for it—indistinguishable from a digital recording of broadband white noise.

            Now, let's say you've got a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise, and a digitally-encrypted file of the text of a Winston Churchill speech that happens to be the same size. Without the decryption key, there is no way to tell which one is which.

            Now: which of these two files has more Shannon information?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,13:02



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now, let's say you've got a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise, and a digitally-encrypted file of the text of a Winston Churchill speech that happens to be the same size. Without the decryption key, there is no way to tell which one is which.

            Now: which of these two files has more Shannon information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Absolutely killer
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,13:27

            Oh, by the way, macaque...take that to your masters
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,14:24

            Drew ... you stopped reading too soon ... try again ...



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The amount of information that gets
            through is given by the decrease in uncertainty, equation (20).
            Unfortunately many people have made errors because they did not keep this point clear. The
            errors occur because people implicitly assume that there is no noise in the communication. When
            there is no noise, R ) Hbe f ore, as with the completely cleared computer memory. That is if there
            is no noise, the amount of information communicated is equal to the uncertainty before communication.
            When there is noise and someone assumes that there isn't any, this leads to all kinds of
            confusing philosophies. One must always account for noise.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            "confusing philosophies"  ... that would be you ...

            ... and if that doesn't convince you, then I give up ...

            ... you are one confused hombre ...

            ********************************

            Also, please tell me why you care so much about this ...
            Eric posed the original question ... what is your (or his) point in this little exercise?
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,14:35



            [Chosen One kicks Wimp-Lo in the face. Wimp-Lo does a pose]
            Wimp Lo: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
            Chosen One: I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
            Wimp Lo: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style!

            Edit: Reference < http://imdb.com/title/tt0240468/ >
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,14:40



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Earth, dave.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 26 2006,14:42

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,19:24)
            Drew ... you stopped reading too soon ... try again ...

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The amount of information that gets
            through is given by the decrease in uncertainty, equation (20).
            Unfortunately many people have made errors because they did not keep this point clear. The
            errors occur because people implicitly assume that there is no noise in the communication. When
            there is no noise, R ) Hbe f ore, as with the completely cleared computer memory. That is if there
            is no noise, the amount of information communicated is equal to the uncertainty before communication.
            When there is noise and someone assumes that there isn't any, this leads to all kinds of
            confusing philosophies. One must always account for noise.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            "confusing philosophies"  ... that would be you ...

            ... and if that doesn't convince you, then I give up ...

            ... you are one confused hombre ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Apparently, you missed this part:
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Unfortunately many people have made errors because they did not keep this point clear. The
            errors occur because people implicitly assume that there is no noise in the communication. When
            there is no noise, R ) Hbe f ore, as with the completely cleared computer memory. That is if there
            is no noise, the amount of information communicated is equal to the uncertainty before communication.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            He is talking about noise introduced during transmission, not a message that is generated by noise. I cannot make this point any more clear.

            I mean, this quote you posted is exactly what I have been saying in my last two posts.

            Edit: In fact I say exactly what Dr. Schneider says in your quote.
            Me:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This is important. In the examples and discussion I have had with you, I have always stipulated that there is no noise during transmission, just that the message we are sending is of noise. It is a definite signal, just like any other definite signal. It is being transmitted without corruption. Moving on, if I were to transmit a message containing whitenoise all the symbols being transmitted would have equal probability of occuring. This is not the case with speech, where some symbols occur more often than others.
            According to Dr. Schneider, if we are sending these two messages over a transmission line that does not introduce noise or corrupt the signal then the information on the recievers side after transmission will be the recievers uncertainty before the signal was sent. Uncertainty associated with each sent symbol is detemined by the weighted average of each symbols surprisal. When you do the math, the maximum uncertainty occurs when there is an equal probability of all symbols occuring, as is the case with whitenoise. On the other hand, when the probability of each symbol occuring is different, we get less than the maximum uncertainty. This makes sense since we know to expect some symbols more than others (i.e. our uncertainty about which symbol will be sent is less) .

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2006,14:48

            A state of denial that would make < Laura Bush > proud.

            I wonder if the first lady is secretly AFDave's mom...


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Absolutely I think that is wrong," Bush said in an exclusive interview with CNN Wednesday. "Of course, the president has been frank from the very very first speech he gave to the country after the September 11 attacks, talking about this is a long war, this is a very difficult war.

            "It's a different war than our country has ever faced. The enemy can make a big show on television like they did for the bloody last month we had in Iraq by blowing themselves up a lot of times along with other people. But our success is not so easy to see. But the fact is that we are succeeding."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,15:04

            OA...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you lying sack of shit

            How can you claim this
                 Quote  
            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.


            When not one day before you said this

                 Quote  
                 Quote  
            A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
            loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
            gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

            Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  

            "SPECIFICITY" goes in the blank.


            You put in right here in writing that gain of information due to mutation = gain of specificity

            You agreed on a definition of information based on genome size and we showed you a mechanism (gene duplication and point mutations) that increases genome size.

            You agreed that information can increase.

            Look again ShitForBrains:

            Dave says information can increase.
            Dave says information = specificity
            That means Dave says specificity can increase.

            It boggles my mind that you can sit there and lie your ass off without one bit of remorse or shame.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Aftershave ... dude ... you're getting all mad and you haven't read carefully ...

            Now watch closely and I'll walk you through it ...

            Dave says information can increase with mutations.
            Dave says information = specificity
            That means Dave says specificity can increase.


            True.  Then I said this ...

            What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.

            Do you see that eensy weensy little word "can" that I bolded.  That means "can" ... not "has".  If I had said "has" then you would be right.

            I said it CAN happen, but there is an extremely low probability of it happening.  This is why I observe that it never HAS happened.

            Now don't be so fast to call people liars.  You never know when you might need a favor from that guy.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,15:05

            Rats. I was really hoping Dave would take a stab at this one.
            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 26 2006,17:55)
            Now, let's say you've got a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise, and a digitally-encrypted file of the text of a Winston Churchill speech that happens to be the same size. Without the decryption key, there is no way to tell which one is which.

            Now: which of these two files has more Shannon information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 26 2006,15:10

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 26 2006,20:42)
            He is talking about noise introduced during transmission, not a message that is generated by noise. I cannot make this point any more clear.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I don't ****ing get it.  I've been telling Dave over and over that he's talking about signal-to-noise.  I'm actually trying to help him here.  I mean, all he has to do is say, "why, yes, that is what I meant - not information per se, but rather the effect of noise on the signal."

            Dave, I will try one more time:  You would help yourself a great deal at this point if you simply acknowledge that your definition of specificity is a comparison to a source signal, rather than pure information itself.  More specific = closer to the source (less noise), and less specific = farther from the source (more noise).  Just agree to that and we can drop the whole "information debate".
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,15:10

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 26 2006,21:05)
            Rats. I was really hoping Dave would take a stab at this one.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Master Tang: Pay no attention to Wimp Lo, we purposely trained him wrong... as a joke

            Source:  http://imdb.com/title/tt0240468/quotes
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2006,15:15

            Eric:



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now: which of these two files has more Shannon information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes. Make him do the math. If evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or if mutations can't increase the store of "information" (or do so reliably enough), then this should be demonstrable through math. The only rigorous attempt I've ever seen is < The Mystery of Life's Origin, > which involved abiogenesis rather than evolution proper. The references are out of date though.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,15:18

            Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2006,20:15)
            Yes. Make him do the math. If evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or if mutations can't increase the store of "information" (or do so reliably enough), then this should be demonstrable through math.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Actually, he should be able to answer the question without having to do any math. It's intuitively pretty obvious, assuming you really get what Shannon was trying to accomplish.

            I'm pretty sure Dave can get this one right, but it will be interesting to see what his reasoning (if any) is.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,15:23

            Master Tang: Please forgive Wimp Lo. He is an idiot.


            Source: ibid
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 26 2006,15:30



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Actually, he should be able to answer the question without having to do any math. It's intuitively pretty obvious, assuming you really get what Shannon was trying to accomplish.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Didn't mean to deny that, but I've found that it's good to get your opponent to rigorously formulate his assumptions and the steps in his reasoning, which is what mathematics is. The Second Law prevents evolution? Great! Show me how! Because if it does, then you should be able to demonstrate this truth with the relevant equations, or at least outline a strategy. If you can't do this......well, then you're hand-waving. Not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as everyone knows the nature of the objection.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 26 2006,15:57



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This is why I observe that it [a mutation resulting in increased specificity] never HAS happened.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            um... dave? How do you characterize the mutations in viral methyltransferase I've been asking you to consider for the past, what?, 3 or 4 days?
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,16:17

            Wimp Lo: I'm bleeding, making me the victor

            Source: ibid
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 26 2006,17:01

            Dave Hawkins....ShitForBrains...you're lying again!

            The topic of gene duplication adding complexity to the genome has been brought up numerous times in this thread.  In fact, there are many well know mechanisms that increase the size and complexity of the genome, including gene duplication, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements.  

            Unless you are claiming amnesia, you know about these Dave.  You know about specific real world examples like

            Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes
            Jianzhi Zhang*, Helene F. Rosenberg , and Masatoshi Nei*,
            PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 7, 3708-3713, March 31, 1998
            < source >

            and this

            The Evolution of Functionally Novel Proteins after Gene Duplication
            Austin L. Hughes
            Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 256, No. 1346 (May 23, 1994), pp. 119-124
            < source >

            and this

            Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development.
            Holland PW, Garcia-Fernandez J, Williams NA, Sidow A.
            Dev. Suppl. 1994;:125-33.
            < source >

            You just got yourself caught in your zipper again Dave.  Like always, you C&Ped a bunch of stuff you don’t understand, then tried to bullsh*t your way through.  Didn’t work last time, didn’t work this time, will never work around scientifically literate people you POS liar.

            You repeated an old claim that ‘specificity = information’, the made the fatal mistake of using a definition of ‘information’ based on size of the genome that is quantifiable. That the size of a genome can and does increase via natural means has been demonstrated for years SFB, as the papers above document.

            To hedge your bets, you also quoted Dumbski’s definition of specificity as 'matching an independently given pattern', but you have no independent pattern to compare a genetic sequence against.  Too bad!  No independent pattern to compare means no specificity measurement.

            See Dave, you’re screwed no matter which of your bogus claims you decide to back. Either specificity increases, or you can’t measure it at all.   I know it, you know it, and the whole board knows it.  That’s why we’re all laughing at you again SFB.

            Deacon Dave Hawkins – liar, cheat, moron, abuser of children’s trust,  AIG charlatan wanna-be, ATBC board clown.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,17:29

            So Davey poo when are you going to declare defeat on Shannon information in the digital recording fiasco.

            here I'll give you a 'clintonesque' tip ....start the sentence with.

            "I never had sex with my wife".

            Don't worry EVERYONE will believe you.
            Posted by: Seven Popes on Oct. 26 2006,17:51

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 26 2006,17:55)
            One more thing on this ridiculous information theory detour, then I'm done.

            Think about this, Dave: as you are probably aware, many encryption techniques take an input stream (the plaintext), and output a stream (the cyphertext) that is nearly perfectly random. In fact, the closer to perfect randomness, the better, in general, the encryption algorithm. Now, if you've got the decryption key, you can get the plaintext back, but otherwise you've got a digital file that is—wait for it—indistinguishable from a digital recording of broadband white noise.

            Now, let's say you've got a 20-minute digital recording of broadband white noise, and a digitally-encrypted file of the text of a Winston Churchill speech that happens to be the same size. Without the decryption key, there is no way to tell which one is which.

            Now: which of these two files has more Shannon information?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Eric, I read a great paper that posited just that, using bit stream from some satellite as a single use cipher pad.  A simple, unbreakable code.  We must have read the same paper... Tell me if you ever find it, because I would love to show it to the IT guys i work with.
            Oh, and though it doesn't need to be said yet again, You are correct, and Dave is wrong.  But the lad is having a bit of a Tyre -rade, and simply cannot accept he's wrong after all the hand waving and appeals  to incredulity.  Look at it this way, If he ever does admit you might be right, He will simply claim victory in the argument anyway, and those of us that can read big words with comprehension already know you're correct.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,18:30

            Wimp Lo: Take a close look. 'Cause I rule, baby.
            Chosen One: And who do you rule, the large-dark-nipple people?

            Source: ibid
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 26 2006,18:35

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 26 2006,21:30)
            Wimp Lo: Take a close look. 'Cause I rule, baby.
            Chosen One: And who do you rule, the large-dark-nipple people?

            Source: ibid
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh, man, you're about 4 months behind.  Did you catch the first set of Kung Pow! references in this thread?  So appropriate, so classic.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 26 2006,18:39

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 27 2006,00:35)
            Oh, man, you're about 4 months behind.  Did you catch the first set of Kung Pow! references in this thread?  So appropriate, so classic.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I just gave up on trying to post anything substantial on this thread.  If someone esle suggested Kung Pow I missed it.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,18:43

            Lou FCD, you said:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            After a few minutes reflection, I believe that my comments may have been more self-referential than I would have cared to admit.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            To paraphrase Alexander Pope

            'To project is human, to reflect divine'

            It's funny you say that but I have come to the same conclusion several times when replying to AFD. And have had to catch myself and re-do some comments.

            AFD's programming has made him completely immune to world views outside his cult.

            I've noticed this before in religious cults, the programming is actually REINFORCED by pressure from outside agents to change their view. "Thou will be greatly strengthened by challenges to your faith" etc. etc.

            In the end IT IS ALL projection, as BWE's quote of Blake  shows. A consequence of mans ability to 'read minds', a necessary mechanism for social animals. Your dog can read your mind..right? I had my daughters pet rabbit (which she abandoned) playing games  and doing tricks I could read its 'mind'. Any horse person will tell you the same. Those animals are all social animals.


            So by 'projection' what do I mean, it is NOT the ability to see into another mind, that is actually empathy, the projected image of the other persons mind inside our mind is only the reflection of our own mind that is self generated and is limited by intelligence,values and experience .  AFD will say he is completely unaware of that (the consummate politician/liar), he honestly believes his mind is bigger than his brain (god for him) and is able to control those with weaker minds around him (to perform god's wishes)
            ....narcissism.

            AFD's god is his projected 'intelligence' which unfortunately for those around him, makes them stullifyingly stupid.

            BWE


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ....k.e. that wasn't intended as an insult....
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Thanks BWE I'm a fan of your work to. The cameos on your website are an absolute hoot. It's very gratifying to see that whole of the US hasn't gone god/rapture mad. And no I don't teach, my wife does tho'. I'm an electronics engineer with an interest in art and literature.

            SteveS


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            They used to frustrate me, until i started reading them as if they were written in strine and punctuated with a random number generator
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes Steve.... it seems no matter what I do, I'll never satisfy your punctuation parser. I must be 'punctuation dyslexic'.(I'll save up some extra commas for you)
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 26 2006,19:07

            Quote (Seven Popes @ Oct. 26 2006,22:51)
            Eric, I read a great paper that posited just that, using bit stream from some satellite as a single use cipher pad.  A simple, unbreakable code.  We must have read the same paper... Tell me if you ever find it, because I would love to show it to the IT guys i work with.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Actually, no, I more or less came up with this example myself. I was sort of noodling a lot of the stuff Neal Stephenson talks about in Cryptonomicon when this example came to me. The image I was thinking about at the time was one of the fictional WWII cyphers he talks about, which was the equivalent of taking a message written on a piece of paper, burning the paper, and then mixing the ashes in with the concrete used to construct the Hoover Dam.

            One of the techniques a lot of modern encryption algorithms use (I think PGP is one of them) is to compress the message first, using any lossless encryption method. This removes most or all of the redundancy of the plaintext (without, Dave, reducing the information content) before the encryption. The compression changes the probability distribution of characters in the plaintext, which makes the final encryption even more effective, and has the added benefit of making the cyphertext more perfectly random. (This is the reason why, if you want to encrypt your backup tapes, you can't use hardware compression; once the datastream is encrypted, it won't compress anymore.)

            Another thing I was thinking about today was using my earlier < example > of radio noise from a radio telescope as a source of random information. As far as I know, a lot of modern encryption algorithms still use pseudorandom functions (like zeta functions) to create the encryption key. Generally the closer to purely random the function is, the better it works. But why not use something that's truly random, like some sort of quantum effect? Hiss from a radio star, for example?

            Anyway, none of this has the slightest to do with biology or evolution, or more to the point, with Dave's friggin' "hypothesis."

            But feel free to answer my question, Dave. Even if you just guess, you have a 33% chance of being right. But I'd really like to hear your reasoning (if any) behind your answer.

            After all, if you're going to discuss information theory in the context of biology, regardless of whether it's applicable in the first place, it would help if you at least understood the theory. So far, it doesn't look like you do.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,23:07

            Deacon Dave Hawkins – liar, cheat, moron, abuser of children’s trust.
            The latter is the thing that gets me the most. Be glad you're not near me, Dave.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 26 2006,23:17



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In the end IT IS ALL projection, as BWE's quote of Blake  shows. A consequence of mans ability to 'read minds', a necessary mechanism for social animals. Your dog can read your mind..right? I had my daughters pet rabbit (which she abandoned) playing games  and doing tricks I could read its 'mind'. Any horse person will tell you the same. Those animals are all social animals.


            So by 'projection' what do I mean, it is NOT the ability to see into another mind, that is actually empathy, the projected image of the other persons mind inside our mind is only the reflection of our own mind that is self generated and is limited by intelligence,values and experience .  AFD will say he is completely unaware of that (the consummate politician/liar), he honestly believes his mind is bigger than his brain (god for him) and is able to control those with weaker minds around him (to perform god's wishes)
            ....narcissism.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, that's it. Ultimately it's all about power--the ability to get others to think and do what you want them to do and think. If I am alone, on Mars, with a thousand atomic bombs and a ton of gold, I have no power.

            My power is restricted to what I can make other thinking beings believe/do. Dave has chosen to afflict the most vulnerable--children---with his lies. Demonstrable lies.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 26 2006,23:55

            BWE wrote:
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Your signature is quite apt.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            hehe ....a bit of inspired nonsense.

            Who was it that said "Good poetry is inspired, great poerty is stolen" maybe W.H.Auden or Keats? Anyway probably a myth.

            Do you recognise this?

            Chuck Norris doesn't actually write books, the words assemble themselves out of fear

            But honestly that's what happens with a good deal of stuff that makes it to the screen, the words do assemble themselves while ryhming.

            The other line is from a poetry generator in the style of William Burroughs, I liked it so much I took it home. You give it a word and get 'cut up poetry' ....besides I pushed the button that inspired the computer.

            Now I'm going to have to change it .....maybe.

            Here is some more from RoboPoet

            gray battle-axe crashes undesirably,  narcissistic laundromat envelops irritably,  dark agitation languishes thinly,  aggressive laundromat entombs undesirably,  broken summer capitulates hysterically,  gray life smotes expectantly,  narcissistic vein sighs uncomfortably,  vestigal sheep shrieks unholily,  tribal corduroy defers blankly,  ignominious light looks drolly,  foul vortex burns completely,  deliberate vortex burns impersonally,  concrete sheep dies immortally,  perfect vessel craves impersonally,  boastful laundromat languishes undesirably,  aggressive vowel burns bleakly,  broken life crashes impersonally,  undisciplined dream mars balmily,  plastic concubine envelops drolly,  perforated life nourishes awfully,  

            Now if only AFD made as much sense.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 26 2006,23:58

            AFDave ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Do you, Drew Headley--who is working on a PhD in neuroscience (I think)--think there is more information contained in white noise that in a Winston Churchill speech?

            I'd like to have you on record with a simple YES or NO.  Thx!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Drew...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes, I do think that white noise has more information than a speech by Winston Churchill, where information is defined by Shannon's metric. It is a consequence of the probability distributions, since whitenoise by definition has a flat distribution for all symbols and speech does not.

            Yes, I am pursuing a Ph.D. in neuroscience.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Nothing about zero noise here.  In fact, there is no such thing as a noiseless channel in the real world to my knowledge.  It was a very simple question.  Just "is there more info in the speech or the noise?"  Period.  

            Information defined by Shannon's Metric:



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

            Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

            If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

            Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:

            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

            The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OK?  So you got the wrong answer according to Shannon's definition.  

            It's OK, though.  Life goes on.

            ****************************

            Now Improvius wants to talk about SNR's and Eric wants to talk about compression.  Wonderful topics, but I'm not interested.

            I'm interested in BIOLOGICAL information, for which I do not use the Shannon definition, although it may have some relevance.  Shannon's work was all about transmitting information in channels and of course, biological information is also transmitted, but the channels are quite different from radio, TV, fiber optic cable, etc.

            So this will be interesting if we can ever get off the stuck record about "White noise has greater info content than Churchill speeches."

            ********************************

            Improvius...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, I will try one more time:  You would help yourself a great deal at this point if you simply acknowledge that your definition of specificity is a comparison to a source signal, rather than pure information itself.  More specific = closer to the source (less noise), and less specific = farther from the source (more noise).  Just agree to that and we can drop the whole "information debate".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Thanks for the attempted help, but this has nothing to do with the statement "White noise contains more information than a Churchill speech."  

            Of course you are right that the genomes of the various created kinds have experienced a great deal of "signal degredation" in the 6000 or so years since Creation and this may turn out to be a good way to look at this as we move along here.  But I'm not ready to say that more specificity = less noise.  I like Crick's definition at the moment but I am open to other ideas as well.

            **************************

            OA ... you're falling into your old habits again and you're gonna get censored like before.  Give me a specific example of my "lying" and maybe I'll address it.  You gave me one tonight and you were wrong because you confused "can" with "has."  Do you have another?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,00:35

            Staying up late, are we, Dave? Truth is bothersome, eh? Keeps you awake at night.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Give me a specific example of my "lying" and maybe I'll address it.  You gave me one tonight and you were wrong because you confused "can" with "has."  Do you have another?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Sure, Dave. Claiming that you "knew" my religious convictions, my work experience and my feelings about kids. All of your claims about those things were lies. Deliberate lies.
            Care to dispute that, Dave?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,00:46

            Why are you switching between information theory and Crick's definition, Dave? Can Crick's definition be quantified? Can you do that, stupid? Nah, I bet you can't. What you'll do is immerse yourself in ambiguity so you can keep pretending, as you normally do.
            Care to address Schneider's decimation of your hero, Spetner? Has Spetner addressed it in the 6 years since it was published, Dave?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,01:38

            Deadman ... you are truly a study in human behaviour ...

            You say this ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Staying up late, are we, Dave? Truth is bothersome, eh? Keeps you awake at night.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            ... and you fail to notice that there are these neat things called time stamps on posts ...

            You made a post at 2:07 your time ... I made one at 4:58 my time which is 30 minutes after I normally get up every day.

            So what's happening is that YOU are staying up late and the truth apparently is bothering YOU, yet you live in "Opposite Land" so you pretend that I'm the one staying up late being bothered by the truth.

            Wow!

            ***********************************

            Russell--  Before I commit the time to analyzing your example of apparent "ToE in action", let me ask you something ... do you still think the Milano mutation is an example of "increased specificity" --- IOW the type of change required for increased complexity in organisms?  What I am asking is "Are you open minded enough to change your mind about something if I show you the truth about it?"
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,02:06



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deadman ... you are truly a study in human behaviour ...

            You say this ... Quote  
            Staying up late, are we, Dave? Truth is bothersome, eh? Keeps you awake at night.  
            ... and you fail to notice that there are these neat things called time stamps on posts ...
            You made a post at 2:07 your time ... I made one at 4:58 my time which is 30 minutes after I normally get up every day.
            So what's happening is that YOU are staying up late and the truth apparently is bothering YOU, yet you live in "Opposite Land" so you pretend that I'm the one staying up late being bothered by the truth.
            Wow!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I don't sleep Dave. I keep awake to slay people like you. I am People that you cannot find fault in. People that know more than you. You are a liar. You are a thief...you stole other's words. You are a plagiarist. You are a know-nothing who poses, You are a fool. Now what Dave? Aren't you my "friend?"
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,02:18

            I'm still your friend ... God says "a friend loveth at all times" even if it is not appreciated ... being a friend to you and everyone else here does not necessarily mean saying what you WANT to hear ... being a friend means telling you the truth ... about biology ... about history ... and about life ... here and hereafter.
            Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 27 2006,02:29

            So when are you going to start?  Truth has been missing from your posts from the beginning...
            You contemptible little man.

            no hugs for thugs,
            Shirley Knott
            BTW, with friends like you, who needs enemas?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,02:35



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm still your friend ... God says "a friend loveth at all times" even if it is not appreciated ... being a friend to you and everyone else here does not necessarily mean saying what you WANT to hear ... being a friend means telling you the truth ... about biology ... about history ... and about life ... here and hereafter.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Once a liar...never to be trusted, Dave . How's about those Egyptians and Sumerians and Chinese that didn't die, dave?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,02:47

            Deadman:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave has chosen to afflict the most vulnerable--children---with his lies. Demonstrable lies.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            While it's true we've been treated to a cornucopia of lies* in this discussion, I'm still looking for a clear example of where "afdave" OR Dave Hawkins actually lies to children.

            *"Lie" being defined as a falsehood the purveyor of which either knows or has no excuse for not knowing to be a falsehood.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Russell--  Before I commit the time to analyzing your example of apparent "ToE in action", let me ask you something ... do you still think the Milano mutation is an example of "increased specificity" --- IOW the type of change required for increased complexity in organisms?  What I am asking is "Are you open minded enough to change your mind about something if I show you the truth about it?"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I think the Milano mutation is a pretty clear example of a "beneficial mutation". Exactly how it performs better - whether it's what I would call "increased specificity" is still not clear to me. Remember - I have a fairly quantitative definition of "increased specificity", and I haven't actually seen the relevant numbers for this protein.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 27 2006,02:52

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,05:58)
            Improvius...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, I will try one more time:  You would help yourself a great deal at this point if you simply acknowledge that your definition of specificity is a comparison to a source signal, rather than pure information itself.  More specific = closer to the source (less noise), and less specific = farther from the source (more noise).  Just agree to that and we can drop the whole "information debate".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Thanks for the attempted help, but this has nothing to do with the statement "White noise contains more information than a Churchill speech."  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That's entirely my point, YOU IDIOT.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,02:53

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,23:43)

            To paraphrase Alexander Pope

            'To project is human, to reflect divine'
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            So that means I'm GOD, right?  :)

            (Actually, in a manner of speaking, since god was created in man's image, I guess that statement is true!  Now where did I put those lightning-bolts-for-striking-down-lying-AFDave....)

            Seriously, after months of watching AFDave lie, cheat, and steal, and never once even attempting to posit evidence for his actual "hypothesis" (sort of makes this whole thread off-topic, right?), I'm finding this conversation much more interesting than AFDave.  Funny that discussing AFDave is more productive than discussing WITH AFDave.


             
            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,23:43)
            It's funny you say that but I have come to the same conclusion several times when replying to AFD. And have had to catch myself and re-do some comments.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I'm almost ashamed to admit that reading his blather reminds me of myself back in the mid-eighties.  Though I have to say that I'm pretty sure I never went to quite this extreme to deny reality, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't close.  This whole thread regularly brings up memories that make me quite uncomfortable.  It's a hard thing to be constantly reminded of the most embarrassing moments years of your life.

            Nevertheless, I sometimes choose not to go back and remove the things I (moments later) realize are as much painful memories as comments on AFDave.

             
            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,23:43)

            AFD's programming has made him completely immune to world views outside his cult.

            I've noticed this before in religious cults, the programming is actually REINFORCED by pressure from outside agents to change their view. "Thou will be greatly strengthened by challenges to your faith" etc. etc.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Quite.  And that is, after all, the POINT of the programming which takes place.  A believer who looks behind the curtain to see the broken down wizard doesn't cough up their 10% anymore.

             
            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 26 2006,23:43)

            In the end IT IS ALL projection, as BWE's quote of Blake  shows. A consequence of mans ability to 'read minds', a necessary mechanism for social animals. Your dog can read your mind..right? I had my daughters pet rabbit (which she abandoned) playing games  and doing tricks I could read its 'mind'. Any horse person will tell you the same. Those animals are all social animals.


            So by 'projection' what do I mean, it is NOT the ability to see into another mind, that is actually empathy, the projected image of the other persons mind inside our mind is only the reflection of our own mind that is self generated and is limited by intelligence,values and experience .  AFD will say he is completely unaware of that (the consummate politician/liar), he honestly believes his mind is bigger than his brain (god for him) and is able to control those with weaker minds around him (to perform god's wishes)
            ....narcissism.

            AFD's god is his projected 'intelligence' which unfortunately for those around him, makes them stullifyingly stupid.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Indeed.  While not a terribly good device for valid arguments, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense seems to be rather efficient in keeping the sheep in the fold.  And the nacissistic projection of god as one's-self-only-bigger can be rather self-satisfying, I guess.

            Case in point:

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 27 2006,06:38)
            So what's happening is that YOU are staying up late and the truth apparently is bothering YOU, yet you live in "Opposite Land" so you pretend that I'm the one staying up late being bothered by the truth.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            While it may be true that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living god", it would also be true that "It's a less fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living god that thinks just like me."
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,03:06

            Here's a thought, Dave. e-volvere to unroll, to un-wrap.  to unleash upon the universe that is there...life is not some magical thing, it is the synthesis of self-actuated chemo-physico properties. It is a thing that acts upon itself. "God" is the sum of all physical properties, This is Spinozan Pantheism
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,03:36

            Russ- Ive had this discussion concerning "lies" before, which is why I spcified particulars about my life that Dave could never, ever have knowledge about. These are lies, in specific.
            Additional lies would include claims about which statements and data are antithetical. One may call these "mistakes" but if one is aware of the precise opposition of what one proclaims..and if one proclaims the precise opposite of x to be "true" one is lying. I.E if one says 2+2=/=4  in a summational(standard) arithmetic form, one is lying.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,03:36



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Nothing about zero noise here.  In fact, there is no such thing as a noiseless channel in the real world to my knowledge.  It was a very simple question.  Just "is there more info in the speech or the noise?"  Period.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFD you lies for jesus junky.

            You remind me of the guy sitting at the front of the class that everyone gratuitously insults every time you open your stupid trap.

            YOU ARE TALKING about signal(Shannon information, with redundancy) to noise ratio in a SINGLE channel.

            WE ARE talking about TWO CHANNELS where the noise is identical in each channel and the SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO is well above the channel's physical medium noise.

            The first channel has highly compressible DATA (speech)the second channel has DATA (white noise generated by an audio noise source at for example 20db Above the noise floor of the recording equipment) that cannot be compressed.

            The channel's physical medium is a DIGITAL RECORDING.

            The DATA streams consisting 1's and 0's are then compressed with a lossless compression algorithm.

            The gaps in human speech are coded as zero's (for example) PLUS there is a limited amplitude and frequency range for human speech which when converted from the analog domain to the digital domain do not cover the full range of available numbers for each symbol in the data stream.

            When the data stream is compressed the SIZE of the resulting DIGITAL FILE will be LESS than the ORIGINAL digital  recording file size.


            White noise when digitized will contain an equal number of 1's and 0's with no gaps (long strings of 0's) due to quite periods PLUS the FULL frequency range of the channel and a greater amplitude range THAT will produce a larger range of symbols (individual 16 bit words if the digital channels are 16 bit as an example).

            The high level audio noise stored as DATA is MUCH LESS COMPRESSABLE and produces a larger file.

            The QUANTITY of 'Shannon Information' in this case only refers to the COMPRESSED DATA VOLUME in BOTH CASES regardless of the human readable content.

            If you want to extend the analogy to traditional DATA transmission then....

            IT DOES NOT MATTER what the medium is, it could be Fiber Optic, microwave link , morse code or smoke signals or DNA. The channel size (bandwidth and modulation rate for a given symbol set, data transmission is described in symbols per second) and thus sets the TIME required for transmission a given volume of DATA.

            Channel noise will affect both data streams by the same amount and can be ignored since the recieved DATA files will still bear the same file size relationship to one another after reception.

            In this case you are conflating channel noise with high level audio noise stored AS DIGITAL DATA.

            Now tell us you don't understand this.

            You are either being completely disingenuous are deliberately lying, in any case both are inexcusable for someone who claims to be an EE.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,03:37

            Today's thought for the day from LiveScience's < Today in History > page...



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            “The man who does not learn is dark, like one walking in the night.''

            — Chinese proverb.    
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Appropriate, I think.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,03:59

            AFD


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I'm still your friend ... God says "a friend loveth at all times" even if it is not appreciated ... being a friend to you and everyone else here does not necessarily mean saying what you WANT to hear ... being a friend means telling you the truth ... about biology ... about history ... and about life ... here and hereafter.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            oooh AFD sucks up, preaching to the 'enemy' is part of your mission is it davey boy?

            Or do the two legged sheep from your church wander away when you get up on the Pulpit?

            Sheep are boring, aren't they AFD?

            Correct me if I'm wrong but the only 'history' you accept is a few dried and dead fictions in just one book, everything thing else must be contorted to fit the fable...right?

            It's not just science in danger from the Dogmatists. History and thus the  future would be their next targets once they have Evolution removed from biology classes.

            <i> ...here and hereafter</i>

            snicker ...don't get me going about the 'hereafter'....oh OK....  just get anyone whose died to give me a call AFD. Howabout Napoleon? He was a narcisist driven mad by the dream of reason...could be an interesting conversation.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,04:17

            Lou FCD


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So that means I'm GOD, right? ;)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            The Hindu greeting is to clasp together their open hands (as if to pray) point them to the guest, bow and say 'Namaste'

            'I greet the god in you' ;)

            In one word that sums up the difference between Western and Eastern Religion.

            There is a cave somewhere in India (Joeseph Campbell talks about it in one of his talks) where there is a painting of 'god'(a symbolic represenation to be taken subjectively). It has a head with a male face pointing to the right and a female face pointing to the left, one wonders if Picassso was inspired by that. Several of his paintings repeat that theme, "The Dream" by him recently in the news has the male and female face kissing on the one female body, his sleeping mistress in this case.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 27 2006,04:21

            AFDAVE STILL CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS UCGH!!!
            Dave, You have'nt replied to my < TIMELINE QUESTIONS. >
            Nor have you replied to my < HLA INFORMATION >that YOU ASKED FOR.
            Nor have you replied to my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM. >

            *******************************
            You go on the road for a few days, come back and review 10 pages of this world famous thread and pick up a few gems.  The creativity (as opposed to the creationisity) of posters is enlightening.
            Some good old fashioned ribbing...        
            Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Oct. 24 2006,02:58)
            I'm still open to suggestions for a type specimen name for Davey and his comrads, I'm leaning towards Homo simplex at this time.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

               
            Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 24 2006,15:44)
            then I would suggest that  H. tardus or (my favorite of the moment) H. refluxus come closer to capturing the essence of the new species than H. simplex.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             
            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 24 2006,16:53)
            "H. cretinus" has the advantage of good solid Latin roots and the added bonus of the double meaning
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Some classic goal post movement from our resident YEC.  He argues about Information content, gets smacked down, then changes the meaning of what he's debating.        
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,10:44)
            However, when an intelligent agent begins drawing the balls out and communicating the color, now we have the potential for Meaningful Information (which I simply abbreviate as Information ... I fail to see how Information is Information at all unless it is meaningful to SOMEONE).  Be that as it may,...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Henry J called this one a day earlier...      
            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2006,16:19)
            Re "One contains more pure information and the other is more informitive to circa 1942 Britons. "

            Yeah, maybe he's confusing "information" with "useful information" (which is a subjective judgment).

            Henry
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think Russel hits on a key item causing confusion between AFDave and others.  AFDave views his entire world as anthropocentric, including G*D.  How many times has Dave limited his G*Ds abilities to human-like limitations of design/thought/action?      
            Quote (Russel @ Oct. 24 2006,11:41)
                   

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I believe that humans are "at the pinnacle of God's creation" which has all kinds of implications: humans have civil rights,receive sophisticated medical care, are punished for committing murder, and so on.  I observe that there is such a thing as a "harmful mutation." This necessarily implies design.  Why?  Because how else would you be able to tell if it is harmful or not?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             
            But if you're going to use your anthropocentric, nonscientific criteria, can't you at least be consistent?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            incorygible comes up with a strike, and jupiter helps define the term a little.    
            Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 24 2006,12:41)
            Which is why we told you to quit using this ridiculous "upward evolution" term (which you seem to have pulled out of your orifice of miscomprehension)...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             
            Quote (jupiter @ Oct. 24 2006,17:48)
            Is that anything like the < moustache of understanding >? They both seem to have similar functions, e.g., allowing an organism to maintain an unwarranted sense of superiority within a hostile environment of scientific research, basic reasoning, and reality. Clearly these are beneficial mutations for the individual organisms, but harmful (or at least deeply annoying) to the larger population.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            k.e rips apart the fog of the arguments to come up with clear reasoning about AIG.  It makes you realize WHY AIG exists in the first place.  If they were to compete in the peer-reviewed field of science they would be utterly, completely, marginalized and disappear from the page.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFD AiG is NEVER RIGHT EVER, EVER, EVER, 100%

            Not even once.

            BY DEFINITION it is anti right.

            IF they posted actual non pseudo science they would be absolutely irrelevant, they would literally disappear in a puff of logical smoke.

            It would cease to exist, there would be no reason for its IP address, it would have passed on, carked it, turned up its toes, shuffled off its mortal coil........
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And all this on a Tuesday.  I'll have to keep reading and catch up on this roller-coaster ride of "Science vs. Semantics".
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 27 2006,04:37

            Deacon Dave Hawkins – liar, cheat, moron, abuser of children’s trust,  AIG charlatan wanna-be, ATBC board clown.

            Davie, I noticed you didn't address at all the huge holes in your 'specificity' claim.  Why is that Dave?

            Which has more specificity Dave, Ken Ham or an amoeba dubia, and why?

            BTW, some time ago you promised to address the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration issue, and the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone issue, and the 500' deep limestone canyon buried under 17000 ft. of sediment issue.

            What happened to those promises Dave?  Looks like you were lying about them too, right?
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,04:41

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 27 2006,09:17)
            Lou FCD
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So that means I'm GOD, right? ;)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            The Hindu greeting is to clasp together their open hands (as if to pray) point them to the guest, bow and say 'Namaste'

            'I greet the god in you' ;)

            In one word that sums up the difference between Western and Eastern Religion.

            There is a cave somewhere in India (Joeseph Campbell talks about it in one of his talks) where there is a painting of 'god'(a symbolic represenation to be taken subjectively). It has a head with a male face pointing to the right and a female face pointing to the left, one wonders if Picassso was inspired by that. Several of his paintings repeat that theme, "The Dream" by him recently in the news has the male and female face kissing on the one female body, his sleeping mistress in this case.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I grok god.
            Posted by: Ved on Oct. 27 2006,04:44



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you lying sack of shit
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,04:44

            Y'know it's fun anyway. I hear freakin' parrots flocking that people released in Los Angeles long ago. I hear Mississippi John Hurt on the CD, I watch the sun come up and I'm happy. I can grok god, too
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,04:58

            Deadman - I'm not saying that the "afdave" persona is not clearly "lying" - by your definition or mine - here on this site. I'm just saying I've seen no actual evidence of his lying to children. He may be having fun yanking our chains here, but the stuff on "K4T" seems considerably more circumspect, and that's about all I can actually find.

            Mind you, if he makes "personal appearances" for kids, in which he spouts Ken Ham-like rhetoric - that's definitely "lying", by my definition. But maybe in real life, the mischievous, chain-yanking character we've come to know and love here, has more integrity than that. I just don't know.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,05:01

            I said ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            KEN HAM VS. A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM -- WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC?
            Answer:  Ken Ham  

            Why?

            Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism which is why the genome is much larger.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             Whooops!

            Let's just lop off the end of that sentence where it says "which is why the genome is much larger."

            I did not know that there was an amoeba with 230X the number of base pairs as a human ... very interesting!

            Here's my new revised statement then ...

            Why? Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism.

            Again, the best definition that I can come up with so far for biological information is Crick's ... which is ...

            Biological Information is Precise Determination of Sequence

            Now let's have a shot at a definition of Biological Specificity ... try this one on for size ...

            Biological Specificity is the Sum of All Unique Functions in an Organism

            Now I know cars better than cells, so I will use an analogy to explain what I mean.  To use my car analogy, a car has a large function for transmitting power to the wheels we call the drive train, which can be subdivided into many sub-functions, like the engine, the transmission, the U-joint, the driveshafts and the wheels.  These sub-functions can in turn be subdivided into smaller functions such as the wheel has a rim, a tire a brake system, etc.  As we can see there are many unique functions in a car which have to be manufactured in a very SPECIFIC sort of way in order for the car as a whole to operate.

            In the same way, every living organism is a system of large functions which are composed of "sub-functions."  Now I will tread carefully here because I obviously misspoke about genome size, but I think that a worm would have more unique functions than a bacteria or an amoeba (single celled organism), and a lizard (reptile) would have more than a worm, for example.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  

            Now I'm not sure about comparisons between things like humans and lizards and mosquitos.  It is possible to me that these could all have close to the same number of unique functions, thus specificity, they would just have many DIFFERENT functions ... although many would also be the same.

            ****************************

            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I think the Milano mutation is a pretty clear example of a "beneficial mutation". Exactly how it performs better - whether it's what I would call "increased specificity" is still not clear to me. Remember - I have a fairly quantitative definition of "increased specificity", and I haven't actually seen the relevant numbers for this protein.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I agree that it appears to be beneficial at the moment.  I do wonder what will happen when there are homozygotes.  Will we have another bad situation like with sickle cell anemia?  To me, sickle cell is clearly not the type of change required to validate ToE.  Do me a favor and repost the link to your work and summarize for me why you think this is an example of change that validates ToE.

            As for your loss of respect for Behe ... two comments ...

            1)  With the stacks of books supposedly explaining the evolution of the immune system, i think Behe (like me) see all this speculation about how it could have evolved as a monumental waste of good talent.  I think his point is ... why not spend those brain cells learning about the amazing DESIGN? (regardless of who you think the designer might be).  After all, we learn how to repair and maintain man made things much better if we study their designs.  Why would this not be so with biological designs also?

            2)  As for astrology being called science, I think if someone wants to call it science, let them.  After all, we let you call ToE science.  And you can no more prove that macroevolution is true any more than an astrologer can prove that I'm in a good mood because the planets are lined up.  If there is a large enough following of these fringe ideas in the larger marketplace of ideas, fine.  If ToE advocates feel threatened by astrology, then one has to ask the question, "Is ToE really that weak?  Does it need millions of dollars of government funding in order to maintain it's prestige?"

            ****************************

            k.e ... tell you what ... if you want to believe that white noise contains more info than a speech, you just go right ahead, K?  I'll like you just as much ... promise! :-)
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,05:12

            Baby, that's all right, that's all right for you.
            Baby, that's all right.
            Baby, that's all right, honey, that's all right for you
            P.S. Ken Ham is even dumber than ...well...take a guess. Bwahahaha. Astrology. "Science" .  Behe.
            Hey, Dave, how's about that Schneider paper, actually presented in a real science journal? How's about those darn Egyptians?
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 27 2006,05:30



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Whither are they gone, Divine One?"

            "To the earth -- they and all their fellow animals."

            "What is the earth?"

            "A small globe I made, a time, two times and a half ago. You saw it, but did not notice it in the explosion of worlds and suns that sprayed from my hand. Man is an experiment, the other animals are another experiment. Time will show whether they were worth the trouble. The exhibition is over; you may take your leave, my lords."

            Several days passed by.

            This stands for a long stretch of (our) time, since in heaven a day is as a thousand years.

            Satan had been making admiring remarks about certain of the Creator's sparkling industries -- remarks which, being read between the lines, were sarcasms. He had made them confidentially to his safe friends the other archangels, but they had been overheard by some ordinary angels and reported at Headquarters.

            He was ordered into banishment for a day -- the celestial day. It was a punishment he was used to, on account of his too flexible tongue. Formerly he had been deported into Space, there being nowhither else to send him, and had flapped tediously around there in the eternal night and the Arctic chill; but now it occurred to him to push on and hunt up the earth and see how the Human-Race experiment was coming along.

            By and by he wrote home -- very privately -- to St. Michael and St. Gabriel about it.
            Satan's Letter

            This is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at is worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the "noblest work of God." This is the truth I am telling you. And this is not a new idea with him, he has talked it through all the ages, and believed it. Believed it, and found nobody among all his race to laugh at it.

            Moreover -- if I may put another strain upon you -- he thinks he is the Creator's pet. He believes the Creator is proud of him; he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes, and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to Him, and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea? Fills his prayers with crude and bald and florid flatteries of Him, and thinks He sits and purrs over these extravagancies and enjoys them. He prays for help, and favor, and protection, every day; and does it with hopefulness and confidence, too, although no prayer of his has ever been answered. The daily affront, the daily defeat, do not discourage him, he goes on praying just the same. There is something almost fine about this perseverance. I must put one more strain upon you: he thinks he is going to heaven!

            He has salaried teachers who tell him that. They also tell him there is a ####, of everlasting fire, and that he will go to it if he doesn't keep the Commandments. What are Commandments? They are a curiosity. I will tell you about them by and by.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < Mark Twain, "Letters From The Earth" > (may we joyfully raise our cups to her confounding mysteries).

            It's a relatively short read and well worth it.

            Dave, you could rebuild your reputation if you'd ever get around to the portuguese debate with me. You see, you have to have a point/counterpoint kind of a thing to get to the meat of something so far outside the realm of everyday consideration.

            And if you could look at the core sample thing and show how it demonstrates a 6k year old Earth (may we celebrate our virility in her name), you would have your evidence for your hypothesis. If, on the other hand, you were to find that core samples conclusively demonstrate an Earth (may we write on hemp paper in her name) of say, more than that, you could work on figuring out what your revised hypothesis might be.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,05:33



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Ack! Stop that when I'm listening to Floyd, plz. Thnx
            The tolling of the iron bell
            Calls the faithful to their knees
            To hear the softly spoken magic spells
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,05:41

            Quote (Ved @ Oct. 27 2006,10:44)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you lying sack of shit
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'm going to look into something like 24-hour bans for people who can't control themselves. Like a timeout, or a cooling off period.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,05:48

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,10:01)
            Again, the best definition that I can come up with so far for biological information is Crick's ... which is ...

            Biological Information is Precise Determination of Sequence

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, is there ever a time when the DNA sequence of an organism's genome is not precisely determined?

            If you pull any random strand of DNA (even non-coding DNA, or DNA just stapled together from random nucleotides) is there ever any ambiguity to the sequencing? What is "Precise Determination of Sequence," and when is it ever not present? So does this mean that any DNA sequence has exactly the same amount of biological information? Is there any way to quantify biological information? Or is this just another meaningless term, like "genetically rich"?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,05:53



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I agree that it [the apo-AI-Milano mutation] appears to be beneficial at the moment.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            OK. Now, in light of the fact that we can never rule out learning a downside next year, or 200 years from now, what will constitute, in your mind, a more clear example of a beneficial mutation. Explain to me why I would not be playing Charlie Brown's sucker to Lucy's football prank if I go looking for yet another example?

            Not a quantifiable gain in "specificity" you say? That's why I offered my own work on a < viral methyltransferase on page 51 of this discussion >. In brief, I describe mutations in an enzyme that results in a measurable survival/reproductive advantage due to a measurable increase in that enzyme's ability to bind its substrate, after I intentionally changed the environment the virus was growing in.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            With the stacks of books supposedly explaining the evolution of the immune system, i think Behe (like me) see all this speculation about how it could have evolved as a monumental waste of good talent.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Um... no. It's not "speculation". It's experimental research, you know, data collection, quantitative analysis, elucidation of structure... all organized around the theory of evolution. Now, "monumental waste of good talent" - that's another example where I think you just have to be joking. You think the field of immunogenetics has been useless, even from your anthropocentric perspective? You think that the ID track record on scientific productivity is a good selling point to be hawking? Can you tell me one single useful development in biology or medicine that can be ascribed to a creationist scientist working with a creationist model any time in the past 100 years? I think this is more chain-yanking.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As for astrology being called science, I think if someone wants to call it science, let them.  After all, we let you call ToE science.  And you can no more prove that macroevolution is true any more than an astrologer can prove that I'm in a good mood because the planets are lined up.  If there is a large enough following of these fringe ideas in the larger marketplace of ideas, fine.  If ToE advocates feel threatened by astrology, then one has to ask the question, "Is ToE really that weak?  Does it need millions of dollars of government funding in order to maintain it's prestige?"
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            More chain yanking. You can't possibly really believe this. You really think that the mountains of sequence data, the fossil sequences [for which, come to think of it, I gave a half-dozen links for you to explain weeks ago, but you never got around to], the coherence of the theory, the fact that it forms the foundation for every university department, textbook, countless professional journals in dozens of biologically-oriented disciplines... you think all that has the same standing as astrology? You think that evolution is a fringe idea?! I'm not buying it. But if you want to take that line, by all means be my guest. It's probably the best way to educate the public on the absurdity of the creationist position.

            And what, in what I or anyone else wrote, would ever lead you to conclude that "ToE advocates feel threatened by astrology"?!?! If that's not chain-yanking, it's a pathetically desperate rhetorical ruse.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,05:58

            Una chingada de pinche mamada mierda?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 27 2006,05:58

            Dave now adds a third definition for 'specificity'.  It's now the 'sum of all functions.'
            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 27 2006,10:01)
            Biological Specificity is the Sum of All Unique Functions in an Organism

            Now I know cars better than cells, so I will use an analogy to explain what I mean.  To use my car analogy, a car has a large function for transmitting power to the wheels we call the drive train, which can be subdivided into many sub-functions, like the engine, the transmission, the U-joint, the driveshafts and the wheels.  These sub-functions can in turn be subdivided into smaller functions such as the wheel has a rim, a tire a brake system, etc.  As we can see there are many unique functions in a car which have to be manufactured in a very SPECIFIC sort of way in order for the car as a whole to operate.

            In the same way, every living organism is a system of large functions which are composed of "sub-functions."  Now I will tread carefully here because I obviously misspoke about genome size, but I think that a worm would have more unique functions than a bacteria or an amoeba (single celled organism), and a lizard (reptile) would have more than a worm, for example.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  

            Now I'm not sure about comparisons between things like humans and lizards and mosquitos.  It is possible to me that these could all have close to the same number of unique functions, thus specificity, they would just have many DIFFERENT functions ... although many would also be the same.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OK, now explain to me why you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

            To use your car analogy - if I take a performance street car, and I bolt a wing to the rear deck, I have added a function (providing aerodynamic downforce) that increases performance without changing any of the other functions you named. If I want, I can remove functions (i.e. take out the passenger seat to save weight) to achieve a faster car.  

            Mutations can add functions (i.e. ability to digest nylon), mutations can remove functions (i.e. eyes in blind cave fish) - the only 'goal' is to maximize the survival potential.  Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 27 2006,06:06

            I'd rather point at Dave and laugh and laugh. He's dumb.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 27 2006,06:15



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Why? Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, remember back in the spring when I was berating you about whether Adam and Eve had immune systems in the garden?  Well, eventually you pointed me (or else I found on my own, but I think it was you) at an AIG article which said the immune system "maintained body integrity."  Hmm, saying nothing of fighting disease.  After all, there was none in the garden.  So don't humans perform specified functions now that weren't performed in the past?  You know, increased specificity?

            Does it hurt to be disemboweled constantly for 6 months?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,06:25

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, is there ever a time when the DNA sequence of an organism's genome is not precisely determined? If you pull any random strand of DNA (even non-coding DNA, or DNA just stapled together from random nucleotides) is there ever any ambiguity to the sequencing? What is "Precise Determination of Sequence," and when is it ever not present? So does this mean that any DNA sequence has exactly the same amount of biological information? Is there any way to quantify biological information? Or is this just another meaningless term, like "genetically rich"?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would say YES to the first question.  An example would be any one of the long list of catalogued harmful mutations.  In each of these cases, there was a substituted base (or bases) that caused a protein to be formed incorrectly.  Why?  Because it was no longer precisely specified.  An "A" was supposed to be there (precise specification) but instead a "G" or a "C" or a "T" (imprecise) got substituted, hence the dysfunction.

            Diogenes ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If we start with a pair of perfect creatures on the ark, would there not be heavy selective pressure to maintain this perfect form?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            First, they were not perfect.  They had accumulated 1600 or so years of mutations.  Secondly, selective pressure as I understand it is a function of different environments--hot/cold, predators/no predators, food supply, etc.  As each founder pair spread out from the Ark, the standard laws of population genetics dictate that each isolated group would have manifested different features, much as we see quite different variants of the same species today even on opposite sides of a mountain range.  I think you still have an erroneous view of the fomrs on the ark.  Again, they were not "perfect" like superdogs, etc.  They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If they are litterally pefect, ideal in form and function, than every single mutation with a phenotypic change would move them away from perfection, and therefore be deleterious?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Either deleterious or neutral.  Remember though that just because we think a mutation is neutral because the harmful effects are not obvious, this does not mean that we will not discover at some point in the future what harmful effect really is there.  Sickle cell anemia is a perfect example.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Would the decendants of this mutated child not be less fit, and therefore more likely to die, and less likely to breed than his perfect brethren?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Remember Ayala's words that mutations are a mere trickle in relation to the built in variability of species. (And I would say they are not even a trickle in a positive sense ... I would say they are a "bad trickle" because all the good adaptive variability was already there--built in from Creation)  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Even if a mutation did become fixed, at some future point could a mutation occur that returns the particular gene back to it's former form, and would this newly reperfected form not have a selective advantage (and would this not be an example of a beneficial mutation)?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            It could, certainly.  But again it depends on that organism's environment at that time.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If we look at the genetic differences within a single kind could we estimate the historic mutation rate necessary to produce the modern diversification of life within 4500 years?  Is the historic mutation rate the rate we see today?  If not, why has the mutation rate changed, and when did it change?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would assume that it has always been roughly the same rate since Creation.  But again, mutations are not the source of variability.  Variability is built in!  And we can have massive variability in only one generation!  How much more in 4500 years with massive migration and subsequent isolation of groups?


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Why did mutations only begin after the flood?  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I have never said this.  My guess is that began at the Fall & Curse.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Were mutations caused by The Fall?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            That's a good guess.  I'll tell you for sure when I meet God face to face in Heaven.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Of the hundreds of millions of species God created, why are 99.9% of them extinct?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I can only guess again ... but I think God wanted to show the awful ETERNAL results of sin with a small reminder in the physical world--that is, suffering and death.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 27 2006,06:27

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 27 2006,11:15)
            Dave, remember back in the spring when I was berating you about whether Adam and Eve had immune systems in the garden?  Well, eventually you pointed me (or else I found on my own, but I think it was you) at an AIG article which said the immune system "maintained body integrity."  Hmm, saying nothing of fighting disease.  After all, there was none in the garden....
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hmmm. when did god make the diseases?

            And this is a burning question I also have: Did god make sand?

            Do you know that you have NOT debated the portuguese thing with me and that I took YOUR bet to do so?
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 27 2006,06:33



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, I thought you'd given up on this being a meaningful statement.  So, what's the maximum number of alleles that could have been contained by a given "kind" on the ark at a single locus?

            (a) 2
            (b) 4
            © depends on how many genes affect the trait
            (d) Screw Punnett!  As many as I can imagine!
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,06:33

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 27 2006,10:53)
            If that's not chain-yanking, it's a pathetically desperate rhetorical ruse.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, Dave's got to be feeling pathetically desperate these days. I mean, he's just been knocked senseless, repeatedly, over and over again these past few weeks. More of the same, really, but the bloodletting has been really gory the past few weeks. After the evisceration of his claims vis à vis the Michael Denton diagram, the demolition of his redrawing of the "tree of life," the spanking he got over "genetic richness," the pummeling he got over Milano, and even the smackdown he took over information theory (which was particularly entertaining for me, because I know jack about information theory; I just happen to know more than Dave does!), he's got to be feeling a bit sore lately. Hence the lashing out and comparing the theory of evolution to astrology.

            Of course, he still doesn't get what's wrong with this thread: he still hasn't even begun to find support for his "hypothesis." Unless you considering proposing things like "genetic richness"  some sort of "support."

            Who was it who said that basically this entire thread is off-topic? That was a good one.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 27 2006,06:36

            OK, one more question, and then I'm done for now.  If sickle cell is necessarily deleterious, why is it increasing in areas endemic for malaria?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,06:44

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,11:25)
            Eric...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, is there ever a time when the DNA sequence of an organism's genome is not precisely determined? If you pull any random strand of DNA (even non-coding DNA, or DNA just stapled together from random nucleotides) is there ever any ambiguity to the sequencing? What is "Precise Determination of Sequence," and when is it ever not present? So does this mean that any DNA sequence has exactly the same amount of biological information? Is there any way to quantify biological information? Or is this just another meaningless term, like "genetically rich"?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would say YES to the first question.  An example would be any one of the long list of catalogued harmful mutations.  In each of these cases, there was a substituted base (or bases) that caused a protein to be formed incorrectly.  Why?  Because it was no longer precisely specified.  An "A" was supposed to be there (precise specification) but instead a "G" or a "C" or a "T" (imprecise) got substituted, hence the dysfunction.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But what about the exact same thing when it's adaptively neutral? What if a substituted base pair doesn't change the amino acid sequence? Has "biological information" still been lost?

            What about a tandem repeat? Does that amount in an increase in "biological information," a decrease, or does the amount of "biological information" remain the same?

            And how about actually beneficial mutations (which, let it not be forgotten, you've admitted actually occur)? Do these increase "biological information"? After all, it's still the same number of base pairs.

            And if you say that because a nucleotide could be substituted for the "correct" one means the sequence is not  "precisely determined," then it's never precisely determined, because a point mutation can occur at any time at any locus. So when, exactly, is the genetic sequence "precisely determined"? Are you saying that "biological information" means that a completely non-mutated genome (whatever that means) has maximal "biological information," and any change to the genome whatsoever, positive neutral or negative, implies a reduction in "biological information"?

            I don't think you've thought this "biological information" thing through very well. I suspect that once we get you pinned down on what you mean by it, it's not going to be any more meaningful that "genetic richness."
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,06:51

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 27 2006,11:33)
            Who was it who said that basically this entire thread is off-topic? That was a good one.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            <blush>  Thanks.

            < Page just before this one. >

            I'd like to thank the acadamy... and my mom...

            Seriously, though.  There is no scientific theory of ID, and there is no UCGH.

            Far as I can tell (and again, I'm just the Son of a carpenter), AFDave hasn't even attempted to present evidence.  He's just rambled on and on about stuff about which he quite obviously knows nothing, been shown to be ridiculous, waits for the page to turn, then spouts gibberish about some more stuff about which he knows nothing.

            Occasionally he copies and pastes some irrelevent bullshit from AiG, and just for fun he occasionally c&ps some actual science (invariably still irrelevent to the UCGH) which says exactly the opposite of what HE just said.  (Aside from The Red Dot Incident, that's the funniest part, IMHO.)

            So truthfully, this whole thread and its predecessor are just larger versions of The Bathroom Wall.

            Scribble at will.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,06:52

            W/R/T genetic degeneration since "the Fall": is there any fossil evidence of this? (e.g. fossil creatures being bigger, stronger, more symmetrical, any measure at all) as we go further back in time? Why not?

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Perhaps not. But we can put a maximum on it, can't we? That would be 4 alleles for for each gene for every pair of animals represented by one male and one female (except, for instance, Y-chromosome genes in mammals, where only one allele would be represented). So according to Davism, this is the maximum number of non-degenerate alleles currently in circulation. So what about those hundreds of MHC alleles? All but four are degenerate? Any way to test this hypothesis? Or is it just "by definition"? (We'll restrict our discussion to the "unclean" animals, represented, if I recall correctly, by just one male/female pair. Same principle applies to the "clean" animals - 7 pairs? - but why complicate our task here?)


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Were mutations caused by The Fall?"
            That's a good guess.  I'll tell you for sure when I meet God face to face in Heaven.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            How will you do that? Oh wait! Perhaps I'm being too literal; perhaps this is just a little joke. But then, is any of the "afdave" act not?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,07:03



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            k.e ... tell you what ... if you want to believe that white noise contains more info than a speech, you just go right ahead, K?  I'll like you just as much ... promise! :-)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            I'll take that as a win AFD ...you just can't admit defeat can you.



            A better analogy would be comparing the file size of 2 jpg's, one of 'snow' on a TV screen and one with a text of churchills speech on a TV screen but the text aranged in random order ...wriggle out of that.... if you can AFD.

            'Shannon Information' is not in the least bit concerned with the SUBJECTIVE MEANING of the text.

            DATA vs CONTENT

            AFD ...tell you what .. if you want to believe that AiG contains more (AFD) information than white noise  you just go right ahead, K?  I'll not think any less ? of you ... promise! :-)
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,07:04

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 27 2006,12:52)
            W/R/T genetic degeneration since "the Fall": is there any fossil evidence of this? (e.g. fossil creatures being bigger, stronger, more symmetrical, any measure at all) as we go further back in time? Why not?  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Perhaps not. But we can put a maximum on it, can't we? That would be 4 alleles for for each gene for every pair of animals represented by one male and one female (except, for instance, Y-chromosome genes in mammals, where only one allele would be represented). So according to Davism, this is the maximum number of non-degenerate alleles currently in circulation. So what about those hundreds of MHC alleles? All but four are degenerate? Any way to test this hypothesis? Or is it just "by definition"? (We'll restrict our discussion to the "unclean" animals, represented, if I recall correctly, by just one male/female pair. Same principle applies to the "clean" animals - 7 pairs? - but why complicate our task here?)
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Were mutations caused by The Fall?"
            That's a good guess.  I'll tell you for sure when I meet God face to face in Heaven.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            How will you do that? Oh wait! Perhaps I'm being too literal; perhaps this is just a little joke. But then, is any of the "afdave" act not?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Russell, haven't you ever heard of saber-toothed tigers? Those are waaaay more badass than modern devolved tigers.


            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,07:17

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,11:25)
            They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You mean, "meaning nothing at all." "Genetically rich" doesn't mean anything, Dave, and it does absolutely nothing for your attempt to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species in less than five millennia. Living organisms have a significant amount of heterozygosity, so how were Noah's "genetically rich" organisms any different?

            And you still have no explanation for the vastly accelerated mutation rates, leading to genes with hundreds of alleles in a handful of generations (or one generation!), mutation rates that would probably be fatal.

            The interesting thing is that Dave believes in macroevolution just as much as any dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary biologist. He just thinks it happens millions of times faster.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,07:19

            Seek treatment AFD ...see if you can find the source for this.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Just as we can contribute to our own illness in other diseases, we can contribute to our own mental disorder. We can do this by willfully believing lies. For example, denial of reality, projection, make-believe, phoniness, unknowing, calling things what they ain't, wishful thinking, anti-logic, whistling in the dark, acting out charades, and all the mental tricks people play, and all the little games people play are lies. When a person lies to himself (friends don't lie to friends), he is being his own worst enemy and sabotaging his own mind.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,07:37



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The interesting thing is that Dave believes in macroevolution just as much as any dyed-in-the-wool evolutionary biologist. He just thinks it happens millions of times faster.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFD has no ability to conceptualize time.

            The information thing is a case in point he doesn't even consider that it is a metric of information transmission and interchangeable with channel bandwidth.

            For him the wool is so firmly pulled over his eyes that to even remotely consider the implications of rate of change and time would mean instant death for his projected ego ...his god ..in other words.

            He has a hard won cultish veneer lacquered over a deep insecurity that provides him with the ability to disregard reality.  The racing continents for example.

            So why does he use the 'language of science' without the empirical evidence.

            It feeds his need to seem superior to his family and friends and because AiG provides a sciency looking story that allows his ark to float, he can accept his own deluded dreams as if they were reality..

            In fact as I have said before all this engagement by us FEEDS his NPD, its the fuel for his insanity.

            The best thing to do would be to withdraw the fuel.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 27 2006,07:38

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 25 2006,18:17)
             
            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,18:58)
            Why does Dave do this?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Could it be Dave is the incarnation of "The Straw Man"?  He appears real, but is easily dismissed.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Straw Man Dave.

            A guy leaves a crowded bar, late. Obviously drunk, staggering, fumbling for his keys and etc.

            As he pulls out onto the highway, the cop, parked across the street from the bar, follows him a bit, then pulls him over.

            "So," the cop says, "I don't suppose you are the designated driver are you?"

            "No," the man replies, " I'm the designated decoy."


            So, what bar is emptying out as we are discussing the age of Earth (May we rejoice in her decision to include sexual selection)?






            < See "When Heathen Pray" >  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            We, as God’s Children, are warned NOT to pray as the unsaved religious people do (reading out of prayer books, praying to statues, reciting chants, etc).  It’s difficult to comprehend a person having religion and yet lacking salvation.  

            The fact is religion is the worst thing that ever happened to this world. It is religion itself that prevents so many multitudes from knowing Jesus Christ as personal Savior.  Most of what people call "religion" is nothing more than the wicked trying to impress God by earning their way into heaven.  “Religion” has taught people that “good works” can save them. Let me say to you, God cannot be impressed with your good works.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: Richard Simons on Oct. 27 2006,07:48

            Dave,

            You really, really, really need to learn some basic genetics. You don't even need an entire course on genetics - a first year, one semester university course on introductory biology should contain enough. Then you won't keep babbling this nonsense about 'genetically rich' animals.

            Trying to answer why there are fossils, you say 'I think God wanted to show the awful ETERNAL results of sin with a small reminder in the physical world--that is, suffering and death.' So what sin was Eohippus (or any other fossil) guilty of?

            I'm enjoying your inability to grasp the concept of 'information' in information theory. My knowledge is weak, and I'm sure someone else could correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it is 'how much do you need to know to recreate the original?' In the case of human speech, relatively little. From the point of white noise, an awful lot to recreate the exact same white noise.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 27 2006,07:57

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 27 2006,13:37)
            For him the wool is so firmly pulled over his eyes that to even remotely consider the implications of rate of change and time would mean instant death for his projected ego ...his god ..in other words.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave is risking far more than his ego.

            Consider:  All of Dave’s friends, family, his entire social and emotional support network is tied up with his faith.  It’s very common for Christians to live their lives isolated from all meaningful outside contact.

            To accept the fact of evolution means Dave no longer has any life.

            Is it any wonder he struggles to comprehend?
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 27 2006,08:17

            AFDAVE ANSWERS OTHERS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UCGH BUT IGNORES MIKE PSS.  WHY DOES AFDAVE EXERCISE THIS SELECTIVE NATURE OF INFORMATION?
             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,12:25)
            {snip}
            As each founder pair spread out from the Ark, the standard laws of population genetics dictate that each isolated group would have manifested different features, much as we see quite different variants of the same species today even on opposite sides of a mountain range.  I think you still have an erroneous view of the fomrs on the ark.  Again, they were not "perfect" like superdogs, etc.  They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.
            {snip}
            Remember Ayala's words that mutations are a mere trickle in relation to the built in variability of species. (And I would say they are not even a trickle in a positive sense ... I would say they are a "bad trickle" because all the good adaptive variability was already there--built in from Creation)
            {snip}  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            If we look at the genetic differences within a single kind could we estimate the historic mutation rate necessary to produce the modern diversification of life within 4500 years?  Is the historic mutation rate the rate we see today?  If not, why has the mutation rate changed, and when did it change?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I would assume that it has always been roughly the same rate since Creation.  But again, mutations are not the source of variability.  Variability is built in!  And we can have massive variability in only one generation!  How much more in 4500 years with massive migration and subsequent isolation of groups?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave,
            If population genetics dictate that the Ark humans had, at most, 16 alleles of HLA then how does the UCGH explain the 500 alleles found in the population today?

            I repeat this question and refer to my previous posts that explain this line of reasoning in more detail.

            Dave, You have'nt replied to my < TIMELINE QUESTIONS. >
            Nor have you replied to my < HLA INFORMATION >that YOU ASKED FOR.

            Mike PSS

            p.s.  Nor have you replied to my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM. >
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,08:22

            AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 27 2006,08:32

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,14:22)
            AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ...or his position as treasurer of kids4truth?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,08:43



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Hmmmmm

            SteveS you should know by now he is in the middle of one of his sessions with scissors and glue even as you ask that question.

            He may make a little post to throw us first, but dollars to doughnuts he'll give us a page full of absolute cr*p, one of his second hand chewing gum reposts of denial.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 27 2006,08:49

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,14:22)
            AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Losing your entire emotional, spiritual and physical support network is always difficult, but in some cases it can result in full-blown psychosis.

            And trust me, Steve, if Dave embraces evolution he will no longer have a part in the church.  It will either be immediate or (more likely) it will be gradual as people begin to distance themselves from him.

            The key for anyone in that type of situation is to have support from family.  Hopefully if Dave takes the leap his wife will leap along with him.

            If not, it could be very troubling.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,09:04

            ScaryFacts said.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave is risking far more than his ego.

            Consider:  All of Dave’s friends, family, his entire social and emotional support network is tied up with his faith.  It’s very common for Christians to live their lives isolated from all meaningful outside contact.

            To accept the fact of evolution means Dave no longer has any life.

            Is it any wonder he struggles to comprehend?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            The age old problem of the clash of horizons.

            Jews vs Moslems, and so on, humans divided by nothing other than dogma.

            Religion is so intent on looking back and inward that whenever there is a challenge to its dogma it more often makes the choice not to go beyond the horizon set by its dogma. The Amish are a classic example

            Science is the archetypal explorer determined to go beyond the horizon, even if there are demons over an imaginary line.

            And those demons are VERY REAL to AFD.

            All his fears of what lies beyond his safe little world haunt him.

            They are however, only in his mind.

            NASA calls their mission to Pluto (I think) "New horizons" to perhaps capture the public imagination and get creationists to look outwards to see that their stunted understanding of the creation of the Earth is limited by their dogma.

            Its a nice thought, I suppose.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,09:36

            Science.  There be dragons.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,09:48



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To accept the fact of evolution means Dave no longer has any life.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well put. I understand that. But it seems like the 'logical' thing to do would be to pay no attention to all the science that flies in the face of this worldview. Why come back day after day, month after month, and have your nose rubbed in reality? Why say such patently absurd things as "ToE is fringe science"? It's gotta be a joke, or some weird form of masochism.
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,09:54

            If he actually thinks he's winning, then why wouldn't he come back?
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 27 2006,10:05

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 27 2006,15:48)
            Why come back day after day, month after month, and have your nose rubbed in reality? Why say such patently absurd things as "ToE is fringe science"? It's gotta be a joke, or some weird form of masochism.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I suspect it is because Dave, unlike many Christians, has the capacity to understand the basic implications of what science is saying and doesn't have a way to integrate that recognition into his life.

            It becomes the unscratchable itch.

            I've seen it many times before in adult victims of childhood abuse.  They surround themselves with reminders of abuse--maybe even working with abuse victims--while constantly protesting how wonderful their own childhood was.

            The truth of their experience is in the front of their mind while they try to suppress it.  No matter what evidence they are presented, they deny the evidence is real.

            Typically it comes out and they face the facts.

            Offenders often do much the same thing when confronted with their abuse.  The typical response to "Did you molest ____" is not "No!" but instead "I don't remember."

            I think any of us would certainly remember molesting a child.

            In more extreme cases sociopathic offenders will blame the victim saying they were seduced by the child.

            That's revolting.

            If Dave can find a way to integrate the truth of evolution into his life he will likely accept it.  If he finds, instead, that "golden fact" that allows him to deny evolution in his own mind, he will likely stop posting or stop posting on anything other than the "golden fact."

            Of course there is the third option I mentioned above...
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 27 2006,10:14

            He couldn't possibly actually think he's winning. His declaration of victory in the Portuguese thing even though he made a bet and I took it and he never ponied up his end of the deal says to me that he knows he's not winning. Otherwise he would have nothing to fear. He isn't about real exposure. His ego, for whatever reason, couldn't even take a relatively safe risk. It's not like I am an expert on language or portugal and the best I can do is speak a little spanish. He would have done it if he thought he was winning because:
            A) it's a minor issue
            B) He has some interesting trivia about portugal to share

            He is flailing at minor details as if they were the big picture.

            My prediction: He will never go into dendro or ice cores or diatoms or any of those things because they are the place he can not go. There is not much obscurity there like there is in genetics. Or even to a bizzare place that I had no idea existed, in geology.

            He will never try to address why 5000 feet of water laid 6000 feet of sediment. He will never try to address those things because he has already looked them up. He knows he's got jack so he only answers questions that are about arcane bits of highly highy technical jargon-loaded science so he can get off on a jargon tangent rather than the real question.

            He knows. He's got to either be practicing for an AiG style career or he is actually resisting the break from his social circle. Either he is terrified or he is intentionally learning to mislead people.
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2006,10:27

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 27 2006,15:14)
            Either he is terrified or he is intentionally learning to mislead people.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Or both.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,11:20

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,14:54)
            If he actually thinks he's winning, then why wouldn't he come back?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            The funny thing about Dave's delusions is that they're in the context of what amounts to a debate. Dave cannot win in a debate unless he can convinces his opponents that he's right. This, he has comprehensively failed to do. Help me out here—is there a single topic on which Dave has managed to convince even one person that he's right?

            Therefore, pretty much by definition, he hasn't won any debates. I suppose he could think that we all secretly think he's won but just won't admit it. But what are the chances that every single person here is on board in on this little conspiracy?

            Just to take one minor example: the whole "information" thing. I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of information theory is sketchy at best. And I was fully prepared for someone (not Dave, obviously) to point out a major flaw in my reasoning, one that would have invalidated my claim that a stream of random digital noise contains more information than a digital representation of human speech.  I mean, I was pretty confident I was correct, but I was prepared to be wrong. But no one here disagreed with my claim, other than Dave. Why is that? Is no one here prepared to contradict anything I say merely because I'm not a creationist? I can't imagine that's true. I've been corrected here in the past, and no one's feelings got hurt.

            So why do you think it is, Dave, that seemingly everyone here agreed with me, and no one agreed with you? Is it because you're the only one here who knows anything about information theory? Given the academic achievements of the posters here, how likely does that seem?
            Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 27 2006,12:21

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,13:22)
            AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            How could he possibly do that? He basically says that we evolutionists are going to burn like jews did in crematories. How disgusting. ???

            This proves his utter dishonesty, saying he was ready to accept evolution. He can't. Evolution/Old Earth = evil = burn in heII. Plain and simple.
            Posted by: Shirley Knott on Oct. 27 2006,12:46

            Well, if Dave and his ilk are going to be in heaven, I want no part of the place.  Can you imagine an eternity of him and Ken Ham and the rest of the nutters?  It would make an angel rebel...
            oh, wait...

            no hugs for thugs,
            Shirley Knott
            Posted by: Steviepinhead on Oct. 27 2006,13:02

            Heh, when I saw Shirley's name on the "home" page, I thought to myself, "Dave, dude, take the hugs!  'Cause that's all you'll ever be getting out of this thread...!"

            But Shirley was too tough to even offer a consolation prize.

            Dave, you are really not doing very well here.  But I'm sure that's not really, um, new information to you.

            During that twenty seconds or so a day of self-honesty.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,13:07

            Eric ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So why do you think it is, Dave, that seemingly everyone here agreed with me, and no one agreed with you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            1) Because I'm the enemy 2) Because people like Hubert Yockey also confused the definition and he's famous ... even if they harbor some doubts they'll they'll throw their hat in the ring with their ideological brethren as long as they don't have to stand totally alone.  They are basically saying ... OK, we got Schneider and AFDave (creo lunatic) on one side, and we got Yockey and our buddy Eric (ToE guy) on the other ... done deal.

            I learned a long time ago that you people believe the strange things you do primarily because "all the other scientists do" ... not because you have independently analyzed them and think they are true.

            Has anyone here written publicly on something you felt was true, but you were in the extreme minority?  I'm real curious to know this.

            ******************************

            Steve-- Uh, yes ... if I became convinced ToE was true, I'm quite sure I would also then believe the Bible was just a book of man, not of God.  Yes, I would then quit helping K4T and probably take my family to the Country Club on Sunday instead of church.

            All of which I would be quite fine with me ... because of course IF Toe were true, then that would be the smartest thing I could think of to do.

            (But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.)
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,13:30

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,18:07)
            Eric ...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So why do you think it is, Dave, that seemingly everyone here agreed with me, and no one agreed with you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            1) Because I'm the enemy
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Don't flatter yourself, Dave.
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) Because people like Hubert Yockey also confused the definition and he's famous ... even if they harbor some doubts they'll they'll throw their hat in the ring with their ideological brethren as long as they don't have to stand totally alone.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So why have they corrected me about other things, Dave? They'll only correct me on the little things, but not the big things? And why would anyone else even be interested in my question? Everyone leapt to my "defense" why, exactly?

            I'm not an "evolutionist," Dave. I'm not even a scientist. I'm just smart enough to realize that your young-earth creationism is about the dumbest "hypothesis" about the origin of the universe and of life ever proposed in the last five hundred years.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            They are basically saying ... OK, we got Schneider and AFDave (creo lunatic) on one side, and we got Yockey and our buddy Eric (ToE guy) on the other ... done deal.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You don't have Schneider on your side, Dave. Schneider doesn't agree with you. You just think he does.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I learned a long time ago that you people believe the strange things you do primarily because "all the other scientists do" ... not because you have independently analyzed them and think they are true.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, no one ever told me that a digital recording of white noise has more information than a digital recording of a  Winston Churchill speech. I didn't read it somewhere in a book. I've never even heard of Yockey. I just have a layman's understanding of information theory that allowed me to deduce it. I'm not just regurgitating stuff I read in a book somewhere, which is exactly what you're doing. The only coherent reason you've ever been able to give for believing in your young-earth creationism is because you read it in a book somewhere. Are you claiming you've done independent research into the matter? Because if you have, you're keeping the results of that research to yourself. You've never presented a single piece of evidence for anything you've ever claimed that you didn't get either from the Bible or from a creationist website.

            So even if it were true that the people on this website believe what they believe because they read it in a book somewhere (which is demonstrably not true, because many of the posters here have done original research in their fields), how is that different from what you yourself do?

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Has anyone here written publicly on something you felt was true, but you were in the extreme minority?  I'm real curious to know this.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            All of which I would be quite fine with me ... because of course IF Toe were true, then that would be the smartest thing I could think of to do.

            (But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            …and this is all the evidence we need, Dave, that you were (and are) lying when you say you could be convinced of the truth of the Theory of Evolution. There is simply no way someone with no ideological axe to grind could possibly remain unconvinced of the great age of the earth and the reality of evolution just from the information posted here, and nowhere else.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,15:11

            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Really, now!  I missed that.  What do you think happened?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, no one ever told me that a digital recording of white noise has more information than a digital recording of a  Winston Churchill speech. I didn't read it somewhere in a book. I've never even heard of Yockey. I just have a layman's understanding of information theory that allowed me to deduce it. I'm not just regurgitating stuff I read in a book somewhere, which is exactly what you're doing.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You really want me to believe that you didn't read about Info Theory from a book (or a website)?  Come on.   No.  Everyone reads to get their info.  The question is only WHICH things you read.

            In spite of the fact that I think your view of noise vs. speeches is about the craziest thing I've heard here yet, I am still wondering what you were trying to show me by asking the question.  How do you think that affects the ToE vs. Creationism debate?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,15:26

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,20:11)
            Eric...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Really, now!  I missed that.  What do you think happened?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Controlled demolition.
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, no one ever told me that a digital recording of white noise has more information than a digital recording of a  Winston Churchill speech. I didn't read it somewhere in a book. I've never even heard of Yockey. I just have a layman's understanding of information theory that allowed me to deduce it. I'm not just regurgitating stuff I read in a book somewhere, which is exactly what you're doing.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            You really want me to believe that you didn't read about Info Theory from a book (or a website)?  Come on.   No.  Everyone reads to get their info.  The question is only WHICH things you read.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Of course I've read about information theory. My point is, I synthesized that knowledge into something novel; I didn't just regurgitate what I'd read. That gives some evidence of an ability to think independently. The evidence that you're able to do the same thing is, sad to say, somewhat lacking.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In spite of the fact that I think your view of noise vs. speeches is about the craziest thing I've heard here yet, I am still wondering what you were trying to show me by asking the question.  How do you think that affects the ToE vs. Creationism debate?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Believe it or not, Dave, science and mathematics are often counterintuitive. (Example: some infinities are bigger than others. Strange but true.)

            The whole noise/speech thing has little to do with the ToE or creationism. What it does have to do with is your misapplication of information theory to biology which is at least partly caused by your misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "information," which your incorrect answer to my question underscores. If you're unclear on what the term means (which you are), your argument re mutations being unable to add information to a genome becomes somewhat less than compelling.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 27 2006,15:32

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,19:07)
            Uh, yes ... if I became convinced ToE was true, I'm quite sure I would also then believe the Bible was just a book of man, not of God.  Yes, I would then quit helping K4T and probably take my family to the Country Club on Sunday instead of church.

            All of which I would be quite fine with me ... because of course IF Toe were true, then that would be the smartest thing I could think of to do.

            (But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I suspected as much.

            Dave, you think in black and white terms.  Many fundamentalists do, and have been taught to think that way.

            If the theory of evolution is true that doesn't necessarily negate belief in God--even the God of the Bible.  There is a full range of ways to reconcile the two.

            Can you accept the idea that Biblical literalism is not essential for salvation?

            Here's why I ask...

            The canon of scripture was not formally settled until the 17th century.  Luther didn't believe several of the books eventually included in the canon were inspired including James and Revelation (I think he also rejected Jude, but I would have to look it up.)

            If you accept literalism as essential for salvation then how was salvation possible before the 17th century? Also how was Luther saved?

            Now if literalism isn't essential for salvation, then isn't there room for differing interpretations without jeopardizing salvation?
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 27 2006,15:57

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,04:58)
            AFDave ...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Do you, Drew Headley--who is working on a PhD in neuroscience (I think)--think there is more information contained in white noise that in a Winston Churchill speech?

            I'd like to have you on record with a simple YES or NO.  Thx!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Drew...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yes, I do think that white noise has more information than a speech by Winston Churchill, where information is defined by Shannon's metric. It is a consequence of the probability distributions, since whitenoise by definition has a flat distribution for all symbols and speech does not.

            Yes, I am pursuing a Ph.D. in neuroscience.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Nothing about zero noise here.  In fact, there is no such thing as a noiseless channel in the real world to my knowledge.  It was a very simple question.  Just "is there more info in the speech or the noise?"  Period.  

            Information defined by Shannon's Metric:

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The confusion comes from neglecting to do a subtraction:

            Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

            If you use this definition, it will clarify all the confusion in the literature.

            Note: Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is subtracted the 'equivocation'. Shannon (1948) said on page 20:

            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            "The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal."

            The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OK?  So you got the wrong answer according to Shannon's definition.  

            It's OK, though.  Life goes on.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave, you are wrong. You have not disproved what I said. Also, it is true in that quote of me I did not specify a noiseless channel, however I think by that point it was implied since I had said it before:
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            According to Dr. Schneider, if we are sending these two messages over a transmission line that does not introduce noise or corrupt the signal then the information on the recievers side after transmission will be the recievers uncertainty before the signal was sent.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36795 >

            However, I apologize for the confusion.

            As far as noiseless channels in the real world, I would guess they do not exist but I could be wrong. However, that has nothing to do with the point I am making.

            Since you are so fond of citing R = H(x) - Hy(x) as evidence for your position, I figured it would be good to actually use this equation to show you how you are misunderstanding information theory.
            First, R is defined as the rate of transmission over the channel, H(x) is the uncertainty about the message being sent, and Hy(x) is the conditional uncertainty due to noise introduced during transmission. This is not in any way related to the content of the message, only to the physical properties of our transmission line. It can be calculated by adding the uncertainty that the character received was correct and the uncertainty that the character received was wrong. This works out nicely for a binary system as so:
            No transmission errors:
            Hy(x) = -(1*log2(1) + 0*log2(0)) = 0
            Thus, when we calculate R we get R=H(x) - 0 = H(x).  
            Now, if all the characters in xr have an equal probability of occurring (the white noise case), then H(xr) is at its maximum and R will thus be the maximum value of H(xr) after transmission. If however, there is an unequal distribution then H(xu) will be less than the maximum possible uncertainty and so H(xr) > H(xu), and if this is sent over a noiseless channel then for the receiver Rr > Ru.
            Note, I am assuming that each symbol set has the same number of symbols.
            To demonstrate that a noisy channel would not change the outcome of this (assuming the noise is less than uncertainty of the message) I will do a transmission line with noise. It is trivial to show that if we were to transmit the white noise and unequal distribution message (speech) over the same line with the same noise properties that:
            Given H(xr) > H(xu) then
            H(xr) - N > H(xu) - N
            Rr > Ru

            Do you deny that the math works out like this? If you agree with this math, then you agree with us that a white noise source has more information per symbol than a source with unequal probabilities for each of its symbols occurring (e.g. speech).
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,16:30

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 27 2006,17:20)
            Therefore, pretty much by definition, he hasn't won any debates. I suppose he could think that we all secretly think he's won but just won't admit it. But what are the chances that every single person here is on board in on this little conspiracy?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You don't think I run a pretty tight ship? Dang. I was hoping to impress the Evolution Illuminati and perhaps be made editor of a nice journal like Jama or Phys Rev.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 27 2006,16:34



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) Because people like Hubert Yockey also confused the definition and he's famous
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            And yet, you made this huge ostentatious display of how only a hopelessly ignorant and illogical fool could possibly disagree with you. I detect bluster - you know: whistling in the dark, saying things you'd like to believe, and think that maybe if you repeat them enough, you will. Sort of like this:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            (But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            if that really were true, I wouldn't be too proud of it. But I don't believe it for a moment. No more than I believe Bush when he said this week that he's confident his party will retain congress. :D

            By the way: am I not correct in noting that your comments here are a whole lot more outrageous, in terms of casting aspersions on mainstream science, and the credibility of pretty much all of biology and geology, than on K4T? What's up with that? Is it self-censorship, because you know that even most kids would suspect insanity? Or do your colleagues rein you in? Or are you, in fact, just yanking everyone's chains here?
            Posted by: Cedric Katesby on Oct. 27 2006,16:59



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,20:11)
            Eric...     Quote  
            Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.
            Really, now!  I missed that.  What do you think happened?
            ........................................................................
            Controlled demolition.
               
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Eric, I enjoy your posts here so please don't take this the wrong way.  I never had much time for conspiracy theory and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" pretty much put a stake through any lingering suspicions I might have had.
            Friend of mine had the same thoughts about there being more to 9/11 than met the eye.
            I got him to read an eSkeptic article (the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society) by Phil Mole called "The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective."  
            It's exceedingly well written. The "controlled demolition" idea is carefully examined and refuted.
            My friend read it and it helped clear things up for him.  Just a suggestion, no offence intended.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2006,17:02

            Re "Well, if Dave and his ilk are going to be in heaven, I want no part of the place.  Can you imagine an eternity of him and Ken Ham and the rest of the nutters?  It would make an angel rebel...
            oh, wait..."



            Henry
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 27 2006,17:21

            Drew ... here's the deal ... all I really care about is talking about information as it relates to biology.  I really don't care any more about noisy transmission lines.  Here's what Eric asked in it's original context ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Now this statement that "Dave has no idea what the definitionof information is" is what set me off and caused me to make an ostentatious display of how ridiculous it is to say that "white noise has more information than a speech."  

            Note that Eric's purpose was to try to tell me that 490 alleles arising at a single locus since the Flood constitutes an increase in information.  I disagree with this which he knows, hence the question he asked and the insult he lobbed.

            Now let me show you yet again how you are wrong.  Also I will post information which helps us take this discussion back to where it needs to go--BIOLOGY.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm Confused: How Could Information Equal Entropy?

            If someone says that information = uncertainty = entropy, then they are confused, or something was not stated that should have been. Those equalities lead to a contradiction, since entropy of a system increases as the system becomes more disordered. So information corresponds to disorder according to this confusion.

            If you always take information to be a decrease in uncertainty at the receiver and you will get straightened out:

            R = Hbefore - Hafter.

            where H is the Shannon uncertainty:

            H = - sum (from i = 1 to number of symbols) Pi log2 Pi (bits per symbol)

            and Pi is the probability of the ith symbol. If you don't understand this, please refer to "Is There a Quick Introduction to Information Theory Somewhere?".

            Imagine that we are in communication and that we have agreed on an alphabet. Before I send you a bunch of characters, you are uncertain (Hbefore) as to what I'm about to send. After you receive a character, your uncertainty goes down (to Hafter). Hafter is never zero because of noise in the communication system. Your decrease in uncertainty is the information ® that you gain.

            Since Hbefore and Hafter are state functions, this makes R a function of state. It allows you to lose information (it's called forgetting). You can put information into a computer and then remove it in a cycle.

            [This part is for you, Drew ... please read it carefully]

            Many of the statements in the early literature assumed a noiseless channel, so the uncertainty after receipt is zero (Hafter=0). This leads to the SPECIAL CASE where R = Hbefore. But Hbefore is NOT "the uncertainty", it is the uncertainty of the receiver BEFORE RECEIVING THE MESSAGE.

            A way to see this is to work out the information in a bunch of DNA binding sites.

            Definition of "binding": many proteins stick to certain special spots on DNA to control genes by turning them on or off. The only thing that distinguishes one spot from another spot is the pattern of letters (nucleotide bases) there. How much information is required to define this pattern?

            Here is an aligned listing of the binding sites for the cI and cro proteins of the bacteriophage (i.e., virus) named lambda:


            alist 5.66 aligned listing of:
            * 96/10/08 19:47:44, 96/10/08 19:31:56, lambda cI/cro sites
            piece names from:
            * 96/10/08 19:47:44, 96/10/08 19:31:56, lambda cI/cro sites
            The alignment is by delila instructions
            The book is from:   -101 to 100
            This alist list is from: -15 to 15

                                  ------                   ++++++
                                  111111--------- +++++++++111111
                                  5432109876543210123456789012345
                                  ...............................
            OL1 J02459  35599 +  1 tgctcagtatcaccgccagtggtatttatgt
               J02459  35599 -  2 acataaataccactggcggtgatactgagca
            OL2 J02459  35623 +  3 tttatgtcaacaccgccagagataatttatc
               J02459  35623 -  4 gataaattatctctggcggtgttgacataaa
            OL3 J02459  35643 +  5 gataatttatcaccgcagatggttatctgta
               J02459  35643 -  6 tacagataaccatctgcggtgataaattatc
            OR3 J02459  37959 +  7 ttaaatctatcaccgcaagggataaatatct
               J02459  37959 -  8 agatatttatcccttgcggtgatagatttaa
            OR2 J02459  37982 +  9 aaatatctaacaccgtgcgtgttgactattt
               J02459  37982 - 10 aaatagtcaacacgcacggtgttagatattt
            OR1 J02459  38006 + 11 actattttacctctggcggtgataatggttg
               J02459  38006 - 12 caaccattatcaccgccagaggtaaaatagt
                                                        ^
            [look at the link to see this aligned better]

            Each horizontal line represents a DNA sequence, starting with the 5' end on the left, and proceeding to the 3' end on the right. The first sequence begins with: 5' tgctcag ... and ends with ... tttatgt 3'. Each of these twelve sequences is recognized by the lambda repressor protein (called cI) and also by the lambda cro protein.

            What makes these sequences special so that these proteins like to stick to them? Clearly there must be a pattern of some kind.

            Read the numbers on the top vertically. This is called a "numbar". Notice that position +7 always has a T (marked with the ^). That is, according to this rather limited data set, one or both of the proteins that bind here always require a T at that spot. Since the frequency of T is 1 and the frequencies of other bases there are 0, H(+7) = 0 bits. But that makes no sense whatsoever! This is a position where the protein requires information to be there.

            That is, what is really happening is that the protein has two states. In the BEFORE state, it is somewhere on the DNA, and is able to probe all 4 possible bases. Thus the uncertainty before binding is Hbefore = log2(4) = 2 bits. In the AFTER state, the protein has bound and the uncertainty is lower: Hafter(+7) = 0 bits. The information content, or sequence conservation, of the position is Rsequence(+7) = Hbefore - Hafter = 2 bits. That is a sensible answer. Notice that this gives Rsequence close to zero outside the sites.

            If you have uncertainty and information and entropy confused, I don't think you would be able to work through this problem. For one thing, one would get high information OUTSIDE the sites. Some people have published graphs like this.

            A nice way to display binding site data so you can see them and grasp their meaning rapidly is by the sequence logo method. The sequence logo for the example above is at < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/gallery/hawaii.fig1.gif. > More information on sequence logos is in the section What are Sequence Logos?

            More information about the theory of BEFORE and AFTER states is given in the papers < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/nano2 > , < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ccmm > and < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/edmm. >

            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms....Entropy >

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,17:31

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2006,23:02)
            Re "Well, if Dave and his ilk are going to be in heaven, I want no part of the place.  Can you imagine an eternity of him and Ken Ham and the rest of the nutters?  It would make an angel rebel...
            oh, wait..."



            Henry
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I vaguely remember some SciFi book I read as a teenager which was based on the premise that Satan actually was a decent guy, but in the bible you only get God's side of the story, so of course you think he's evil. Kinda like if you asked Pepsi what the boys at Coke were like.

            I'm a big fan of well-done, you know, secret machinations and conspiracies in fiction. I like thinking about the logistics of such things. What kind of intel network would you have to set up if you were the Cigarette Smoking Man, for instance? But I was really burned on that genre lately by reading The Name of the Rose. That's the worst, most bullshit ending to a book in the history of books.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 27 2006,17:42

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 27 2006,21:57)
            As far as noiseless channels in the real world, I would guess they do not exist but I could be wrong. However, that has nothing to do with the point I am making.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think a LASER may represent a noiseless channel.  You don't have a noisy LASER, just signal strength loss.  I believe fidelity is maintained.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2006,17:48

            Re "(Example: some infinities are bigger than others. Strange but true.)"

            Yeah, but are there any intermediates between the set of integers and the set of reals? Or is that a bit GAP in your theory? ;)

            Henry
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 27 2006,17:50

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,23:02))
            That's the worst, most bullshit ending to a book in the history of books.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.

            Hopefully the mods will look into something like 24-hour bans for people who can't control themselves. Like a timeout, or a cooling off period.

            Or at the least a hypocrisy filter.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2006,18:08

            stevestory,
            Re "I vaguely remember some SciFi book I read as a teenager which was based on the premise that Satan actually was a decent guy, but [...]"

            Would that be Robert A. Heinlein's "JOB: A Comedy of Justice"?

            Henry
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,18:10

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2006,00:08)
            stevestory,
            Re "I vaguely remember some SciFi book I read as a teenager which was based on the premise that Satan actually was a decent guy, but [...]"

            Would that be Robert A. Heinlein's "JOB: A Comedy of Justice"?

            Henry
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I know I read that book, and I know it had some of those elements, but it's been about 13 years now and I'm probably mixing memories. There might have been some other book kinda like that too.
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,18:14

            Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 27 2006,23:50)
            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,23:02))
            That's the worst, most bullshit ending to a book in the history of books.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.

            Hopefully the mods will look into something like 24-hour bans for people who can't control themselves. Like a timeout, or a cooling off period.

            Or at the least a hypocrisy filter.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Funny thing. I did put an hypocrisy filter on the board, but then it wouldn't let me log in, for some reason. Strange. So I had to remove it.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 27 2006,18:22

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,22:21)
            Drew ... here's the deal ... all I really care about is talking about information as it relates to biology.  I really don't care any more about noisy transmission lines.  Here's what Eric asked in it's original context ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Now this statement that "Dave has no idea what the definitionof information is" is what set me off and caused me to make an ostentatious display of how ridiculous it is to say that "white noise has more information than a speech."  

            Note that Eric's purpose was to try to tell me that 490 alleles arising at a single locus since the Flood constitutes an increase in information.  I disagree with this which he knows, hence the question he asked and the insult he lobbed.

            Now let me show you yet again how you are wrong.  Also I will post information which helps us take this discussion back to where it needs to go--BIOLOGY.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I'm Confused: How Could Information Equal Entropy?
            [...]

            [This part is for you, Drew ... please read it carefully]

            Many of the statements in the early literature assumed a noiseless channel, so the uncertainty after receipt is zero (Hafter=0). This leads to the SPECIAL CASE where R = Hbefore. But Hbefore is NOT "the uncertainty", it is the uncertainty of the receiver BEFORE RECEIVING THE MESSAGE.
            [...]
            < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms....Entropy >

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave, you have not refuted what I posted above. Either point out the error in my math or admit you are wrong.

            Also, the quoted text does not refute me in the slightest. One, I accounted for the case where the channel was noisy. Two, my definition of uncertainty is the same one he stipulates. Hbefore in his case is the same as H(x), the only difference being that I have to multiply H(x) by the length of the transmission to get Hbefore.

            For instance, if a receiver is expecting a 4 bit string where 0 and 1 have an equal chance of occurring then Hbefore = -4*(.5*log2(.5) + .5*log2(.5)) = -4*(-.5 -.5) = 4 (which is the maximum uncertainty). However, if it is a 4 bit string with 0 having .25 and 1 having .75 probabilities then Hbefore = -4*(.25*log2(.25) + .75*log2(.75)) = -4*(-.5-.3113) = 3.245. Now, if we send both of these over the same noisy channel with a .01 probability of error in transmission (this is the same error rate used in Shannon's paper where he goes over this topic) then after transmission we subtract out Hy(x) (i.e. Hafter) which is equal to -4*(.99*log2(.99)+.01*log2(.01)) = 0.323. After subtracting this from both Hbefore to solve for the information sent we get 3.677 bits for the message with equal probability of 0 or 1 and 2.922 for the one with unequal probabilities for 0 or 1. If you can show this to be untrue by fault of my math please point it out.

            I agree, there are more important things to move on to. So, just admit that you are wrong and we can move on.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 27 2006,18:28

            stevestory,
            Re "I know I read that book, and I know it had some of those elements, but it's been about 13 years now and I'm probably mixing memories. There might have been some other book kinda like that too."

            Maybe Inferno by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? (A sequel of sorts to Dante's book of that name.) Though the sort of Satan but sort of nice guy character in that story wasn't Satan per se.

            Henry
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,18:32

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2006,00:28)
            stevestory,
            Re "I know I read that book, and I know it had some of those elements, but it's been about 13 years now and I'm probably mixing memories. There might have been some other book kinda like that too."

            Maybe Inferno by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? (A sequel of sorts to Dante's book of that name.) Though the sort of Satan but sort of nice guy character in that story wasn't Satan per se.

            Henry
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I can definitely say it wasn't that. I've read maybe 20 SciFi books in my entire life, and never read anything by Niven or Pournelle. I guess it was the Heinlein book, but I'm not sure.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,18:57

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,22:21)
            Drew ... here's the deal ... all I really care about is talking about information as it relates to biology.  I really don't care any more about noisy transmission lines.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, explain to us then how the extra 490 alleles for the HLA gene do not amount to an increase in information? And, more to the point, where did they come from? The reason these extra alleles kill your UCG"H" is that you simply do not have enough time for them to have ended up in the human genome. You're talking about an extra allele showing up every two years or so, more than 20 per generation. What's your explanation for that? We know they didn't come from Adam and Eve, and more to the point, we know they didn't come from Noah and his boatmates.

            This is the critical issue, Dave. It really doesn't matter whether these extra alleles amount to "additional information" or not. Unless and until you can come up with an explanation for their existence, this one fact alone is sufficient, all by itself, to destroy your UCG"H."

            So are you going to deal with them, or not?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,19:06

            Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Oct. 27 2006,21:59)
            Eric, I enjoy your posts here so please don't take this the wrong way.  I never had much time for conspiracy theory and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" pretty much put a stake through any lingering suspicions I might have had.
            Friend of mine had the same thoughts about there being more to 9/11 than met the eye.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No offense taken. I'm personally agnostic on the issue, meaning that I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly what happened on 9/11. I also know that given the spoliation of evidence on a massive scale (intentional or not), we probably never will know. But a couple of things to keep in mind:

            Any theory about what happened on 9/11 is necessarily a conspiracy theory.

            Also, think about this:

            Do we know for a fact that controlled demolition could have taken down WTC 1, 2, and 7? Yes.

            Do we know for a fact that WTC 1 and 2 could have collapsed per the official theory (there is no official theory for the collapse of WTC 7)? No.

            At any rate, this is neither the time nor the place for a discussion of this issue. Let's watch Dave flounder some more!  :)
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 27 2006,19:08

            AFDave, I know you've been lurking here tonight.  I'd really like you to consider and answer these questions that you skipped from the earlier talk on 'specificity' and 'function'.

            Why you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

            Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 27 2006,19:23

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 28 2006,01:06)
            Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Oct. 27 2006,21:59)
            Eric, I enjoy your posts here so please don't take this the wrong way.  I never had much time for conspiracy theory and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" pretty much put a stake through any lingering suspicions I might have had.
            Friend of mine had the same thoughts about there being more to 9/11 than met the eye.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No offense taken. I'm personally agnostic on the issue, meaning that I don't think anyone knows for sure exactly what happened on 9/11. I also know that given the spoliation of evidence on a massive scale (intentional or not), we probably never will know. But a couple of things to keep in mind:

            Any theory about what happened on 9/11 is necessarily a conspiracy theory.

            Also, think about this:

            Do we know for a fact that controlled demolition could have taken down WTC 1, 2, and 7? Yes.

            Do we know for a fact that WTC 1 and 2 could have collapsed per the official theory (there is no official theory for the collapse of WTC 7)? No.

            At any rate, this is neither the time nor the place for a discussion of this issue. Let's watch Dave flounder some more!  :)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            9/11 conspiracies...hmm...sounds tasty. However, we really need to keep this board about evolution/creationism, so if you want to have an extensive discussion about that, please do so on the Bathroom Wall.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 27 2006,19:30

            Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 28 2006,00:23)
            9/11 conspiracies...hmm...sounds tasty. However, we really need to keep this board about evolution/creationism, so if you want to have an extensive discussion about that, please do so on the Bathroom Wall.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Frankly, just as soon not. I'm kinda burned out on the topic. Maybe some other time, some other place.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 27 2006,20:15

            AFD wrote
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Eric ... Quote  
            So why do you think it is, Dave, that seemingly everyone here agreed with me, and no one agreed with you?

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            1) Because I'm the enemy

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            You are not 'the enemy' AFD you are just plain WRONG.

            You are trying to convince yourself the absolute nonsense you dredge up from frauds such as Ken Ham is fact.

            It is not, it is RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

            And RELIGIOUS DOGMA is never fact, it is social manipulation, tribal propaganda and cultural engineering...but then you already know that don't you.... Lies for Kids AFD.

            You make an enemy of yourself because you lie (bend the truth), obfuscate, obscure, change the subject, argue to see who can argue the most regardless of content, ignore evidence, change definitions, move goalposts, throw in red herrings, indulge in every self seeking political technique to cover your personal belief.

            All that was tested in court in Dover and guess what?

            The Judge agreed..but he went further and called it "Breathtaking inanity".

            How does it feel to be deeply shallow AFD?

            You truly are devoid of the least bit of introspection aren't you?


               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) Because people like Hubert Yockey also confused the definition and he's famous ... even if they harbor some doubts they'll they'll throw their hat in the ring with their ideological brethren as long as they don't have to stand totally alone.  They are basically saying ... OK, we got Schneider and AFDave (creo lunatic) on one side, and we got Yockey and our buddy Eric (ToE guy) on the other ... done deal.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            I'm glad you brought Hubert Yockey up, the bête noire of the crazy creo 'data is information (from g$d) obscurantism movement'...done and dusted.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I learned a long time ago that you people believe the strange things you do primarily because "all the other scientists do" ... not because you have independently analyzed them and think they are true.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Let me fix that little projection AFD

            I learned a long time ago that my people believe the strange things we do primarily because "all the other scientists cult members do" ... not because we have independently analyzed them and think they are true.

            denying weight of evidence AFD is the purpose of your cult ...it brings in the $'s

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Has anyone here written publicly on something you felt was true, but you were in the extreme minority?  I'm real curious to know this.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, not to do so is pure hubris.


               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Steve-- Uh, yes ... if I became convinced ToE was true, I'm quite sure I would also then believe the Bible was just a book of man, not of God.  Yes, I would then quit helping K4T and probably take my family to the Country Club on Sunday instead of church.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            So it's all or nothing eh?

            AFD why don't you check the list of 10,000 clergymen who support the ToE and learn some humility or are you scared they might tell you a few truths you don't want to hear.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            All of which I would be quite fine with me ... because of course IF Toe were true, then that would be the smartest thing I could think of to do.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            What, give up your FAITH? ARE YOU AN ATHEIST?

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            (But don't get excited ... I'm much farther from believing ToE is true than I was when I came here.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            AFD the ToE does not require YOUR BELIEF, loser.

            It is the tested and documented REAL history of life on earth going back billions of years....sorry you don't 'believe' that. boo hoo hoo life is sin and regret, woe is you.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,03:29

            Drew Headley ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Since you are so fond of citing R = H(x) - Hy(x) as evidence for your position, I figured it would be good to actually use this equation to show you how you are misunderstanding information theory.
            First, R is defined as the rate of transmission over the channel, H(x) is the uncertainty about the message being sent, and Hy(x) is the conditional uncertainty due to noise introduced during transmission. This is not in any way related to the content of the message, only to the physical properties of our transmission line. It can be calculated by adding the uncertainty that the character received was correct and the uncertainty that the character received was wrong. This works out nicely for a binary system as so:
            No transmission errors:
            Hy(x) = -(1*log2(1) + 0*log2(0)) = 0
            Thus, when we calculate R we get R=H(x) - 0 = H(x).  
            Now, if all the characters in xr have an equal probability of occurring (the white noise case), then H(xr) is at its maximum and R will thus be the maximum value of H(xr) after transmission. If however, there is an unequal distribution then H(xu) will be less than the maximum possible uncertainty and so H(xr) > H(xu), and if this is sent over a noiseless channel then for the receiver Rr > Ru.
            Note, I am assuming that each symbol set has the same number of symbols.
            To demonstrate that a noisy channel would not change the outcome of this (assuming the noise is less than uncertainty of the message) I will do a transmission line with noise. It is trivial to show that if we were to transmit the white noise and unequal distribution message (speech) over the same line with the same noise properties that:
            Given H(xr) > H(xu) then
            H(xr) - N > H(xu) - N
            Rr > Ru

            Do you deny that the math works out like this? If you agree with this math, then you agree with us that a white noise source has more information per symbol than a source with unequal probabilities for each of its symbols occurring (e.g. speech).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Yes, absolutely I disagree that Rr > Ru, although I would use more logical symbols -- Rn for the noise and Rs for the speech.

            Remember that R is an Information RATE, as you yourself said.  Now the confusion comes from this H(x) term which Shannon defines as ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            First there is the entropy H(x) of the source or of the input to the channel (these will be equal if the transmitter is non-singular). < http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf > (p. 19)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Well what in the world is H(x) then?  Specifically?  Shannon goes on and gives an example on p. 20 ...


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            12. EQUIVOCATION AND CHANNEL CAPACITY
            If the channel is noisy it is not in general possible to reconstruct the original message or the transmitted signal with certainty by any operation on the received signal E. There are,  however, ways of transmitting the information which are optimal in combating noise. This is the problem which we now consider.
            Suppose there are two possible symbols 0 and 1, and we are transmitting at a rate of 1000 symbols per second with probabilities p0 = p1 = 12. Thus our source is producing information at the rate of 1000 bits per second. During transmission the noise introduces errors so that, on the average, 1 in 100 is received incorrectly (a 0 as 1, or 1 as 0). What is the rate of transmission of information? Certainly less than 1000 bits per second since about 1% of the received symbols are incorrect. Our first impulse might be to say the rate is 990 bits per second, merely subtracting the expected number of errors. This is not satisfactory
            since it fails to take into account the recipient’s lack of knowledge of where the errors occur. We may carry it to an extreme case and suppose the noise so great that the received symbols are entirely independent of the transmitted symbols. The probability of receiving 1 is 12 whatever was transmitted and similarly for 0.
            Then about half of the received symbols are correct due to chance alone, and we would be giving the system credit for transmitting 500 bits per second while actually no information is being transmitted at all. Equally “good” transmission would be obtained by dispensing with the channel entirely and flipping a coin at the receiving point. Evidently the proper correction to apply to the amount of information transmitted is the amount of this information which is missing in the received signal, or alternatively the uncertainty when we have received
            a signal of what was actually sent. From our previous discussion of entropy as a measure of uncertainty it seems reasonable to use the conditional entropy of the message, knowing the received signal, as a measure of this missing information. This is indeed the proper definition, as we shall see later. Following this idea
            the rate of actual transmission, R, would be obtained by subtracting from the rate of production (i.e., the entropy of the source) the average rate of conditional entropy.

            R = H(x) - Hy(x)

            The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the average ambiguity of the received signal. In the example considered above, if a 0 is received the a posteriori probability that a 0 was transmitted is .99, and that a 1 was transmitted is .01. These figures are reversed if a 1 is received. Hence

            Hy(x) = -[.99log.99+0.01log0.01]
                    = .081 bits/symbol

            or 81 bits per second. We may say that the system is transmitting at a rate 1000 - 81 = 919 bits per second. In the extreme case where a 0 is equally likely to be received as a 0 or 1 and similarly for 1, the a posteriori probabilities are 1/2 and 1/2 and

            Hy(x) = -[1/2 log 1/2 + 1/2 log 1/2]
                   = 1 bit per symbol

            or 1000 bits per second. The rate of transmission is then 0 as it should be.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            So this answers our question about H(x).  Shannon simply plugs in 1000 bits/sec into this H(x) number.  Wait a minute!  I thought H(x) is an entropy number, not a transmission rate.  Bingo.  Very confusing, eh?  Note also that he multiplies his calculated Hy(x) by the transmission rate, H(x)=1000, before performing the subtraction.  So what he actually did in his formula is the following ...

            Rr = Rt - Hy(x)*Rt ...or...  

            919 bits/sec = 1000 bits/sec - 0.081*1000 bits/sec

            or ...

            Received Transmission Rate = Transmitted Rate - Rate Loss due to Noise

            *******************************************

            Going back to your example of the information content of Noise vs. Speech, I hope you can see now that whether you have a noisy channel or a noiseless channel, the Received Transmission Rate will be whatever it is and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual information content of Speech vs. Noise.

            SPEECH:  Rrs = Rts - Hy(x)*Rts, if it's a noiseless channel and Rts=1000 bits/sec, then Rrs=1000 bits/sec also.  If noisy, then Rrs < 1000.  How much less?  It depends on the amount of noise and the probabilities of receiving 1's vs. 0's, which in this case would be UN-equal probabilities I think.  (Doesn't matter for the topic we are discussing.)

            NOISE:  Rrn = Rtn - Hy(x)*Rtn, if it's a noiseless channel and Rtn=1000 bits/sec, then Rrn=1000 bits/sec also.  If noisy, then Rrn < 1000.  How much less?  It depends on the amount of noise and the probabilities of receiving 1's vs. 0's, which in this case would be equal probabilities.

            So the way to get your Rrn > Rrs (Rr > Ru in Drew's terminology) is to crank up the transmission rate of the Noise, Rtn, higher than the Speech rate, Rts, which of course can be done simply by using a higher frequency oscillator at the transmitter which is transmitting the signal.

            As for Eric's two files of 55k each, one containing speech and the other containing white noise, I think Eric is trying to say "Look, the noise file has more info because it's bigger when compressed."  OK, if you want to say that "Data=Info" then yes.  Personally, I think equating the terms "information" and "data" is quite confusing in any context so I don't do it.

            Where your math goes wrong Drew is in applying the Shannon formulas.  You have simply misunderstood Shannon's use of the term H(x).  You would have applied it correctly if you had read how Shannon applied it.  I admit it is confusing and Dr. Schneider admits this also, which is why he goes to great pains to try to unconfuse people with his writings.  

            *******************************************

            INTUITION AND COMMON SENSE
            All this brings up an opportunity to talk about Intuition and Common Sense.  To me Darwinism is the 20th Century's Monstrous Example of the Death of Common Sense.  Now ATBCers will counter and say Religion is the All Time Example of the Death of Common Sense.  And I say they are correct. (Surprise! You all think I'm religious because I talk about God and Heaven and the Bible, but you are wrong.  I am not religious at all and my main hero, Jesus Christ, was also not religious ... stay with me long enough and you will gradually understand this seeming paradox.)

            We can talk about Religion another day, but today, let me just say that to me "Darwinism = Death of Common Sense."  What we have here is a theory (ToE) that defies all observation (no one has ever observed macroevolution in action, organisms are degenerating, not getting better, the fossil record has failed to document gradualism, there are no cases of mutations that increase specificity, etc. etc.), and yet is adhered to by most scientists.  My poem I wrote at Kids for Truth, < http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html > pokes fun at this "Death of Common Sense" but it does so with good intent.  We are all better off if more people use common sense.  

            This latest exchange about Information is just another example where a little common sense could have helped.  Intuitively, we should have all known that something is wrong with the statement "Noise has more information than Speech."  Our intuition should have driven us all to a search for the truth and for the source of the confusion.  I have been accused of using my intuition too much and my calculator too little, but I maintain that I have a pretty good balance between the two and I think many modern scientists are out of balance.

            Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.

            ToE advocates should revive their sleeping intuition.  There is something dreadfully wrong with the theory and your intuition should be flashing big red warnings at you.  There are too many really smart people in the world who doubt ToE.  This in spite of the fact that ToE has had a virtual monopoly on all public avenues of education for almost a century.  I'm not saying they are all creationists either.  I'm just saying that in spite of this monopoly, there is a high level of dissent and that if you are a ToE advocate, you have cause to be uneasy.  

            *********************************************

            QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

            Russell ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            By the way: am I not correct in noting that your comments here are a whole lot more outrageous, in terms of casting aspersions on mainstream science, and the credibility of pretty much all of biology and geology, than on K4T? What's up with that? Is it self-censorship, because you know that even most kids would suspect insanity? Or do your colleagues rein you in? Or are you, in fact, just yanking everyone's chains here?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            My comments here are more forceful than something we would put up at K4T primarily because there are two completely different audiences.  We have tons and tons of kids and families going to the K4T site (many of them are Christians) whereas here at ATBC the audience is mainly what I call skeptics (that is skeptical of the Biblical worldview).  The stomachs of most kids and families would flip to come here and see the comments that they see on this thread.  I have told several of my Christian friends about this site but I only know of one who reads it regularly.  He says he enjoys it but is too busy to get into posting himself.  Most kids that I know who would actually have the attention span to sit down and read this thread would say "Wow ... that's a rough crowd!" and I honestly don't know what they would think of my arguments.  I doubt they would understand them to be honest.  Most of this stuff is not written for a kid's comprehension level.  I am quite sure they would not suspect insanity simply because most of my posts are composed of calm, reasonable sounding statements.  I get animated once in a while, but mostly I'm pretty level and methodical.  On the other hand, I'm quite sure they would suspect insanity in some of you (not you Russell, but some here).  I'm an unusual guy.  Most people are spending all their waking hours earning a living.  But I have been blessed to not have to do that anymore since age 41 thanks to the wonderful system of free enterprise in America.  God has given me success in business and as a result, I have a lot of time to pursue what I love ... reading, writing, learning and teaching.  I am seriously considering doing what Steve Story has suggested at times ... picking up a biology textbook ... and getting a degree in Molecular Biology.  Not because I think I need to do this to debate you guys more effectively, but because many people equate credibility with degrees.  That's the way it is in our culture and I may need credibility in the biological sciences in order to accomplish some of the things I want to accomplish.  Also, I LOVE biology and especially cell and molecular biology.  I chose Electrical Engineering in my undergrad simply because I LOVED it.  I am a gadget man who loves robots and electronic widgets of all sorts.  Well, in cells we find far more cool widgets and robots and other systems than I ever dreamed of in engineering school.  What fun it would be to study them in more detail!!  

            And no ... I'm not yanking your chain.  I'm the real deal.  If you like, you can meet me at AIG when I am there next month (How close are you to Cincinnati?).  Then I could show you that I (and AIG people) really are not green eyed monsters.  Some have mentioned wanting to come visit my church also.  Again, this is fine with me.  Just PM me with your real name and tell me when you are coming.  If you come visit, you will also see that "fundies" are also not green eyed monsters. :-)

            Steviepinhead ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you are really not doing very well here.  But I'm sure that's not really, um, new information to you.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I take it you came to this conclusion due to the fact that it's basically 100 or so pro-ToE people vs. 1 pro-Creationism person (me) ??  I guess this means that you are heavily influenced by "what does the majority think"?  This is a very natural approach and very tempting--which is why most people do it, but it is not the way to find the truth.  I would challenge you to become an independent thinker and resist the temptation to accept statements just because a lot of people believe them to be true.  History is littered with victims of "group think."

            ****************************************

            Eric ... I am quite fascinated with your 911 analysis.  I would be glad to come to your thread and hear your arguments if you opened one for that.  Wesley does not allow me to open new threads so you would have to do that.  Also, I have great respect for people who are independent thinkers on any topic even if I don't agree.  The simple fact that you would be willing to post such a minority viewpoint is impressive to me.  I didn't know you had it in you!
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 28 2006,03:31

            Hmmm.
            On the one hand, "afdave" admits that he is in "the extreme minority" on ToE, but within hours of that admission, he refers to ToE as "fringe science".

            Does this amount to a confession that a fraction of this discussion is bluster he knows to be false, broadcast just to annoy? I wonder what fraction that is: 10%? 50%? 99%?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 28 2006,04:08

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 28 2006,08:29)
            INTUITION AND COMMON SENSE
            All this brings up an opportunity to talk about Intuition and Common Sense.  To me Darwinism is the 20th Century's Monstrous Example of the Death of Common Sense.  Now ATBCers will counter and say Religion is the All Time Example of the Death of Common Sense.  And I say they are correct. (Surprise! You all think I'm religious because I talk about God and Heaven and the Bible, but you are wrong.  I am not religious at all and my main hero, Jesus Christ, was also not religious ... stay with me long enough and you will gradually understand this seeming paradox.)

            We can talk about Religion another day, but today, let me just say that to me "Darwinism = Death of Common Sense."  What we have here is a theory (ToE) that defies all observation (no one has ever observed macroevolution in action, organisms are degenerating, not getting better, the fossil record has failed to document gradualism, there are no cases of mutations that increase specificity, etc. etc.), and yet is adhered to by most scientists.  My poem I wrote at Kids for Truth, < http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html > pokes fun at this "Death of Common Sense" but it does so with good intent.  We are all better off if more people use common sense.  

            This latest exchange about Information is just another example where a little common sense could have helped.  Intuitively, we should have all known that something is wrong with the statement "Noise has more information than Speech."  Our intuition should have driven us all to a search for the truth and for the source of the confusion.  I have been accused of using my intuition too much and my calculator too little, but I maintain that I have a pretty good balance between the two and I think many modern scientists are out of balance.

            Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.

            ToE advocates should revive their sleeping intuition.  There is something dreadfully wrong with the theory and your intuition should be flashing big red warnings at you.  There are too many really smart people in the world who doubt ToE.  This in spite of the fact that ToE has had a virtual monopoly on all public avenues of education for almost a century.  I'm not saying they are all creationists either.  I'm just saying that in spite of this monopoly, there is a high level of dissent and that if you are a ToE advocate, you have cause to be uneasy.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No matter how many times it's explained to you, or you are given concrete examples, you just can't grasp that many things in science are counter-intuitive.  One of the biggest breakthroughs in human thought came when smart men realized this, and began relying on the scientific method instead of 'intuition' or 'common sense' to figure out the natural world.

            I know I mentioned this before Dave, but when you are flying in zero-zero conditions at night, do you trust the results from your scientific instruments to keep you flying straight and level, or do you trust your intuition?  If you listened to your inner self only in such conditions, how long would it be before you made a smoking hole in the ground?  What would you think of an untrained passenger who kept telling you "ignore the artificial horizon and altimeter that say we're descending, my common sense tells me we're in a climb!  Put the nose down now!"

            Scientists and those who study the topic know that ToE is the result of what our scientific instruments tell us Dave.   Not only that, we have the results from thousands of different instruments, all precisely calibrated and guaranteed working, that all say the same thing.  We're smart enough to trust our instruments over 'common sense' Dave. You have your untrained layman's intuition, which is less than worthless. 

            It's the same damm thing as you flying in the fog, which is a good metaphor for what you're doing now except you're the know-nothing passenger in the plane Dave. How long before you get a clue and realize that the pilots know what they’re talking about, and you don't?
            Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 28 2006,04:20

            A lecture on common sense from a guy who believes in an invisible, all-seeing, all-powerful, genocidal sky-daddy who's trying to trick us all into believing the universe is old, and torturing for all eternity anyone who falls for the gag.

            I gotta put my boots on.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,04:25

            Russell...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Hmmm.
            On the one hand, "afdave" admits that he is in "the extreme minority" on ToE, but within hours of that admission, he refers to ToE as "fringe science".

            Does this amount to a confession that a fraction of this discussion is bluster he knows to be false, broadcast just to annoy? I wonder what fraction that is: 10%? 50%? 99%?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            It WAS fringe in western culture and I hope it WILL BE fringe again soon.  But it's not now.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,04:36

            OA ... one of these days perhaps, you will begin actually READING what I write before you start blowing off ... maybe it will happen when you get slapped with a 2 day time out and you have some time to reflect ... what is it about you that causes you to not read things I say like  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            ********************************

            Russell-- I think I should retract my statement about "all scientists are lying to the general public about ToE."  As your recent exchange with Deadman has made me aware, this type of statement is no more true than the statement that "Dave is a liar."  Either we both appear to be liars to the holders of alternate views, or we are not truly liars.  But not both.  And I am happy to retract my statements about "scientists lying about ToE" to the general public.  I should merely say that the public is being misled.  But there is in general no lying going on.  The scientists are sincere in their beliefs.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,04:39

            Indeed 1/2 equivocation and half contrarian lameness.

            AFD is just an incredibly slow learner.

            He wakes up to the fact that when Shannon talks about information he is talking about what we now call DATA (independent of what that DATA may contain ....e.g. its coloquial definition of information or cultural content) and that the noise or 'incompressible random data' that Eric was talking about was not channel noise.

            except for this

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So the way to get your Rrn > Rrs (Rr > Ru in Drew's terminology) is to crank up the transmission rate of the Noise , Rtn, higher than the Speech rate, Rts, which of course can be done simply by using a higher frequency oscillator at the transmitter which is transmitting the signal.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Well not quite....I assume you mean by "using a higher frequency oscillator at the transmitter which is transmitting the signal" that you mean use a wider channel bandwidth?

            That is only necessary if you wish to use the same symbol rate and maintain the same transmission time for the larger data file.

            The bit rate for a given channel is dependent on 3 things

            1.signal power to (channel) noise power ratio (SNR)
            2.bandwidth
            3.symbol rate (baud rate) which is set by the modulation scheme

            You can trade off SNR for increased baud rate by coding more symbols per second (using a faster modulation scheme)

            So by using a faster symbol rate in the same bandwidth a larger data file could be transmitted in the same time ...provided the transmitted signal is not attenuated by the physical medium to below the recievers Minimum Discernable Signal power (+ noise margin for the channel) for that particular modulation scheme.

            I'm sure you haven't forgotten that have you AFD?

            As far as what YOU THINK of the ToE ...well tough titties.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 28 2006,04:42

            afdave:

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            What we have here is a theory (ToE) that defies all observation (no one has ever observed macroevolution in action,...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            what would "macroevolution in action" look like? Why, it would look like the processes of population segmentation, mutation, genetic drift and natural selection. Has anyone ever observed these processes? Has anyone ever observed a worm evolving into a cat? Does ToE predict that they should?

            Now, returning to what is supposed to be the subject of this discussion: has anyone observed the creation of fully formed organisms from dust? Has anyone observed a mile of sediment deposited by a mile of water? Has anyone observed revivification of people who have been dead for days? I haven't.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            organisms are degenerating, not getting better,...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Are they? Have you presented evidence for this that I missed?  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            the fossil record has failed to document gradualism,...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Is that so? What about all those links I gave you weeks ago when you repeated the absurd creationist pledge of allegiance to ignorance: that there are no transitional fossils? Note: gradualism doesn't require that change occur at a uniform pace throughout history; why should it? Gradualism (from the Latin, gradus, "step") says that change occurs stepwise.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            there are no cases of mutations that increase specificity, etc. etc.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Aren't there? Have you offered a robust definition of "specificity" against which we can test that claim? I must have missed it. Did my viral methyltransferase fail that test, whatever it was? I must have missed that part, too.

            Now, with regard to "common sense". Both relativity and quantum mechanics notoriously challenge common sense. Is it your position that they are, therefore, wrong? Here's another challenge for you. "Common sense" tells us that an object must have an "appearance", no? What do you suppose an electron "looks like"?
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 28 2006,04:55

            Dave,

            I couldn't care less about your delussions about the universe being based on your "common sense". I could give you a thousand examples of things that are "common sense" or were, at some time, "common sense" that science has proven wrong (hint: ancient greek philosophers), but I am not going to bether because you obviously are not going to stop hoping like he11 that the answers you come up without checking reality are, somehow, correct.

            No, what I am going to ask you is that you stop ignoring the thousand questions that sink your "hypothesis". Like how you go from 10 alleles to 500 for the HLA gene in the 10 or so generations between your flood and the end of the ice age. Please present evidence that this happened, because it sounds quite contrary to not only all evidence I am aware of, but also your "better-than-evidence" common sense.

            Also, regarding your latest unsupported assertion, I want concrete evidence (in the form of fossils, for example) of how all modern animals have "degenerated" over the last 6000 years. I am particularly interested to know what the old, non-degenerated forms of the following animals were:
            - whales
            - dogs
            - horses
            - T. rex

            Finally, you also need to explain how "common sense" can allow for continents moving thousands of miles in a day, when all we can observe around us is movements comparable to that of a growing nail. Or how 5000 feet of water can lay 5000 feet of sediments.

            You see, Dave, it is not only that the ToE is supported by evidence, it's that it is the only theory available. Your "hypothesis" is not only unsupported by evidence but obviously in complete oposition to anything we can observe around us and, indeed, "common sense". And the fact that you keep ignoring those central points makes your "hypothesis" rubbish.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,04:56

            AFD



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I am seriously considering doing what Steve Story has suggested at times ... picking up a biology textbook ... and getting a degree in Molecular Biology.  Not because I think I need to do this to debate you guys more effectively, but because many people equate credibility with degrees.  That's the way it is in our culture and I may need credibility in the biological sciences in order to accomplish some of the things I want to accomplish.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Hey why don't you contact the DI and see if they offer 'research scholarships'  ...snicker.. chuckle.

            Incidently one of my daughters is doing just that...oh and English literature. She'd bust your ass.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,05:13

            Christ Davey you just can't take a trick can you?

            You come over all conciliatory and make a final appeal to "common sense" and STILL get slapped.

            You really need to mediate on RATE.


            Change with time.

            Get your calculator out and work out the time required given the distance traveled and the inches of movement per year (express it as miles per hour just for a laugh) for the break up of Pangea to present day.

            Actually forget that.

            You and Eric ride off into the sunset and he can tell you all about the controlled demolition conspiracy and you can tell him about the "new logic"....how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes ...you should make a lovely couple.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 28 2006,05:19

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 28 2006,08:29)
            As for Eric's two files of 55k each, one containing speech and the other containing white noise, I think Eric is trying to say "Look, the noise file has more info because it's bigger when compressed."  OK, if you want to say that "Data=Info" then yes.  Personally, I think equating the terms "information" and "data" is quite confusing in any context so I don't do it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, this is at least the fourth time I've told you that you don't get to redefine "information" to mean what you want it to mean. So let me state it a fifth time: YOU DON'T GET TO REDEFINE "INFORMATION" TO MEAN WHAT YOU WANT IT TO MEAN."

            You're trying to make a distinction between "information" and "data" that exists nowhere in information theory.

            And you still haven't answered my  < question > about the digital recording of broadband white noise and the encrypted text of the speech, Dave. I really think you should make a stab at it. Answering this question correctly will give you insight into exactly where you've gone wrong on this whole information theory thing.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,05:32

            Eric I think AFD has conceded that point in his roundabout way although he does seem to have a basic comprehension problem or learning difficulty with regard to the coloquial use of the word information versus data.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,05:58

            No, I haven't conceded anything, k.e, I have been saying the same thing about Speech vs. Noise Information Content for several days now, and I don't intend to change unless someone gives me some error free proof. (as opposed to the misapplied "proofs" and beating around the bush, obfuscation and other assorted confusion devices)

            I do realize that all of us may be quite tired of this little detour though, and I welcome Eric or anyone to offer YOUR definition of information as it relates to biology.  It just may happen that we agree.

            Agree? What a thought!
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 28 2006,06:00

            Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 28 2006,10:08)
            Scientists and those who study the topic know that ToE is the result of what our scientific instruments tell us Dave.   Not only that, we have the results from thousands of different instruments, all precisely calibrated and guaranteed working, that all say the same thing.  We're smart enough to trust our instruments over 'common sense' Dave. You have your untrained layman's intuition, which is less than worthless.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            "Uh, AFDave, this is Tower."
            "Hey Tower. This is great. I love to fly."
            "Uh yeah. Looks like you're in a Graveyard Spiral."
            "Nonsense."
            "UH What? We can see you. You're in a Graveyard Spiral."
            "What a load of 20th century bullcrap. I feel fine. I feel perfectly level. My common sense says everything's A-OK."
            "..."

            Anywho Occam, to underline your point, after several years in physics I realized that the process of getting educated in science was largely the wrenching process of learning to trust the equations and the data over your own instincts and common sense.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 28 2006,06:04

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:29)
            Steviepinhead ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave, you are really not doing very well here.  But I'm sure that's not really, um, new information to you.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I take it you came to this conclusion due to the fact that it's basically 100 or so pro-ToE people vs. 1 pro-Creationism person (me) ??  I guess this means that you are heavily influenced by "what does the majority think"?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Well, I don't have any personal leanings one way or another on this issue.  And what I've seen in this thread (end everywhere else evolution/creation is discussed) is a mountain of evidence and solid logic on the side of evolution supporters, and nothing more than fantasy and denial on the side of the creationists.  In the eyes of this neutral party, Dave, you are ilk just keep losing over and over again.  Since you can't provide any evidence (and the other side can - in spades), all you have left is PR.  The DI seems to spend millions on getting their message out and next to nothing on actual research.  If there were any credibility to your side, this would certainly not be the case.

            It's the evidence, stupid.  Come back when you have some.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,06:13

            It would seem AFD has a private definition for the word evidence to.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 28 2006,06:43

            afdave:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I do realize that all of us may be quite tired of this little detour though,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Well, now, you can't say afdave is wrong about everything  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            and I welcome Eric or anyone to offer YOUR definition of information as it relates to biology.  It just may happen that we agree.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Perhaps the fundamental problem is this:
            Information theory identifies 4 separate entities:
            (1) a transmitter
            (2) a communication channel,
            (3) the message itself, and
            (4) a receiver

            An organism, or perhaps more exactly its genome, can be considered any one, or all four of these entities, providing a gold mine for would-be equivocators. Afdave seems to assume a model where

            the Transmitter = God,
            the Message = an hypothetical original "uncorrupted" genetic sequence
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms

            These assumptions are not shared by modern science, or anyone on this board, so far as I can tell.

            improvius:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The DI seems to spend millions on getting their message out and next to nothing on actual research.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            "next to" nothing? What did I miss?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,07:07

            You conceded AFD



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ...OK, if you want to say that "Data=Info" then yes.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Are you trying to say that Shannon Information is not Data?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,07:21

            Russell said re AFD's 'info' theory


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            the Transmitter = God,
            the Message = an hypothetical original "uncorrupted" genetic sequence
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Is it possible that anyone could be that stupid?
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 28 2006,08:17

            AFDave said:
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So this answers our question about H(x).  Shannon simply plugs in 1000 bits/sec into this H(x) number.  Wait a minute!  I thought H(x) is an entropy number, not a transmission rate.  Bingo.  Very confusing, eh?  Note also that he multiplies his calculated Hy(x) by the transmission rate, H(x)=1000, before performing the subtraction.  So what he actually did in his formula is the following ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            You are really misunderstanding this passage. H(x) does not have the number of symbols sent plugged into it, the probability distribution for that set of symbols is what is going in. Shannon says H(x) is the entropy of the source, and uncertainty is defined on page 11 as being H=-sum(pi*log2(pi)), where the set p is the probabilities of each symbol occurring. So, the number of sybmols being sent is not plugged into this formula. Also, H(x) is not a transmission rate since the transmission rate is defined by subtracting the uncertainty of the caused by noise from the uncertainty of the source. Let me say this again, H(x) does not equal Rt except when there is equal probability for each of the symbols being transmitted. This is the maximization case I have been telling you about and is true for a white noise source.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Rr = Rt - Hy(x)*Rt ...or...  

            919 bits/sec = 1000 bits/sec - 0.081*1000 bits/sec

            or ...

            Received Transmission Rate = Transmitted Rate - Rate Loss due to Noise
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Your equation is wrong. Why not we actually try using it to find the information transmitted by a source. Let us take the case where we have only one symbol being sent, 1. Let us also assume that there is no noise in the transmission line. According to you, if we are sending 1000 symbols per second then our information transmitted is Rr = Rt - 0 = 1000. This goes against how Shannon defines information, since a signal that is always the same does not convey any information. You quoted the exact passage where he defines H(x) as the uncertainty of the transmitter. If the signal is always one, there is no uncertainty. If we instead use the equation as he defined it on page 11, then we get H(x) = -(1*log2(1)) = -1*0 = 0. No information is sent. When Shannon uses the equation H(x) he really means H(x), not Rt. The H(x) = Rt case is only true when the probability of each symbol being transmitted is equal.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Going back to your example of the information content of Noise vs. Speech, I hope you can see now that whether you have a noisy channel or a noiseless channel, the Received Transmission Rate will be whatever it is and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual information content of Speech vs. Noise.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I have disproven your assertion here.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            SPEECH:  Rrs = Rts - Hy(x)*Rts, if it's a noiseless channel and Rts=1000 bits/sec, then Rrs=1000 bits/sec also.  If noisy, then Rrs < 1000.  How much less?  It depends on the amount of noise and the probabilities of receiving 1's vs. 0's, which in this case would be UN-equal probabilities I think.  (Doesn't matter for the topic we are discussing.)

            NOISE:  Rrn = Rtn - Hy(x)*Rtn, if it's a noiseless channel and Rtn=1000 bits/sec, then Rrn=1000 bits/sec also.  If noisy, then Rrn < 1000.  How much less?  It depends on the amount of noise and the probabilities of receiving 1's vs. 0's, which in this case would be equal probabilities.

            So the way to get your Rrn > Rrs (Rr > Ru in Drew's terminology) is to crank up the transmission rate of the Noise, Rtn, higher than the Speech rate, Rts, which of course can be done simply by using a higher frequency oscillator at the transmitter which is transmitting the signal.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Wow, again completely wrong. Let me say this again, H(x) only equals Rt when the symbols being sent have equal probability. This is the case with whitenoise, it is not the case with speech.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Where your math goes wrong Drew is in applying the Shannon formulas.  You have simply misunderstood Shannon's use of the term H(x).  You would have applied it correctly if you had read how Shannon applied it.  I admit it is confusing and Dr. Schneider admits this also, which is why he goes to great pains to try to unconfuse people with his writings.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            No, you misunderstood it. Uncertainty of the sender does not equal transmission rate.

            Is it just me, or does anybody else get the idea that AFDave is purposely obfuscating this issue?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,08:42

            AFD you ARE A COMPLETE FRAUD

            Is this the Tom Schneider  you were quoting to support your pathetic 'information' claims THE SAME ONE WHO SAID

            (From < Evolution of Biological Information >)
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            DISCUSSION

            The results, which show the successful simulation of binding site evolution, can be used to address both scientific and pedagogical issues. Rsequence approaches and remains around Rfrequency(Fig. 2b), supporting the hypothesis that the information content at binding sites will evolve to be close to the information needed to locate those binding sites in the genome, as observed in natural systems [4,6]. That is, one can measure information in genetic systems, the amount observed can be predicted, and the amount measured evolves to the amount predicted. This is useful because when this prediction is not met [4,28,29,6] the anomaly implies the existence of new biological phenomena. Simulations to model such anomalies have not been attempted yet.

            Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution. Another use of the program may include understanding the sources and effects of skewed genomic composition [4,7,30,31]. However, this could be caused by mutation rates, and/or it could be the result of some kind(s) of evolutionary pressure that we don't understand, so how one implements the skew may well affect or bias the results.

            The ev model quantitatively addresses the question of how life gains information, a valid issue recently raised by creationists [32] (Truman, R. (1999), < http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm) > but only qualitatively addressed by biologists [33]. The mathematical form of uncertainty and entropy ( , ) implies that neither can be negative (), but a decrease in uncertainty or entropy can correspond to information gain, as measured here by Rsequenceand Rfrequency. The ev model shows explicitly how this information gain comes about from mutation and selection, without any other external influence, thereby completely answering the creationists.


            The ev model can also be used to succinctly address two other creationist arguments. First, the recognizer gene and its binding sites co-evolve, so they become dependent on each other and destructive mutations in either immediately lead to elimination of the organism. This situation fits Behe's [34] definition of `irreducible complexity' exactly (``a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning'', page 39), yet the molecular evolution of this `Roman arch' is straightforward and rapid, in direct contradiction to his thesis. Second, the probability of finding 16 sites averaging 4 bits each in random sequences is yet the sites evolved from random sequences in only 103 generations, at an average rate of 1 bit per 11 generations. Because the mutation rate of HIV is only 10 times slower, it could evolve a 4 bit site in 100 generations, about 9 months [35], but it could be much faster because the enormous titer (1010 new virions/day/person [17]) provides a larger pool for successful changes. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of  bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution. So, contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner [36,32], the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection [33].



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             

            (Emphasis mine)

            While you you suck that down take a look at this
            pay particular attention to the pretty pictures

            < Information Content, Compressibility and Meaning >
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,08:58



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Is it just me, or does anybody else get the idea that AFDave is purposely obfuscating this issue?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            NO he seriously JUST DOES NOT GET IT.

            He jumbles the colloquial meaning with the mathmatical meaning.

            From here < Information Content, Compressibility and Meaning >

            a quote by Mathematician Jim Crutchfield

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Information theory as written down by Shannon is not a theory of information content. It's a quantitative theory of information."

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Davey is talking about  qualiative information which magically REMAINS qualiative when it enters a mathmatical formula (which of course only makes sense if it is quantitive information).

            It's like saying "take 10 x Dreams of eggs and flour and make a pancake".
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 28 2006,09:15

            Quote (k.e @ Oct. 28 2006,14:42)
            Is this the Tom Schneider  you were quoting to support your pathetic 'information' claims THE SAME ONE WHO SAID
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Touché
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,09:28

            k.e ... 2 things ...

            RE: Data vs. Info ... Go look up the meaning of the word "if" and we'll talk later, K?

            Take two tranquilizers and calm down about Tom Schneider ... you sound like I claimed he was a creationist or something ...

            I'll take a look at this "ev model" thingy ... sounds interesting!
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,09:48

            Yeah ScaryFacts Dembski quote mined Schneider  for his  "No Free Lunch" its on his website.

            Hey AFD forget about that degree in Molecular Biology you'd be tossed out in 5 minutes flat for quote mining.

            I wonder if Schneider knows the professional frauds at AiG are doing the same.
            AFD


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            k.e ... 2 things ...

            RE: Data vs. Info ... Go look up the meaning of the word "if" and we'll talk later, K?

            Take two tranquilizers and calm down about Tom Schneider ... you sound like I claimed he was a creationist or something ...

            I'll take a look at this "ev model" thingy ... sounds interesting!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            condescention AFD

            ..For 'tis the sport to have the (quote mining)engineer
            Hoist with his own petar: and 't shall go hard
            But I will delve one yard below their mines
            And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
            When in one line two crafts directly meet.


            Look up intellectual honesty.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,10:46

            k.e's official definition of quote mining:  all quotes which contradict k.e's preconceptions.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 28 2006,10:50

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:29)
            {snip-mined by Mike PSS}
            INTUITION AND COMMON SENSE
            All this brings up an opportunity to talk about Intuition and Common Sense.

            We are all better off if more people use common sense.  

            Our intuition should have driven us all to a search for the truth and for the source of the confusion.

            ...which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave,
            My intuition led me to question your own hypothetical assertions as they related to Isochrons.  And my Commen Sense led me to question how the UCGH handles HLA gene distribution while using the UCGH timeline.

            What does your intuition and commen sense have to say in return?

            You have'nt replied to my < TIMELINE QUESTIONS. >
            Nor have you replied to my < HLA INFORMATION >that YOU ASKED FOR.

            Mike PSS

            p.s. Oh, and Dave....  stating that the Sun is a "burning ball of fire" implies combustion.  This statement would be misleading to others who may not understand cosmic plasma-nuclear *fusion (simplistically stated as E=mc^2).  A listeners intuition may lead them to believe in actual combustion (Hc of CnHn+O2 = CO2+H2O).  They would then come erroneous conclusions about the elemental content of the Sun and stars.  Just one of many rabbit trails that trusting in intuition can lead.

            p.p.s.  Nor have you replied to my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM. >

            *Edit:  Of course it's fusion, not fission.  I was reading about North Korea before I typed this.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 28 2006,11:02



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I am seriously considering  ... picking up a biology textbook ... and getting a degree in Molecular Biology.  Not because I think I need to do this to debate you guys more effectively, but because many people equate credibility with degrees.  That's the way it is in our culture and I may need credibility in the biological sciences in order to accomplish some of the things I want to accomplish.  Also, I LOVE biology and especially cell and molecular biology.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Interesting thought. So you might want to go through all the hard work of getting an advanced degree not* because you might, in the process, be better prepared to debate folks who do know the subject (i.e. you might learn something), but because it would confer upon what you already "know" that certificate of credibility, the piece of paper known as an advanced degree. You'll definitely want to contact Dr. Jonathan Wells for useful pointers in this endeavor.

            *that critical "not" was inadvertantly omitted in the original post; added in edit
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 28 2006,11:34

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 28 2006,13:17)
            Is it just me, or does anybody else get the idea that AFDave is purposely obfuscating this issue?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think Dave is deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. Whether it's conscious or not is another issue, but if Dave were really interested in understanding why (or even finding out if) he's wrong, he would have looked at my < example > involving that old favorite, broadband white noise, and an encrypted file containing the text of a Churchill speech. He would have realized that both files contain the same amount of information, and that would have given him two clues: 1) the meaning of a datastream has nothing whatsoever to do with its information content; and 2) that there is, in fact, a connection between randomness, entropy, compressibility, and information content.

            But Dave never even addressed the issue, which leads me that it's far more important to Dave that he perceive himself as being right about something than it is to actually learn anything. Which, I think, falsifies his claim that he's willing to ditch his creationism nonsense and concede the point on evolution if the evidence leads there (which, of course, it does).

            It would also be very useful to Dave to read the link K.E. kindly provided about < Information Content, Compressibility, and Meaning. > That would give him some good clues, too. For one thing, he might finally get that Shannon information has a meaning orthogonal to, and indeed almost the opposite of, its colloquial meaning.

            In any event, Dave, considering the time and effort expended on this topic, and the drubbing you've taken on it, are you now at least willing to concede that my original question was far from the dumbest question ever asked on this thread? Is it now becoming clear to you that, at a minimum, the situation is a bit more subtle than you had at first supposed?
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 28 2006,13:14

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 27 2006,10:01)

            There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism which is why the genome is much larger.

            I did not know that there was an amoeba with 230X the number of base pairs as a human ... very interesting!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            How about that Dave – your common sense and intuition told you a human had to have a bigger genome than an amoeba, and your common sense and intuition was dead wrong.  

            To top it off, you have demonstrated that you know virtually nothing about biology, and paleontology, and genetics, and radiometric dating, etc.  How many other times has your ignorance based ‘common sense and intuition’ been wrong about scientific matters Dave?

            Didn’t your flight instructor in the Air Force pound into your thick head to not trust your intuition but trust the instruments instead Dave?  Is that why you got booted from fighter school – you were too egotistical to use the instrument data over your own ‘gut feelings’?  What would you say to an untrained passenger who kept telling you "ignore the artificial horizon and altimeter that say we're descending, my common sense tells me we're in a climb!  Put the nose down now!"

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:36)

            OA ... one of these days perhaps, you will begin actually READING what I write before you start blowing off ... maybe it will happen when you get slapped with a 2 day time out and you have some time to reflect ... what is it about you that causes you to not read things I say like  


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            "Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Except the Sun isn’t a burning ball of fire Dave – the Sun’s heat is from nuclear fusion, not combustion with oxygen.   Even your ‘common sense and intuition’ example is dead wrong  Dave. :p

            Your common sense and intuition tells you the Universe is only 6000 years old.
            Our telescopes like the Hubble tell us it’s over 13  billion years old.
            What do your telescopes tell you about the age of the Universe Dave?

            Your common sense and intuition tells you the there are distinct created animal ‘kinds’ formed 6000 years ago too
            Our microscopes tell us not only that life originated over 3 billion years ago, but the genetic mechanisms and timelines for when and how it diversified.
            What do your microscopes tell you about the history of life Dave?

            Your common sense and intuition tells you the continents split up 4500 years ago, then went screeching around the oceans at over 100 mph.
            Our calculators and GPS measurements of drift rates tell us the continents took hundreds of millions of years to reach their current positions.
            What do your calculators tell you about the age of Pangaea Dave?

            I notice you’ve completely given up all talk of specificity Dave – too embarrassed by your mistakes to continue, is that it?

            Why do you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

            Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?

            Let me guess – your common sense and intuition told you so.  Right?   :D  :D  :D
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 28 2006,13:42

            Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 28 2006,19:14)

            Let me guess – your common sense and intuition told you so.  Right?   :D  :D  :D
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Excellent, well reasoned post OA.
            Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 28 2006,13:43

            Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring. ???

            I'd like to hear Dave's take on post-Flood ecology *snicker*, in a world without soil and vegetation.
            It ought to be good.  :)
            Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 28 2006,14:27

            Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2006,10:58)
            Una chingada de pinche mamada mierda?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I know it's a day alte but I read this post at work, where I do not post, and only logged on to answer now: deadman, you almost owe the gubmint a new keyboard. I'm a court interpreter and this is the kind of reply I love to translate at formal hearings. Reading this (after wondering with a Public Defender where all the good old cases had gone, such as the one legged Cuban transvestite bank robber), I started to lose the Cwoboy Coffee all over the desk, but managed to restrain myself. Being able to read cussing in four languages is a load of fun.

            Ra-Úl
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 28 2006,15:53

            Sorry, Raul!!!. I should apologize to steve, too, since it's been my experience that dealing with people on any board is like trying to herd cats. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I was possessed. It was drugs and alcohol, lots of both... I was fondled by a chipmunk when I was little. I was listening to Pink Floyd and back-masked messages controlled my brain. A one-legged Cuban transvestite bank robber took me hostage. It's NOT MY FAULT  
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 28 2006,16:33

            Re "Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring."

            I have insufficient data to answer that question. :)

            Henry
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 28 2006,17:27

            WHY OCCAM'S AFTERSHAVE IS ALWAYS IN A BAD MOOD



            His worst nightmare is being realized!

            AIG is growing like crazy!

            Everyone will become creationists!

            Oil companies won't be able to find oil anymore!

            Doctors won't be able to find cures anymore!

            College grads won't be able to get jobs anymore!

            Evos will be sent to prison camps!

            In short, the sky will fall !!

            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,17:55

            Total fraud AFD said:

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            gratuitous ad hominem to me about Tom Schneider ... you sound like I claimed he was a creationist or something ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Huh?

            AFD THAT is EXACTLY what you did.

            You used his model to attempt to prove that your PRIVATE definition of 'genetic information' supported your religious dogma aka creationism, which AS YOU KNOW is NOT TESTABLE.

            And BY IMPLICATION that your definition of 'genetic information' was equivalent to Tom Schneider's one of the world leading figures in ...wait for it....genetic information and therefore credable.

            Tom Schneider however uses his SCIENTIFIC and therefore TESTABLE definition of 'genetic information' THE REAL ONE NOT THE AiG/AFD FAKE to model long term rates of change in the genome WHICH CAN BE USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS. You know science

            If I was Tom Schneider I would sue AiG's ass for defamation.


             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'll take a look at this "ev model" thingy ... sounds interesting!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





            Why not read his whole paper THE ONE WHERE HE MENTIONS EVOLUTION over billions of years?

            It would be a first for you AFD, to actually read some REAL SCIENCE to see how it is done rather than the fraudulent AiG.

            It seems the genetic information thing is a honey pot for creationists like Behe and Dembski where their Orwellian minds find just enough ambiguity to shovel their lies.

            AFD As far as

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'll take a look at this "ev model" thingy ... sounds interesting!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Why? You have already proven your MO which like Dembski is not to examine the facts but just to parasitically extract enough credibility from their host scientist to make themselves look good.

            AFD YOU ARE the definitive last word in LSoS.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 28 2006,18:23

            Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,18:43)
            Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring. ???

            I'd like to hear Dave's take on post-Flood ecology *snicker*, in a world without soil and vegetation.
            It ought to be good.  :)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh oh oh. My hand's up. Do we get to vote? I vote for core samples! Pick me pick me. Ooh ooh!
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 28 2006,18:49

            Quote (AFDave @ 28 2006,22:27)

            WHY OCCAM'S AFTERSHAVE IS ALWAYS IN A BAD MOOD

            His worst nightmare is being realized!

            AIG is growing like crazy!

            Everyone will become creationists!

            Oil companies won't be able to find oil anymore!

            Doctors won't be able to find cures anymore!

            College grads won't be able to get jobs anymore!

            Evos will be sent to prison camps!

            In short, the sky will fall !!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            LOL!  Hey Dave, you forgot this one

            < AIG almost bankrupt, Ken Ham begs for immediate funds! >

            So Dave, how much are you gonna pony up to Ham next month when you go to visit AIG?  I heard that for cash donations, Ham will give you a 'Ham job'. :p   Given his standards and yours, $5 should cover it. :D  for $10, he'll let you switch off :D :D :D

            BTW Dave, why won't you mention specificity anymore?  How about common sense and intuition.  :p  

            You gonna tell us what amazing scientific discoveries you see with your telescope, microscope, and calculator Davie? :D :D :D

            Are you instrument rated Dave?   :p
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 28 2006,20:20

            Lies, D@mn lies, and quote mining

            AFD for your edification

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Definitions of Quote mining on the Web:

            Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word. The term is used derogatorily to accuse the "quote miner" of cherry picking and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,01:35

            Almost bankrupt!  Ho ho ho ... good one!

            He's raised $23 million so far for his CREATIONIST museum with NO DEBT, he's on 1000 radio stations, his website is the envy of any business with 1.6 MILLION visits per month and Aftershave says he's almost bankrupt!  

            Hoo boy!  The howlers never cease!

            ***********************************

            This one's good too courtesy of k.e ...

            CREATIONIST QUOTES TOM SCHNEIDER = TOM SCHNEIDER IS A CREATIONIST

            ... I don't know if that beats this one from Aftershave or not ...

            OIL COMPANIES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIND OIL IF THEY WERE CREATIONISTS

            Why?  Because Glenn Morton said so !!!

            ... oh, and I almost forgot this one ...

            deadman_932 Posted on Oct. 27 2006,07:06
            I don't sleep Dave. I keep awake to slay people like you. I am People that you cannot find fault in. People that know more than you.


            :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,01:03

            OK ... ENOUGH FUNNY STUFF ... BACK TO BUSINESS

            Russell ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Afdave seems to assume a model where ...

            the Transmitter = God,
            the Message = an hypothetical original "uncorrupted" genetic sequence
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms

            These assumptions are not shared by modern science, or anyone on this board, so far as I can tell.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yup.  That's pretty much it.  I will note that this view WAS shared by most of the founders of modern science, IS shared by a significant and growing minority of current scientists, and (if AIG's explosive growth is any indicator) WILL BE shared my a majority of scientists in 10 years?  20 years? 50 years?

            Now, just so we are all on the same page (ha ha), let us lay out the ToE model in the same format ...

            the Transmitter = The Blind Gunman ... er, sorry ... Watchmaker
            the Message = "Survive, baby!  Reproduce!  Get more complex if you can!" (help me out here, guys)
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms

            I'm quite sure I don't have this quite right and far be it from me to misrepresent ToE, so please ... help me out here.

            See you tomorrow for some more fun and games!
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,01:12

            Creationist makes error... admits to quote mining;
            last seen hurriedly backpedaling  to cover tracks...by using a logical fallacy..yes folks the old tried and trusted ad hominem. AFD keep your eye on the ball.



            CREATIONIST (AFD) QUOTE MINES TOM SCHNEIDER  = Thus  falsely suggesting the famous  research scientist TOM SCHNEIDER one of worlds foremost authorities on information theory in biological systems IS using the scientific meaning of the quantative term 'information'  the same way CREATIONISTs do, which is a meaningless subjective or qualitative term almost identical in 'design' to Dembski's (and Behe's) alphabet soup of various catch all unmeasurable jargon

            Weasel (that by the way is an insult, not an ad hominem)
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,01:22

            Back to bu$ine$$?

            Sure .....so g$d is the transmitter?

            That is a testable scientific hypothesis.

            When did g$d make the first transmission?

            Provide a method of testing, what would falsify it, and what the data in the transmission is composed of.

            You know  something along the lines of

            'I expect 10 bushels of fairies, per millenium, per furlong'
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 29 2006,03:11

            Russell:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Afdave seems to assume a model where ...

            the Transmitter = God,
            the Message = an hypothetical original "uncorrupted" genetic sequence
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms

            These assumptions are not shared by modern science, or anyone on this board, so far as I can tell.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            afdave:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Yup.  That's pretty much it.  I will note that this view WAS shared by most of the founders of modern science, IS shared by a significant and growing minority of current scientists, and (if AIG's explosive growth is any indicator) WILL BE shared my a majority of scientists in 10 years?  20 years? 50 years?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Oh, to live in a world where definitions are all a matter of wishful thinking!

            Let's try to pin some of this down, shall we?

            WHO were the "founders of modern science" who shared these assumptions?
            Whoever they were, WHY are their assumptions any more relevant than, say, mine?
            HOW do you calculate that a "significant" minority of current scientists share these assumptions?
            HOW do you calculate that this minority is "growing"?
            Aside from AiG's apparent financial difficulties, and accepting at face value your assessment that they're "growing like crazy" (which, in a sense, is true!;)), it seems to me radical Islam is growing even more like crazy (I daresay, "explosively"). If your projections are based on rate of growth, what makes you think AiG won't be banned just as thoroughly as "atheistic Darwinism" by your fellow fundamentalists, the Islamocratic overlords of the not-so-distant future?



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now, just so we are all on the same page (ha ha), let us lay out the ToE model in the same format ...

            the Transmitter = The Blind Gunman ... er, sorry ... Watchmaker
            the Message = "Survive, baby!  Reproduce!  Get more complex if you can!" (help me out here, guys)
            the Communication Channel = multiple rounds of replication, and
            the Receiver = modern existing organisms
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            If you were interested in a serious discussion, you would have noted that I already laid out ToE in the same format:

            the Transmitter = the genome
            the Message = the genome
            the Communication Channel = the genome
            the Receiver = the genome

            ...IF you were interested in a serious discussion.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,03:47

            Bravo Russell:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            the Transmitter = the genome
            the Message = the genome
            the Communication Channel = the genome
            the Receiver = the genome
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Look ma no g$d.

            And for a bonus point AFD the CHANNEL noise or uncertainty  is?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 29 2006,03:57

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,07:03)
            Yup.  That's pretty much it.  I will note that this view WAS shared by most of the founders of modern science, IS shared by a significant and growing minority of current scientists, and (if AIG's explosive growth is any indicator) WILL BE shared my a majority of scientists in 10 years?  20 years? 50 years?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, AiG's "explosive growth" is entirely within the lay (i.e., non-scientific) community. The number of actual scientists who subscribe to young-earth creationist crank "theories" is vanishingly low, and not growing. The number of actual life scientists who are also young-earth creationists can be counted on one hand, and the number is also not growing.

            If you think it's a good thing that every year, the American population is becoming less and less scientifically literate, well, all I can say is you've got some odd ideas about what constitutes "progress."
            Posted by: don_quixote on Oct. 29 2006,04:16

            Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 28 2006,18:43)
            Have we finished with that information stuff yet? It becomes increasingly boring. ???

            I'd like to hear Dave's take on post-Flood ecology *snicker*, in a world without soil and vegetation.
            It ought to be good.  :)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I would LOVE to hear what Dave has to say on this subject!

            Anyone else?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 29 2006,05:59



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I [don_quixote] would LOVE to hear what Dave has to say on this subject! [post-Flood ecology ... in a world without soil and vegetation]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Here. Let me spare you the wait. "Even though modern organisms would obviously not be able to survive, it's equally obvious that their Noah-era ancestors did. We don't yet know how, but it was due to capacities encoded in their genomes that have since eroded due to curse-induced imperfections in DNA replication"
            [guffaw]
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 29 2006,08:52

            To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider to get his opinion on the issue. The question I asked was whether a signal constructed from white noise could convey information to a receiver. Here is his reply:


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            > More to the point, I have gotten into a debate with somebody about the
            > transmission of a whitenoise signal over a perfect (noiseless)
            > transmission line.

            Ok, so it's a signal that you have labeled 'whitenoise'.  It reminds
            me of someone labeling certain music as 'noise'.  But from the
            viewpoint of the phone company (ie Shannon's viewpoint) the goal is to
            move that signal from one place to another with as little distortion
            as possible.  The value or meaning of the signal is not relevant to
            the problem.


            > He states that the receiver would not get any
            > information and cites your website where you say: "Because of noise, after
            > a communication there is always some uncertainty remaining, Hafter and
            > this must be subtracted from the uncertainty before the communication is
            > sent, Hbefore. In combination with the R/H pitfall, this pitfall has lead
            > many authors to conclude that information is randomness."
            > < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pitfalls.html#confusing_R_with_H >
            >
            > Now, what I get from your paragraph is that the randomness you are
            > referring to is caused by noise during transmission.

            Yes.  That's the problem that Shannon was dealing with.

            > Since the receiver is
            > uncertain that some of the characters received are the intended (by the
            > sender) ones, it one must subtract the uncertainty caused by the noise
            > from the uncertainty before transmission to get the information received.

            Right.  In the case of this signal called "our white noise signal", it
            is continuous, not characters.  But one can do sampling to get a
            string of characters of course.

            > In other words, I am taking the position that a signal generated by a
            > whitenoise machine

            It's a signal.  One's goal is to transmit it.

            > and transmitted without corruption (i.e. noise is not
            > introduced during the transmission) will convey information to the
            > receiver. Am I wrong to think this?

            You are right (from my viewpoint).  The information received is about
            "our white noise signal".


            So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about
            labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', and
            confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a
            mess.  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be
            sent, then the issues are clear.  You still want "our white noise
            signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if
            it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white
            noise" is sent over a noisy channel.

            > If you are too busy to reply to this question, I will understand.
            >
            > Also, if you do not want me to share your reply with the people in the
            > forum involved in this debate, just let me know. In that case, I will only
            > tell them whether you agreed with me or not.

            You can release this email.

            > Thank you for your time.

            You're welcome.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            As you can see, it does not matter what the meaning of the message is, all that matters is the uncertainty of the receiver before transmission and the uncertainty generated by the noise in the transmission line. In the case of white noise, we have a higher uncertainty before transmission than with a speech signal. All things being equal (the transmission line has the same noise for both signals), then the receiver gets more information from the white noise source than from the speech.

            Edit: For clarification, this was the post I was responding to: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36659 >
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 29 2006,09:27

            MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
            BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
            LAID DOWN BY WATER
            ALL OVER THE EARTH

            ?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 29 2006,09:37



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            another classic "Marshall McLuhan in 'Annie Hall'" moment. You gotta love this forum.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 29 2006,11:29

            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 29 2006,15:52)
            To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider to get his opinion on the issue. The question I asked was whether a signal constructed from white noise could convey information to a receiver.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Drew,

            The email was a great idea, I wish I had thought to do it myself. But it still won't work.  You see, Dave can't comprehend the concept.  No matter how many words you try to use, the concept gets lost in Dave's internal noise.

            Ironic, no?
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 29 2006,11:41

            Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 29 2006,15:29)
            Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 29 2006,15:52)
            To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider to get his opinion on the issue. The question I asked was whether a signal constructed from white noise could convey information to a receiver.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Drew,

            The email was a great idea, I wish I had thought to do it myself. But it still won't work.  You see, Dave can't comprehend the concept.  No matter how many words you try to use, the concept gets lost in Dave's internal noise.

            Ironic, no?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave tries throwing Drew a knuckleball, and...


            Yet another 3 run home run.  (Un?)fortunately, soft tossers like Dave never have their arms get tired.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,12:24

            Drew...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            He states that the receiver would not get any> information
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No.  I did not say that. I stated that "a speech has more information content than white noise."  You took the opposite position ... then when you realized how absurd you were sounding you tried to morph the conversation into one about TRANSMITTING of signals regardless of whether we label it 'noise' or 'speech.'

            But if you look at the original context of the question, there was no mention of TRANSMISSION of either signal---noise or speech.  You simply stated that 'white noise has more info content that white noise' which, by itself is a ludicrous statement.  So you and Eric were quite mistaken on that point.

            Of course on the topic of TRANSMISSION of any signal whether it be noise or speech, Dr S and I would agree with you.

            You all are scientists here and I would hope you care about being precise in what you say and what you mean.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 29 2006,12:34

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,18:24)
            Drew...    

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            He states that the receiver would not get any> information
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            No.  I did not say that. I stated that "a speech has more information content than white noise."  You took the opposite position ... then when you realized how absurd you were sounding you tried to morph the conversation into one about TRANSMITTING of signals regardless of whether we label it 'noise' or 'speech.'

            But if you look at the original context of the question, there was no mention of TRANSMISSION of either signal---noise or speech.  You simply stated that 'white noise has more info content that white noise' which, by itself is a ludicrous statement.  So you and Eric were quite mistaken on that point.

            Of course on the topic of TRANSMISSION of any signal whether it be noise or speech, Dr S and I would agree with you.

            You all are scientists here and I would hope you care about being precise in what you say and what you mean.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Speech does not have more information content than white noise. It takes more information to send a signal constructed of noise over a transmission line (noise or no noise in it) than it does to send a signal of speech. That is why transmission is important here. And, If we are talking about Shannon metrics for information content, then we have to talk in these terms. Everyone on this board, even Christians like ScaryFacts, agree on this. You are the only person who does not.

            Also, even if we disregard transmission and look at metrics that do not use that such as algorithmic information theory and the compression examples that have been mentioned, noise still has more information.

            Remember, Information != meaning.

            Edit: By the way, you are the one who brought up Dr. Schnieder's discussions on information theory to bolster your position. If his metrics are useless for this discussion, than why did you mention them in the first place?

            Edit2: Please do not say what my intentions were, like when you said "then when you realized how absurd you were sounding you tried to morph the conversation". You have no idea about what I was thinking. My position has been a consistent one throughout this discussion.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,13:49

            Again, the original context of the question was Eric claiming that I did not know what genetic information is and he tried to demonstrate this with his question. Of course I answered the question in the context in which it was asked -- biological information -- and of course within that context, my answer makes sense ... Yours does not.  Now you and  Eric morphed the conversation to include compression and transmission and noise, etc.  Now you want me to admit I was wrong?  Get real, please.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 29 2006,14:11

            afdave: your understanding of Drew's point may have "morphed"; I don't think mine has.

            If there was a point to this whole digression, I think it was your contention that genetic information can only degrade over time, not increase. In order to consider that contention, we have to have some objective way of measuring genetic information. The measure Dr. Schneider refers to seems not to support your case. Do you have another one that does?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,14:26

            Russell-  Yes, I think we are on the same page in realizing the need to have a standard for determining 1) what biological information is and 2) how to tell if it increases, decreases, or does not change. My definition is Crick's definition (which is why in this context speech is more information rich than noise) ... And you are correct that I maintain that all biological information is degrading with time.

            We shall explore that more this week.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,15:54

            AFD keep digging.

            Genetic information is a metric, a material measure and has the same properties as digital data(Shannon information).

            The formulae a phone company uses to calculate transmission requirements for digital data (Shannon information) transmission are the same as the ones Dr. Schneider used to calculate errors in transmission of the genome (as digital data) during replication .

            That use of the word information was clear to everyone here.


            You as an EE who I presume has come across Shannon's Theory of Information should understand this.

            You could be excused if you had never heard of Shannon's Theory of Information , IS THAT THE CASE?

            You used Dr. Schneider's formulae for transmission of genetic information (i.e. the exact same context as phone company data information, cultural meaning free) to support your claims, ARE YOU NOW SAYING that you made an error in conflating the colloquial definition of information vs the material or scientific definition for information?

            If Drew said "What has more meaning, white noise or speech?" then you would have a case.

            This whole saga illustrates the  fundamental? problem AFD has with untangling a literal reading of Genesis.

            For him Genesis IS FACT, his mind is utterly agape and completely unable to comprehend a figurative interpretation of what is Mythology.

            Mythology is the world described by the language of dream, the subconscious desires and fears of the primordial mind of man expressed though story.

            For AFD to even remotely consider the possibility that Genesis is not true would be to remove life's(g$ds) meaning and turn all facts into useless purely relativistic non entities...literally to 'lose ones mind'.


            Astute observers will note that from the outside that appears to have already happened...strangely the Bible warns of that happening ..well there is so much in there some of it is bound to right. From somewhere in Exodus "Those who god wants to drive mad, he first causes them to loose ones mind/senses"




            AFD do you realize you make the perfect guinea pig for studying the madness (literally senselessness) of all religious fundamentalism ?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,16:01

            AFD squirms and hides under a rock.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            My definition is Crick's definition (which is why in this context speech is more information rich than noise) ... And you are correct that I maintain that all biological information is degrading with time.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            How convienient, then why did you mis quote QUOTEMINE Dr. Schneider?

            Why don't you email Francis Crick and see if he agrees with you...snicker.
            Posted by: Drew Headley on Oct. 29 2006,16:02

            Let us not forget it was Eric who posed the original question. I only got deeply involved in this when AFDave started using Shannon information to justify his position.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,16:08

            Bah, quite correct Drew my apologies Eric.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 29 2006,16:13

            Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 29 2006,20:26)

            Russell-  Yes, I think we are on the same page in realizing the need to have a standard for determining 1) what biological information is and 2) how to tell if it increases, decreases, or does not change. My definition is Crick's definition (which is why in this context speech is more information rich than noise) ... And you are correct that I maintain that all biological information is degrading with time
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, you use Crick's definition which is based solely on genome size.  You were shown verified examples of evolutionary processes that increase genome size.  By your chosen defintion, information has increased.  Do you deny this?

            You then came up with your own definition of biological specificity that states 'Biological Specificity is the Sum of All Unique Functions in an Organism'.  You were shown verified examples of evolutionary processes that produced entirely new and unique functions in an organism.  By your own definition, evolution has added new biological specificity. Do you deny this?

            Why do you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

            Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?

            BONUS QUESTIONS FOR YOU DAVE

            What evidence for young Earth creationism can you provide that comes from a telescope, microscope, or calculator?

            Is Ken Ham's AIG accountant the same guy that handled your Tri-City Ministries finances?  You guys sure took the parishioners to the cleaners on that one, eh?  ;)

            Are you instrument rated Dave?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 29 2006,16:29

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,19:49)
            Again, the original context of the question was Eric claiming that I did not know what genetic information is and he tried to demonstrate this with his question. Of course I answered the question in the context in which it was asked -- biological information -- and of course within that context, my answer makes sense ... Yours does not.  Now you and  Eric morphed the conversation to include compression and transmission and noise, etc.  Now you want me to admit I was wrong?  Get real, please.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, Dave, that's incorrect. Look at my original post. I said you did not know what the definition of "information" was. I didn't say anything at all about "genetic information."

            I didn't "morph" anything into anything else. I specifically asked you which contains more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or a digital recording of broadband white noise of the same size. The answer to that question is, of course, "a digital recording of broadband white noise." I mentioned compressibility because it is intimately involved in the information content of a given datastream, and if you'd had the wit to apprehend what I was talking about, it would have made plain why the answer I gave is in fact the correct answer. I also cannot fail to note that you have never even attempted to address my example of a digital recording of broadband white noise and an encrypted file containing the text of a Winston Churchill speech of the same length, because there's no way you can address that without running afoul of your own confusion over the issue.

            You still cannot wrap your mind around the fact that "information" != "meaning." Until you can untangle the two, you're going to continue to be wrong.

            Not that there would be anything unusual about that.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 29 2006,16:55

            AFDAVE GETS DOWN TO BUSINESS.... FINALLY.  
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,08:03)
            OK ... ENOUGH FUNNY STUFF ... BACK TO BUSINESS
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            DAVE,
            WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO EVEN RESPOND TO MY POSTS THAT YOU YOURSELF ASKED FOR!


            You have'nt replied to my < TIMELINE QUESTIONS > from YOUR OWN UCGH.
            Nor have you replied to my < HLA INFORMATION >that YOU ASKED FOR.
            Nor have you replied to my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM > that directly answers questions YOU ASKED FOR.

            This is information dealing directly with UCGH claims.  Not rabbit hole discussions about information theory.

            I've been waiting paitiently for your response so far.  I just want to get in the door.

            Mike PSS
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 29 2006,17:14

            Here's my original post about information theory. As anyone (even Dave) can see, I didn't say anything about "genetic information." My point, as again anyone can see, is that since Dave does not understand what "information" means, he cannot talk coherently about whether mutations can increase the amount of information in an organism's genome.
            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 20 2006,12:32)
             
            Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 20 2006,12:16)
            Whos gives a sh*t whether mutations increase the amount of information or not? Since when is information a universal concept, independent from the receiver? What in the world has evolutionary theory to do with information?
            We know mutations happen. Why do we need to blabber on their informative content?
            Please, somebody explain me.
            ???
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.

            But since MHC genes are effective because of the vast number of alleles, and wouldn't work nearly as well if there were only a handful of alleles, it's difficult to understand why Dave would think that all those extra alleles don't add "information" to the human genome no matter what the definition of "information" is.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 29 2006,17:18

            The original question in context ...
            Eric...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             Clearly we were talking about Biological Information.

            AFDave's and Francis Crick's definition of Biological Information ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein” [32, pp. 144, 153].
            < http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Of course in this context, my answer that "speech is more information rich" makes perfect sense because speech is a precise determination of sequence, just like DNA is.

            So not only is Eric mistaken about me not knowing what information is, he himself did not even know what it is  (at least in the biological context).  It's kind of embarrassing when you laugh at someone for not knowing something, then it turns out that they actually DID know it and you didn't.  :-)

            Schneider was invoked because I knew Eric's answer and I also discovered that Schneider had encountered a fair number of people who were reading Shannon and confusing "uncertainty" with "information."

            As for Drew, I think he just got drug in.

            Now k.e thinks I said Schneider is a creationist because I quoted him ... too funny!

            *************************************

            Tomorrow, we will explore biological information and how we can determine if it is degraded or not.
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 29 2006,17:30

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,00:18)
            It's kind of embarrassing when you laugh at someone for not knowing something, then it turns out that they actually DID know it and you didn't.  :-)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes, Dave, it is.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,18:01

            Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            Hilarious.

            AFD quotemines a ...wait for it ....quotemine.

            He widens his search from the intellectually bankrupt AiG to discovery.org .....that bastion of moral honesty behind the Dover dorks who Judge Jones said acted with "Breathtaking inanity".

            Wow AFD you truly have outdone yourself this time.

            Hey AFD....forget about the meaning of 'information', do you know what STUPID is.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,18:14

            Bad news AFD

            Your private crazy creationist definition of 'biological information' != Francis Cricks 'biological information'

            NOT EVEN CLOSE
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 29 2006,18:33

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 29 2006,23:18)
            AFDave's and Francis Crick's definition of Biological Information ...        

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein”
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            How is this a measure of information content, Dave? Is it just a measure of the number of base pairs? Does an amoeba's genome contain hundreds of times more "biological information" than the human genome? So you think 600 tandem repeats of CATGCATGCATG is 4800 bits of information? I don't think so.

            The truth is, Dave, you're completely and totally clueless about the meaning of "information," whether in an information-theoretical context or in a biological context, which is exactly why I asked you the question I asked you. And it's exactly why you got the question wrong.
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Of course in this context, my answer that "speech is more information rich" makes perfect sense because speech is a precise determination of sequence, just like DNA is.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No, it's just as nonsensical as it always was. Do you think 600 tandem repeats of the same four nucleotides has 4,800 bits of information, Dave? What do you suppose would happen if you applied a compression algorithm to that tandem repeat?

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So not only is Eric mistaken about me not knowing what information is, he himself did not even know what it is  (at least in the biological context).  It's kind of embarrassing when you laugh at someone for not knowing something, then it turns out that they actually DID know it and you didn't.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            What's even more embarrassing than being wrong, Dave, is when you persist in being wrong after half a dozen people have shown you in exhaustive detail why you're wrong, but you either don't have the wit to understand the explanations for your wrongness or you haven't the humility and/or honesty to admit when you're wrong.

            Take your pick, Dave. Either way, it's pretty pathetic.
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Schneider was invoked because I knew Eric's answer and I also discovered that Schneider had encountered a fair number of people who were reading Shannon and confusing "uncertainty" with "information."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Strange, then, how Schneider himself doesn't agree with you, Dave.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Tomorrow, we will explore biological information and how we can determine if it is degraded or not.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Um, not by listening to you, we won't. You still don't have a clue what "information"—biological or otherwise—is.

            I suggest you try some simpler topics, like how 5,000 feet of water could deposit 5,000 feet of sediment. Or maybe that's a more complicated one. In either event, it kills your "hypothesis" dead. Same as a hundred other problems with your "hypothesis."
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 29 2006,19:00

            Awwww...isn't little Davie Hawkins the cutest thing!  He's so stupid, and so clueless, and yet continues to cling to the same old C&P'ed stuff like his security blanket.

            What's the matter Davie, are the bad Evilutionists trying to take your binky away from you?

            Please Dave, do keep posting.  It's hilarious to see an ignorant egomaniac like you make the same stupid mistakes over and over and over, then sputter and fume and get all flustered when you realize you've contradicted yourself a half dozen times in just a few pages.   :D  :D  :D

            Don't forget Davie - how about that YEC data from the telescopes, microscopes, and calculators - find any yet?   :p
            Got any more good examples of your common sense and intuition for us?  :D
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,19:19

            Now that all the information is in Davey, how old is the Earth again?

            When did DNA first replicate?

            How fast do the tectonic plates move?

            How old are the deepest ice cores?

            When was the last ice age?

            How old are the cave paintings in southern France?

            When are you going to sue the manufacturers of radiometric dating equipment for fraud when their equipment shows your YECism to be wrong?

            Why does the Supreme Court of the United States say your YECism is a RELIGION and NOT SCIENCE?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 29 2006,20:01

            More squirming Dave?
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Schneider was invoked because I knew Eric's answer and I also discovered that Schneider had encountered a fair number of people who were reading Shannon and confusing "uncertainty" with "information."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            The uncertainty or the transmission anolog 'channel noise' that Dr.Schneider refers to is NOT THE GENOME or DIGITAL DATA but its corruption during replication or transmission.

            Eric was NOT talking about  "uncertainty" or 'channel noise' as any halfwit who can read and actually can spot the quotemined junk on AiG and other creationist sites (would see, if they bothered to check the sources AND took the trouble to understand the concepts addressed.)

            -parenthetic comment added for clarity
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 30 2006,07:55

            COOL CHART COMPARING CELL SIZES

            I got quite interested in cell sizes and genome sizes ... so I did some digging this morning ... this is a pretty cool table!

            0.1 nm (nanometer) diameter of a hydrogen atom
            0.8 nm Amino Acid
             2 nm Diameter of a DNA Alpha helix
             4 nm Globular Protein
             6 nm microfilaments
            10 nm thickness cell membranes
            11 nm Ribosome
            25 nm Microtubule
            50 nm Nuclear pore
            100 nm Large Virus
            150-250 nm small bacteria such as Mycoplasma
            200 nm Centriole
            200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Lysosomes
            200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Peroxisomes
            800 nm giant virus Mimivirus
             1 µm (micrometer)
                  (1 - 10 µm) the general sizes for Prokaryotes
             1 µm Diameter of human nerve cell process
             2 µm E.coli - a bacterium
             3 µm Mitochondrion
             5 µm length of chloroplast
             6 µm (3 - 10 micrometers) the Nucleus
             9 µm Human red blood cell
            10 µm
                  (10 - 30 µm) Most Eukaryotic animal cells
                  (10 - 100 µm) Most Eukaryotic plant cells
            90 µm small Amoeba
            100 µm Human Egg
            up to 160 µm Megakaryocyte
            up to 500 µm  giant bacterium Thiomargarita
            up to 800 µm  large Amoeba
             1 mm (1 millimeter, 1/10th cm)
             1 mm Diameter of the squid giant nerve cell
             120 mm Diameter of an ostrich egg (a dinosaur egg was much larger)
             3 meters Length of a nerve cell of giraffe's neck

            < http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki....ll_size >

            DOES GENOME SIZE CORRELATE TO CELL SIZE?
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The Genome, the Cell, and the Organism Genome Size and Cell Size. According to
            Cavalier-Smith (1982), ‘‘the most reliably established fact about genome evolution is that C-values [genome sizes] are generally positively correlated with cell and nuclear volumes.’’ This observation is most clearly evident in the best-studied
            case of vertebrate erythrocytes, but it has been shown to apply to various other cell types and taxa as well (for reviews, see Gregory 2001a,b). Although the exact mechanistic basis for this relationship has not yet been elucidated, diverse circumstantial evidence strongly suggests a causal (‘‘nucleotypic’’) in-
            fluence of bulk DNA content on cell division rate and cell and nucleus sizes (reviewed in Gregory 2001a). Under one recent model, a large amount of DNA causally generates a larger nucleus and a slower cell division rate,
            which in turn produce a larger cell (Gregory 2001a). Whatever the explanation, it is apparent that genome size is tied in an important way to variation in cell size and division rates, and therefore to any organismal parameters affected by these. (p.13)
            (Paleobiology, 30(2), 2004, pp. 179–202
            Macroevolution, hierarchy theory, and the C-value enigma
            T. Ryan Gregory)
            < http://www.genomesize.com/rgregory/reprints/Macroevol.pdf >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            HUMAN COMPLEXITY RELATED TO HOW FRAGMENTED OUR GENES ARE?
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So, we’re not very unique as far as genome length goes, being beat by a factor 200 by a simple unicellular amoeba. This might be a good point to recall that our full genome is carried inside virtually every one of the 100 trillion cells of our bodies.

            Our obvious complexity seems related not to how many genes we have, but rather to how fragmented they are, which allows many different proteins to be built up by combining exons in different ways. At least 35% of our genes may be read in multiple ways and serve multiple purposes. Our exons can also be quite short, and thus hard to find. More than forty of them are only 19 bases long. In humans, the introns average 3,000 bases long, with a lot of variability, while in simpler organisms such as the fruit flies and roundworms quoted above, there is less variability and the intron averages are tens to hundreds of bases.

            Non-coding exons, a mixture of strange entities, make up some 97% of our genome! What is this stuff, where did it come from, and what purpose does it serve?
            < http://exobio.ucsd.edu/Space_Sciences/genomes.htm >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            JUNK DNA?  HOW CAN YOU CALL IT JUNK JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT?
            I like Zuckerkandl's statments about 'junk DNA' ...
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ (Zuckerkandl, E. and Hennig, W., Tracking heterochromatin, Chromosoma 104:75, 1995.)

            ‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ (Zuckerkandl, E. et al., Maintenance of function without selection, J. Molecular Evolution 29:504, 1989.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Just another example of how scientists sometimes mislead people ... and they probably don't even realize they are doing it!

            Bringing this back to our context of the Biblical account of speciation since Noah's Ark, biological diversity and information, mutations, alleles and such, what can we conclude?

            Not very much, really, from this study.  The most important fact here is simply that ...

            We still do not know very much about ANY genome!

            So I will not be making any attempts to prove what Noah's genome looked like or trying to show you comparisons of modern human genomes with Noah's.  

            But what we can do is discuss known mutations, known alleles (like HLA), causes of variability, speciation and other questions which surround the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

            More on those specific topics tomorrow.

            ***********************************************************

            Speaking of Zuckerkandl ... I found a very recent quote that vindicates Michael Denton's observations about ToE understanding prior to the molecular biological revolution, i.e. the prevalent idea that evolution has progressed from simple prokaryotes to complex eukaryotes.  Denton wrote in 1985 that the finding that bacteria Cytochrome-C sequences are equally distant from all other organisms should be considered as "one of the most astonishing finds of modern science." (p. 281, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

            All the ATBC'ers here "nyah nyahed" Denton saying he was clueless about the prevailing views of ToE advocates prior to the advent of molecular biology.

            Well ... as happens so often, it turns out the ATBC'ers were wrong about Denton.

            DENTON VINDICATED ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE VIEW OF BACTERIA TO MAN EVOLUTION WAS PREVALENT BEFORE THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVOLUTION
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells

            [EDIT: Michael Behe would like that word "irreducible" in the title of this article!] :-)

            Science 19 May 2006:Vol. 312. no. 5776, pp. 1011 - 1014
            DOI: 10.1126/science.1121674
            Review
            C. G. Kurland,1 L. J. Collins,2 D. Penny2*

            "Comparative genomics and proteomics have strengthened the view that modern eukaryote and prokaryote cells have long followed separate evolutionary trajectories. Because their cells appear simpler, prokaryotes have traditionally been considered ancestors of eukaryotes (1–4). Nevertheless, comparative genomics has confirmed a lesson from paleontology: Evolution does not proceed monotonically from the simpler to the more complex (5–9). Here, we review recent data from proteomics and genome sequences suggesting that eukaryotes are a unique primordial lineage.

            Mitochondria, mitosomes, and hydrogenosomes are a related family of organelles that distinguish eukaryotes from all prokaryotes (10). Recent analyses also suggest that early eukaryotes had many introns (11, 12), and RNAs and proteins found in modern spliceosomes (13). Indeed, it seems that life-history parameters affect intron numbers (14, 15). In addition, "molecular crowding" is now recognized as an important physical-chemical factor contributing to the compartmentation of even the earliest eukaryote cells (16, 17).

            Nuclei, nucleoli, Golgi apparatus, centrioles, and endoplasmic reticulum are examples of cellular signature structures (CSSs) that distinguish eukaryote cells from archaea and bacteria. Comparative genomics, aided by proteomics of CSSs such as the mitochondria (18, 19), nucleoli (20, 21), and spliceosomes (13, 22), reveals hundreds of proteins with no orthologs evident in the genomes of prokaryotes; these are the eukaryotic signature proteins (ESPs) (23, 24). The many ESPs within the subcellular structures of eukaryote cells provide landmarks to track the trajectory of eukaryote genomes from their origins. In contrast, hypotheses that attribute eukaryote origins to genome fusion between archaea and bacteria (25–30) are surprisingly uninformative about the emergence of the cellular and genomic signatures of eukaryotes (CSSs and ESPs). The failure of genome fusion to directly explain any characteristic feature of the eukaryote cell is a critical starting point for studying eukaryote origins."

            "This abbreviated account of genome reduction illustrates the Darwinian view of evolution as a reversible process in the sense that "eyes can be acquired and eyes can be lost." Genome evolution is a two-way street. This bidirectional sense of reversibility is important as an alternative to the view of evolution as a rigidly monotonic progression from simple to more complex states, a view with roots in the 18th-century theory of orthogenesis (71). Unfortunately, such a model has been tacitly favored by molecular biologists who appeared to view evolution as an irreversible march from simple prokaryotes to complex eukaryotes, from unicellular to multicellular. The many well-documented instances of genome reduction provide a necessary corrective measure to the often-unstated assumption that eukaryotes must have originated from prokaryotes."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2006,08:01

            Re "When was the last ice age?"

            Around where I live it was Thursday of last week. :(

            Henry
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 30 2006,08:12

            Dave,

            Why don't you use your time to try and answer the very serious, "hypothesis"-killing issues we have outlined before you go into yet another topic you have no knowledge of?

            Examples:
            - How did the HLA gene get 490 new alleles in 10 generations? Which 10 are the ones in the ark (you can tell, according to you, because they are the least degenerated)?
            - How did the continents move thousands of miles in a day, without boiling the Earth? Why is this not against common sense, even though it is common sense to me that continents move very slowly?
            - All the others (I'm sure the list is forthcoming, since we're close to the end of October)

            Oh, and in case you do intend to continue the folly of showing how ignorant you are in yet another topic, Dave, please do a side-by-side comparison of human and gorilla genome, if you really intend to show how much "better" the human genome is. But I really think you should fix the hypothesis, Dave. Right now, it is sunk, dead, useless, etc. A new topic won't solve the problems with it already. And we're not here to discuss evolution or the human genome - we are here to discuss your "hypothesis". If you want to show your ignorance, cut-paste abilities and AIG's evolution strawman, please do so in a new thread, and keep this one on topic: your "hypothesis".

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 30 2006,08:25

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,13:55)
            Speaking of Zuckerkandl ... I found a very recent quote that vindicates Michael Denton's observations about ToE understanding prior to the molecular biological revolution, i.e. the prevalent idea that evolution has progressed from simple prokaryotes to complex eukaryotes.  Denton wrote in 1985 that the finding that bacteria Cytochrome-C sequences are equally distant from all other organisms should be considered as "one of the most astonishing finds of modern science." (p. 281, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

            All the ATBC'ers here "nyah nyahed" Denton saying he was clueless about the prevailing views of ToE advocates prior to the advent of molecular biology.

            Well ... as happens so often, it turns out the ATBC'ers were wrong about Denton.

            DENTON VINDICATED ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE VIEW OF BACTERIA TO MAN EVOLUTION WAS PREVALENT BEFORE THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVOLUTION

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, I still don't get why you think this is important. Is it news to you that modern understanding of evolution is different from what it was fifty, or a hundred, or a hundred and fifty years ago?

            I think it comes from your adherence to a worldview that hasn't changed in thousands of years. To you, that's a good thing. It's the same kind of stupid consistency that's making a mess of American foreign policy today. You'd rather be consistently wrong than flexibly right.

            And I don't get why you, or Michael Denton, or anyone would be surprised to discover that all eukaryotes are equally distant genetically from all prokaryotes. Why do you find that surprising, Dave? We've been over this a million times already, and it doesn't seem to penetrate with you.

            No evolutionary biologist would deny that the base of the phylogenetic tree is poorly understood at present. After all, eukaryotes probably diverged from prokaryotes over a billion years ago, and the chances of evidence of that divergence ever showing up in the fossil record are infinitesimal. But what is very clear is that prokaryotes and eukaryotes have been on separate evolutionary paths for probably 75% of the time life has existed on the planet.

            In short, nothing that you're talking about here is in any way a problem for standard evolutionary theory, Dave, except to the extent that the theory is underdetermined, as in fact any scientific theory is underdetermined. But I'd like to ask you, Dave: what does your young-earth creationism have to say about the phlogeny of prokaryotes and eukaryotes (and archae), and what evidence do you have to support that position? Does creationism have anything useful to say at all on the subject? Or is it just more ineffectual handwaving about "created kinds"?

            Since your "hypothesis" is more hole than hypothesis, all you can do is try to poke holes in someone else's theory. That perceived problems for evolution do not amount to successes for your "hypothesis" does not seem able to penetrate your skull either.
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 30 2006,08:26

            FFS.



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            JUNK DNA?  HOW CAN YOU CALL IT JUNK JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT?
            I like Zuckerkandl's statments about 'junk DNA' ...
             
            Quote
            ‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ (Zuckerkandl, E. and Hennig, W., Tracking heterochromatin, Chromosoma 104:75, 1995.)

            ‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ (Zuckerkandl, E. et al., Maintenance of function without selection, J. Molecular Evolution 29:504, 1989.)
            Just another example of how scientists sometimes mislead people ... and they probably don't even realize they are doing it!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




            You are a real tard daveie. If they dont realise they are misleading people, they are speaking the truth as they see it (as you think you are). When they learn more, they admit their mistakes and move on. It's called Science you bozo.

            And you never responded to the funny "we can prove man will never fly" quotemines - why was that again?

            have AIG fixed their article that even YOU know is wrong? Who's misleading who now then? Pot, kettle etc. The whole point of science is to come up with a theory that better describes the evidence to hand - the thing is you already KNOW the truth and will never change you mind. Seems like you christians want to lie and lie, AIG are lying right now to everybody that clicks on that fradulent article - after all, nobody but the christians want to hold back the CANCER VACCINATION from kids - i guess Jesus' love will cure cancer? Or was that his tears? Dunno, perhaps you can pray for it instead?

            How can you say "prove what Noah's genome looked like" when you DONT HAVE NOAHS DNA IN THE FIRST PLACE? ARE THESE CAPS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 30 2006,08:29

            afdave: there's absolutely nothing in your most recent post that speaks to any of the issues being discussed here.

            Are you trying to change the subject?
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 30 2006,08:36

            MORE CAPS: DAVIE, why dont you settle the argument (ha) once and for all.

            Simply make a prediction, and we'll start a fund (oh, boy will we) to verify it one way or the other.  You win, AIG = 100% true (apart from the bit you now know is false, of course).

            You lose, TOE is all true and you take down kids4lies?

            EG: The earth is only 6000 years old, therefore there are 5999  rings on the oldest tree in the world, if it can be proven to everybody's satisfaction that 1 ring a year is lain down..

            I'm sure we can think of 100's of others, but what would you propose?

            JUST 1 PREDICTION? CAN YOU EVEN DO THAT?

            and, it has to be a thing that can be examined by material science as we currenty understand it (the 95% bit of science that you think is true, remember?)
            Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 30 2006,08:42

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,13:55)
            COOL CHART COMPARING CELL SIZES

            I got quite interested in cell sizes and genome sizes ... so I did some digging this morning ... this is a pretty cool table!

            0.1 nm (nanometer) diameter of a hydrogen atom
            0.8 nm Amino Acid
             2 nm Diameter of a DNA Alpha helix
             4 nm Globular Protein
             6 nm microfilaments
            10 nm thickness cell membranes
            11 nm Ribosome
            25 nm Microtubule
            50 nm Nuclear pore
            100 nm Large Virus
            150-250 nm small bacteria such as Mycoplasma
            200 nm Centriole
            200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Lysosomes
            200 nm (200 to 500 nm) Peroxisomes
            800 nm giant virus Mimivirus
             1 µm (micrometer)
                  (1 - 10 µm) the general sizes for Prokaryotes
             1 µm Diameter of human nerve cell process
             2 µm E.coli - a bacterium
             3 µm Mitochondrion
             5 µm length of chloroplast
             6 µm (3 - 10 micrometers) the Nucleus
             9 µm Human red blood cell
            10 µm
                  (10 - 30 µm) Most Eukaryotic animal cells
                  (10 - 100 µm) Most Eukaryotic plant cells
            90 µm small Amoeba
            100 µm Human Egg
            up to 160 µm Megakaryocyte
            up to 500 µm  giant bacterium Thiomargarita
            up to 800 µm  large Amoeba
             1 mm (1 millimeter, 1/10th cm)
             1 mm Diameter of the squid giant nerve cell
             120 mm Diameter of an ostrich egg (a dinosaur egg was much larger)
             3 meters Length of a nerve cell of giraffe's neck

            < http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki....ll_size >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dear Sir,
            I've looked in my copy of the bible, and could not find the quoted information. Please inform me how you can be sure this is just not darwinian specluation desiged to remove god from public schools? I see no mention of Jesus in Globular Protein?
            Only Jesus can say that  10 nm thickness cell membranes are required, rather then  9 nm thickness cell membranes. 10 is Zero and One. God is 3 in 1 - the holy trinity.
            Where is Jesus in your ungodly list of "cell sizes". Take Jesus into your heart and your "Comparison of Cell Sizes"  will be unnecessary.

            Best Wishes

            Fundy Tard
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 30 2006,10:13



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            DENTON VINDICATED ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE VIEW OF BACTERIA TO MAN EVOLUTION WAS PREVALENT BEFORE THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVOLUTION
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Unless you're using a highly specialized definition of "bacteria", I believe you'll find that view is still prevalent... shared, in fact, by Denton himself so far as I can tell from a corsory perusal of his most recent book. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2006,10:32

            Are all living bacteria genetically equidistant from eukaryotes?

            (The chart on the tree-of-life website indicates that, but it also describes a couple of alternate versions of the tree that apparently hadn't been ruled out at that time.)
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 30 2006,10:47

            YEAAAAAHHHH!!!    AFDAVE IS BACK ON TOPIC AND READY TO ANSWER MY RESPONSES TO HIS QUESTIONS!!!  
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,14:55)
            Bringing this back to our context of the Biblical account of speciation since Noah's Ark, biological diversity and information, mutations, alleles and such, what can we conclude?

            Not very much, really, from this study.  The most important fact here is simply that ...

            We still do not know very much about ANY genome!

            So I will not be making any attempts to prove what Noah's genome looked like or trying to show you comparisons of modern human genomes with Noah's.  

            But what we can do is discuss known mutations, known alleles (like HLA), causes of variability, speciation and other questions which surround the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Like a good little sycophant I can provide Dave all the necessary references to these questions.
            Here's my< TIMELINE QUESTIONS. >
            Here's my < HLA INFORMATION. >
            And here's my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM > in case you get peaked in your work.

            Uh Oh!!  Look's like I'll have to wait for tomorrow for the pertinent information.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            More on those specific topics tomorrow.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh Well.
            Another day waiting for AFDave to C&P...  errrr..... discover new and exciting information to add to the discussion.
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 30 2006,10:55

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 30 2006,14:32)
            Are all living bacteria genetically equidistant from eukaryotes?

            (The chart on the tree-of-life website indicates that, but it also describes a couple of alternate versions of the tree that apparently hadn't been ruled out at that time.)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Henry,

            It depends on whether you count < archaea > as bacteria.  If you do, the prevailing view is that, no, archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than the eubacteria (true bacteria), with bacteria first diverging from archaea, then eukaryotes splitting from archaea.  Of course, things get really sticky when you consider that mitochondria are probably the descendents of eubacteria, making us chimera of sorts.
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 30 2006,11:19

            Argystokes's answer illustrates what I meant when I said "Unless you're using a highly specialized definition of bacteria..."

            I'm guessing that afd and his "kind" would see methanogens, halophiles, cyanobacteria and staphylococcus as one "kind".
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 30 2006,11:21

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 30 2006,17:19)
            I'm guessing that afd and his "kind" would see methanogens, halophiles, cyanobacteria and staphylococcus as one "kind".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes; they're all "germs."
            Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Oct. 30 2006,11:49

            Dave, I've got a question that I'm dying to hear you answer. If you don't want to answer it here, please drop me a PM.

            I've heard you and other Christian fundamentalists complain that we shouldn't treat macroevolution as "real" science because we can't directly observe a "kind" transform into another "kind". In other words, we lack direct evidence, and must instead rely on circumstantial evidence.

            OK, but if that reasoning holds, then shouldn't we open our prisons and free all prisoners convicted on circumstantial evidence? After all, most criminals are in jail due to cutting deals, and most of those deals were predicated on the very type of circumstantial evidence that evolution uses. Heck, even if the prosecutor has witness testimony, it's often very shaky and only a minor component to the case. Yet some states are willing to kill a man on the class of evidence you deem unscientific. So should we make major reforms in our judicial system, or would you say that circumstantial evidence is good enough to put a man in the electric chair, yet not good enough for the classroom? I've yet to hear a good answer for this.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 30 2006,11:49

            A brief recap ...

            1) I presented Exhibit A - Denton's Dayhoff chart
            2) Denton wrote in 1985 that the finding that bacteria Cytochrome-C sequences are equally distant from all other organisms should be considered as "one of the most astonishing finds of modern science." (p. 281, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

            Why?  Because of this prevalent view spoken about in this article.  These folks should have been very surprised.

            3) I relate this information to you.
            4) You guys tell me "Aw come on Dave, no one ever believed that rot ... Denton's out of touch ... he's a loony bin.  In fact ToE PREDICTS that Dayhoff chart!"
            5) "Right,"  I say ... "we'll see about that."
            6) So today I give you a quote which shows that Denton was correct that this view was quite common.

            As for what Denton believes now ... I don't know ... you should have noticed by now that I don't really care what a particular scientist believes ... I just care about the statements he makes and whether they are accurate or not.

            All I know is that this article makes it quite clear that Denton was correct in his observation and this fanciful idea of eukaryotes evolving from some prokaryote ancestor is  ... well ... BALONEY.

            ******************************

            No subject changing, Russell ... someone got me interested in Amoeba dubia and that got me interested in genome size, cell size and 'junk DNA.'

            ********************************

            Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 30 2006,11:54

            Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 30 2006,14:36)
               

            ...and, it has to be a thing that can be examined by material science as we currenty understand it (the 95% bit of science that you think is true, remember?)  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            How about it Dave?  Looks like another great chance to use your telescope, microscope, or calculator   :D  :D  :D

            Looks like Davie has given up on his 'specificity' and 'biological information' cluster pluck.  He's choosing to employ one of his favorite defenses - change the subject and pretend he never made all those other bone-stupid statements. ;)

            I guess we'll have to keep reminding him, won't we?   :p
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 30 2006,11:54

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 30 2006,17:21)
            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 30 2006,17:19)
            I'm guessing that afd and his "kind" would see methanogens, halophiles, cyanobacteria and staphylococcus as one "kind".
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Yes; they're all "germs."
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Actually, I would guess that, to Dave, they are all "unicellular creatures", clearly far less evolved that the glorious Christians, he himself being the pinacle of creation (and godless atheists being devolved, of course). Except they probably were once dinosaurs, and they devolved to unicellular creatures. Except they have lost all information, except that ameba that has multiplied information endlessly except there was no increase in information except there was an increase in information but not of specificity except information and specificity are the same except...

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf

            *** This post brought to you by the "Insight to a YEC Mind" Foundation ***
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 30 2006,11:57



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant.  Just a fair warning.

            And does the gain of the ability to fight disease count as an increase in specificity/information (2nd time)?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 30 2006,12:05



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            All I know is that this article makes it quite clear that Denton was correct in his observation...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            His observation that virtually all scientists believe that humans have prokaryotic ancestors? THAT observation was, and is, correct.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ... and this fanciful idea of eukaryotes evolving from some prokaryote ancestor is  ... well ... BALONEY.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes, we all know you think that. But you've posted nothing new to persuade anyone that this is anything but a loony idea. Do you imagine there's something in what you posted that contradicts our contention that ToE predicted your Dayhoff chart, or that supports Denton's (probably since regretted) claim that anyone should be surprised?
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 30 2006,12:07

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,17:49)
            You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave,

            1) I already consider you a heretical idiot, liar, scum and anti-christian, and have plenty of evidence in this thread on which to base this opinion. You mangling HLA genes with more misquotes and ignorance is not going to change that.

            2) Please remember to explain how 490 new alleles were added to the population in 13 generations between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age. Since common sense tells me that such a huge amount of mutations are impossible, and evidence agrees with me, I'm really looking forward to see you explain how your "hypothesis" deals with it. If you are going to quote a miracle, please include the Bible verse.

            3) In fact, I predict that you will not address the point, instead you'll move the goal posts or misquote some scientist (or maybe even a non-scientist that you will insist knows something about the topic) in a vain attempt to cover your back. But whatever method you use, I predict, based on past actions, that you will *not* present evidence that you have not doctored to support your baseless assertions.

            For what is worth, however, I do look forward to your post on HLAs. Laughing at ignorance is usually not nice, but willful ignorance is fair game.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 30 2006,12:12

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,17:49)
            All I know is that this article makes it quite clear that Denton was correct in his observation and this fanciful idea of eukaryotes evolving from some prokaryote ancestor is  ... well ... BALONEY.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Not quite, Dave.

            Picking out one article which makes an argument that eukaryotes might not be descended directly from prokaryotes, that both might in fact be coeval or possibly descended from a common ancestor, does not imply that "this fanciful idea of eukaryotes evolving from some prokaryote ancestor is  ... well ... BALONEY."

            As I've said probably a dozen times on this thread, you're talking about events that took place at least a billion or more years ago. Current thinking on the exact phylogeny of eubacteria, archae, and eukaryotes is a bit < murky >, to say the least. But there's no doubt whatsoever, at least from people who actually understand cladistics, that all eukaryotes are equally distantly related to prokaryotes. That Denton found this surprising is in itself somewhat surprising. That you find it surprising isn't at all surprising.

            But again, Dave: why do you think it's important that current thinking on the topic is different from the thinking of 40 years ago?

            And in the meantime, here's the important question: what does your "hypothesis" have to say about the phylogeny of eubacteria and eukaryotes? Anything at all, Dave? Whether it's true that eukaryotes directly evolved from prokaryotes, or whether the true situation is more complicated, does your "hypothesis" no good at all. Your "hypothesis" can't even seem to frame a scenario of what happened at all!

            How many times will I have to ask you this question before you can C&P an answer, Dave?
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 30 2006,15:29

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,18:49)
            Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            AFDave,
            It's been what... two weeks?  I put my message together in about 15 minutes (after studying the pertinent information for about 30 minutes).  And I haven't changed anything in my statements.  I have stood by them ever since I've posted and no-one (yourself included of course) has mentioned anything amiss about the information presented.

            I hope you answer the pertinent statements I made in response to your questions.

            I'm bringing back Petey for a new incarnation, the Pertinent Poster Panda.

            "Who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree?
            Pertinent Poster Panda.
            Who explains pertinent posts to you and me?
            Pertinent Poster Panda.
            "Don't say that! Don't go there!
            Don't be nasty!" says the silly bear.
            He's come to tell you what's right and wrong.
            Pertinent Poster Panda."


            If Dave doesn't answer the questions in my post, that will make me a Sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 30 2006,16:42

            argystokes,
            Re "OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant.  Just a fair warning."

            Oh, is that why some genes manage to keep a large number of alleles in circulation despite the effects of drift. Interesting.

            Henry
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 30 2006,19:43

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,14:55)
            But what we can do is discuss known mutations, known alleles (like HLA), causes of variability, speciation and other questions which surround the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Great!  You can start by testing your theory of speciation (kindiation?) using the fossil record.  Now, if your theory is correct, we should be able to look at the fossil record over the last 4500 years and notice (for starters) that the quantity of different species increases dramatically, starting at next-to-nothing for a while, and doubling maybe every 300 years or so.  We should find only a very small number of each kind at around (roughly) 4500-3000 years ago.  We can safely assume that anything we find that dates to right around 4500 years would be some sort of ur-kind, and will give us a very good idea of what was actually on the ark.

            So, get to it, Davie!  Pick your dating methodology and tell us whether or not the fossil record supports your hypothesis.  This should be an easy one for you, and it would go a long way towards convincing everyone else here that you're right.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 30 2006,21:12

            oh Davey

            DATING: In the meaning improvius uses it, is a method based on observable evidence that correlates with ALL other VALID dating methods WITH ABSOLUTLY NO EXEPTIONS.

            iow IF your proposition FAILS ANY of the tests it is NOT VALID and needs adjusting to EXPLAIN the discrepancy

            EVIDENCE:If you are not sure what the meaning of evidence IS, google "The rules of evidence"

            IS: If you do not know what IS is, I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary (the 14 volume edition) there should be one at your university library.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 31 2006,03:37

            k.e ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            DATING: In the meaning improvius uses it, is a method based on observable evidence that correlates with ALL other VALID dating methods WITH ABSOLUTLY NO EXEPTIONS.[sic]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes.  And no spelling errors, either!!  Got it!
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 31 2006,03:43

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,10:37)
            k.e ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            DATING: In the meaning improvius uses it, is a method based on observable evidence that correlates with ALL other VALID dating methods WITH ABSOLUTLY NO EXEPTIONS.[sic]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Yes.  And no spelling errors, either!!  Got it!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think you should lay off making statments about spelling errors, Dave.

            (Use Ctrl-F if you don't get it.)
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 31 2006,04:09

            Quote (improvius @ Oct. 31 2006,01:43)
            Great!  You can start by testing your theory of speciation (kindiation?) using the fossil record.  Now, if your theory is correct, we should be able to look at the fossil record over the last 4500 years and notice (for starters) that the quantity of different species increases dramatically, starting at next-to-nothing for a while, and doubling maybe every 300 years or so.  We should find only a very small number of each kind at around (roughly) 4500-3000 years ago.  We can safely assume that anything we find that dates to right around 4500 years would be some sort of ur-kind, and will give us a very good idea of what was actually on the ark.

            So, get to it, Davie!  Pick your dating methodology and tell us whether or not the fossil record supports your hypothesis.  This should be an easy one for you, and it would go a long way towards convincing everyone else here that you're right.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            And don't forget that, when you are looking at the fossil record, you have to exclude:

            MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
            BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
            LAID DOWN BY WATER
            ALL OVER THE EARTH

            because those were laid down by The Flood.  You can only look at the post-Flood part of the fossil record.
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 31 2006,05:29

            Thank you AFD for pointing out my spelling errors.
            I do actually run my longer posts through a spell checker to reduce that sort of pettiness, in future I will be more careful.

            I assume you still got the message?

            Do you have any incontrovertibly overwhelming evidence for your hypothesis?

            How about ...just overwhelming evidence that on balance through different dating methods supports your hypothesis?

            What about half a dozen independently verifiable objects?

            Even just an invoice signed by Noah's chandler?
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 31 2006,05:32

            Yes, yes.  I know I don't spell perfectly either ... I just found it funny that k.e warned be about how perfect my dating system has to be and while doing so, misspelled two out of three words!!  :-)

            ... uh, Carlson, there IS NO "post-Flood" fossil record, to speak of.

            I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...

            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find that it is!
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,05:52

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
            ... uh, Carlson, there IS NO "post-Flood" fossil record, to speak of.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So your position is that every single fossil found anywhere in the world is exactly the same age? 4,500 years, right? So basically every, e.g., Apatosaurus died and was buried at exactly the same time, presumably within a few minutes of each other given the rate of claimed sedimentation during the "flood," so as to end up in exactly the same place in the geological column. Okaaay…

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Not quite, Dave. I've read every single post you've made on all of your threads, and I didn't see any post or group thereof where you managed to prove that all (or even one) radiometric methods are inaccurate. You've only even talked about three or four radiometric methods out of the 40 in use. And you still haven't addressed Mike PSS's summary on isochrons. You may have convinced yourself that all radiometric methods are broken, but given that you haven't even discussed the vast majority of them, let's just say your claims are less than persuasive
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Except that everything the Bible says that pre-dates civilization (i.e., almost all of Genesis) is provably wrong. The Bible is worthless as a record of astronomical, geological, biological, etc. events.
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, the Bible is fine for dating events against other, independent evidence, but given its sorry record in dating pre-historical events, it's worthless for dating things like the time of continental breakup (or, strangely enough, the "ice age" that you claim happened during historical times—what's your explanation for that, Dave?).  
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            No it isn't. Because if it were, you would have seen that the Bible is wildly, hilariously inconsistent with independent observations, and you would have abandoned your absurd biblical literalism in high school.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Lo and behold, I find that it is!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Um, not exactly. What does the Bible have to say about the Andromeda Galaxy, Dave?

            Just so you know, it's the end of the month. You know what that means, right?
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 31 2006,06:04



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find define that it is!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            and find no end of bizarre contortions to deny the mountains of evidence that contradict it. For some reason, no respectable scientist, archeologist or historian publishing outside of fundy propaganda mills like AiG agrees with me. What's up with that?
            Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 31 2006,06:14

            afdave,Oct. 31 2006,11:32]
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ... uh, Carlson, there IS NO "post-Flood" fossil record, to speak of.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Okay.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Oh, I think I've got nothing on you when it comes to strange understandings, but okay.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I've been here all along and, although you will never believe me, I can say with a great deal of certainty that you didn't.

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So, will these historical records get you from 35,000 kinds to 10 million species in 4500 years?

               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Same question.  35,000 ------> 10,000,000. 4,500 years. Go.

            When you are done, let me know how 5000 feet of water laid down 5000 feet of sediment.
            Posted by: afdave on Oct. 31 2006,06:17

            There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 31 2006,06:23

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,10:17)
            There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            But Dave, you already said that you can't even imagine hwat evidence contradictory to the Bible even would look like.  Now, granted, that was many moons ago.  Have you thought of anything?  And you promised us HLA today!  I'm afraid all the runners just got to advance one base.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 31 2006,06:23

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,13:17)
            There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            How exactly can you have archaeological confirmation of anything without a viable dating method?
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 31 2006,06:24



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Ignorance is bliss



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ...
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Ignorance is bliss



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            And NONE that support your Flud or your pigmy version of evolution.
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 31 2006,06:25

            AFDAVE POSTED!  IS IT ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  NOOOOOO....   I'M A SA-A-A-A-A-AD PANDA (sniff)

             
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,12:32)
            I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...

            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find that it is!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Wow.  I don't have to search through the post to find key points to counter, I can highlight the whole quote.

            I think Dave has been wearing these for some time.  From < here. >  (Although these are Mormon Blinders and Dave probably has something to say about that too.)


            A couple pertinent captions are:
            "After seeing damning DNA evidence against the church the elder straps scriptures over his eyes. (out of site, out of mind.) "
            "Similar to the Urim & Thummin these magical blinders cause the wearer to see only that which is faith promoting and supports church doctrine."
            ******************************
            I'll just post a quick counter to point #1.
            Here's my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM > which means you CAN'T REFUTE RM DATING UNTIL YOU SENSIBLY ANSWER THE REFUTATION.

            Or..... Dave is calling me ignorant and/or a liar.

            WHICH ONE IS IT DAVE, IS MIKE PSS IGNORANT, A LIAR, OR BOTH.  BECAUSE I STILL THINK RM DATING IS A VALID DATING SYSTEM.

            Please be concise.  Petey is watching.

            Mike PSS
            Posted by: Russell on Oct. 31 2006,06:26



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Why do you think this? Is this "common sense", or will you refer us to some body of discussion on the topic by serious historians without an obvious religious axe to grind?

            Do you believe Hitler died in his bunker in 1945? If so, was it "historical records with geneological tables" that persuaded you? Or was the the post-facto forensic work?
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 31 2006,06:47

            Quote (Russell @ Oct. 31 2006,12:26)
            Do you believe Hitler died in his bunker in 1945? If so, was it "historical records with geneological tables" that persuaded you? Or was the the post-facto forensic work?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I knew all you evil Darwinists secretly love Hitler.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,06:55

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,12:17)
            There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave, you're joking, right? A visible galaxy two million light-years away doesn't contradict the Bible's claim that the edge of the universe is only 6,000 light years away? The mountain of radiometric evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old doesn't contradict it? The mountain of astronomical evidence indicating the universe is 13.7 billion years old doesn't contradict it?

            I can't wait to hear your explanation for the cosmic microwave background.

            The fact that some biblical details can be confirmed by reference to independent observation helps not a bit with the vast majority of biblical details that are flat-out contradicted by observation. That's bone-simple logic, Dave, but let me see if I can state it more succinctly:

            That some biblical claims are true does not mean that all biblical claims are true.

            Is that simple enough for you?

            Now, about that Andromeda Galaxy. Are you going to deal with this one fact that completely, all by itself, blows your "hypothesis" away? It doesn't reflect well on you personally that you continue to ignore this one question that's been outstanding for months, Dave.

            And don't worry: there are plenty more where that one came from.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,07:20

            And just so you know, Dave, yesterday was the < five-month anniversary > of the first time I asked you how far away you thought the Andromeda Galaxy is.

            I'm saddened that you have still, after all this time, not bothered to provide an answer.
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 31 2006,07:33

            Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3?
            Posted by: Steverino on Oct. 31 2006,07:36

            Dave,

            You are being dishonest with not only us but, with yourself.  Even if we take you at your word regarding
            "
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these."

            Stories (The Bible is not a collection of historical records) that have been written down, translated...over and over...You assume these are accurate.

            Noah was 600 years old?  You actually believe that...you place more validity on the idea Noah was 600 years old...than say....Dendrochronology, which is considered to be one of the most accurate dating method?
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2006,07:44

            Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

            According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,07:55

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2006,13:44)
            Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

            According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Why would one look at a geneology for Christ through Joseph? Joseph isn't even really related to Christ. He's like a stepdad, or something, right?
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 31 2006,08:07

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'm interested in the ice age, Dave. Please, tell me where I can find reference in the Bible to the ice age, and who was alive in that period so I may calculate when it started and when it ended.

            Please also tell me how genealogies tell us how the continents moved, how far stars are and how humanity survived the mutation rate necessary to gain 490 alleles to a single gene (not to mention all the other multi-alleled genes) in the time between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age (which we can now pin-point thanks to this genealogies of yours, it seems).

            Thanks,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,08:19

            Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 31 2006,14:07)
            I'm interested in the ice age, Dave. Please, tell me where I can find reference in the Bible to the ice age, and who was alive in that period so I may calculate when it started and when it ended.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I wonder why Dave even thinks there was an ice age. He claims no fossils are from that time, it's not mentioned in the Bible, and he hasn't pointed to any evidence of any sort to indicate there ever was an "ice age."

            I wonder if he just mentions it so it will give his "hypothesis" that fresh "sciency-ness" scent.
            Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 31 2006,08:47

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find that it is!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            1) Radiometric dating, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores... leave my "hypothesis" deader than Dead Deady McDead, the deadest man in Death Valley, on the Day of the Dead.  So let's just handwave them away.
            2) If it's written down in "historical records", then it's true.
            3) There's no qualitative difference between, say, a declaration of war in the US Congressional records, and a creation myth.  See point 2.
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to discard any scientific observation, archaeology or outside historical account which disagrees with Genesis, then find out if what's left agrees with it.  In the event of disagreement, discard the evidence.  Repeat as necessary.
            Posted by: improvius on Oct. 31 2006,09:00

            Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2006,15:47)
            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find that it is!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            1) Radiometric dating, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores... leave my "hypothesis" deader than Dead Deady McDead, the deadest man in Death Valley, on the Day of the Dead.  So let's just handwave them away.
            2) If it's written down in "historical records", then it's true.
            3) There's no qualitative difference between, say, a declaration of war in the US Congressional records, and a creation myth.  See point 2.
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to discard any scientific observation, archaeology or outside historical account which disagrees with Genesis, then find out if what's left agrees with it.  In the event of disagreement, discard the evidence.  Repeat as necessary.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That's pretty much it.  Dave admitted in the first thread that he evaluates scientific evidence based on whether or not the "researchers" agree with his worldview.
            Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 31 2006,09:25

            YAWN...MORE POSING AND PREENING FROM HOT AIR DIRIGIBLE DAVE

            You're boring Dave. Endless claims of having "disproven" things you scarcely understand -- much less can find fault in -- is typical of you, but boring. You can't even begin to back your hypothesis that is better than any other, you can't even show it has a veneer of science to it, so you're stuck on this robotic infinite loop of grandiose, self-deluded posturing.
            1 ) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available. People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly. Except you did no such thing, Dave. In fact, to this date, you refuse to even acknowledge Jon and Mike's decimation of the blantant pseudo-scientific claims you reposted from Answers in Genesis and  the Institute for Cretinous Research. Your lies in that regard ranged from claims that the Grand Canyon couldn't be radiometrically dated, then individual layers of the Grand Canyon, then lying about dating the Grand Staircase geological strata, then you lied about radiometrics being unable to date sedimentary layer, then you took up two whole radiometric dating methodologies and got your silly mug slapped around there, too. As it stands, you can't even muster the courage to deal with Mike's refutation of you...fear controls you.
             
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables. The Bible contains many of these.Except you can't point to any "originals" or even support the claim that the Genesis stories we have are faithful copies of imaginary originals you claim were carved on stone by wandering scribes following Biblical characters around. Then your date range for the flood expanded and contracted from 2300 BCE to 5000 BCE or more. Gee...100% ++ error margin...great work there. And when shown specific examples of error in the Genesis accounts...oh, like multiple cultures surviving the "global flood" ...you do exactly what you did in all similar cases. You avoided the facts, pasted up non-sequiters and blatant falsehoods...and cut and ran. Good job, there, Mr. Courage.

            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible. Some scientists and historians have relied on some dates in the Bible, others have not. So? Is this supposed to indict science and historical research? Are you a victim again? Or merely just a hypocrite? Your lack of courage in dealing with the facts as they stand is noted again.

            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it. And when the mythology of Genesis is inconsistent or counter to what history and science has evidence for, you ignore it, paste up false claims or a smokescreen of diversions, fallacies and utterly craven ploys. You really don't seem to have the courage of your convictions or faith, Dave. The balloting is in, you're spineless AND boring and possessed of a self-delusional set of beliefs that cannot withstand even a cursory round of questioning. Now, that's sad, boy.
            Posted by: BWE on Oct. 31 2006,09:41

            Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
            Yes, yes.  I know I don't spell perfectly either ... I just found it funny that k.e warned be about how perfect my dating system has to be and while doing so, misspelled two out of three words!!  :-)

            ... uh, Carlson, there IS NO "post-Flood" fossil record, to speak of.

            I think you all have a very strange understanding of what creationists are saying ... let me reiterate very simply ...

            1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
            3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
            4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

            Lo and behold, I find that it is!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            < permalink 1 >
            < permalink2 >
            < permalink4 >
            < next >
            < next (ot- it's the recap of portuguese) >
            < next >
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            BWE ... I had the Portuguese argument with Rilke and won handily.  Why waste the time debating you?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Because I know something you do not know. i am left handed!
            < next >  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  The best that Arden Chatfield--the resident linguist--and Faid were able to do was tell me that both Portuguese and Spanish were descended from Latin.  But I already agreed with that.  How does this refute anything I said?  Answer:  It doesn't.  This is just as vacuous as all these bogus quote mining charges.  It seems that you guys sure do whine a lot.  I hear a lot of "Quoteminer!" (when it isn't) and "Liar!" (when in reality it's just a different opinion) and "Evil loki child abuser!" (when in reality it is ToE advocates who are telling half-truths to our public school kids).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            it's fun going back through this thread:)
            < next >
            < next >

            Ok, I'm bored with this. Dave, the point is that core samples do give this evidence you seek. And they calibrate RM techniques to boot! So you had better go down that path if you are trying to say there is no way to tell.  ???

            Quote (BWE @ Oct. 20 2006,12:59)
            Ha ha ha ha. Boy, I forgot how good google is. This guy already assembled my list. Duh!

            Well, I can't take credit for the work anymore but it is very concise.
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
               Age Dating Correlations

               For anybody unclear on the concept, this is how it stacks up -- the minimum age of the earth is:

                   *     8,000 years by annual tree rings from Bristlecone pine in California
                   *   10,000 years by annual tree rings from Oaks in Europe (different environment and location)
                   *   45,000 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Lake Suigetsu, Japan (different biology and location)
                   * ...  corroborated by Carbon 14 (C-14) radiometric dating (limit 50,000 years by half life)
                   * 110,000 years by annual layers of ice in Greenland (different process altogether)
                   * 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica (different location altogether)
                   * 567,700 years by annual layers of calcite in Devil's Hole (another different process and location altogether)
                   * ... corroborated by Thorium-230 dates and Protactinium-231 radiometric dating (independent processes)
                   * Even greater age corroborated by daily layers of coral (another different biology, process and location, again)
                   * ... some additional information including some cool slideshow websites
                   * and a "hmmm" to close with.

               I started with a post on a Netscape Message Board (Msg#110611 [Age Dating] thread, hyperlinked new), making some typo corrections, replacing some broken links (and associated quotes) and reformatting it into a more readable essay and finally, expanded it by adding some further bits of information. It started originally with a discussion of Velikovsky's catastrophe hypothesis as posted on Ginenthals website. I've posted some of this a couple of times now, but felt it should be put together on a webpage, because it is important to understand the kind of thing scientists do to validate their methods.

               All references are hyperlinked for further study.

               The bottom Line? All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap, thus they corroborate each other even though they are based on different environments, different methods and different evidence. For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a short (4-5 day?) period, and it would have to mimic it to such an extent that it would be experienced by any living plant or creature as an actual annual time period.

               Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to show the diversity of information available and the number of different disciplines involved. The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).

               Absolute Minimum age of the earth = 567,700 years based on solid data.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < link >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ..
            Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 31 2006,09:49

            Somebody might want to spend a few hours going through AFDave UPDATED Really Horrible Arguments Thread #1, and write a kind of history of the thread. It's a sprawling landscape, and could use a geographer.
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2006,09:53

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,12:55)
            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2006,13:44)
            Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

            According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Why would one look at a geneology for Christ through Joseph? Joseph isn't even really related to Christ. He's like a stepdad, or something, right?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hmm. I'm probably not the best one to ask to explain that since I pretty much agree with your objection. :lol:

            Plus, if the "prophecy" was for paternal lineage from David, then Mary's lineage wouldn't be relevant either - ergo there's records of two lineages, neither of which applies to the prophecy? Okay, now I'm confused.

            Henry
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Oct. 31 2006,10:12

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,14:19)
            Quote (Grey_Wolf_c @ Oct. 31 2006,14:07)
            I'm interested in the ice age, Dave. Please, tell me where I can find reference in the Bible to the ice age, and who was alive in that period so I may calculate when it started and when it ended.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I wonder why Dave even thinks there was an ice age. He claims no fossils are from that time, it's not mentioned in the Bible, and he hasn't pointed to any evidence of any sort to indicate there ever was an "ice age."

            I wonder if he just mentions it so it will give his "hypothesis" that fresh "sciency-ness" scent.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I think he may have included a reference or two to the ice-age as part of his c&p from AiG. After all, all those frozen mammoths in Siberia cannot have been deposited by the flood (because they are partially frozen). I was tempted to include a petition to explain what thousands of semi-frozen, fossilised mammoth bones are if not fossil evidence, but I'm tired of Dave going down tangents, so I prefered to keep to the big questions rather than hear Dave mangle the definition of "fossil".

            Dave, in the unlikely case you actually read this far: don't bother with the mammoths. If you are actually going to answer questions (as if!;), start with the ones I have included in almost every post I've addressed to you in the last two weeks.

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: Diogenes on Oct. 31 2006,10:41

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2006,13:44)
            Re "Dave, which of the contradictory geneologies of Christ is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? "

            According to a poster on another BB, one of them is through Joseph, and one is through Mary. I forget which is which. :p
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Matthew 1:16


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Luke 3:23


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Doesn't seem to be.
            Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 31 2006,10:58

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,12:55)
            Dave, you're joking, right? A visible galaxy two million light-years away doesn't contradict the Bible's claim that the edge of the universe is only 6,000 light years away? The mountain of radiometric evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old doesn't contradict it? The mountain of astronomical evidence indicating the universe is 13.7 billion years old doesn't contradict it?

            I can't wait to hear your explanation for the cosmic microwave background.

            The fact that some biblical details can be confirmed by reference to independent observation helps not a bit with the vast majority of biblical details that are flat-out contradicted by observation. That's bone-simple logic, Dave, but let me see if I can state it more succinctly:

            That some biblical claims are true does not mean that all biblical claims are true.

            Is that simple enough for you?

            Now, about that Andromeda Galaxy. Are you going to deal with this one fact that completely, all by itself, blows your "hypothesis" away? It doesn't reflect well on you personally that you continue to ignore this one question that's been outstanding for months, Dave.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Dave's YEC scientists use telescopes to see their evidence for a young Universe.  
            Unfortunately, this is how those YEC telescopes are configured during YEC use: :D :D :D

             
            Posted by: bwee on Oct. 31 2006,11:20

            I'll help you out here Dave. I am an as yet unknown creationist who will help you to prove that ice cores do NOT show how old Earth is! The Bible does! And how do we know this?? Because it SAYS SO!!

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Are there 110,000 annual layers in the Greenland ice sheet?

            The claimed 110,000 annual layers in the GISP2 ice core to near the bottom of the Greenland ice sheet is not a straightforward deduction. The annual layers, indeed, show up well near the top of the ice sheet. However, the situation becomes much more complicated deeper down in the ice sheet. Essentially, the uniformitarian scientists must make assumptions for the bottom and middle portion of the ice sheet in order to determine the annual layers.

            The main assumption is that the earth is very old — billions of years old. They assume that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets have existed for many millions of years. Furthermore, they believe these ice sheets have more or less maintained their present height in a state of equilibrium during all this time. They think the amount of snow and ice added each year is approximately balanced by the ice that is lost by melting and calving of icebergs into the ocean. Because of their assumptions, uniformitarian scientists believe that the annual layers thin drastically as they are covered by more snow and ice (figure 12.3). The upshot of their assumptions is that the amount of annual layer compression believed to have occurred depends upon how old one believes the ice to be. For an ice sheet in equilibrium for millions of years, the annual layers would, theoretically, thin rapidly and become almost paper-thin near the bottom of the ice.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            See? The evos are finding what they WENT LOOKING FOR!!

            Paper thin sheets of compressed ice? Gimme a break!
            If you have the flood, you have all you need to understand!!

            See?
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            As an example, halfway down the GRIP Greenland ice core at about one mile (1,600 m) deep, uniformitarian scientists believe the annual layer thickness is 4 inches (10 cm).5 The measurements for oxygen isotopes would then be spaced every 1/2 inch (1 cm) apart.

            . The thickness of annual ice layers down the GRIP ice core on central Greenland, calculated according to the uniformitarian3 and creationist4 models.

            Since the creationist model postulates an annual layer thickness significantly thicker, say 12 inches (30 cm) as an example, the uniformitarians have taken more measurements than needed and are, therefore, measuring multiple cycles of oxygen isotopes within one year. This is how the number of annual layers becomes greatly exaggerated.6, 7
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            That would make the scientist measurements almost 3 TIMES TOO LONG!

            THE WORD IS PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE!!
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 31 2006,11:31

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,17:20)
            I'll help you out here Dave. I am an as yet unknown creationist who will help you to prove that ice cores do NOT show how old Earth is! The Bible does! And how do we know this?? Because it SAYS SO!!

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Thanks for posting bwee.  A couple of questions from a fellow Christian...

            1.  Since 1/3 of 110K years is still 10-15x the Biblical number, how do you reconcile that with the Biblical account?

            2.  Where did the water for the universal flood come from and where did it go?

            Thanks.

            Edit:  Math.  Golly, it was bad...

            Edit2:  What is your reference for the above quotes?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,11:33

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,17:20)
            I'll help you out here Dave. I am an as yet unknown creationist who will help you to prove that ice cores do NOT show how old Earth is! The Bible does! And how do we know this?? Because it SAYS SO!!

            ***

            See? The evos are finding what they WENT LOOKING FOR!!

            ****

            That would make the scientist measurements almost 3 TIMES TOO LONG!

            THE WORD IS PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE!!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I don't know if this guy's serious or not, but let's assume he is and see what the implications of this post are. Bottom line is, he's claiming that "uniformitarian" estimates of the age of the greenland ice sheet are "almost 3 TIMES TOO LONG!".

            Well, 110,000 years is almost three times what, Dave? About 36,000 years? Isn't that still more than enough to falsify your claim that the earth (and the universe) is only 6,000 years old? Unless estimates of the age of the Greenland ice sheet are high by a factor of almost 20, your "hypothesis" about the age of the earth still dies an ugly painful death.

            And it makes your claim way, way, way less wrong than the Andromeda galaxy does.

            This is what I mean when I say the "evidence" supporting your "hypothesis" doesn't even converge on any particular value for the age of the earth, Dave.
            Posted by: bwee on Oct. 31 2006,11:40



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The difference between the two models becomes more and more significant deeper in the ice core. Because of extreme annual layer thinning at the bottom of the core in the uniformitarian model compared to the creationist model, the uniformitarian scientists may be counting 100 layers that they think are annual. These layers in the creationist model may represent only one year. So, the uniformitarian scientists in actuality would be counting storm layers or other cycles of weather that can often duplicate the annual cycle.7 For instance, a storm has a warm and cold sector with different measurements of the variables, producing a cycle in the variables. These storm oscillations may be on the order of several days. Even the uniformitarian scientists recognize that storms and other phenomenon, like moving snow dunes, may result in the counting of an annual cycle, as Alley and others8 state:

               Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            HA TAKE THAT! I CAN DISH IT RIGHT BACK AT YOU GUYS!


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Based on strict biblical chronology and assuming no gaps in the ancestral lists, the Ice Age ended about four thousand years ago. Since then, many hundreds of feet of ice would be added to the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. Of course, ice would also be lost during this time. This loss would mainly be from surface melting, which is only significant on the Greenland ice sheet, and iceberg calving. In spite of melting and calving, these two ice sheets very likely continued to build to their present altitudes in the 4,000 years since the end of the Ice Age.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 31 2006,11:50

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,17:40)
            HA TAKE THAT! I CAN DISH IT RIGHT BACK AT YOU GUYS!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            References?

            (You are likely a loki, but I would still like to see where you are getting this tripe to at least point out how unsupported it is...)
            Posted by: Neotoma on Oct. 31 2006,11:51

            Quote
            2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.

            The Red Book of Westmarch*, "that most important source for the history of the War of the Ring",**  and the volumes that accompanied it contain many genealogies, a timeline of the most important events of the first Three Ages, as well as the lines of kings and rulers of the various lands, and even notes on languages and alphabets.

            By Dave's reckoning, this must be an historical account.  (and therefore, in my opinion, should be an important part of world history classes.) :)


            * as translated by JRR Tolkien.

            ** Prologue p. 13 The Lord of the Rings
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,11:53

            Sorry, I don't see where this quote leads you to believe that the actual age of the Greenland ice sheet is 4,000 years. If  100 "annual" layers actually represented a single year, that's a thousand years. What evidence do you have that converges on a date of 4,000 years?

            Please understand, I know little about the methodology of dating ice layers. But I don't see any evidence in your quote that gives a hard age of 4,000 years for the Greenland ice sheet. You've got some extremely vague claims of inaccuracy, but none of them converge on any particular value at all, let alone 4,000 years.

            So now you've "got" two figures here: one is 4,000 years, and the other is nine times longer. Which one is correct? And how do you reconcile one with the other? Why do two different "methodologies" disagree with each other so radically? And why do they disagree with all the other annual dating techniques like dendrochronology and lake-bed varves?

            The standard methods of dating annual ice layers are concordant with other, completely independent dating methods. Why are your proposed methods all discordant not only with other dating methods, but even with different interpretations of the same methods?
            Posted by: argystokes on Oct. 31 2006,11:59

            Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores?  Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took?  And the new "creationist" is named bwee?

            Bee dubs, come out from under that mask!
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,12:04

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 31 2006,17:59)
            Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores?  Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took?  And the new "creationist" is named bwee?

            Bee dubs, come out from under that mask!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            It would be interesting if BWE turned out to be a better advocate of YEC than Dave himself. :-)
            Posted by: ScaryFacts on Oct. 31 2006,12:14

            Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 31 2006,17:59)
            Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores?  Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took?  And the new "creationist" is named bwee?

            Bee dubs, come out from under that mask!
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            They can't be the same person--bwee wears glasses and BWE doesn't:


            Posted by: bwee on Oct. 31 2006,12:45

            BWE? Ha! Let me repeat again. Ha! The resemblance is purely coincidental. If Ice cores is what BWE wants then Ice cores is what he will get! I bet he will run scurrying to the hole he hides in when he sees the evidence I will bring!
               

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            From these flow models, uniformitarian scientists estimate the approximate thickness of each annual layer from the top of the ice to near the bottom. At the top, the annual layers start at about 30 inches of compacted snow. This snow will compress to 9.5 inches of ice or .25 metres per year (Meese et al., 1997, p. 26,411). The annual layers show up quite well near the top of the ice core. Uniformitarians and creationists agree that these measurements are annual layers. However, the annual layer thickness after compression in each model, represented in Figure 3, soon diverges significantly, and the agreement soon ends. For example, 2000 meters or 6500 feet down the GISP2 Greenland ice core, the assumed annual layer thickness is about 2 centimeters or one inch in the uniformitarian model (De Angelis et al., 1997, p. 26,683). From Figure 3, the creationist estimate would be around 200 centimeters or 6.5 feet, 100 times the uniformitarian estimate.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            So the math works out to just about 3500 years, give or take a few.

            And science lies helplessly bound by the truth of the word.
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,12:59

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,18:45)
            So the math works out to just about 6000 years, give or take a few.

            And science lies helplessly bound by the truth of the word.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Except that you now have three figures: 4,000 years (for which you don't seem to have any evidence at all), 6,000 years (which is clearly erroneous, given that 1,500 of those years would be pre-flood, and surely a mile-deep layer of water would have floated the whole thing out to sea), and 36,000 years (which suffers many of the same problems as the 6,000-year figure). Rather than converging on any particular date, they seem to be increasingly spreading out.
            Posted by: bwee on Oct. 31 2006,13:21

            and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,13:32

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,19:21)
            and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Wait. Now you have four dates: 3,500 years, 4,000 years, 6,000 years, and 36,000 years. Which one is right? Or are they all right?

            BTW, Dave: even if this "bwee" character is a parody (and, when it comes to YECs, it's hard to tell), his arguments aren't any worse than yours.

            [edit: you can't change my posts, bwee, and I won't change them for you. :-) ]
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Oct. 31 2006,15:09

            Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 31 2006,20:32)
            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,19:21)
            and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Wait. Now you have four dates: 3,500 years, 4,000 years, 6,000 years, and 36,000 years. Which one is right? Or are they all right?

            BTW, Dave: even if this "bwee" character is a parody (and, when it comes to YECs, it's hard to tell), his arguments aren't any worse than yours.

            [edit: you can't change my posts, bwee, and I won't change them for you. :-) ]
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Hey bwee,
            Being concordant in your discordance is harder than it looks.

            Don't you have access to the creo fact checker loaded on your 'puter?  When you start to question your statements just hit Ctrl-Alt-Del twice to get your facts straight. :O
            Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2006,16:37

            What if the different dates come from different frames of reference? :D
            Posted by: ericmurphy on Oct. 31 2006,16:54

            Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2006,22:37)
            What if the different dates come from different frames of reference? :D
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You mean as God flits about the universe at more or less the speed of light?

            But I bet he can still count how many times the sun goes around the earth…
            Posted by: k.e on Oct. 31 2006,18:05

            BWEE needs a fact checker?

            Hey all he(BWE) needs to do, is watch AFD for week and mere facts are putty in his brain. Or should that his brain is mere putty with his pseudo facts?

            Facts? ....Facts?....we don't need no steenkeeng Facts!

            Assertion beats facts any day, say it enough times and assertion BECOMES fact, just look at GWB dissing Kerry on Kerry's failed 'stupid goes to Iraq' joke.

            Half the people will believe you anyway.

            Thats why (stupid) politicians like AFD just don't understand science.
            1. They lack the least scintilla for logical analysis or are just intellectually dishonest.
            2. Believe repeating the same lies over and over will advance their case.

            They count their success in infected minds i.e. bodies, not weight of evidence.
            They believe that rat cunning will outdo truth and beauty any day.
            Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 31 2006,22:59

            Quote (bwee @ Oct. 31 2006,19:21)
            and 3500 years is what I said! Do you have any better data?
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            What about this?

            It isn't ice cores, but your buddy AFDave has been unable to refute it.
            < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading >
            Posted by: afdave on Nov. 01 2006,00:54

            MORE ABOUT GENETIC RICHNESS (OK, GENETIC DIVERSITY), BOTTLENECKS AND ALLELIC DIVERSITY
            Those of you who truly want to understand the creationist position on genetic diversity possible with the Flood/Ark scenrio should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study.  An ATBC hero, Glenn Morton has reviewed it and of course has tried to pick it apart, but at least he acknowledges that it is thorough and that it is a good starting point for the subject ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Woodmorappe's book is an impressive attempt to defend the concept of a global flood in which the entire land biosphere was saved by the ark. One of the characteristics of anything Woodmorappe writes is an extensive bibliography and this book is no exception. The book is well documented, having an estimated 1400 references. This makes the book an excellent bibliographic source, for entré to the literature of any issue as one is reading it. The book lacks an index which is a serious impediment to the usefulness of the book for further study and research. One of the best things is that there are few issues concerning the Ark which are not addressed. Because of this, anyone with a serious interest in the ark and its problems, or a student of the creationist movement should obtain a copy.
            < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            Morton's review is not very detailed (5 pages attempting to critique JW's 216 thoroughly documented pages.)

            I review parts of his book here  ... this should answer some of your questions (and mine) about HLA polymorphism, bottlenecking on the ark, etc.  Since I do not have a soft copy of his book, I will not type out all the references, but will simply give the authors and year published.  If you want a particular reference, you can buy Woodmorappe's book, or PM me and I will type it out for you (if you don't ask for too many that is).

            TERMINOLOGY
            Woodmorappe cites Templeton (1994) as a source of an excellent tutorial in common practices for expressing Genetic Diversity (what I have called "genetic richness").  The three primary measures are Percent Polymorphic Loci (P), Number of Alleles (N), and Heterozygosity (H).

            WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GENES YET
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            In all our discussion, we must keep in mind the fact that the importance of genetic variation remains essentially unquantified for almost all organism (Brakefield and Saccheri, 1994, p.165).  In addition, there is much that we do ot even know about the genes themselves.  For instance, the number of genes in the human genome may be anywhere from 14,000 to 300,000 (Fields et al. 1994, p. 346; Mitton 1993, p.24).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Woodmorappe discusses various fallacies raised by Morton and Moore such the 50/500 rule and "beanbag" genetics which I will not get into here, but it's worth reading.

            BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
            Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

            Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

            Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            HOW MANY ALLELES PER LOCUS EXIST TODAY?
            According to Mani (1984, p. 282), most loci of present day animals contain between one and five alleles, although the MHC complex contains many more.  Woodmorappe ... p. 198 ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            With the notable exception of the MHC complex, the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus (e.g., see Table 1.3.1, pp. 8-9, in Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).  Furthermore, when we look at the relative abundances of these alleles in a population, we see a very lopsoded distribution of frequencies (Altukhov 1990, pp. 206-9).  There is usually a single allele occurring at high frequency (at least 85%), with one to three other alleles (rarely more) found at frequencies of 1-15% (Hughes, p. 249).  In fact, of all alleles, most exist at low frequency (Fuerst and Maruyama 1986, p.174).  This is further borne out by the very definition of a polymorphic locus: one where the most common allele occurs at no more tha 95% frequency in the population (Templeton 1994, p. 60).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

             Did you catch all that?  Woodmorappe concludes (and I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with him) ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This lopsided pattern of allelic frequencies is readily explicable in terms of founder effect (Altukhov 1990, p. 206), in theis case, Flood-related ones.  The 1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci are probably the ones which were carried by the two founders on the Ark, and the rarely-occurring alleles have arisen, by mutation or other means, only since the Flood.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            So much for ideas like Grey Wolf's about eye color needing multiple alleles per locus.

            HOW MANY MUTATIONS REQUIRED TO GENERATE THE PRESENT CONDITION?
            In most cases none.  Why?  Because pre-Flood animals could have easily carried 4 alleles per locus.  Woodmorappe notes that most loci have [today] fewer than four alleles per locus.  And of course this is easily explainable due to the strong probability that the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair.  (Woodmorappe, p. 195)

            EXCELLENT CHART SHOWING HOW THE ARK BOTTLENECK WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR MAINTAINING DIVERSITY


            So as I have been saying for a long time now with my Creator God Hypothesis ... Noah merely had to take genetically diverse pairs on the ark and there would have been no problem at all in these organisms regaining diversity in their populations

            ***********************************

            HOW ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  WHY SO MANY OF THOSE?

            ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
            First, Woodmorappe explains that ...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of allels would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So if we are talking about 100 or so alleles of the DRB1 locus (not sure if this is a good number ... I think it's close), and if the Tower of Babel resulted in 12 separate groups (a guess for me at this point), then you have about 8 alleles per group needed in 4500 years.  Now of all the alleles, 10 pairs of them differ by only one residue at position 86 (Titus-Trachtenburg et al. 1994, p. 165).  Other alleles differ from each other only at position 57 (Apple and Erlich 1992).  Woodmorappe also points to several studies which show HLA genes mutating rapidly.  I'm getting tired of typing, so PM me if you want a reference.

            CONCLUSION:  OUR OBSERVATIONS AND STUDY OF THE MHC COMPLEX IS ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FLOOD/BABEL SCENARIO ... IN FACT IT WOULD NATURALLY FOLLOW IF THESE ACCOUNTS REALLY ARE TRUE.
            Woodmorappe...  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Let us recall that no local population has more than a few of the MHC alleles typical of the human race as a whole (Parham et al, p. 177).  WHen juman populations are subdivided and relatively monomorphic at MHC loci, nearly any new allele arising by mutation may be advantageous to its bearer by allowing the presentation of a more complex immune system to the pathogen (Belich et al. 1992, p. 328).  Once a few mutants arise, even a small number of them will rapidly become subequal in frequency within the population. [Cites Takahat 1993a, p.19 to support this]

            Placed into a creationist context, we can see how the subdivided human populations in the post-Flood world (notably after the Tower of Babel) could have rapidly acquired novel MHC alleles, no doubt facilitated by the ever-changing pathogen-rich post-Flood world.  When the subdivided post-diluvian population subsequently merged, each of these small numbers of distinctive alleles, occurring at relatively high frequency, eventually amalgamated to form the large number of intermediately=occurring MHC alleles now characteristic of the human race as a whole.  THat is how the extensive MHC polymorphism we know today came to be in only the 5000 [sic] years since the Flood.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            He closes the section with another citation from Takahata (a long ager) who says it is entirely possible that the present situation could have happened in 10,000 years.  

            OK, Dr. Takahata, you are close!  Cut that figure in half and you are there!
            Posted by: Russell on Nov. 01 2006,01:26

            Three quick questions before I actually bother to think about what this fellow "Woodmorappe" has written:

            (1) Is he a geneticist?
            (2) Have any (other?) geneticists commented on his work?
            (3) Do you have any good references explaining how astrology actually predicts the future?
            Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 01 2006,02:02

            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
            So as I have been saying for a long time now with my Creator God Hypothesis ... Noah merely had to take genetically diverse pairs on the ark and there would have been no problem at all in these organisms regaining diversity in their populations
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            How did Noah tell the ones that were "genetically diverse", Dave? Do they look any different from the rest? I notice you have not given us any references to the Bible, either. Are you making all this up, Dave? What is your evidence that this happened like this? Particularly since continents do not move thousands of miles in a day, there is no evidence of any flood, no mention of the ice age in the Bible, etc?

             
            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
            HOW ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  WHY SO MANY OF THOSE?

            ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
            First, Woodmorappe explains that ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles,
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



            Dave, according to you, random mutation and natural selection do not work. Why are you using the work of someone who clearly undermines your hypothesis by basing it in something you refuse to admit it is happening? Why is this not adding information to the human genome, Dave? Are you ready now to tell us which 10 alleles are the ones in the ark (presumable the 10 less "devolved")?

             
            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)

            So if we are talking about 100 or so alleles of the DRB1 locus (not sure if this is a good number ... I think it's close),
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            You promised HLA gene, Dave, with 500 alleles. Which you *must* explain, and what mutation rates could possibly happen in 13 generations  to produce those 490 new alleles, and what suddenly stopped that super-ultra-mega-macroevolution immediately after.

            Oh, and by promising to deal with HLA and then ignoring the central problem with it, you are, once again, lying, Dave. No observed or theorical mutation rate can produce 490 mutations of the same gene in 13 generations, Dave. That does not happen. If you believe otherwise, fine. If you pretend to make it part of the "hypothesis", however, you better produce some evidence.

             
            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
            I'm getting tired of typing, so PM me if you want a reference.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            That is the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen. The reference would have been shorter than the excuse, which shows you a liar. What's the real reason you didn't give it to us, Dave?

             
            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
            CONCLUSION:  OUR OBSERVATIONS AND STUDY OF THE MHC COMPLEX IS ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FLOOD/BABEL SCENARIO ... IN FACT IT WOULD NATURALLY FOLLOW IF THESE ACCOUNTS REALLY ARE TRUE.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            490 mutations of that one gene (not counting the mutations in all the other genes necessary for your "hypothesis"), and you call it "natural"? Dave, how many mutations, per generation, in that gene, have we seen in the last 100 years? What has changed to make mutations slower, Dave? Why haven't you addressed the problem, Dave? Are you going to claim victory without actually presenting any evidence that what you say is in any way close to reality?

            Hope that helps,

            Grey Wolf
            Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 01 2006,02:40

            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
            MORE ABOUT GENETIC RICHNESS (OK, GENETIC DIVERSITY), BOTTLENECKS AND ALLELIC DIVERSITY
            Those of you who truly want to understand the creationist position on genetic diversity possible with the Flood/Ark scenrio should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study.  
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Woodmorappe? WOODMORAPPE?? For those who have bothered to objectively review the relentlessly stupid book in question, it's been made clear that the author made a fatal (and most likely deliberate) mistake in basing his feasibility contention on the  < median size of the animals on board > rather than the mean size. No doubt the substitution was made in the belief that the author's target audience was too dumb to know the difference and its significance wrt "feasibility."  Looks like the strategy was successful.
            Posted by: Russell on Nov. 01 2006,03:11



            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GENES YET
            ....  For instance, the number of genes in the human genome may be anywhere from 14,000 to 300,000 (Fields et al. 1994, p. 346; Mitton 1993, p.24).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            um... afdave? Have you heard of the "human genome project"? It's a little difficult to take someone seriously in 2006 if that someone is citing questions this obsolete.  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            What is the definition of "genetic bottleneck" if not a major narrowing of genetic diversity? This is among the dumbest creationist assaults on simple logic I've ever seen. Here. Try this:  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, something shrinks to a small fraction of its previous size, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) it becomes considerably less large than it previously was. Robert Moore Most preverbal toddlers has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7) recognize this obvious fact
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            "Woodmorappe":  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            WHen juman populations are subdivided and relatively monomorphic at MHC loci, nearly any new allele arising by mutation may be advantageous to its bearer by allowing the presentation of a more complex immune system to the pathogen (Belich et al. 1992, p. 328).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            mmm hmmmm...
            Now how does that square with "no beneficial mutations" or "all mutations are loss of specificity" or whatever formulation you want to use to try to reconcile fundamentalist dogma with reality?
            Posted by: k.e on Nov. 01 2006,03:14

            Gee AFD you put some real work into your denial don't you?

            Just as a matter of interest is there anything else you deny?

            HIV causing Aids perhaps?

            The Moon landings were faked?

            I don't recall you denying the Holocaust, so is there anything else?

            It's easy to see that your Religiuos Dogma aka Creationism has got you by the short and curlies there Davey have you considered deprogramming??

            Google 'deprogramming cults'




            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Deprogramming gained notoriety back in the seventies through such figures as Ted Patrick, a short and stocky black man who set out to probe the underground world of religious cults in order to free young people who were caught up in the clutches of deceptive organizations. Formerly appointed as head of community relations for San Diego and Imperial counties in California by Governor Ronald Reagan, Patrick became concerned when his son Michael had a brush with a band of teenagers involved in an evangelistic group called the Children of God. Curious, Patrick sought them out, seeking to infiltrate their group just to see what they were all about. He discovered an intense indoctrination program designed to wear down the natural defenses of young people (and middle-aged ones like himself!;) through constant bombardment with propaganda, lack of sleep, and sensual stimulation coupled with reading Bible verses. Unexpectedly, Patrick himself began to feel he was losing grip on reality, as if he was drawn into a hypnotist's spell.

            After escaping the group, Patrick began an investigation into religious cults that led him into a new kind of rescue work known as deprogramming. Known by cults as "black lightning" for his no-nonsense approach, he was seen as a savior by parents and their deprogrammed children, but as the devil incarnate by the Moonies, Children of God, Hare Krishnas, etc.


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            < Deprogramming and Exit-Counseling: >
            Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 01 2006,03:26

            AFDAVE COMES BACK ONE DAY LATE AND.... WEL-L-L-L-L.... A FEW FACTS SHORT.
            Remember, this post was preceded when I said...
            [quote]Another day waiting for AFDave to C&P...  errrr..... discover new and exciting information to add to the discussion.[/quote]
            And Dave replied and promised on Oct. 30 that..  

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So why am I not surprised when Dave comes back with a C&P job from Woodmoorappe!

            Thank You, you've been a great audience.  I do this prediction thing every Monday night.  Please tip your waitress.
            ******************
            On with the show....
             
            Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,07:54)
            MORE ABOUT GENETIC RICHNESS (OK, GENETIC DIVERSITY), BOTTLENECKS AND ALLELIC DIVERSITY
            Those of you who truly want to understand the creationist position on genetic diversity possible with the Flood/Ark scenrio should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study.  An ATBC hero, Glenn Morton has reviewed it... < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html >
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            Tell you what Dave, I haven't even read the TalkOrigins review and I don't think I need G.Morton's help in taking down Woodmoorappe (or your) position at this time.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Woodmorappe cites Templeton (1994) as a source of an excellent tutorial in common practices for expressing Genetic Diversity (what I have called "genetic richness").  The three primary measures are Percent Polymorphic Loci (P), Number of Alleles (N), and Heterozygosity (H).
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I'm no geneticist but these terms seem to be used consistently in genetic studies.  I hope Woodmoorappe uses them consistently.  I'll leave it to other posters to catch any shenanigans that may occur.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GENES YET
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            BUT, we do know a lot about the HLA gene.  So let's focus on that one shall we?

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            And this ISN'T THE POINT of the HLA allelic distribution issue we are talking about.  So how does this help the UCGH explain the 500 HLA alleles present in the population when we started with only 10?

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            HOW MANY ALLELES PER LOCUS EXIST TODAY?
            According to Mani (1984, p. 282), most loci of present day animals contain between one and five alleles, although the MHC complex contains many more.  Woodmorappe ... p. 198 ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            With the notable exception of the MHC complex, the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus (e.g., see Table 1.3.1, pp. 8-9, in Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).  Furthermore, when we look at the relative abundances of these alleles in a population, we see a very lopsoded distribution of frequencies (Altukhov 1990, pp. 206-9)....{snip, more numbers that don't help the point}
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            YEAAAAHHH.  WOODMOORAPPE RECOGNIZES THE VAST ALLELIC DIVERSITY OF THE HLA GENE!
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Did you catch all that?  Woodmorappe concludes (and I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with him) ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            This lopsided pattern of allelic frequencies is readily explicable in terms of founder effect (Altukhov 1990, p. 206), in theis case, Flood-related ones.  The 1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci are probably the ones which were carried by the two founders on the Ark, and the rarely-occurring alleles have arisen, by mutation or other means, only since the Flood.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            BUT... Dave only hammers the point home about gene locus with limited alleles, not HLA.

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            HOW MANY MUTATIONS REQUIRED TO GENERATE THE PRESENT CONDITION?
            In most cases none.  Why?  Because pre-Flood animals could have easily carried 4 alleles per locus.  Woodmorappe notes that most loci have [today] fewer than four alleles per locus.  And of course this is easily explainable due to the strong probability that the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair.  (Woodmorappe, p. 195)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            And this helps you explain 500 HLA alleles how?

             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            EXCELLENT CHART SHOWING HOW THE ARK BOTTLENECK WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR MAINTAINING DIVERSITY
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

            I don't think anyone will argue this point.  But the chart only shows a five 'A' alleles.  We want to know how we go from five to five hundred!
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            HOW ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  WHY SO MANY OF THOSE?
            ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
            First, Woodmorappe explains that ...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.[/b]  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of allels would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            WRONG.  I < posted > a reference to a measurement of HLA allelic distribution within aboriginal populations of the different continents.  Without inserting my own conjectures on the data, here's what I said...
             
            Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 21 2006,19:16)
            I searched for < 'hla allele worldwide distribution' > and started flipping through the pages.  The 8th entry was < Allele Project AlleleFrequency.net > and looked promising.  I clicked on the dbMCH Anthropology link and came to the < front page > I was looking for.  In fact the abstract states (my bold)...      

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            The goal of the Diversity/Anthropology Component is to determine HLA class I and class II allele and haplotype frequencies in various human populations.  Studies of allelic diversity in different populations can shed light on the evolution of HLA polymorphism as well as on the evolution and migration of human populations.  In a clinical context, a knowledge of the allele frequency distributions in various populations is critical to the strategy of establishing and searching bone marrow donor registries as well as in studies of HLA-associated disease susceptibility.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            I clicked on the < Pre-Defined Queries : Class I Allele Frequencies > and lo-and-behold there is a table representing alleles and geographic distribution.  To make sure they are talking about native populations I clicked on the < 'Citation' > reference below the North American geography and found that the samples taken were from native populations.

            Now, looking at the table I see that for the alleles tested (NOTE: THERE ARE MORE ALLELES FOR HLA THAN WERE TESTED FOR) there is ~90% commanality in the HLA-A,B,and C alleles between North America and Europe/Asia/Africa.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            So the commonality in HLA alleles within the aboriginal populations was NOT due to admixture.  You haven't answered the question 'How did the allelic diversity of HLA appear?'  My points still stand tall and proud.
             
             

            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
            So if we are talking about 100 or so alleles of the DRB1 locus (not sure if this is a good number ... I think it's close), and if the Tower of Babel resulted in 12 separate groups (a guess for me at this point), then you have about 8 alleles per group needed in 4500 years.  Now of all the alleles, 10 pairs of them differ by only one residue at position 86 (Titus-Trachtenburg et al. 1994, p. 165).  Other alleles differ from each other only at position 57 (Apple and Erlich 1992).  Woodmorappe also points to several studies which show HLA genes mutating rapidly.
            ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


            DAVE, I ASKED YOU TWO WEEKS AGO ABOUT THE UCGH TIMELINE.  WHEN DID THE TOWER OF BABEL OCCUR?  BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER THE UCGH ICE AGE.  PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO < MY TIMELINE QUESTIONS. >
            HERE'S THE PERTINENT STATEMENTS I MADE.  
            Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 23 2006,14:52)
            I need you to confirm these facts from YOUR hypothesis.

            • THE ARK LANDED IN WHAT IS TODAY TURKEY.
            • THE POST-FLOOD/PRE-ICE AGE TIME WAS ONLY ~50 YEARS.
            • THE TOWER OF BABEL HAPPENED AFTER THE FLOOD BUT BEFORE (OR EARLY INTO) THE ICE AGE.
            • THE ICE AGE LASTED TWO HUNDRED YEARS AT MOST.
            • POPULATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA, AUSTRALIA, NEW GUINEA, AND MADAGASCAR MIGRATED DURING THE ICE AGE BECAUSE OF AVAILABLE LAND BRIDGES (OR SHALLOW SEAS).
            • WRITTEN HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS THAT ARE VERIFIED IN EGYPT AND SUMERIA POST DATE THE ICE AGE BY 50 TO 100 YEARS (THE TIME NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE NOBILITY HEIERARCHY AND DYNASTIC FAMILIES IN THESE KINGDOMS).

              These are your claims Dave, not mine.  My only question about this is:
              HOW DID HLA ALLELIC DIVERSITY OCCUR IN ONLY 250 YEARS WHEN THE ARK HAD AT MOST ONLY 16 ALLELES (GENETICALLY RICH OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              And in conclusion...
               

              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              CONCLUSION:  OUR OBSERVATIONS AND STUDY OF THE MHC COMPLEX IS ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FLOOD/BABEL SCENARIO ... IN FACT IT WOULD NATURALLY FOLLOW IF THESE ACCOUNTS REALLY ARE TRUE.
              Woodmorappe...      

              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              Let us recall that no local population has more than a few of the MHC alleles typical of the human race as a whole (Parham et al, p. 177).  WHen juman populations are subdivided and relatively monomorphic at MHC loci, nearly any new allele arising by mutation may be advantageous to its bearer by allowing the presentation of a more complex immune system to the pathogen (Belich et al. 1992, p. 328).  Once a few mutants arise, even a small number of them will rapidly become subequal in frequency within the population. [Cites Takahat 1993a, p.19 to support this]

              Placed into a creationist context, we can see how the subdivided human populations in the post-Flood world (notably after the Tower of Babel) could have rapidly acquired novel MHC alleles, no doubt facilitated by the ever-changing pathogen-rich post-Flood world.  When the subdivided post-diluvian population subsequently merged, each of these small numbers of distinctive alleles, occurring at relatively high frequency, eventually amalgamated to form the large number of intermediately=occurring MHC alleles now characteristic of the human race as a whole.  THat is how the extensive MHC polymorphism we know today came to be in only the 5000 [sic] years since the Flood.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

              WRONG.  AS STATED ABOVE.  TRY AGAIN.

              Dave,
              It looks like you didn't read or understand my post about HLA.  Please tell me how I can make it clearer for you.  I haven't altered my post in two weeks, yet you haven't responded with any points that refute what I posted as shown above.  I have no need to alter any statements in my post.

              Mike PSS

              p.s. Here's my < REFUTATION OF YOUR MIXING CLAIM > which means you CAN'T REFUTE RM DATING UNTIL YOU SENSIBLY ANSWER THE REFUTATION.  IS MIKE PSS IGNORANT, A LIAR, OR BOTH.  BECAUSE I STILL THINK RM DATING IS A VALID DATING SYSTEM.
              Posted by: improvius on Nov. 01 2006,03:43

              Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,07:54)
              Did you catch all that?  Woodmorappe concludes (and I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with him) ...  

              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              This lopsided pattern of allelic frequencies is readily explicable in terms of founder effect (Altukhov 1990, p. 206), in theis case, Flood-related ones.  The 1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci are probably the ones which were carried by the two founders on the Ark, and the rarely-occurring alleles have arisen, by mutation or other means, only since the Flood.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

              So much for ideas like Grey Wolf's about eye color needing multiple alleles per locus.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Now, just in case everyone missed it, Dave is talking about allelic differences within kinds here, not species.  That means he's assuming that there are "1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci" within a given kind population.  Honestly, I'd missed that point up to now, but it seems pretty significant.  I think everyone else has been operating by limiting the allelic evidence to specific species.  And it certainly seems that both Woodmorappe and Dave have been conflating species and kinds in that regard.

              So my question to the geneticists here is, what sort of "allelic diversity" do we see when we switch from species to kinds?
              Posted by: Russell on Nov. 01 2006,04:10



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              So my question to the geneticists here is, what sort of "allelic diversity" do we see when we switch from species to kinds?
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

              Similar to what we see when we switch from, say, "Mus musculus" to "critter". That's why one wants to know to what extent this "Woodmorappe" has engaged actual genetics and geneticists before spending hours delving into the details of whether 2+2 actually does equal 3.
              Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 01 2006,05:06

              Dave: your chart purporting to show how a bottleneck does not reduce genetic diversity in fact shows the number of A alleles decreasing from four to two (then a mutation is thrown in). So it shows exactly the opposite from what you believe it to show.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,05:32

              This whole argument based on Woodmorappe is grounded in a classic Dave logical fallacy. Most genes, Dave says, have five or fewer alleles, so even a single mating pair has most or all of the available genetic diversity for that locus.

              So what, Dave?

              THE HLA GENE HAS 500 ALLELES. HOW DOES YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" EXPLAIN THE SUDDEN EXPLOSION OF DIVERSITY IN HLA ALLELES IN ZERO TO 450 YEARS?

              You can't just take the data most congenial to your own position, Dave, and toss out any data your "hypothesis" can't explain. THE DATA YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" CAN'T EXPLAIN IS THE IMPORTANT DATA.

              So one more time, Dave: How do you get from 16 or fewer HLA alleles to 500 alleles in a handful of generations? If you can't answer this simple question, your "hypothesis" fails, yet again.
              Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 01 2006,06:48



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              HOW MANY MUTATIONS REQUIRED TO GENERATE THE PRESENT CONDITION?
              In most cases none.  Why?  Because pre-Flood animals could have easily carried 4 alleles per locus.  Woodmorappe notes that most loci have [today] fewer than four alleles per locus.  And of course this is easily explainable due to the strong probability that the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair.  (Woodmorappe, p. 195)
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              But according to your hypothesis, Davey, one pair of indivuduals gave birth to a thousand of species (except humans, for some reason). And a thousand of species represents thousands of alleles per locus.
              Try again.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,07:09

              Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 01 2006,12:48)
              But according to your hypothesis, Davey, one pair of indivuduals gave birth to a thousand of species (except humans, for some reason). And a thousand of species represents thousands of alleles per locus.
              Try again.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Good point, Jeannot; I hadn't considered this before.

              Dave, you seem to have settled on something like 35,000 "kinds" on the ark (although you've never actually been pinned down on a specific number, let alone a definition of "kind"). We now have at minimum 3.5 million species, possibly as many as a billion or so, so 35 million sounds like a reasonable estimate (just to make the math easier for the mathematically-challenged such as myself). This means that, on average, each "kind" present on the ark has radiated into a thousand currently-existing species, in less than five thousand years. Again, this is ultra-mega-hyper-uber-macroevolution far beyond anything proposed by legitimate theories of evolution (and I still don't get why you don't see this as a fatal defect in your "hypothesis").

              But in any event, what's special about the human genome, Dave, that has prevented the same sort of thing happening with humans? After all, you get a new species of monkey every seventeen years. Even accounting for longer generation times for humans, why don't we see a new human species every hundred years or so? Why aren't there 50 species of humans? More "magic"?
              Posted by: k.e on Nov. 01 2006,07:25



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              But according to your hypothesis, Davey, one pair of individuals gave birth to a thousand of species (except humans, for some reason). And a thousand of species represents thousands of alleles per locus.
              Try again.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              Good point jeannot.

              This particular Cretin cretini actually accepts evolution after a post diluvian year zero, since it is just "common sense".

              But to make the ToE fit into their tiny daycare backpacks, they wave their hands with 'super accelerated evolution on nitro for a certain amount of time' and "Mommy said so, so it must be true".

              That 'Guinness advertisement' version of evolution means that the old 'cats giving birth to tigers'  canard is the only logical conclusion one could draw, noting of course AFD that that is WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.

              The added benefit?.....there are no missing links predicted by AFD....ah....except for the ....er missing links found that support the ToE.


              What did the Tigers eat on the ark AFD?

              And please don't say vegitables.
              Posted by: bwee on Nov. 01 2006,07:29



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are largely sterile.  Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a common canine (dog-like) kind.  All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the aurochs,6 so there were probably at most seven (or possibly 14) domestic cattle aboard.  The aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind that also gave rise to bison and water buffaloes.  We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.

              Woodmorappe tallied up about 8,000 genera, including extinct genera.  Thus about 16,000 individual animals had to be aboard.  With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name.  But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Timeline:
              4004 BC: Creation
              3000 BC
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              2250 BC Ice age lasts for one or two hundred years, deposits most of the ice in the ice sheets
              2000 BC Kinds have flourished and spread throughout the world
              1000 BC Moses has written the old Testament Kinds have developed into what we see today.
              1 AD Christ brings the new covenant
              1000 AD The message of Christ has spread through Europe
              2000 AD The end times. Believers prepare for the rapture.
              Posted by: k.e on Nov. 01 2006,07:41

              Bah just seen Eric's post along same lines and better stated to.

              Maybe you should change subjects AFD?

              You were severely hosed on the last topic remember?

              ...Where you lost the 'information' debate quite thoroughly after an excruciatingly drawn out skinning.

              Yes, it is easier to skin you're argument before rigor mortice sets in and it grows cold , but when you insist on wriggling after every fatal blow one begins to question if the demons that posses you are just having a bit of fun...could we end this one soon?
              Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 01 2006,07:46

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              huh... why?



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              2000 BC Kinds have flourished and spread throughout the world
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              Woa, man... That's SUPERSPEED!!!  :O
              Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2006,07:48

              Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 01 2006,13:46)
              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              huh... why?
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              b'coz goddit!

              Dave: How do you get from 16 or fewer HLA alleles to 500 alleles in a handful of generations?
              Posted by: bwee on Nov. 01 2006,07:54



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              In the original Hebrew, the word variously translated as ‘beast’ or ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general.  The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.3  Noah did not need to take sea creatures4 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood.  However, turbulent water carrying sediment would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.  However, if God in His wisdom decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business.

              Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation, as seen today after severe storms.  Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.  According to Genesis 7:22, the Flood wiped out all land animals that breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark.  Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes (tracheae) exiting through pores (spiracles) in their exterior skeleton (‘shell’).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Just keep em coming.  :p
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,07:56

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)

              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Why not? Pine trees can survive being submerged under a mile of water (seawater?!) for a year?

              Why are you only talking about megafauna? What about beetles? Why don't you need beetles? Did they do the backstroke for a solid year?

              What about earthworms? The thousands of species of annelids? They didn't all drown after being submerged (in seawater?!) for a year?

              Where did, e.g., scorpions spend the year? Butterflies? There are over a hundred thousand species of Lepidoptera. How did they spend the flood year? In flight? What did they eat?

              Why not fish? If the "flood"waters were fresh, the ocean fish are extinct. The "flood"waters are seawater, the freshwater fish are extinct.

              And you still have to get from—what? 8,000 "kinds"—to 10 million or more species in less than 5,000 years. More "miracles"?
              Posted by: bwee on Nov. 01 2006,08:01

              Jeeze, you guys are easy. Aren't there any scientists here?

              edit** (somehow didn't post the rest the first time around)
              you don't need to go from 8000 kinds to millions of species. You don't need the plants, fish, or insects for reasons I already stated, (feel free to go back and look if you wish). And as dave is so eloquerntly showing you, genetic richness covers the rest. Ipso facto.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,08:01

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:54)


              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation, as seen today after severe storms.  Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.  According to Genesis 7:22, the Flood wiped out all land animals that breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark.  Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes (tracheae) exiting through pores (spiracles) in their exterior skeleton (‘shell’).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Just keep em coming.  :p
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

              You do realize, bwee, that you have exactly zero evidence for any of this. Just like Dave, you have exactly zero evidence that there ever was a flood, nor do you have a source for the water, or a sink for it afterwards. If you'd like to see the demolition of Dave's claims re his "flood," I suggest you read the earlier thread.
              Posted by: k.e on Nov. 01 2006,08:10



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation, as seen today after severe storms.  Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.  According to Genesis 7:22, the Flood wiped out all land animals that breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark.  Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes (tracheae) exiting through pores (spiracles) in their exterior skeleton (‘shell’).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              Bwhahahahahahahahaha

              keep 'em coming this is much funnier than AFD's
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,08:15

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,14:01)
              Jeeze, you guys are easy. Aren't there any scientists here?

              edit** (somehow didn't post the rest the first time around)
              you don't need to go from 8000 kinds to millions of species. You don't need the plants, fish, or insects for reasons I already stated, (feel free to go back and look if you wish). And as dave is so eloquerntly showing you, genetic richness covers the rest. Ipso facto.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Assuming this guy isn't a loki, or BWE, do we have yet another YEC who comes in, makes a lot of completely wrong claims that are easily disposed of without even doing any research, but who insists he wins every debate he engages in? Despite repeatedly having his head knocked clean off his body à la Black Knight?

              Those aren't reasons, bwee; they're handwaving. Stands of 4,500 year old trees didn't survive the flood as seeds, and they didn't get from Mt. Ararat to the west coast of the U.S. via FedEx. Insects didn't survive the "flood" on floating vegetation mats, most of which did not contain the proper diet or the proper prey, for a year. Saltwater fish wouldn't survive a flood of freshwater, and freshwater fish wouldn't survive a flood of seawater.

              "Genetic richness" doesn't get you from 8,000 "kinds" to ten million species in 5,000 years. "Genetic richness" doesn't get you a new species of monkey every seventeen years.

              So far, bwee, you haven't given us a single argument Dave hasn't already used, and had blow up in his face.
              Posted by: Diogenes on Nov. 01 2006,08:18

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,13:29)
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              What kind of heathen blasphemer are you?  2349 BC?  Ussher clearly puts the Great Flood at 2348 BC.  Splitter!
              Posted by: bwee on Nov. 01 2006,08:30

              I've been following this thread since the old thread. Can't you read?

              Coulda woulda shoulda.

              Dave, the genetics issues are all full of "he said, she said". Help me out here, These guys want ice cores?
              Have you read:
              ce Cores and the Age of the Earth by Dr. Larry Vardiman  < link >
              or
              An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood by Michael Oard? < link >

              Very good info that utterly decimates the evos theory of an old Earth.

              Keep 'em coming.
              Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 01 2006,08:40

              Woa, this guy is even more arrogant than our friend AFDave.  :O
              And his answers are even more evasive: ice core? -> ice age, millions of plants? -> floating seeds, genetic richness? -> AFDave's drivel... tada! Truly impressive. ???

              What's your take on plate tectonics, particularly, the ages of the oceanic crusts?
              Not that I don't expect a "RM dating is just flawed <insert a random link from AIG>".
              Posted by: ScaryFacts on Nov. 01 2006,08:54

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,14:30)
              Very good info that utterly decimates the evos theory of an old Earth.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              I found this book at the link as well bwee:



              It for ages 8 and up and appears to have pretty pictures.  Gosh I wish the rest of you guys would make science as simple as bwee.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,09:16

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,14:30)
              I've been following this thread since the old thread. Can't you read?
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              Actually, that implies you've been reading this thread since the old thread ended. But if it's true you've been following this thread since the beginning, that hurts your case, since these arguments have mostly been dispensed with already.

              Bwee, your links are reversed.

              Regardless of whether ice cores "can" be correlated with the Bible, those dates as given in the Bible cannot be correlated with other, independent dating methods that do correlate with ice core dates.

              Meanwhile, you've given four different ages for the Greenland ice sheet. Which one is correct?

              [edit: And why are the other three incorrect? Because they conflict with the Bible (which doesn't matter, because they're supposed to corroborate the Bible), or because they conflict with observation? If they conflict with observation, which observations do they conflict with?]
              Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 01 2006,09:17

              Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,14:15)
              Assuming this guy isn't a loki, or BWE,
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              ...
              Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 01 2006,09:59

              This strange new creationist named bwee has given me pause to reconsider my perception of things.
              Unlike AFDave, this newcomer seems actually capable of responding directly to questions and not avoiding.
              This is quite different from Dave, who changes subjects/versions like a crazed peyote-gobbling ferret on espresso.
              I think this brave new creationist is a superior version of the cowardly types we've had to deal with -- the intellectually inferior lickspittle lackey creationists.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,10:24

              Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 01 2006,15:59)
              Unlike AFDave, this newcomer seems actually capable of responding directly to questions and not avoiding.
              This is quite different from Dave, who changes subjects/versions like a crazed peyote-gobbling ferret on espresso.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              In the words of Monty Burns: "Excellent."

              I'm awaiting his answer as to why his 4,000, 6,000, and 36,000 year figures for the age of the Greenland ice sheet are incorrect. That's just as important as why he thinks the 3,500 year figure is correct (assuming that's the one he thinks is correct now).
              Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2006,10:39

              Could that hyperevolution since the Flood have included insects going from four legs to six? :p  :O
              Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2006,10:43



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              however the newcomer seems to think that blocks of text marked up as quotes count as proof.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 01 2006,10:48

              Again, this brings us to an "all powerful" God.  If he were all powerful why not just snap his heavenly fingers and declare a "do over".

              Why all the expense and drama of a flood?

              :D
              Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 01 2006,10:54

              If he knew how it would all turn out, and his number one goal is to have people tell him how great he is, why didn't he just snap his fingers to the endgame in the first place?
              Posted by: afdave on Nov. 01 2006,11:59

              Mike PSS--  I followed your links and got nothing.  I think you are primarily interested in the creationist explanation for the HLA-B locus, with 500 known alleles, right?  Now you were saying you have a table somewhere that shows how similar the alleles of various groups worldwide are, or something, right?  Could you reproduce that table here for us?

              From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?

              So if you have that table, it would help to clear this up.  If you don't have it, I'm sure I can find one somewhere.

              I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?
              Posted by: bwee on Nov. 01 2006,12:29

              Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,16:24)
               
              Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 01 2006,15:59)
              Unlike AFDave, this newcomer seems actually capable of responding directly to questions and not avoiding.
              This is quite different from Dave, who changes subjects/versions like a crazed peyote-gobbling ferret on espresso.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              In the words of Monty Burns: "Excellent."

              I'm awaiting his answer as to why his 4,000, 6,000, and 36,000 year figures for the age of the Greenland ice sheet are incorrect. That's just as important as why he thinks the 3,500 year figure is correct (assuming that's the one he thinks is correct now).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


               

              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              Timeline:
              4004 BC: Creation
              3000 BC
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              2250 BC Ice age lasts for one or two hundred years, deposits most of the ice in the ice sheets
              2000 BC Kinds have flourished and spread throughout the world
              1000 BC Moses has written the old Testament Kinds have developed into what we see today.
              1 AD Christ brings the new covenant
              1000 AD The message of Christ has spread through Europe
              2000 AD The end times. Believers prepare for the rapture.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              That would put the flood 4320 years ago? I appologize for the wrong math. The date has not changed.

              The reason the ice sheets date from just a few hundred years after the flood is because that is when the ice was laid down. Several hundred feet a year. The isotope readings from the GRIP study are measuring weekly, daily and hourly weather fluctuations. Turning a day into potentially centuries. There are, in fact, clear markers of seasons in the ice core but they were so far apart that deep timers didn't believe that's what they were looking at.

              Oh yeah, I found < This book too. > I bet your kiddies read it right before bed. I wonder if they think it's baloney too?
              Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2006,12:50



              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              2000 AD The end times. Believers prepare for the rapture
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



              can you be a little more specific as to dates? I cant wait to be of your lot and its organised ignorance! And davey too, if you can.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,13:36

              Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,17:59)
              From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Doesn't matter, Dave.

              The only relevance the distribution of alleles has is to determine whether these alleles originated before or after the alleged post-flood continental breakup. If the alleles are evenly distributed across populations, then they must have arisen pre-breakup. If they are not, they could have arisen post-breakup.

              The only difference it makes for your "hypothesis," Dave, is whether you get 4,500 years to get from 10 to 500 alleles, or only a few hundred years.

              Pick your poison.
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,13:54

              Quote (bwee @ Nov. 01 2006,18:29)
                 
              Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,16:24)
                   
              Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 01 2006,15:59)
              Unlike AFDave, this newcomer seems actually capable of responding directly to questions and not avoiding.
              This is quite different from Dave, who changes subjects/versions like a crazed peyote-gobbling ferret on espresso.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              In the words of Monty Burns: "Excellent."

              I'm awaiting his answer as to why his 4,000, 6,000, and 36,000 year figures for the age of the Greenland ice sheet are incorrect. That's just as important as why he thinks the 3,500 year figure is correct (assuming that's the one he thinks is correct now).
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
              Timeline:
              4004 BC: Creation
              3000 BC
              2349 BC Flood: 16,000 animals alive. (8,000 kinds) You didn’t need insects, plants or fish.
              2250 BC Ice age lasts for one or two hundred years, deposits most of the ice in the ice sheets
              2000 BC Kinds have flourished and spread throughout the world
              1000 BC Moses has written the old Testament Kinds have developed into what we see today.
              1 AD Christ brings the new covenant
              1000 AD The message of Christ has spread through Europe
              2000 AD The end times. Believers prepare for the rapture.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              That would put the flood 4320 years ago? I appologize for the wrong math. The date has not changed.

              The reason the ice sheets date from just a few hundred years after the flood is because that is when the ice was laid down. Several hundred feet a year. The isotope readings from the GRIP study are measuring weekly, daily and hourly weather fluctuations. Turning a day into potentially centuries. There are, in fact, clear markers of seasons in the ice core but they were so far apart that deep timers didn't believe that's what they were looking at.
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              I thought this guy answered questions? Evidently not.

              1) What did a hundred thousand species of butterflies eat during their year at sea? The majority of Lepidoptera consume nectar for food. Same with most species of bees. How much nectar was available on these floating mats of vegetation?

              2) Was the "flood" seawater, or freshwater? Did it exterminate all the freshwater fish, or all the saltwater fish? Pick your poison.

              3) How did coastal redwoods get from Mt. Ararat to the Pacific Northwest in a year or two? DHL? Or via pony (or was it camel) express?

              4) If you think the Greenland ice sheet dates from ~4,300 years ago, why do you exclude dates of 6,000 years or 36,000 years, which seem to fit your "hypothesis" about counting single years as multiple years just as well? Where does your ~4,300 year figure come from? Is it based on anything other than the biblical chronology? Are you actually counting ice core layers at all?
              Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 01 2006,15:02

              Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,18:59)
              Mike PSS--  I followed your links and got nothing.  I think you are primarily interested in the creationist explanation for the HLA-B locus, with 500 known alleles, right?  Now you were saying you have a table somewhere that shows how similar the alleles of various groups worldwide are, or something, right?  Could you reproduce that table here for us?

              From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?

              So if you have that table, it would help to clear this up.  If you don't have it, I'm sure I can find one somewhere.

              I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?
              ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


              Right you are.  The table is nested in some reference and I'm not savvy enough to reproduce it here.
              Try this....
              Click this underlined < link to the front page. >
              On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
              Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.
              *************************
              The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.

              AFAIK, there are only two ways to get this type of allelic distribution in the UCGH environment.  You need either to mutate the alleles in exactly the same way over time in isolated populations, or the alleles need to travel with the foundation groups that settled North & South America.  That is why I asked my timeline questions.
              What time period in the UCGH did the foundation group that settled North & South America travel?


              Also, relating this HLA-B gene to your table looks like this:
              Before Flood: A1 through A?? (doesn't matter)
              Immediately After Flood: A1 through A10
              After Ice Age (NA and SA settled): A1 through A500
              Click on this < underlined link >to get a full listing (as of last month) of the HLA-B gene.  Also the < front page > of the same website has more references and information available (website found from < Wikipedia link about the HLA-B gene >).

              I don't care about B, C, D or any other GENE in your table.  Only A (the HLA-B GENE) and the numbers after A (the alleles of HLA-B).  I don't deny that A1 through A10 could be represented in the entire population, but how did A11 through A500 show up in only 250 years?

              Do you understand the point now?
              Did the link work?

              Mike PSS
              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,18:49

              Well, it’s coming up on the six-month anniversary of Absolutely Fraudulent Dave’s UPDATED Creator God “Hypothesis,” and now seems like a good time to take stock of Dave’s progress in supporting his “hypothesis.” Naturally, Dave thinks he’s won every debate he’s engaged in here, but anyone who troubles to read this thread can see how true that claim is. And naturally Dave, being a creationist, has spent virtually no time supporting his own “hypothesis,” but rather has attempted, in a pathetic and ineffectual fashion, to discredit thoroughly supported and solidly-verified science, everywhere from biology and genetics to paleontology to chemistry to geology to quantum physics to astronomy and cosmology.

              In the meantime, Dave has left a not-inconsiderable number of questions about and objections to his “hypothesis” unanswered and un-responded to. Now, on the six-month anniversary of Dave’s circus act, I thought it would be good to reprise the list them. This is far from an exhaustive list, so feel free to add as necessary, and of course thanks to Deadman_932 for compiling the original list, which has grown significantly since he last posted it.

              So, without further ado:

              Dave’s Unanswered Questions, Sorted by Category

              Support for Creator God “Hypothesis”

              • Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others. If your “hypothesis” isn’t falsifiable, it’s not really a “hypothesis,” is it?


              Problems With Biblical Inerrancy

              • You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124

              • I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124

              • You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?

              • You claim that humans have been literate since Adam. If Adam and the origin of the universe are coeval, i.e., 6,000 years ago, then why don’t we have written records dating back to 6,000 years ago? You claim Adam’s “secretaries” followed him around with stone tablets taking dictation. Whatever became of those stone tablets, and why is it that the oldest written records are less than 5,000 years old?

              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,18:52

              Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd

              Problems With a Young Earth

              • Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?

              • Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?

              • What evidence do you have independent of the Bible that converges on an age of 6,000 years for the age of the earth?

              • If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, that are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away. How do you explain the observation of these objects?

              • 6,000 years is not nearly enough time for a solar system to form, to say nothing of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or a galactic supercluster. How does your “hypothesis” explain the existence of these objects?

              • It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion. How do you explain this happening in only 6,000 years?

              • It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion. How did this happen in only 6,000 years?

              • Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere. Why don’t we see the sun’s power output increasing noticeably from one year to the next if it is only 6,000 years old?

              • Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000-year half-life, or thereabouts, and could easily exist from the point of "creation." Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.

              • The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?

              • Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor.

              • How do you the cool the surface of an iron sphere massing over 10^24 Kg to room temperature in less than 6,000 years?

              • Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.

              • For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?

              Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,18:55

              Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd

              Problems with Noah’s Ark

              • How did 35,000 or fewer "kinds" on the ark end up proliferating into over ten million species in less than 5,000 years? How is this not ultra-mega-supendo-fantastico-enormo-macroevolution?

              • Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?

              • How do you avoid an almost complete loss of genetic diversity in all organisms caused by the destruction of all but a single mating pair (unclean animals), seven mating pairs (clean animals), and four mating pairs (humans)?

              • If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??

              • If Noah and his little group were the only humans left after the flood, how do you account for the large numbers of human genes that have many more than 10 alleles in the current population?

              • How did 10 alleles of the HLA gene become 500 alleles in only 13 generations?

              • Dave doesn't understand that Adam and any magical properties or miracles for him are irrelevant to modern genetics due to the ark.

              • How did how animals that die outside their very narrow temperature range get from Ararat mountains, in the vicinity of Palestine, to their modern living places (polar bears, penguins, pandas which only eat bambu, kangaroos, any number of insects, etc)?

              • Why it is impossible to breed small dogs to become big, even though any breeder knows is trivially easy, and yet you dismiss it out of hand as "impossible", without offering any evidence for your position?

              • How many “created kinds” were on the ark? How do you know which currently-existing species are descendants of which “created kinds”?

              • Why is there no record anywhere of an explosive increase in biodiversity at any point in history?
              • Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?

              Questions About "Genetic Information"

              • Dave cannot answer the easiest question about information theory (what has more information content, white noise or a human speech of same length?) correctly, thus showing that any argument he bases on information theory must be wrong, since he doesn't understand the very basis of it.

              • Which has more information, Dave? A digital recording of broadband white noise, or an encrypted file containing the text of a Winston Churchill speech of the same size?

              • Does an amoeba genome of 670 billion base pairs have hundreds of times the "genetic information" of a human genome of 3 billion base pairs?
              • How much genetic information is contained in 600 tandem repeats of the following sequence of nucleotides: CATG?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,18:58

                Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd

                Problems with the “Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis”

                • Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. Point to any geological references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.

                • How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?

                • Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains.)

                • Where did all that water in your “global flood run-off”---run off to?

                • Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 2,600 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 2,600 meters of sediment?

                • Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon? Is there any independent corroboration of its age other than the assumption it was formed during the "flood"?

                • Since the Bible makes no mention of the Grand Canyon, nor any other canyon, nor North America for that matter, what is your justification for assuming the Grand Canyon was carved by the Noachian flood? You’ve admitted you know of no way to date the Grand Canyon; therefore how do you know if the Grand Canyon was formed before, during, or after the “flood”?

                • Which sediment layers were laid before the “flood,” Dave? Which were laid during the “flood”? Which were laid after the “flood”? Or do you still maintain that all sedimentary layers worldwide (all several kilometers of them) were laid during the flood?

                • How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

                • Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.

                • Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?

                • How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?

                • I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?

                • Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase

                • Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them.

                • Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft ")

                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,19:01

                Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd

                Problems with the “Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis” - Cont.

                • If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?

                • Dave doesn't understand how the flood-ice age combination affects his hypothesis, reducing the time he has to evolve all modern species to 450 years, even though it has been explained to him several times.

                • The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.

                • How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.

                • Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?

                • Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?

                • Why don't we see disruption of the varves?

                • How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?

                • Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.

                • Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?

                • Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

                • If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

                • You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

                • Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.

                • JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.

                • Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "hypothesis?"

                • Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?

                • Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer (p.125)

                • Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?

                • Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave?

                • Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.

                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 01 2006,19:05

                Dave's Unanswered Questions, Cont'd

                Problems with Attempts to Refute Standard Dating Techniques

                • How do you plan to refute every single age ever given by any dating method (and there are least 40 radiometric dating methods, and multiple other non-radiometric methods) that is in excess of 6,000 years? How will you explain even one date in excess of 6,000 years?

                • Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?
                  How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

                • Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

                • Is Snelling's inclusion of xenoliths in his Ngauruhoe dating study fraud?  If not, would it have been fraud to inject argon into the samples?  Is there any difference between the two scenarios?

                • There are hundreds of thousands to millions of dates derived from both radiometric and non-radiometric techniques that range from more than 6,000 years to ~4.55 billion years. Note that no object that is known to have originated on the earth has ever been dated beyond ~4.55 billion years. I.e., nothing has ever been found that dates to 10 billion years, or a hundred billion years, or a trillion years. Why do you think this is? “Evolutionists” have no reason to believe it takes 4.55 billion years for life to evolve, and certainly an age of the earth of 5 billion, 6 billion, or even 10 billion would not present any problems.

                • You believe that isochrons are meaningless—invalid. Would you care to compute the probabilities that isochrons ever converge on any particular values? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Precambrian provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it—the Precambrian? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Triassic provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it again—the Triassic?

                • What is your response to < Mike PSS's Isochron Summary >? What about it is wrong? Or do you concede that you are wrong about isochrons?

                • There is no reason to believe that life would have taken more than several hundred million years to evolve. Why don’t scientists claim that the earth is 700 million years old (20% of its currently-accepted age)?


                • How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?

                • Dave claimed ( p.138, AFD's UCG"H" part 1) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Cowardly Dave refused to answer.


                Theological Problems with a Creator God “Hypothesis”

                • If God is omnipotent, why did he need a "Global Catastrophic Flood"? Why would he wipe out 99.999999999999% of all living organisms on the planet, all of whom (other than the humans) were presumably innocent of any sort of "sin"? Why didn't he just eliminate all the evil humans? Even if Noah and his seven shipmates were the only good humans, it cannot be true that all of the animals (and all of the plants) were also evil. Why didn't he just hit the "reboot" button?
                • What did God think he was accomplishing by nailing his own son to a tree?


                If this list doesn't convince one of the utter unviability of Dave's UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis," I can't imagine what it would take.
                Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 01 2006,21:26

                Obviously boredom with Davey and his C&P vaudeville act is setting in. I can't believe no one has called Davey on the ridiculous claims in the Mutant Dogs post, especially this!



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Short spine

                In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                I've heard of dog faced baboons but a BABOON DOG? Baboon dogs die before reaching maturity but Baboon bitchs survive! How is this breed sustained Davey? Where is your bullshi.. er excrement detector?

                Can we add another page that AiG NEEDS to remove?

                Maybe Dougp can help you Dave? Come on Dougie, Davey NEEDS your help!

                Davey, why did Native Americans bring dogs with them but forget the rest of the domesticated flora and fauna, as well as the stone tablets/vellum scrolls/papyrus notebooks?
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 02 2006,01:10

                CORNELL GENETICIST REFUTES THE PRIMARY AXIOM



                Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University professor for more than 25 years in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.  He has published over 70 scientific publications, and was granted over 25 patents.  His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions -- the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization.  Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators.  John also started two successfull businesses deriving from his research -- Biolistics, Inc. and Sanford Scientific, Inc.

                Dr. Sanford is now a YEC and has the following to say in the prologue of his new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable.  I began to question the Primary Axiom [the belief that man is the product of RM + NS].  I did this with great fear and trepidation.  By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia.  Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.  ALthough I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche.  ... Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. ... What should I do?  It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level -- having catastrophic impact on countless human lives.  Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false.  So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud:  the Emperor has no clothes!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                He goes on to explain that attempts to salvage ToE with something other than RM+NS are futile because RM+NS is the only thing that could possibly work for ToE ... but it does not!

                Excellent book ... available (as you might guess) from Answer in Genesis International ... www.answersingenesis.org

                Speaking of them, I will be at AIG headquarters all day today ... do any of you have any congratulatory words you'd like me to pass on to any of them?  (ho ho)

                ******************************

                Mike PSS--- I downloaded and printed that HLA DB and will look at it on the plane this morning.

                ******************************

                Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling :-)

                See you on Friday!
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 02 2006,01:20

                Another arguments from authority, Davey?
                Quoting former scientists who turned insane, errh.. YEC, won't help you explain the 500 HLA alleles and the thousands of haplotypes that are found among closely related species (which are supposed to descend from a pair of individuals).

                Back to work, Davey. :)
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 02 2006,02:48

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,08:10)
                Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling :-)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave - I see you're scared and have no response to Eric's challenges so you're trying to change the subject.
                Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2006,03:05

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,14:15)
                Stands of 4,500 year old trees didn't survive the flood as seeds, and they didn't get from Mt. Ararat to the west coast of the U.S. via FedEx.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dear eric,

                You are quite demonstrably wrong.  During this year's Superbowl, it was quite clearly shown via fossilized videotape that FedEx did in fact exist alongside cavemen and dinosaurs, which makes this hypothesis viable.

                < Video Evidence of Cavemen, Dinosaurs, and FedEx >
                Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 02 2006,03:31

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 02 2006,01:05)
              • If God is omnipotent, why did he need a "Global Catastrophic Flood"? Why would he wipe out 99.999999999999% of all living organisms on the planet, all of whom (other than the humans) were presumably innocent of any sort of "sin"? Why didn't he just eliminate all the evil humans? Even if Noah and his seven shipmates were the only good humans, it cannot be true that all of the animals (and all of the plants) were also evil. Why didn't he just hit the "reboot" button?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                If you were an upright religious man, instead of a dirty heathen, you would have read the old testament, and you would know that animal sacrifice is pleasing to the lord. So think of Noah's flood as the greatest animal sacrifice of all time.
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 02 2006,03:31

                Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,10:05)
                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,14:15)
                Stands of 4,500 year old trees didn't survive the flood as seeds, and they didn't get from Mt. Ararat to the west coast of the U.S. via FedEx.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dear eric,

                You are quite demonstrably wrong.  During this year's Superbowl, it was quite clearly shown via fossilized videotape that FedEx did in fact exist alongside cavemen and dinosaurs, which makes this hypothesis viable.

                < Video Evidence of Cavemen, Dinosaurs, and FedEx >
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Ah, but the caveman states quite clearly (assuming the translation is correct) that FedEx doesn't exist yet.  Now, it is certainly possible that there was an error in translation - or that perhaps a later scene proving the existence of FedEx at roughly the same time period had been edited out.  But the current copy of the commercial does not support your YECFedEx hypothesis.
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 02 2006,03:35



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Davy, I see you're still at a loss for answers to all of the scores of questions eric has "recycled", so you are into subject changing.

                I'm not particularly impressed by once-bright people who cease to be bright. I fully expect my brain to stop working altogether one day. If I - and anyone who has to put up with me - am/is lucky, I won't be breathing, talking or writing after that. Regrettably, that's not always the case.

                Let me know when Sanford, or any YEC, publishes in Science, Nature, or any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Till then, I regard his work being hawked by AiG as a sad requiem.

                So whose money are you spending to hobnob with the scam artists at AiG? Your fellow parishioners'? Your family's? I trust you will not let this opportunity pass to press your case about Wieland's misrepresentation of the chromosome fusion story. Let us know how that went when you get back.
                Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2006,03:38

                Quote (improvius @ Nov. 02 2006,09:31)
                Ah, but the caveman states quite clearly (assuming the translation is correct) that FedEx doesn't exist yet.  Now, it is certainly possible that there was an error in translation - or that perhaps a later scene proving the existence of FedEx at roughly the same time period had been edited out.  But the current copy of the commercial does not support your YECFedEx hypothesis.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Oh, FedEx did in fact exist at the time.  The use of the word is proof in itself.  That caveman was just a FedEx atheist. (a-FedEx-ist?)  Either that, or the video was shot just pre-flud, and FedEx was created just post-flud from the pidjin-kind.  I bet you didn't know that the pidjins dun had a FedEx allele, didja?
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 02 2006,03:48

                Shock horror AFD, are you saying a retired Horticulturist (plant breeder) and ID proponent converts to strange religious cult...or was he one all the time...so what?

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Sanford was in the Cornell Agriculture School, as a Associate Professor of Horticulture. He never was fully promoted, and he was never in biology. He does still have a courtesy appointment in horticulture, and he does have some significant patents in biotechnology.

                From what little I've read of his book, it appears to be nonsense.


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                From:Gerard Harbison at< Right Wing Professor's Blog >
                Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 02 2006,03:49

                Quote (Russell @ Nov. 02 2006,09:35)
                Let me know when Sanford, or any YEC, publishes in Science, Nature, or any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Till then, I regard his work being hawked by AiG as a sad requiem.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Actually, Sanford's work is being hailed outside evangelical circles. Just look < here. >
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 02 2006,04:02

                Wow carlsonjok when I said strange ......I didn't meant THAT STRANGE <snicker>
                Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 02 2006,04:08

                Quote (k.e @ Nov. 02 2006,10:02)
                Wow carlsonjok when I said strange ......I didn't meant THAT STRANGE <snicker>
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Hey, I report, you decide.  (Inside joke for us 'merkins)
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 02 2006,04:16

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,08:10)
                Mike PSS--- I downloaded and printed that HLA DB and will look at it on the plane this morning.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Even though this is only Thursday, and I do my best predictions on Monday...ahem...

                I predict Dave will take the database numbers and do some whamma-jamma-thank-you-mamma mathematical manipulation (that means smoke-and-mirrors math, not comprehensive statistical analysis) and come back with an "explanation" that supports his hypothesis.  Upon further review I think we'll find the math doesn't hold up to scrutiny, OR Dave's conclusions don't address the original problem statement.

                The Great Karnak Has Spoken
                Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 02 2006,04:28

                Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

                Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

                "Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
                Today, everybody knows that life on earth is the result of random evolution and/or a supernatural God. Or is it?
                In "Message from the Designers" Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. During a UFO encounter in 1973 he was dictated a series of messages, face to face, by one of these designers. The result is what lies within these pages - an astonishing revelation for mankind."

                mmmmm.....Nuts don't just come in jars.
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 02 2006,04:42

                A secretly installed super sneaky video camera installed near AFD's desk, reveals him pushing Dr. John Sanford's book under his latest copy of  Spires and Vestibules a weekly review of church architecture and nonchalantly glancing out his window and whistling while twiddling his thumbs.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 02 2006,05:13

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling :-)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No, it was just the first of the month, Dave, and time for a monthly reminder of just how moribund your "hypothesis" really is.

                If you want me to stop "recycling," maybe you should start attempting to answer some of these questions, most of which have been pending for months.

                Remember, this thread isn't "AF Dave's Ineffectual Attempts to Disprove Evolution." It's "AF Dave's Unworkable Creator God "Hypothesis." One of these days you might surprise us all and actually come up with some affirmative evidence for your assertions, but after six months, frankly I doubt it.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 02 2006,05:20

                Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,09:05)
                 
                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,14:15)
                Stands of 4,500 year old trees didn't survive the flood as seeds, and they didn't get from Mt. Ararat to the west coast of the U.S. via FedEx.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dear eric,

                You are quite demonstrably wrong.  During this year's Superbowl, it was quite clearly shown via fossilized videotape that FedEx did in fact exist alongside cavemen and dinosaurs, which makes this hypothesis viable.

                < Video Evidence of Cavemen, Dinosaurs, and FedEx >
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                God, Lou. I'll try to say this tactfully…you know how Dave often will post a quote that actually undermines his argument? Uh, well, this video you posted…um…
                Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 02 2006,05:26

                Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 02 2006,10:28)
                Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

                Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Not to be pedantic, but all the link shows is that the Raelians bestowed an, umm, honorific on Sanford.  This does not necessarily mean that Sanford is a Raelian. Indeed, a quick scan of that website shows that Rael likes to claim all sorts of folks as his own.

                Just because Rael claims Sanford doesn't mean that Sanford is a Raelian any more than DaveScot claiming that Ken Miller was an IDer makes that true.
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 02 2006,05:52



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Wow carlsonjok when I said strange ......I didn't meant THAT STRANGE <snicker>
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                This does not necessarily mean that Sanford is a Raelian.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                etc.

                There seems to be an implicit assumption that Raelians are somehow nuttier than biblical literalists. While I don't subscribe to either of their stories, I suspect that after a close inspection of their respective attempts to reconcile reality with their theories, the Raelians would look saner than the biblicalists.

                The only thing the biblicalists have in their favor is that there are a lot more of them. But we all know how little credence folks like afdave accords to the herd effect.
                Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 02 2006,05:58



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Nuts don't just come in jars
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                So do sperm donors!

                Sorry.
                Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 02 2006,06:45

                Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 02 2006,10:28)
                Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

                Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

                "Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
                Today, everybody knows that life on earth is the result of random evolution and/or a supernatural God. Or is it?
                In "Message from the Designers" Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. During a UFO encounter in 1973 he was dictated a series of messages, face to face, by one of these designers. The result is what lies within these pages - an astonishing revelation for mankind."

                mmmmm.....Nuts don't just come in jars.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Steverino, this makes it look like you're quoting Sanford.
                Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 02 2006,09:39

                Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 02 2006,12:45)
                Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 02 2006,10:28)
                Is this the same Dr. John Sanford.....Raelien John Sanford who believes:

                Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers

                "Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth.
                Today, everybody knows that life on earth is the result of random evolution and/or a supernatural God. Or is it?
                In "Message from the Designers" Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. During a UFO encounter in 1973 he was dictated a series of messages, face to face, by one of these designers. The result is what lies within these pages - an astonishing revelation for mankind."

                mmmmm.....Nuts don't just come in jars.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Steverino, this makes it look like you're quoting Sanford.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Whoops....sorry was not my intention.  My intention was to show the Raelien mind set.

                ####, I hope that means the will still beam me up when the time comes.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 02 2006,09:49

                Since Dave has Sanford's book, perhaps Dave can post what Dave believes to be Sanford's definition of information ( per information theory ) that Sanford uses in his claims that "no new infromation has been added to the genome." Or does he HAVE one, Dave?
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 02 2006,09:52

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                CORNELL GENETICIST REFUTES THE PRIMARY AXIOM

                Dr. Sanford is now a YEC and has the following to say in the prologue of his new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome...      

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable.  I began to question the Primary Axiom [the belief that man is the product of RM + NS]. <snip> Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. ... <snip> Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false.  So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud:  the Emperor has no clothes!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, yesterday you tried to use Woodmorappe's arguments about the alleles. The centre of those arguments was:
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
                HOW ABOUT HLA ALLELES?  WHY SO MANY OF THOSE?

                ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
                First, Woodmorappe explains that ...            

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:            

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles,
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Tell us, Dave, who is right, according to your hypothesis? Sanford or Woodmorappe?

                   
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                He goes on to explain that attempts to salvage ToE with something other than RM+NS are futile because RM+NS is the only thing that could possibly work for ToE ... but it does not!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                But Dave, according to Woodmorappe, RM+NS works. If you agree with him, why do you contradict yourself? If you don't, why did you use his arguments?

                Also, while it was a boring declaration of martyrdom, I fail to see any evidence that he is right. Why should we trust his word over, say, that of Darwin, Dave? Just his PhD? That's argument from authority, a fallacy. Or because you say he is right? That's the fallacy "proof by assetion". Present his arguments, Dave, assuming he has any (I doubt it), not his religious speech. I couldn't care less about how he feels persecuted or whatever - only his evidence and arguments matter.

                 
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                Excellent book ... available (as you might guess) from Answer in Genesis International ... www.answersingenesis.org
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Working on comission, Dave? Why aren't these findings published in a peer-reviewed biology journal? Are you going to tell us of a "global conspiration" now?

                 
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling :-)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Why should we present anything original when we're still waiting for you to give us evidence and answers, Dave? Don't you think it is more appropiate for you to actually finish picking up the pieces of your hypothesis before we move on to yet another topic which will show it to be wrong? Were you lying when you said you were here to defend and explain your "hypothesis", Dave?

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf
                Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2006,10:04

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,07:10)
                Speaking of them, I will be at AIG headquarters all day today ... do any of you have any congratulatory words you'd like me to pass on to any of them?  (ho ho)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Well, no.  But I'd love to know how much they spend each month on fire extinguishers and replacement pants.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 02 2006,10:04

                Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 02 2006,09:31)
                 
                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 02 2006,01:05)
              • If God is omnipotent, why did he need a "Global Catastrophic Flood"? Why would he wipe out 99.999999999999% of all living organisms on the planet, all of whom (other than the humans) were presumably innocent of any sort of "sin"? Why didn't he just eliminate all the evil humans? Even if Noah and his seven shipmates were the only good humans, it cannot be true that all of the animals (and all of the plants) were also evil. Why didn't he just hit the "reboot" button?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                If you were an upright religious man, instead of a dirty heathen, you would have read the old testament, and you would know that animal sacrifice is pleasing to the lord. So think of Noah's flood as the greatest animal sacrifice of all time.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                To be specific, it would have been the second biggest sacrifice of all time, since it virtually sacrificed every single living thing on the planet, while, of course, sacrificing God was even better - what my theology teacher* once described as "the ultimate get out of free card: after sacrificing God, no-one, living or dead, past or future, can possibly go to He11, since the ultimate sacrifice for all our souls has been done".

                Fundies, who like feeling righteous and sending anyone that they don't like to He11, and fell warm inside by thinking how they will laugh at them when they are in Heaven, tend to ignore the consequences of God sacrificing Himself for all humanity, since it robs them of the chance of smugly declaring people's fates.

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf

                * Don't ask why I had a theology teacher when studying an engineering degree, because I cannot actually answer you

                *** This post brought to you by the Society for the Advancement of Ridiculously Long Sentences ***
                Posted by: ScaryFacts on Nov. 02 2006,10:08

                Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2006,16:04)
                Well, no.  But I'd love to know how much they spend each month on fire extinguishers and replacement pants.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                What?  Fire extinguishers and pants?  What do those two have to do with each other?  It's like you are implying their pants are...Oh, wait...I get it.  LOL.
                Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 02 2006,10:15

                Re "If you were an upright religious man, instead of a dirty heathen, you would have read the old testament, and you would know that animal sacrifice is pleasing to the lord. So think of Noah's flood as the greatest animal sacrifice of all time."

                No no no; God likes the smell of burnt sacrifices, not the smell of soggy fur. ;)
                Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 02 2006,10:33

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 02 2006,11:20)
                God, Lou. I'll try to say this tactfully…you know how Dave often will post a quote that actually undermines his argument? Uh, well, this video you posted…um…
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Yeah.  ####, I shoulda looked at the whole thing again, I had forgotten that "doesn't exist yet" line.

                Funny how AFDave-like that is, though.  Exactly an AFDave move, and I stand as humiliated and ashamed as he should, but doesn't.





                it was still funny, though.
                Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 02 2006,21:38

                Come on Dave, degenerate mutant baboon dogs? The males die before they reach maturity but the females don't!

                HOW DO THEY KEEP THIS BREED GOING?

                I realize you just C&P this crap but do you (or anyone at the WCFA or AiG) actually read this nonsense with comprehension before you post it?
                Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 03 2006,01:48

                Oh,  come on, Crabby -- have you EVER, in *ANY* of his threads, seen antiFactDave demonstrate the slightest ability to read for comprehension?
                The man moves his lips when he looks at pictures, for gosh sakes -- and can't even grasp the subject matter of representational art.  When it comes to words, he was doing fine until we moved to words with one syllable.  He handled arithmetic OK until addition and subtraction were introduced.  But who needs to know when you can just believe?

                no hugs for thugs,
                Shirley Knott
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 03 2006,09:22

                So, I wonder how many minutes Dave had been at AIG before someone asked him for a check.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2006,10:59

                As far as I can tell, there's no actual topic pending right now vis à vis Dave's "Hypothesis." Anyone want to take bets as to what Dave is going to pull out of his butt (i.e., the AiG website) next? Or will he just circle around to another claim he's already made that's already been thoroughly dismantled?

                It doesn't look like Dave has too many topics left to discuss that actually impinge in any way on science. I'm hoping this thread doesn't degenerate into a discussion about whether Jesus was, or was not, an actual historical figure, the actual son of God, whether he was the most influential figure in history, etc. (If it does, I'm trusting to SteveStory to exercize some moderator's judgment.)

                So what's next, Dave? You've pretty much shot your wad on  "cosmic fine tuning," "biological machines," "genetic richness," the "flood," radiometric dating, biblical prophecies, etc. One thing that would probably be nice would be to see if you could come up with a rigorous definition of "created kinds" which goes beyond the fatuous "descended from a common gene pool" which verges on either utter meaninglessness or on an abdication to the Theory of Evolution which would require you to concede that there was only one "kind" from which all currently-living organisms are descended.

                Or, you could start from the top of the list and attempt answers to the three score or so questions posed to you about your "hypothesis." Given that that's what this whole thread is supposed to be about, maybe it's time to get started.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 03 2006,16:59

                Mike PSS--

                Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...

                1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
                2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
                3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)

                What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?
                Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 03 2006,17:13

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 03 2006,16:59)
                I'm trusting to SteveStory...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                From the looks of my Inbox, you're the only one.

                ;-)
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 03 2006,19:34

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 03 2006,22:59)
                Mike PSS--

                Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...

                1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
                2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
                3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)

                What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, more than than 20 contradicts your "hypothesis." 10 extra alleles in 450 years is going to be very difficult for your "hypothesis" to explain. So I suggest you get busy.

                Especially if you think a human generation at the time was more than a hundred years.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 04 2006,01:08

                How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 04 2006,02:41



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                What happened AFD, lose the script?

                Hey maybe if you come up with an original idea for evolution on crystal meth, AiG will let you in for free (or let you out for free).

                Just think of that. You could apply the same brilliant idea to tectonics ...continents on ball bearings and a slope.

                Call it "the skateboard theory of tectonics" g$d just hitched up his < Bisht > hopped on each continent and pushed off with the other foot.

                You even have proof ....look at Italy .....don't tell me that isn't one of gods boots.

                Fame and glory await you Davey ..expect a call from that peak scientific prize organization...The < Darwin Awards >.....whose motto is

                We salute the improvement of the human genome
                by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
                Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.  
                November 2006
                "The Tree of Life is Self-Pruning."


                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2006,05:06

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,07:08)
                How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

                "Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 04 2006,06:08

                I'm thinking you have not even looked at Mike's HLA DB.  You appear to not be understanding my question.
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 04 2006,11:04

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,11:06)
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,07:08)
                How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

                "Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                And we're not even talking about mitochondrial haplotypes.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2006,11:30

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,12:08)
                I'm thinking you have not even looked at Mike's HLA DB.  You appear to not be understanding my question.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No, you're not understanding my answer. It has nothing to do with Mike's database. The simple truth of the matter is, there's way too much diversity currently in HLA alleles worldwide for your "hypothesis" to accommodate, especially if you continue to insist that Noah and his fellow vacationers were more "genetically rich," or even more heterozygotic, than humans alive today. The only significance Mike's chart has is in determining how much time your "hypothesis" has to get to the level of diversity present today. If HLA alleles are distributed globally today, then according to your "hypothesis" all those alleles must have arisen before humans radiated to all the continents. If not, then hypothetically they could have continued to arise up until the present day. But in any event, your "hypothesis" requires levels of mutations that would clearly be lethal, and far beyond anything proposed by any real evolutionary theory.

                So don't look to Mike's chart to save your bacon, Dave. It can't.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 04 2006,12:07

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 03 2006,23:59)
                Mike PSS--

                Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...

                1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
                2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
                3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)

                What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,02:34 )
                Dave, more than than 20 contradicts your "hypothesis." 10 extra alleles in 450 years is going to be very difficult for your "hypothesis" to explain. So I suggest you get busy.

                Especially if you think a human generation at the time was more than a hundred years.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,08:08 )
                How do you come up with 10 extra alleles in 450 years from that database that Mike linked to?  Are you taking 100 alleles for 4500 years and dividing by 10?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 04 2006,12:06 )
                No. I'm saying even ten, to say nothing of 100, or 225, or 500, alleles in 450 years is going to present problems for your "hypothesis." Again, for someone who says he doesn't believe in evolution, you're talking about evolution rates far in excess of anything actually proposed by the theory of evolution.

                "Genetic richness" isn't going to help you there, Dave.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,13:08 )
                I'm thinking you have not even looked at Mike's HLA DB.  You appear to not be understanding my question.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                I'm not going to argue about this sample set.  I told you the table didn't sample for all the HLA alleles.  This is only a representative sample, but large enough to make my point.  

                The commonality of HLA alleles across population groups is significance enough.  Whether we have one, two, or MANY people with the same HLA allele doesn't matter.  The fact that the distinct geographic populations SHARE a common HLA allele IS significant.

                I don't think you read my posts too thoroughly.  Go back and read the part where I ask about the UCGH timeline.

                In that part I ask you specifically when the UCGH ice age was finished.  This is the last time the North American population intermingled (admixed) with the Africa-Euro-Asia population until 1492.  (We can ignore the impact of the Leif Ericson settlement since this influence was localized to Labrador).

                If the North American population was ISOLATED from the end of the UCGH ice age to 1492, then the common HLA alleles between these populations must have come about BEFORE the populations seperated.  The data set specifically tested aboriginal populations that have never shown familial history of admixture with outside groups (that is the 'Citation' tag under each geographic heading in the table).

                THIS IS WHY THE UCGH HAS ONLY 250 YEARS TO CREATE AND MIX THE HLA ALLELES THAT ARE COMMON BETWEEN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND AFRICA-EURO-ASIA POPULATIONS.

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 04 2006,13:49



                OK Mike--  Here's an extract from your table.  Tell me what data I should be looking at and tell me how this is a problem for a YEC timescale.  (I added a "Sum" column in and sorted by that column).

                Also, you might want to explain to everyone how the frequencies are calculated and what the numbers in the region columns represent.

                Thanks!
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2006,14:01

                —and while you're waiting for that, Dave, I have an assignment for you. I'd like you to explain to us how it is that, with the exception of humans, each "created kind" present on the ark has since differentiated into an average of a thousand different species. Then I'd like you to explain what's unique about the human genome that makes it so much more resistant to mutation than any other genome. In other words, why aren't there dozens or hundreds of species of humans?
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 04 2006,14:57

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 04 2006,20:49)


                OK Mike--  Here's an extract from your table.  Tell me what data I should be looking at and tell me how this is a problem for a YEC timescale.  (I added a "Sum" column in and sorted by that column).

                Also, you might want to explain to everyone how the frequencies are calculated and what the numbers in the region columns represent.

                Thanks!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                OK Dave, I'm game to lead you step-by-step through this.

                First the data in your table.  Each region listed has a seperate sampling size (listed in the original table).  The frequency columns listed to the right of the region columns are purley the fraction of the regions population that that have that allele.  For example... Column H is 'Europe' and Column I is Frequency of Europe population that have a certain allele.  Cell I2=0.0491 which means that 4.91% of the European population tested (179 people in cell H2) has the HLA-B B*4001 allele.

                Next, the explanation.  Look at Columns H(Europe), N(NE Asia), V(SE Asia), X(SW Asia), and Z(Sub-Sahara Africa).  All of these regions share the almost the same alleles (above 90% of those tested for).  We should expect this since these populations have interbred (admixed) for millenium.  As an HLA-B allele appears in any of the above populations from mutation and selection, the geographically connected populations will spread the allele throughout the population over time.

                However, look at Column L(North America).  The NA population shares almost the same number and type of alleles as all the populations above (Africa-Euro-Asia).  Since the NA population was isolated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) population until 1492 then the shared alleles MUST have come from a mixed population BEFORE the NA population isolation.  This is why I (and Grey Wolf and ericmurphy and others...) say that there is only 250 years for the allelic mutations to appear in the population.

                If there are common alleles in ISOLATED populations then these populations must have shared these alleles BEFORE seperation.  The population of NA was seperated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) after the UCGH ice age.

                Also, the individuals tested within each region were selected for regional homogeneity (they and their familial lineage was considered aboriginal to the region).  The original table has a citation to justify this fact and can be cross-checked.  So the North American population tested consisted of Mayan, Navaho, etc... individuals that have familial lineages that don't cross-breed with other regional peoples.

                Does this help explain the table?

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2006,15:31

                Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 04 2006,20:57)
                Since the NA population was isolated from (Africa-Euro-Asia) population until 1492 then the shared alleles MUST have come from a mixed population BEFORE the NA population isolation.  This is why I (and Grey Wolf and ericmurphy and others...) say that there is only 250 years for the allelic mutations to appear in the population.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Actually, there have been a range of dates mentioned, Dave. 250 years, 450 years, even zero years. Why is this? It's because you refuse to be pinned down on how long your "ice age" lasted.

                So how long was it, Dave? It doesn't appear in any written records anywhere, despite the fact that it occurred during historic times. You're pretty vague about when it started, although one could be forgiven for assuming it started a year or two after the "floodwaters" magically disappeared back to wherever they magically appeared from. But how long did it last? Was it a few decades? A century or two? Five hundred years? Since it's clear that humans must have radiated over all the major land masses while the sea levels were low enough, the evolution of all these HLA alleles must have happened before or during the ice age (I'm saying before, which is why I say you have essentially zero time for them to have appeared). But until we know how long you think the "ice age" lasted, we can't tell you how many years you have to go from ten alleles to 500. Was it instantaneously, or was it 250 years, or was it 450 years? Your ice age ended at some point, and with it, the chance for all those alleles to have spread throughout the world.
                Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 04 2006,18:43

                Dave said "I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?"

                Before the bottleneck there are four alleles of gene A. After the bottleneck there are two alleles of gene A, plus a new mutation (which is extremely unlikely to have arisen in such a small number of progeny). Two (or even three) is less than four. Therefore genetic diversity has been lost. What happens to genes B, C, D, . . . Z is irrelevent to the amount of variation in A.

                I'm sorry, I do not know how to put this in smaller steps than this.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 04 2006,19:57

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,17:59)
                I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Why is this so hard for you to get, Dave? Unless there was almost no genetic diversity pre-flood, i.e., no more than ten alleles at any locus anywhere in the human genome (which would be the opposite of "genetic richness," as you have defined the term), then there is guaranteed to be a major loss of diversity. As the human population goes from—care to hazard a guess here, Dave? a few hundred thousand individuals? or do you think it was a few million?—to eight, five of whom are related to each other, any genetic diversity above 10 alleles per locus is gone. You're not going to tell me you don't understand why that is, are you?

                So—genetic diversity is not "maintained" through a genetic bottleneck. That's why it's called a "genetic bottleneck." Kind of the definition of the term, Dave, in case that wasn't already clear to you.

                Now: can genetic diversity be regained? Sure. Through the same method it was obtained in the first place: mutations. Can the level of genetic diversity currently displayed by humans have been regained from its much-diminished state immediately subsequent to the flood?

                No.

                Why? Not enough time, Dave. You simply cannot get from, e.g., 10 HLA alleles to 500 alleles in the two hundred or so generations from the time of your "flood" to the present, let alone in the handful of generations between the flood and the end of your "ice age." You're talking anywhere from two mutations per generation up to ten or so mutations per generation.

                I cannot understand why this simple concept is such a problem for you. You cannot possibly be this stupid. So the only explanation left is that you choose not to get it.
                Posted by: tsig on Nov. 04 2006,21:01

                Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,09:38)
                Quote (improvius @ Nov. 02 2006,09:31)
                Ah, but the caveman states quite clearly (assuming the translation is correct) that FedEx doesn't exist yet.  Now, it is certainly possible that there was an error in translation - or that perhaps a later scene proving the existence of FedEx at roughly the same time period had been edited out.  But the current copy of the commercial does not support your YECFedEx hypothesis.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Oh, FedEx did in fact exist at the time.  The use of the word is proof in itself.  That caveman was just a FedEx atheist. (a-FedEx-ist?)  Either that, or the video was shot just pre-flud, and FedEx was created just post-flud from the pidjin-kind.  I bet you didn't know that the pidjins dun had a FedEx allele, didja?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                I do miss sargent kate
                Posted by: BWE on Nov. 05 2006,20:25

                Hi Dave,
                Not having much time to torment you with your stupidity these days has been nice. It also made me think about why I feel so compulsed to point out to you that you are dishonest, wrong and blinded to reality. Someone told you about god and you believed them. Sad. Wrong. If you posed a real threat I would take action. But with evangelicals increasingly being exposed for their frauds and hijinks, I don't need to. You are pathetic. You are wrong. Anyone can read this thread and arrive at the same conclusion. If you really care about this subject, go take GEOLOGY 101 FIRST. Your biology is hopeless but you have got to figure out your geology before you can get anywhere. Otherwise, I'm really sorry you're a wanker and that I engaged. I am learning. I'll try to avoid any alternative to contempt for fundy bastards like you from now on.

                I don't like you. I don't know you, but enforced ignorance is bad policy as an individual or for a group in my opinion. Repressed people are likely to do other dangerous things and therefore I don't trust you alone with children or in charge of anything.

                If you ever want to go anywhere with this, try and see if there is even just one shred of evidence for your stupid fucking hypothesis about your provincial, childish, wanking god. Go out and find the positive proof. I am sick of your wanking god and your wanking you.

                bye.

                PS- Cross-referenced core samples have conclusively verified RM dating to over 300k years and showed that the technique is consistent beyond that. I have proof positive but I am not going to share with you.

                You are wrong, your church is lying to you, you are lying to yourself and others and you are not safe. Your private fantasies about god are sick and twisted.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,02:39

                Dave,
                Did you run out of fingers and toes counting the alleles?

                Here's another one to ponder.  Why does a protein molecule look as structurally complex as kerogen?


                Mike PSS
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,03:20

                MIKE ... HLA-B IS NOT SIMILAR BETWEEN THE N. AM.-S. AM. AND AFRO-EURO-ASIA GROUPS
                Mike PSS ...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/project....hroMain >
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No it does not.  If you take the HLA-B table extract in Excel and sort descending on column L (N. Am.), you get the following ...



                What you have is the most common HLA-B alleles in N. Am. on top descending to the least frequently occurring at bottom.  Let's analyze each line individually ...

                B4002: Significant (~16%) for N. Am. and Australia.  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B3501: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~13%)  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B4801: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Oceana with only ~4%.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B2705: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Europe with only ~3%.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                Are you getting the picture?  Do I need to keep going?

                So Mike, kindly demonstrate HOW your statement is supported in detail or retract your claim.

                Thanks!

                ***************************************



                Richard Simons...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Dave said "I'm surprised at the person who said that my "bottleneck chart" does not show how genetic diversity is maintained/regained.  Can you explain in more detail why you think it does not?"

                Before the bottleneck there are four alleles of gene A. After the bottleneck there are two alleles of gene A, plus a new mutation (which is extremely unlikely to have arisen in such a small number of progeny). Two (or even three) is less than four. Therefore genetic diversity has been lost. What happens to genes B, C, D, . . . Z is irrelevent to the amount of variation in A.

                I'm sorry, I do not know how to put this in smaller steps than this.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Richard--  Sorry, but you appear to be using "new math" which apparently is selective.  Count the Pre-Flood alleles in the chart above ... you will come up with 9.  Then count the POST-Flood alleles ... you will also come up with 9.  When I was in gradeschool, they taught me that 9=9.  Also, it is NOT unlikely for new alleles to arise because we are not counting on Day 2 or 3 after the Flood.  We are counting several hundred years after the Flood.  Note Woodmorappe's observation that ...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Whenever alleles do survive a population bottleneck, they can undergo major shifts in frequency, relative to the parent population, in only a few generations.  This can be seen in animals as disparate as birds (Baker and Moeed 1987) and fish (Vuorinen et al. 1991).  This means that, whatever genetic diversity does survive the population bottleneck itself, it becomes widely available to members of the founding population in a relatively short period of time. (Noah's Ark:  A Feasability Study, p. 199.)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,03:40

                Note to Eric--  When I say "maintained" I mean "maintained to a high degree" ... IOW extremely minimal loss.  This is quite clear from the chart as well ...

                Pre-Flood:  6 common alleles
                Post-Flood:  5 common alleles

                Only ONE common allele is lost in spite of only 2 individuals being the carriers!!  THAT is what I mean by "genetic richness" or "genetic diversity."

                I am sorry that you don't get it.  Stick with me and maybe you will in time.
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 06 2006,03:51

                When I was in gradeschool, they taught me that I could get free kool aid if I went to see some wild eyed old bible bashers show cartoons about some thing called a flud and some guy named Noah.

                I grew up in on a farm and even I could see the whole idea was just laughable.

                Why weren't there any worms on the arc?
                Because worms come in apples not in pairs


                er AFD have you ever been to a zoo?

                You truly need to get a reality check.

                Go and ask your local zoo keeper how he would fit a pair of each of his animals plus a few dinosaurs (snicker) onto a 50 foot boat and keep them fed for 40 days with 3 helpers.
                Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 06 2006,04:27



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                What you have is the most common HLA-B alleles in N. Am. on top descending to the least frequently occurring at bottom.  Let's analyze each line individually ...

                B4002: Significant (~16%) for N. Am. and Australia.  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B3501: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~13%)  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B4801: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Oceana with only ~4%.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                B2705: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Europe with only ~3%.
                No support for Mike's statement above.

                Are you getting the picture?  Do I need to keep going?

                So Mike, kindly demonstrate HOW your statement is supported in detail or retract your claim.

                Thanks!

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Dave, this is your stupidest post since the red dots incident.  Yes, the alleles that are most common in N. America have their highest incidence in... N. America.  But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.  You also still haven't answered how we got all those darned advantageous alleles to begin with.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 06 2006,04:28

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,09:20)
                So Mike, kindly demonstrate HOW your statement is supported in detail or retract your claim.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Going for hypocrisy now, Dave? You have *never*, *not once* explained *any* of your claims in detail, have been called out on it, and yet you have never retracted any of them. What did Jesus have to say about hypocrites, Dave? From what I remember, he didn't like them very much.

                Examples of lack of detail from Dave's "hypothesis":
                - Age of the Earth: variation between 6k to 12k years (100% variance) - leaving himself open to further stretching
                - Number of kinds: Currently defined as "all Dave can define as distinctly created", which of course is endlessly plastical (how many bacteria kinds are there, Dave?)
                - Years between the flood and the ice age: 1 day? 250 years? 450 years? And why isn't the ice age mentioned in the Bible in the first place?
                - Number of HLA alleles pre-flood, and how we got to them from the 2/4 in Adam-Eve
                - Number of mutations per generation needed post-flood to go from 10 HLA alleles to 500
                - When mutations stopped generating thousands of species post-flood
                - What caused the "snake kind" to transform into hundreds of species (poisonous, mild-poisonous, non-poisonous, egg-bearing, live-bearing, big, small...) while at the same time retaining human-kind as a single species
                - Why is it that your hypothesis uses ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, to speciate kinds into millions of species by microevolution, but RM+NS doesn't work, according to a different creationist source - who is right, in detail?
                - etc. (this where just off the top of my head, while at work).

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,09:20)
                Sorry, but you appear to be using "new math" which apparently is selective.  Count the Pre-Flood alleles in the chart above ... you will come up with 9.  Then count the POST-Flood alleles ... you will also come up with 9.  When I was in gradeschool, they taught me that 9=9.  Also, it is NOT unlikely for new alleles to arise because we are not counting on Day 2 or 3 after the Flood.  We are counting several hundred years after the Flood.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                How many years, Dave, after the flood? What happened to make that one gene to mutate 4 times in those years? What makes that gene so likely to mutate? How is it that all the mutations you've invented are non-deleterious? Or does your sudden need for detail not include you, Dave?

                Obviously, this invented example of yours would explain a small bottleneck, given several million years to introduce new mutations, but you don't have those millions, Dave. You have between 5 and 150 generations. Does every population in the world present those alleles? And why do you use a gene you invented, instead of trying to explain HLA, Dave? Wait, I know that one:
                                     Number of alleles
                Pre-flood        Day after flood     Post-Flood
                ¿500?                   10                     500

                Note that you have not told us how many alleles of HLA were in the population before the flood. Now, the maximum number of generations you have post-flood is about 150, which means more than 3 mutations to the HLA gene every generation. This is impossible, by all known biological and genetical science studies I am aware of - so you better give us details, Dave, of what makes HLA so mutative, and how it is that there aren't thousands of dead people with badly mutated HLA genes around us.

                And that is not even addressing the fact that people in America had the same set of 500 HLAs before the Europeans arrived, indicating that all 500 were present before the Ice Age that is not mentioned in the Bible happened.

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,04:38

                Argy...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                No, they are not.  We find LESS THAN HALF the incidence in the next closest frequency of any allele you might pick.  There is no way any rational person can look at this data and conclude this ...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                 Also, you are showing your lack of understanding of "experimenter selectivity" by bashing my "red dot" chart.  You totally missed the point of all the information I gave regarding Isochron Diagrams.  It apparently is good enough for you--a non-expert in RM dating methods--to blindly accept all RM Dating in spite of the fact that you were shown how RM Dating is "calibrated" by the use of fossils.  Why would you blindly accept this?  All I can conclude is that you WANT ToE to be true and that you NEED RM "Dating" to support your ideas.
                Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 06 2006,04:49



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Argy...


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No, they are not.  We find LESS THAN HALF the incidence in the next closest frequency of any allele you might pick.  There is no way any rational person can look at this data and conclude this ...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Also, you are showing your lack of understanding of "experimenter selectivity" by bashing my "red dot" chart.  You totally missed the point of all the information I gave regarding Isochron Diagrams.  It apparently is good enough for you--a non-expert in RM dating methods--to blindly accept all RM Dating in spite of the fact that you were shown how RM Dating is "calibrated" by the use of fossils.  Why would you blindly accept this?  All I can conclude is that you WANT ToE to be true and that you NEED RM "Dating" to support your ideas.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,05:13

                Argy...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Pardon me, but here's what he said ...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                There is no way this table supports any kind of "90% similarity."  Sorry, not buying it.



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, you are correct, that was my point.  And I most certainly DID have evidence.  I gave you a clear example:  the "dating" of the layers at Koobi Fora.  This example showed unequivocally from a major, non-YEC source--Science magazine--the absolute randomness of RM "dating" results and the necessity to "calibrate" results with fossils of "known" age.  You are a very intelligent guy as can be seen by your academic achievements.  Why would you buy into this foolishness?
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 06 2006,05:29

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:13)
                And I most certainly DID have evidence.  I gave you a clear example:  the "dating" of the layers at Koobi Fora.  This example showed unequivocally from a major, non-YEC source--Science magazine--the absolute randomness of RM "dating" results and the necessity to "calibrate" results with fossils of "known" age.  You are a very intelligent guy as can be seen by your academic achievements.  Why would you buy into this foolishness?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No, Dave, that wasn't evidence.  That was you suspecting a conspiracy.  You were asked multiple times to explain specifically what step of the dating methodology you obejcted to in that case, and you failed to come up with anything concrete.
                Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 06 2006,05:36



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Sorry, but you appear to be using "new math" which apparently is selective.  Count the Pre-Flood alleles in the chart above ... you will come up with 9.  Then count the POST-Flood alleles ... you will also come up with 9.  When I was in gradeschool, they taught me that 9=9.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, you still do not understand alleles. On the left side of the chart there are four alleles of gene A. There are also 3 alleles of gene B and 2 of gene C. As far as gene A (think HLA) is concerned, the number of alleles of genes B and C are irrelevent. Forget them. Erase them from your mind. They have nothing to do with the situation.

                Only two alleles of gene A are present in the bottleneck and only two alleles of gene A are able to get past the bottleneck. Miraculously high rates of mutation after the bottleneck have no bearing on what gets through the bottleneck. The fact that genes B and C also had reduced numbers of alleles in the bottleneck than they did before is also irrelevent to what happens to alleles of gene A and the heterogeneity as regards A, although they do make the same point.

                Notice I have never written about 'alleles' in isolation. They are always alleles of a particular gene. You must read and understand a basic genetics text before continuing to blunder around any more.

                For the next week I'm going to be in an area with erratic Internet connections so I won't be able to gawp at your further inanities for a while.
                Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 06 2006,05:42

                Hey AFDave, are you ever going to get back to our discussion of 'biological information' and 'specificity', or will this be another case where you realized you were looking so stupid that your only recourse was to turn tail and run?

                That happens to you often, doesn't it Davie?

                You did the same for radiometric dating, and the C14 calibration, and meanders in the Grand Canyon, and buried forests in Yellowstone, and limestone formation/erosion rates, and astronomical evidence for an old universe, etc, etc etc.  Ericmurphy compiled a nice list of all the topics you cut and ran from, and it took him five max-sized posts to do it.  That's a LOT of chickensh*t from one ex-Air Force puke.

                BTW, what's your take on Kent Hovind going to jail?  I bet you think he's just another nice honest YEC being persecuted for his beliefs, right?  Tell me Dave, how many Kevlar vests do you think could have been purchased for our troops from the $480K that Kent put in his own pocket? You know all about lining your own pocket with church funds, don't you Dave.  ;)
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,05:45

                It most certainly was evidence and I have never claimed a conspiracy of any kind.  You are the one who has incessantly asserted that I think there is a conspiracy.

                I made quite clear which part of the dating methodology I objected to ...

                "Calibrating" RM dating results with fossils.  

                Translation:  Rejecting results which do not agree with the accepted, fossil determined dates of the strata and accepting only those dates that DO agree.  

                This is no conspiracy as the scientists are quite honest and sincere in thinking they are doing good science.  They are simply mistaken and blinded by the reality that there are a large number of other scientists who have also blindly accepted this nonsense.

                *********************************

                Richard ...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Dave, you still do not understand alleles. On the left side of the chart there are four alleles of gene A. There are also 3 alleles of gene B and 2 of gene C. As far as gene A (think HLA) is concerned, the number of alleles of genes B and C are irrelevent. Forget them. Erase them from your mind. They have nothing to do with the situation.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                No, my friend.  They are quite relevant.  The fact remains ...

                I said that a single, genetically rich (diverse) founder pair would have easily been able to maintain/regain a high degree of genetic diversity following a bottleneck such as Noah's Ark.

                Woodmorappe's chart shows this quite vividly.

                No amount of denial from you that B and C somehow don't matter will change this simple observation.

                Quit squirming and admit you were wrong.

                9=9.

                A loss of only 1 common allele is excellent maintenance, thank you very much.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,05:47

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,09:40)
                Note to Eric--  When I say "maintained" I mean "maintained to a high degree" ... IOW extremely minimal loss.  This is quite clear from the chart as well ...

                Pre-Flood:  6 common alleles
                Post-Flood:  5 common alleles

                Only ONE common allele is lost in spite of only 2 individuals being the carriers!!  THAT is what I mean by "genetic richness" or "genetic diversity."

                I am sorry that you don't get it.  Stick with me and maybe you will in time.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, as usual, you look at the data most easily accommodated by your "hypothesis," and discard the mountain of data it cannot possibly accomodate.

                Sure, if there are only four or five alleles for a given gene, then even reducing the entire population to four or five individuals won't reduce diversity very much. In fact, if there's only one allele for a given gene, reducing the population down to the irreducible minimum to avoid extinction—one mating pair—won't reduce diversity at all, for that gene.

                How does that help you, Dave? What about the genes for which there are 20, or 50, or 225, or 300, or 500 alleles? How do you maintain diversity for that gene "to a high degree"?

                It doesn't matter if the other alleles for HLA are common or rare, Dave. They appear all throughout the population (that's why Mike PSS said it didn't matter if it was many or few or even one), and even if they didn't—even if they only appeared on one continent and not at all anywhere else—your "hypothesis" would still be at a loss to explain their very existence.

                Your obfuscation isn't going to help you, Dave. One way or another your "hypothesis" has to get from 10 alleles, max, for HLA on the ark to 500 today, without a mutation rate high enough to drive the entire species to extinction.

                If I repeat that often enough, will you ever get it? My prediction is no.
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 06 2006,05:55

                Holy crap AFD you are doing a 'Saddam Hussein' here
                'I shot those random red dots on that chart but the chart was proof against my great rule and it deserved it Allah Akbar'



                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Also, you are showing your lack of understanding of "experimenter selectivity" by bashing my "red dot" chart.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                 

                What do you call that, visual lying?

                Is that anything like quote mining?


                Let me fix this next statement for you AFD

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                You totally missed the point of all the information RANDOM NONSENSE I gave regarding Isochron Diagrams.  

                It apparently is good enough for you me--a non-expert in RM dating methods--to blindly accept all RM Dating biblical fairy tales in spite of the fact that you were I was-- shown how  RM Dating is biblical fairy tales are  "calibrated" by the use of fossils the bible.  

                Why would you I blindly accept this?  

                All I you can conclude is that you I WANT ToE the bible to be true and that you NEED RM "Dating" I need the the flud to be true to support your my ideas.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,05:58

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:13)
                Argy...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Pardon me, but here's what he said ...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                There is no way this table supports any kind of "90% similarity."  Sorry, not buying it.

                   

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, you are correct, that was my point.  And I most certainly DID have evidence.  I gave you a clear example:  the "dating" of the layers at Koobi Fora.  This example showed unequivocally from a major, non-YEC source--Science magazine--the absolute randomness of RM "dating" results and the necessity to "calibrate" results with fossils of "known" age.  You are a very intelligent guy as can be seen by your academic achievements.  Why would you buy into this foolishness?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, Dave, Dave.
                What is that saying again?
                "There are lies, dam lies, and statistics."

                Argy has pegged it.  My 90% statement clearly indicates that the regions have the similarity in the presense of an allele.  The distribution frequency is irrellevent to my point.  If the allele is expressed in the NA population then it is present (NO statements about frequency distribution).

                Now, if you think outside the box a little we can look at the regional frequencies to derive other points (NOT the point I'm making remember).  We could look at these allelic frequency distributions and find out which alleles may have originated with the ark inhabitants.  If the general populations express a certain set of alleles vastly more frequent than other alleles then maybe the frequent alleles were the original to the ark (a prediction based on the UCGH hypothesis).  We can test this and determine whether this prediction holds up to the evidence.

                Mike PSS

                Oh, and Dave.  My refutation of your mixing argument was about Rb-Sr dating.  Your Koobi Fora stuff was about K-Ar if I remember right.  So, no points for you in this case.  Your made-up red dots were discarded long ago, why bring them up again?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,05:58

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,11:13)
                Argy...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Pardon me, but here's what he said ...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table clearly shows that the Afro-Euro-Asia allelic presence is simalar (~90%) to North & South American allelic presence.  These are the same alleles found in populations that have been isolated from each other since after the UCGH ice age.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                There is no way this table supports any kind of "90% similarity."  Sorry, not buying it.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Yes it does, Dave.

                Note my emphasis. We're talking about presence here, not frequency. Mike isn't claiming that a given allele has the same frequency of occurrence all over the globe. He's saying it's present in populations that did not interbreed before 1492. It doesn't matter if a particular allele is present in 90% of the population in Africa and 5% of the population in Central America. The point that you're missing is that the allele was present in Central America before 1492, and your "hypothesis" is now stuck with explaining how all those HLA alleles evolved by the time your "ice age" was over, whenever that was.

                Are we clear now, Dave? No?
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,06:02

                Aftershave--  

                You'll notice that I've been answering Mike PSS's questions because 1) they relate to Points C & D of my CGH, and 2) because the majority of his posts do not contain mindless insults containing dog turds, speculations that I am sympathetic to Kent Hovind, and accusations that I line my pockets with church money, when actually the opposite is true.  I have never received a dime from my church in pay for anything, but rather have given many thousands, and I hope Hovind goes to jail for not paying taxes.   Happy now?

                As Steve Story has told you numerous times, you don't help your team at all by acting like a jerk.  Show me that you know how to be a rational scientist type person, and we can talk.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,06:10

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:45)
                Richard ...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Dave, you still do not understand alleles. On the left side of the chart there are four alleles of gene A. There are also 3 alleles of gene B and 2 of gene C. As far as gene A (think HLA) is concerned, the number of alleles of genes B and C are irrelevent. Forget them. Erase them from your mind. They have nothing to do with the situation.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                No, my friend.  They are quite relevant.  The fact remains ...

                I said that a single, genetically rich (diverse) founder pair would have easily been able to maintain/regain a high degree of genetic diversity following a bottleneck such as Noah's Ark.

                Woodmorappe's chart shows this quite vividly.

                No amount of denial from you that B and C somehow don't matter will change this simple observation.

                Quit squirming and admit you were wrong.

                9=9.

                A loss of only 1 common allele is excellent maintenance, thank you very much.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                When are you going to have that "Ah-Ha" moment with alleles and genes?
                When are you going to say "So that's what everyone is talking about."
                When Richard says "B and C don't matter.." he is only talking about the alleles that relate to the A gene.
                The A alleles are not expressed on the B or C gene.
                The HLA-B gene has 500 alleles.  These alleles are only part of the HLA-B gene (A in the Woodmorappe chart).
                When we are talking about the HLA-B gene (A remember) we aren't mentioning any other gene (B or C).
                That is why Richard made that statement.
                Your confusing alleles (only expressed on a single gene) with genes (each gene has it's own seperate set of alleles, distinct and seperate to each gene, seperate and distinct, no A alleles are found on B, no B alleles on C, etc. and so-on).

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 06 2006,06:12

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:45)
                It most certainly was evidence and I have never claimed a conspiracy of any kind.  You are the one who has incessantly asserted that I think there is a conspiracy.

                I made quite clear which part of the dating methodology I objected to ...

                "Calibrating" RM dating results with fossils.  

                Translation:  Rejecting results which do not agree with the accepted, fossil determined dates of the strata and accepting only those dates that DO agree.  

                This is no conspiracy as the scientists are quite honest and sincere in thinking they are doing good science.  They are simply mistaken and blinded by the reality that there are a large number of other scientists who have also blindly accepted this nonsense.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Again, that's just your imagination.  You have NO EVIDENCE of any of that being true.  You have been asked to specifically refute the dating methodology, and you have failed to do so.

                Please try again when you have evidence.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,06:18

                Gee, Dave, my posts are generally on-topic, they're largely free of abuse and insults, and most of my questions should be pretty easy to answer. Yet you ignore almost all of my questions until I've repeated them five, or twenty, or fifty times.

                Why is that? Others here seem to think I make a valuable contribution to the debate. You don't?
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,06:19

                The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

                "OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

                "And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

                Nice, guys ... really classy.

                *******************************

                Mike--  Have you ever considered that people from all over the world have been traveling to N. and S. America for the last 500 years or so?  Thought question:  how would this affect your argument?   Hmmmmmmm .....
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,06:27

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,13:19)
                The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

                "OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

                "And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

                Nice, guys ... really classy.

                *******************************

                Mike--  Have you ever considered that people from all over the world have been traveling to N. and S. America for the last 500 years or so?  Thought question:  how would this affect your argument?   Hmmmmmmm .....
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                Your the only one tapdancing right now.

                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                Please Dave,
                Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,06:41

                Eric...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Gee, Dave, my posts are generally on-topic, they're largely free of abuse and insults, and most of my questions should be pretty easy to answer. Yet you ignore almost all of my questions until I've repeated them five, or twenty, or fifty times.

                Why is that? Others here seem to think I make a valuable contribution to the debate. You don't?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, you contribute, yes, you are normally polite, and yes, you have a good grasp of basic science for a non-scientist (I also am a non-scientist).  You are mistaking "ignore" with "have not got to them yet," or else you are purposely using the "Post a Bazillion Unanswered Questions" technique of trying to portray me as ignorant, when the truth is that ...

                a) I am only one guy with limited time to research topics
                b) I have answered many of your questions but you disagree with the answers, so you insist that I have not answered, and ...
                c ) I have admitted that I do not have answers to everything because I am honest.  You should also be honest and admit that ToE also does not have answers for everything.  

                In fact, it has LESS answers than Creationism does.  And upon close inspection of the details of the few "answers" that ToE does claim to have, they turn out not to be answers at all, as the late Cornell geneticist, Dr. J.C. Sanford has recently shown.

                What I am doing here at ATBC is showing, in a systematic (although admittedly not comprehensive) way, that there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis.
                Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 06 2006,06:59

                how'd it go over at AIG then davey? Are they taking the article down then, that even you admit is wrong?
                If not, why not?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,07:10

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:41)
                Eric... Yes, you contribute, yes, you are normally polite, and yes, you have a good grasp of basic science for a non-scientist (I also am a non-scientist).  You are mistaking "ignore" with "have not got to them yet," or else you are purposely using the "Post a Bazillion Unanswered Questions" technique of trying to portray me as ignorant, when the truth is that ...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Come on, Dave. Get real. You "haven't gotten to them yet"? Some of these questions (where did your floodwaters come from, how can we see the Andromeda galaxy) have been pending for almost six months now. When do you plan on addressing them? Why are you dealing with things like genomic diversity on the ark when you haven't even provided evidence for predicate facts, like a flood in the first place?

                The purpose of posting all the questions you've failed to answer is to demonstrate that, contrary to your assertion, the Theory of Evolution is a much, much, much, MUCH better explanation for observation than your "hypothesis." Most of the questions and objections posted that have remained unanswered are absolutely fatal to your claims. I.e., even one of these objections, all by itself, is enough to sink your entire "hypothesis." So if you want your "hypothesis" to survive, you're going to have to answer virtually all of them.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                a) I am only one guy with limited time to research topics
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                I'm sorry you're only one guy with limited time, Dave. But you came in here with the intention of showing us all how horribly mistaken we were in our beliefs in science. So far, if anything, you've strengthened the case for evolution and fatally weakened the case for young-earth creationism.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                b) I have answered many of your questions but you disagree with the answers, so you insist that I have not answered, and ...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                But you haven't answered any (i.e., not one) of the questions posted on the list. If you think you have, feel free to post a permalink to your answer.
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                c ) I have admitted that I do not have answers to everything because I am honest.  You should also be honest and admit that ToE also does not have answers for everything.  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No one here has ever claimed that the ToE has answers for everything. Half the stuff you're talking about (e.g., the age of the universe, the grand canyon stratigraphy, radiometric dating techniques, the origin of life, the evolution of language) has nothing whatsoever to do with the ToE, and the theory has nothing to say about them at all.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                In fact, it has LESS answers than Creationism does.  And upon close inspection of the details of the few "answers" that ToE does claim to have, they turn out not to be answers at all, as the late Cornell geneticist, Dr. J.C. Sanford has recently shown.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, you can't even answer simple questions like where your "flood" came from! You have no explanation whatsoever for how Noah managed to preserve virtually all of the biodiversity of the entire planet on one little boat, and you have absolutely no explanation for how the tiny number of different organisms on the ark exploded into the immense number of organisms living today! Evolution has a very detailed (although far from complete) explanation for the biodiversity we have today. You have no explanation at all. And yet you maintain that your "hypothesis" is better.

                You have a strange definition of "better."



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                What I am doing here at ATBC is showing, in a systematic (although admittedly not comprehensive) way, that there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Dave, you've been given mountains of evidence, just in this one little thread, that completely discredits your Bible as a source of information about the natural world. And the information posted here is an infinitesimal fraction of all the available data that completely demolishes your claim that the Biblical account of creation is a pathetic little myth an accurate account. [edit: oops; I've got to be the world's worst copy-editor when it comes to my own stuff.] That you fail to accept this simple fact is a testament to your faith, but a sad indictment of your reasoning abilities.
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,08:35

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:19)
                The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

                "OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

                "And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, let's try one more time to see if we can get you to understand this.

                When Mike says that 90% of the alleles present in Africa-Asia-Europe are also present in North America, that's the part that's important, and that's the part that's relevant to the point he's trying to make with you. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FREQUENCY IS.

                The Bs and Cs don't matter, because they have nothing to do with genetic diversity. You're still not getting the distinction between "genes" and "alleles." The Bs and Cs are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Including them serves no purpose other than to confuse you.

                Every human alive today has the same genes, Dave. Unless they have a serious mutation that is most likely fatal. But that DOES NOT MEAN they have the same alleles at each locus. This is the part you simply cannot be made to understand. I don't understand why that is, but it's plain from your responses to other posters.
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,08:54

                Not to support AFDave in any way, but are we sure that those shared alleles between Europeans and Native amricans don't result from introgressions after secondary contact? We can never be sure that an individual that is genotyped today don't have one of his ancestor native from the other continent.
                Of course, gene sequences/mutations rates would clarify this. As I said, some alleles diverged even before the existence of homo.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,09:08

                Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 06 2006,15:54)
                Not to support AFDave in any way, but are we sure that those shared alleles between Europeans and Native amricans don't result from introgressions after secondary contact? We can never be sure that an individual that is genotyped today don't have one of his ancestor native from the other continent.
                Of course, gene sequences/mutations rates would clarify this. As I said, some alleles diverged even before the existence of homo.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                jeannot,
                I looked into this before I posted my data table.
                Follow these instructions to get to the data table I'm talking about.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Click this underlined < link to the front page. >
                On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
                Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Underneath each region heading is a 'Citation' link.  The citations list the sample population for each region.  These sample populations were tested for regional homogeneity using other genetic markers.

                Dave tried to question the same thing a couple hours ago.  I got this one covered.

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: improvius on Nov. 06 2006,09:23

                I still think the focus of this "allele discussion" should be on "kinds" rather than humans.
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,09:40

                Quote (improvius @ Nov. 06 2006,15:23)
                I still think the focus of this "allele discussion" should be on "kinds" rather than humans.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Sure, that's why I keep reminding Dave the fact that his "kinds" all have hundreds of alleles at many loci.

                And we're not even considering mitochondrial loci, for which Dave's notion of "genetic richness" (4 alleles in the parents) cannot work.
                Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 06 2006,09:44

                Quote (AFDave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:02)
                Show me that you know how to be a rational scientist type person, and we can talk.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Many people including myself have tried that tact with you Davie-doo, but it didn't work. Tried getting you to discuss the actual scientific data, but you ran away.  Tried presenting you with articles from the primary scientific literature that directly refutes your parroted AIG lies, but you ignored them and changed the subject.

                If you don't like to be considered such a cowardly liar, then why do you keep behaving like one?

                So how about it Davie – are you going to resume your discussion of 'biological information' and 'specificity', or are you going to continue your dishonest and evasive ways?
                Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 06 2006,09:48

                "...What I am doing here at ATBC is showing, in a systematic (although admittedly not comprehensive) way, that there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis."

                Dave, you are either stupid, ignorant or denial.  Not being rude here, just honest.  You have been shown what is fact and what is fiction and you choose to turn a blind eye and cling to ideas that have been proven false.

                Your opinion is insignificant to the discussion because you will not honestly debate.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,10:06

                OA...

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Many people including myself have tried that tact
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                The word you are groping for is "tack", a sailing term, not "tact."  As for "tact" you have none. As for a new "tack," you desperately need a new one.  You've been on the same one for months.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 06 2006,10:17

                Dave bleats:
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                You mean there is no data in science and archaeology that contradicts Genesis...that you will not deny, overlook, pretend doesn't exist, avoid, and otherwise tap-dance around. Numerous literate cultures existed before and after your flood date. They didn't die, You lose. Dendrochronology was never refuted by you or Don Batten's culled pine tree "data" from farmed trees. You lose. On a hundred points concerning the flood that Genesis mentions, that never happened..you lose.

                I'm an archaeologist, Dave. I specialize in North American prehistory. You are an ex- AF pilot with no grasp of any relevant data concerning your outlandish " the Earth is only 6,000 years old" claim. You rely on AiG and ICR claims first, then try to find your way around anything contrary to their shabby non-science. You are not a scientist, this is shown by what I just said...and you are not a "journalist seeking truth, " again shown by what I just said. You are a zealot with the ability to delude yourself into thinking your interpretation of the Bible must be right. And when  the facts contradict your version of the Bible, you discard the facts.

                This was shown convincingly in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase/Geology discussion in which all your claims were systematically dismantled.
                It was shown when you continued to falsely, knowingly claim that I had "told you" that the Grand Canyon sediments could not be dated, despite me IN FACT TELLING YOU THE PRECISE OPPOSITE.

                I had to remind you of that FIVE TIMES, Dave, beause you kept right on using that little false  "interpretation" of what I said -- despite you acknowledging several times that I had said the opposite.


                Now all you have left is avoidance of Mike on radiometric  dating methods, avoidance of the facts on Koobi Fora, avoidance of the facts on the geology that don't match the flood at all.

                Take the Koobi Fora incident as example...your initial claim was all radiometric dating is based on and defers to fossil data...which turned out not to be true, as shown by other cases...like moon rock dates, meteorites, prebiotic greenland rocks, etc.
                In Koobi Fora, I told you flat-out...all the major players are still alive. I gave you their e-mails, you can ask them if they specifically determined radiometric dates by matching fossil dates. You avoided that, too...instead you choose to continue this false claim, implying that all radiometry is linked to fossils...despite the fact that it is not.  

                Take a lesson from the former evangelist, Haggard, and learn to face the truth, kid. Face your demons and learn to deal with fact. Quit deluding yourself, quit lying to yourself and others.
                Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 06 2006,10:21

                Quote (AFDave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:06)

                The word you are groping for is "tack", a sailing term, not "tact."  As for "tact" you have none. As for a new "tack," you desperately need a new one.  You've been on the same one for months.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Yeah, trying to get Dave Hawkins to be honest just isn't working.  You've been a lying, evading hypocrite for months now Dave.  When are you going to change?

                I'll ask again Davie – are you ever going to resume your discussion of 'biological information' and 'specificity', or are you going to continue your dishonest and evasive ways?
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,10:36

                Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 06 2006,15:48)
                Dave, you are either stupid, ignorant or denial.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                He can't plead ignorance after what we try to teach him through this whole thread. So it's ether sutpidity or denial...

                After all, I'd say it's both.



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                there is no data from science or archaeology that contradicts the historical record known as the Book of Genesis
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                You forgot: "...and whenever they do [ie: most of the time], they are wrong or I ignore them".
                Remember the atlantic basalts Dave?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,10:50

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,11:45)
                I made quite clear which part of the dating methodology I objected to ...

                "Calibrating" RM dating results with fossils.  

                Translation:  Rejecting results which do not agree with the accepted, fossil determined dates of the strata and accepting only those dates that DO agree.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, you have absolutely no idea why specific RM results were kept, and why others were discarded. You're assuming it was due to making them concordant with expectations from the fossil record, but that assumption founders on the shoals of different expectations from different paleoanthropologists as to what exactly those dates should be.

                It is far more reasonable to suppose that dates which were discarded were discarded for reasons that had nothing to do with the expected ages of fossils. Those reasons could be known errors in methodologies, mistakes in experimental techniques, etc. Since those results have been subjected to peer review, it is your burden to show that results were rejected on arbitrary grounds, and you cannot carry that burden.

                In other words, you don't have any evidence as to why particular dates were accepted and others were rejected. Once again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. You think the expected dates for fossils were used to "calibrate" the ages of coeval minerals, but you don't have the tiniest speck of evidence to support such a belief.

                After all this time, Dave, you still have a pretty murky understanding of what the word "evidence" really means.
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 06 2006,11:01

                Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 06 2006,16:50)
                Dave, you have absolutely no idea why specific RM results were kept, and why others were discarded. You're assuming it was due to making them concordant with expectations from the fossil record, but that assumption founders on the shoals of different expectations from different paleoanthropologists as to what exactly those dates should be.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                To be honnest, IF we found some fossil rabbits in a precambrian layer, we would question the dating method. But if all dating methods indicate the same age, then we would question the theory of evolution.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 06 2006,11:06

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:02)
                Aftershave--

                You'll notice that I've been answering Mike PSS's questions because 1) they relate to Points C & D of my CGH, and 2) because the majority of his posts do not contain mindless insults containing dog turds, speculations that I am sympathetic to Kent Hovind, and accusations that I line my pockets with church money, when actually the opposite is true.  I have never received a dime from my church in pay for anything, but rather have given many thousands, and I hope Hovind goes to jail for not paying taxes.   Happy now?

                As Steve Story has told you numerous times, you don't help your team at all by acting like a jerk.  Show me that you know how to be a rational scientist type person, and we can talk.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Oh, So that's why you won't address my posts, Dave? Because I call you a hypocrite, when it is obvious that you hold others to far higher standards that you hold yourself?

                Dave, 90% of HLA alleles are present all over the world. How common or rare they are in each continent is irrelevant compared to the fact that they *are* there, which means that the alleles were present before the different human races went their merry way ( i.e. 90% of alleles had to mutate from the 10 in the ark before the ice age). Which means you need to explain in detail how 10 alleles became 450 in the time between the flood and the end of the ice age (which was when, remind me, according to your interpretation of the Bible?).

                To repeat, because you won't get it otherwise:
                450 (i.e. 90%) of all alleles of HLA are present in all human groups, independent of geographical isolation. Since the chance of the same mutation on the same gene in two separate population groups is vanishingly small, those 450 common alleles must have been present before the human groups separated at the end of the ice age. Your "hypothesis" has to explain how those 450 alleles came about after the flood and before the ice age.

                More Dave:
                "And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

                OK, lets adress C, then, Dave. How is it possible that gene C mutated twice? How many generations after the flood did this chart represent? Also, why should we care, since the chart is obviously made up, with no reality behind it, Dave? Why don't you address real-life examples?

                And of course, you only need to be wrong in some of the topics, Dave. ToE already explains everything we have talked about, while your "hypothesis" flounders in so many examples, particulars and circusntances that it is not even funny. You don't seem to understand Dave that just because the flood allows for Woodmorappe's example (of course it does! He made it up to support his position - pity it's not about any real genes), it doesn't mean it helps your overall "hypothesis", Dave, because it won't explain HLA, or any of the thousands of alleles in single genes in any number of species.

                Oh, btw, Dave, I'm really interested in seeing you face this:
                - Dave claim 1) Woodmorappe explain the thousands of new species after the flood by Natural Selection (in fast-forward speed) (A)
                - Dave claim 2) Sanford says Natural Selection does not exist (~A)

                A & ~A is a logical structure known as "contradiction", Dave: Either 1 or 2 *must* be false. Ergo, you were lying when you presented the one that is false. Please, Dave, answer this:
                1) Which one is the false one?
                2) Will you keep saying that you have not lied?

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 06 2006,12:28



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                "Part of my life is so repugnant and dark," Haggard said in the letter Stockstill read. "I've been warring against it all my life."
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Somehow, this acknowledgment by the born-again, Christian-Righteous God-Warrior - the one that gets to control the vocalizations (or keystrokes, as the case may be) - of the Dreaded Other Within puts me in mind of the creationist who wallows in actual science, exposing himself daily to the overwhelmingly concordant body of evidence that screams "EVOLUTION!", and claims to
                believe that the unanimous acceptance by scientists of the obvious is "foolishness".

                I don't buy it. Davy's either just trying to annoy with his obtuseness, or he's whistling in the dark. Either way, it's "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!"

                Take a hint from Rev. Ted, Davy. Come to the light! Admit what you've known about yourself all along. You know there are better ways to spend your time, energy and resources than in trying to confuse others about areas you admit you're not expert in (but are somehow qualified to deem those who are, "foolish")
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 06 2006,16:42

                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 06 2006,16:57

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,22:42)
                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, if you want people to take you on in an actual debate, why don't you try this: why don't you MAKE A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT YOUR "HYPOTHESIS," rather than taking snipes at evolutionary theory, or geological theory, or radiometric dating techniques, or any of the other stuff you've been talking about that has nothing to do with your "hypothesis."

                Then, try to find some evidence to support that assertion. Stay away from saying "evolutionists don't have an explanation for this," or "evolutionists don't have an explanation for that," or "this particular belief of evolutionists is ludicrous."

                I suggest the following as an assertion: "Creationism has a mechanism by which the 10 alleles for the HLA-B gene, which is the maximum possible that could have existed after the flood, could have increased to the 500 alleles present today, in less than 450 years. Here is an explanation of that mechanism, and here is evidence to support my contention that this mechanism actually operates in the real world."

                We're not here to defend evolutionary theory, Dave. You're here to defend your own "hypothesis." I (and, I'm sure, most other posters here) are weary of your constant attempts to shift the burden of proof. You have the burden of proof, and always have. It's about time you shouldered it.

                The biggest criticism of creationism, ID, "scientific creationism," etc. is that there is no coherent alternative theory that attempts to explain the evolution of life on earth, but only desultory and ineffective attempts to criticize evolutionary theory. This is why scientists say there is no competing theory to challenge the theory of evolution.

                And here's your chance to prove them wrong, Dave. Show us actual evidence that life could have evolved on earth in less than 6,000 years. You could start by showing a mechanism that could evolve 490 (or at least 450) alleles in 450 years or less.

                Have at it, man.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 06 2006,17:32

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,23:42)
                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                Still waiting for you to clarify your position.  Here's a reminder.
                   
                Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 06 2006,13:27)
                   
                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,13:19)
                The tapdancing has commenced again I see ...

                "OK ... forget the 90% stuff ... HERE'S what is really important." *cough cough*

                "And oh, let's take Woodmorappe's example and trim off those pesky B's and C's **cough** (never mind that leaving them in makes the example more relevant to the real world) ... THEN we can prove Davey wrong!"

                Nice, guys ... really classy.

                *******************************

                Mike--  Have you ever considered that people from all over the world have been traveling to N. and S. America for the last 500 years or so?  Thought question:  how would this affect your argument?   Hmmmmmmm .....
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                Your the only one tapdancing right now.

                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?

                Please Dave,
                Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?

                Mike PSS
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Or would you rather continue your dance?

                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 06 2006,17:59

                More projected BS from AFD:



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 
                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully Brilliantly, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
                Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)

                Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 06 2006,18:00

                Quote (AFDave the coward @ Nov. 06 2006,22:42)
                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                P*ss off Dave.  People have been attempting scientific debate with you for six months, and all you've done is lie, and evade, and avoid, and change the subject.  Now you come back with some half-assed "challenge" AFTER people have gotten tired of your dishonest horsecrap.  Big whoop.

                Since it seems you got into the cough syrup tonight and now have some temporary "liquid courage", I'll accept your challenge.  Why don't you present your evidence for YEC that was gathered using telescopes, microscopes, and calculators.  Start with telescopes - tell us IN DETAIL how the Hubble pictures or COBE results support a 6000 year old age of the universe.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 07 2006,03:39

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)
                Let me issue the mudflingers [...] a challenge.

                [..] [P]ick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                [...]
                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Very well, Dave, I pick the Ice Age. Please, tell us in detail (since it is your hypothesis, which I obviously don't know):
                a) Why isn't the Ice Age mentioned in the Bible?
                b) When did it start and end, according to your "hypothesis"?
                c) What was the total human population, before and after it?
                d) How many species were there before and after it? How many species became extinct during it? Which ones, if any?
                e) What evidence do you have of all of the above, since the Bible cannot help you?
                f) Did the ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution continue to generate thousands of species during the Ice Age? If not, what stopped it? If yes, did it end at the end of the Ice Age and why?
                g) Where there any inter-glacial periods during the Ice Age, and how long did they last?
                h) How does your "hypothesis" explain the fjords?
                i) What, according to your "hypothesis", are the homo neanderthalensis, and what happened to them? Where they in the ark? How do you explain their presence (or lack thereof) in the Ice Age?
                j) I reserve the right to ask further questions to clarify and detail your claims

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf

                PD: Oh, wait, you meant that *I* should explain modern biology, paleontology, physics, history, prehistory and geography to you? Sorry, Dave, but this is *your* thread and *your* "hypothesis". You are the one that has to do the explaining, not me. Asking any amount of detail from us when you refuse to give any is called "double standards" or "hypocrisy".

                HtH, GW
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 07 2006,06:35



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                afdave: you seem to have misunderstood my allusion to Rev. Ted, just as surely as you misunderstand all the science being painstakingly explained for you here.

                Go back and read what I wrote. You'll notice it has nothing to do with "wild claims" or "secret sins". It was simply to point out that when people assert patently unbelievable things (like you do when you claim to actually believe that your less-than-amateurish approach to science allows you to see the "foolishness" of what I would contend is the most magnificent edifice of all of animal consciousness - modern science) you are, well, unbelievable. And that you can't not know it.
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 07 2006,08:07



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Which - speaking of unattended challenges - reminds me. You were going to tell me why MY work*, demonstrating changes an enzyme's affinity for its substrate, does not - all by itself - invalidate your ridiculous claim that mutations cannot "increase specificity" (or information, or however you want to formulate it).

                "lazy" indeed. You really are offensive, dave. But keep it up. Like Rev. Ted, you are a shining example of the danger of wholesale abandonment of reason in favor of "faith".

                *"work" - you know: actual data collection and analysis, rather than recitation of Ham-fisted dogma.
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 07 2006,08:28

                Hey lying AFD are you going to beg for forgiveness for your lies.

                Your co-religionists seem to be making a fashion out of it lately.

                Are we going to be treated to some begging letters, knealing and gnashing of teeth?

                Lies by lying liars.
                Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 07 2006,09:56

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)
                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Well, I showed you a picture about the dating of the altantic ocean crust and I posted a link that gave you all the "detail" you wanted.
                I did it many times.

                Anyway, your failure to provide a single positive evidence supporting your hypothesis is not our fault. Methinks you're too "lazy" for this job.
                Posted by: afdave on Nov. 07 2006,09:58

                HLA-B NO PROBLEM FOR THE BIBLICAL SCENARIO

                Mike PSS--  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                OK, we can talk about the PRESENCE of the allele ... no problem.  I can readily explain it in terms of the Biblical scenario.  But first, why did you mention the 90%?  What point were you trying to make?  

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Two separate issues, Mike.  The Woodmorappe chart shows how genetic diversity can easily be maintained to a very high degree in a bottleneck such as the Flood.  The HLA-B allele question is a different matter.  You are trying to claim that there is not enough time between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice age for all these HLA-B alleles to have arisen.  And I am in the process of systematically dismantling your claim as I have done with so many other bogus claims here.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, I deny this for two reasons ...
                First, there is some admixture explicitly acknowledged in the citations ...
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Anthropology Citations

                 Submitter: BGRNAU
                   Population: Bulgarian
                     Report:  Roma from Bulgaria  
                     Authors:  M. Ivanova, A. Michailova, E. Naumova  
                 Submitter: BRADON
                   Population: Brazilian (Af Eu)
                     Report:  Brazilian (Admixed, African and European) from the Northeast region of State of São Paulo, Brazil  
                     Authors:  P. Louzada-Junior, N.H. Deghaide, M.B. Araujo, A.G. Smith, M.H.S. Kraemer, E.A. Donadi  
                 Submitter: BRAPTZ
                   Population: Guarani-Kaiowa
                     Report:  Guarani-Kaiowá Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                   Population: Guarani-Nandewa
                     Report:  Guarani-Ñandeva Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                 Submitter: CANLUO
                   Population: Kenyan 142
                     Report:  Kenyan from Kenya  
                     Authors:  Ma Luo, Joanne Embree, Suzie Ramdahin, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, Simon Njenga, Job B. Bwayo, Kristine Jacobson, Luvinia Kwan, Marlis Schroeder, Sha Pan, Marc Jevan Narayansingh, Shehzad Iqbal, Robert C. Brunham, and Francis A. Plummer  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Secondly, there is plenty of admixture NOT explicitly acknowledged in the citations.  Think about those Amerindians from Mato Grosso, for example.  Are you telling me that these researchers have some way of eliminating the possibility of admixture of the Spaniards and the Incas?  Do they (and you) think that those Indians just evolved right there in the jungle, pure and pristine, being descendants of some nearby apes?  Come on.  No ... the ancestors of the Incas  came from the same place that ALL ancient nations have come from ... the Tower of Babel.  And those Amerindians probably came from the Incas, likely with some Spanish lineage mixed in.
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Please Dave,
                Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Not quite time to change the subject yet.  I know you're getting uncomfortable, especially now that Jeannot has challenged you too.  Your claim was that 450 or 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years or something because "Look, there's 90% similarity all over the world!"  And as we are seeing, the data does NOT support your claim.  

                WHAT DOES THE HLA-B DATA TELL US?
                In short, it tells us that Woodmorappe is correct when he refers to Parham's study which says ...  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                So, Dave, how does your CGH explain 500 alleles in 250 years?  It doesn't.  And it doesn't have to as this Parham quote makes clear and as Mike's data makes clear.  
                Now some of you are very hard-headed and won't be convinced, so try this ...
                Take that HLA-B data from Mike's table, put it in an Excel spreadsheet so you can sort it, then perfom various different sorts.  DAVE'S PREDICTION:  Australia will have a comparatively low number of alleles because there has been relatively little admixture since the Tower of Babel.  Europe will have many alleles because there has been a lot of admixture since the Tower of Babel.  N. America should fall somewhere between Europe and Australia because there has been admixture, but not as much as in Europe.

                RESULTS?  
                Australia: Only 11 alleles > 1% frequency
                N. America:  19 alleles > 1% frequency
                Europe:  25 alleles > 1% frequency

                Hmmmmmm ... I guess the Bible isn't so silly after all !!

                ************************************************

                Deadman, I see you have come back to spin more lies about me.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Numerous literate cultures existed before and after your flood date. They didn't die, You lose.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                I challenged you to prove this to me back when we were talking about Egypt.  You ran from that. Instead, you opted for a ludicrous charge of plagiarism just because I reproduced some pretty common objections to Egyptian chronology and they happened to be worded similarly to some internet list you found.  I'm still waiting for you to show me proof that the Egyptians originated prior to the Tower of Babel (c. 2200 BC).  While you are at it, please explain how this statement from Wikipedia is wrong which concurs so well with the Ussher chronology ...  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The Xia Dynasty (Chinese: &#22799;&#26397;; Pinyin: xià cháo; Wade-Giles: hsia-ch'ao), ca. 2205 BC–1766 BC, is the first dynasty to be described in Chinese historical records, which record the names of seventeen kings over fourteen generations. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xia_Dynasty >
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Dendrochronology was never refuted by you or Don Batten's culled pine tree "data" from farmed trees.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                You claimed that Don Batten is wrong.  I don't know enough about dendrochronology to refute you myself, so I challenged you to do a conference call with Don.  Never heard from you again.  Tsk tsk.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                I'm an archaeologist, Dave. I specialize in North American prehistory. You are an ex- AF pilot with no grasp of any relevant data concerning your outlandish " the Earth is only 6,000 years old" claim. You rely on AiG and ICR claims first, then try to find your way around anything contrary to their shabby non-science. You are not a scientist, this is shown by what I just said...and you are not a "journalist seeking truth, " again shown by what I just said. You are a zealot with the ability to delude yourself into thinking your interpretation of the Bible must be right. And when  the facts contradict your version of the Bible, you discard the facts.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Translation: I'm way smarter than you, Dave.  You're just a dumb ol' YEC (and I am humble too!;)  

                True, I rely on the real scientists at AIG and ICR, which is better than the incompetent scientists (many of them aren't even scientists at all) at Talk Origins, Infidels.org, etc.  I've shown you so many errors and logical fallacies with these sources that I've lost count.  The latest howler from Infidels.org was particularly noxious ... the one where they tried to say that Ager, the president of the British Geological Association, was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, when in reality he made it quite clear with that quote and numerous other quotes that the fossil record DOES NOT support the fairy tale of gradual evolution.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                This was shown convincingly in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase/Geology discussion in which all your claims were systematically dismantled.
                It was shown when you continued to falsely, knowingly claim that I had "told you" that the Grand Canyon sediments could not be dated, despite me IN FACT TELLING YOU THE PRECISE OPPOSITE.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Deadman, nailing you down on what you think about "dating the layers of the Grand Canyon" is like trying to nail jello to the wall.  It is my opinion that you think the layers can be dated radiometrically, or at least bracketed radiometrically.  You gave me a whole bunch of citations from studies that have attempted to date the few "dateable" layers and I showed you very clearly why those prove nothing about the real deposition dates of the sedimentary layers of the GC.  They prove nothing for two reasons: 1) they are "calibrated" by fossil evidence (like at Koobi Fora) and 2) even if this was not the case (which it always is, at least at the GC), the "date" of the ash layer would only tell us when the ash was formed, not when the layer was deposited, since we are not talking about air fall tephra.  Furthermore, you and JonF made the ludicrous claim that the massive Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation was formed by a "shallow inland sea over millions of years."  This is such obvious nonsense that one can do nothing but gape in disbelief that real scientists would fall for it.  The Brushy Basin member is HUGE and screams out "Massive water catastrophe! Massive water catastrophe!" but you don't listen.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Take the Koobi Fora incident as example...your initial claim was all radiometric dating is based on and defers to fossil data...which turned out not to be true, as shown by other cases...like moon rock dates, meteorites, prebiotic greenland rocks, etc.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                All RM dating DOES get "calibrated" by fossil data, which I have shown numerous times.  Wanna talk about moon rocks?  How do you explain this ...  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Analysis of the lunar samples from Apollo 11 indicates anomalous compositions for several elements. In particular, the isotope 40Ar is overabundant as compared with 36Ar in the fine-grain samples, the ratio being much greater than that expected in the solar wind composition (1) and several times
                greater than could be accounted for by in situ decay of 40K (2).

                Lunar Atmosphere as a Source of Argon-40 and Other Lunar Surface Elements
                R. H. Manka 1 and F. C. Michel 2
                Science 17 July 1970:
                Vol. 169. no. 3942, pp. 278 - 280
                DOI: 10.1126/science.169.3942.278
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Hmmmm ... how did they know it was anomalous?  Their pre-conceptions about how old the solar system is, that's how.  

                Do you think I could find some "anomalous" results in meteorites too?  Betcha I could if I had access to the relevant pubs and a good search engine.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                In Koobi Fora, I told you flat-out...all the major players are still alive. I gave you their e-mails, you can ask them if they specifically determined radiometric dates by matching fossil dates.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                And of course, they would deny it, just like you do, but the record is there and it is quite clear, that they did, in fact, select the "correct" dates because of the known fossil content.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Take a lesson from the former evangelist, Haggard, and learn to face the truth, kid. Face your demons and learn to deal with fact. Quit deluding yourself, quit lying to yourself and others.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                YOU are the one that needs to "face your demons."  You have been deluding yourself for years, just like Dr. J.C. Sanford of Cornell did for years, and now he has come to his senses.

                *********************************************

                GOOFY CLAIM OF THE DAY
                Grey Wolf ...  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                - Dave claim 2) Sanford says Natural Selection does not exist (~A)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                "Natural selection does not exist?"  Where did I claim that? I have acknowledged it's reality many times and Sanford has too.  He just shows in his book that NS is not the "Magic Wizard" that ToE advocates think it is.  Are you having one of those "Eye color mutation" moments?

                ********************************************

                Russell--  I have spent a considerable amount of time answering Incorygible's claim that APO-AI Milano is an example of "upward evolution."  I have shown that it is clearly NOT.  Incorygible basically made the claim, then headed for the hills, not to be heard from since.  Why should I believe that you will not do the same thing if I go to the effort of investigating your claim?  And what would it gain me?  Would you become a creationist if I showed you it is no example of "upward evolution"?  I have already examined 3 examples of most often cited supposed examples of "upward evolution in action" -- bacteria, APO AI Milano and Sickle cell anemia--and all of them have turned out to be just the opposite in spite of their narrowly defined beneficial nature.  Honestly, I'm rather tired of chasing you guys' ghosts.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 07 2006,10:32

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,09:58)
                GOOFY CLAIM OF THE DAY
                Grey Wolf ...    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                - Dave claim 2) Sanford says Natural Selection does not exist (~A)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                "Natural selection does not exist?"  Where did I claim that? I have acknowledged it's reality many times and Sanford has too.  He just shows in his book that NS is not the "Magic Wizard" that ToE advocates think it is.  Are you having one of those "Eye color mutation" moments?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                From: < Permalink >



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Dr. Sanford is now a YEC and has the following to say in the prologue of his new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome...  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 
                Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable.  I began to question the Primary Axiom [the belief that man is the product of RM + NS].  I did this with great fear and trepidation.  By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia.  Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.  ALthough [sic] I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche.  ... Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. ... What should I do?  It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level -- having catastrophic impact on countless human lives.  Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false.  So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud:  the Emperor has no clothes!

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                He goes on to explain that attempts to salvage ToE with something other than RM+NS are futile because RM+NS is the only thing that could possibly work for ToE ... but it does not!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Dave, these are your words. Let me repeat them for you:


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                RM+NS is the only thing that could possibly work for ToE ... but it does not!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Not "it is insufficient" or "it happens, but cannot speciate". No, you claimed that: "it does not [work]", Dave. Now, I expect a full apology, both for calling my statement goofy and for denying what you said. You can squirm out by saying you didn't mean to say it didn't work at all if you want, but that is what you *said*, regardless of what you meant.

                Also, are you going to address the rest or my post, or will you both ignore it and the fact that you have lied and engaged in hypocrisy?

                BTW, this is beyond the fact that:
                a) You gave no evidence of proper authority for this fallacy from authority (i.e. "why should we trust Sanford?")
                b) You gave no evidence for the claim (i.e. "What evidence does he have for his claims?")
                c) You did not explain why the other evolutionary processes are dismissed out of hand (i.e. "Why are other mechanisms futile?")

                You see, Dave, the more unsupported claims you make, the mroe questions I have for you, because you *never* present evidence and you *never* give the detailed explanaitions you so readily ask of others.

                BTW, give use the reason in detail why the eye colour mutation is evidence of your "hypothesis" - i.e. how you explain it better than the ToE. Because I suspect that you cannot. You didn't "win" that, Dave, I only decided that the example wasn't obvious enough for your limited intelligence. Start by telling us the alleles that Adam was created with for eye colour, for example, Dave.

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf
                Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 07 2006,10:52

                Um, OK, so all the HLA-B alleles arose between Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel?  I'm still not seeing where all these alleles come from.
                Posted by: Grey_Wolf_c on Nov. 07 2006,10:55

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,09:58)
                HLA-B NO PROBLEM FOR THE BIBLICAL SCENARIO
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Really? Why? How? Did you forget to actually explain in detail (or even in broad strokes) how your "hypothesis" allows for the 450 common alleles to mutate from the original 10 between the flood and the Babel Tower?

                Lets see: Flood: 3500 BC; Tower: 2200 BC - 1300 years, or 65 generations, i.e. 7 mutations of a single gene per generation. Yes, you *really* need to be careful with the detail here, Dave, because common sense *and* science tells me that 7 mutations of a single gene per generation for 65 generations is simply impossible.

                BTW, When did the Ice Age happen, Dave? Before or after the Tower of Babel? Why isn't it in the Bible? If before, how did Incans get to America? If after, when, and how is it no-one realised or wrote about it?

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,09:58)
                Mike PSS--    

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                OK, we can talk about the PRESENCE of the allele ... no problem.  I can readily explain it in terms of the Biblical scenario.  But first, why did you mention the 90%?  What point were you trying to make?  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                The 90% means that 450 alleles, at least, had to be present before the human races became separated during the Ice Age, because it is almost impossible that a same allele evolved twice in two different groups independently (as oposed to two similar alleles that do the same). And I say at least because in small, isolated populations some of the alleles probably got lost.

                This is, waht, the fifth time I explain it? And about the 10th in total? Are you really this stupid, Dave? I mean, seriously, this is the detail you wanted, and you keep going "duh?" over what "90% common alleles between geographically isolated humans" means.

                Hope that helps,

                Grey Wolf
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2006,11:04

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,09:58)
                Mike PSS--      

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                OK, we can talk about the PRESENCE of the allele ... no problem.  I can readily explain it in terms of the Biblical scenario.  But first, why did you mention the 90%?  What point were you trying to make?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Sigh. Let's go though it ONE MORE TIME, Dave.

                This is what the 90% means: it means that 90% of the HLA-B alleles that are present in African-European-Asians are also present in North Americans, in populations which have not intermingled. That means that 450 of the 500 HLA alleles were already present in the population before the population would have become  isolated by rising seas after your "ice age." Which puts an upper limit on the time you have for those alleles to have evolved. We'll know what that upper limit is as soon as you favor us with your estimate for when the "ice age" ended.

                Got it now, Dave? Still no? 

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Two separate issues, Mike.  The Woodmorappe chart shows how genetic diversity can easily be maintained to a very high degree in a bottleneck such as the Flood.  The HLA-B allele question is a different matter.  You are trying to claim that there is not enough time between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice age for all these HLA-B alleles to have arisen.  And I am in the process of systematically dismantling your claim as I have done with so many other bogus claims here.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave, you're not even sure what the claims are. So I'll spell them out for you one more time: what is your proposed mechanism for generating a minimum of 440 HLA-B alleles between the end of the flood and the end of the "ice age," whenever that was? What "claim" do you think you're "systematically dismantling"? Are you disputing that there are 500 alleles for the HLA gene? Because that's the only claim being made here. You claim those alleles aren't a problem for your "hypothesis," but so far you haven't even begun to say why. So not only are you not "systematically dismantling" anyone's claim when it comes to HLA alleles, you don't even have a claim to dismantle. And if you say Woodmorappe's  "B" and "C" genes are a separate issue, then what issue is that? You seem to be claiming that a genetic bottleneck does not reduce genetic diversity, which of course is an impossibility. You could argue that reducing the entire human race down to eight individuals does not constitute a genetic bottleneck (good luck), but you certainly cannot claim that a genetic bottleneck does not reduce genetic diversity. Do you understand why that is yet?

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, I deny this for two reasons ...
                First, there is some admixture explicitly acknowledged in the citations ...
                     

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Anthropology Citations

                 Submitter: BGRNAU
                   Population: Bulgarian
                     Report:  Roma from Bulgaria  
                     Authors:  M. Ivanova, A. Michailova, E. Naumova  
                 Submitter: BRADON
                   Population: Brazilian (Af Eu)
                     Report:  Brazilian (Admixed, African and European) from the Northeast region of State of São Paulo, Brazil  
                     Authors:  P. Louzada-Junior, N.H. Deghaide, M.B. Araujo, A.G. Smith, M.H.S. Kraemer, E.A. Donadi  
                 Submitter: BRAPTZ
                   Population: Guarani-Kaiowa
                     Report:  Guarani-Kaiowá Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                   Population: Guarani-Nandewa
                     Report:  Guarani-Ñandeva Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                 Submitter: CANLUO
                   Population: Kenyan 142
                     Report:  Kenyan from Kenya  
                     Authors:  Ma Luo, Joanne Embree, Suzie Ramdahin, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, Simon Njenga, Job B. Bwayo, Kristine Jacobson, Luvinia Kwan, Marlis Schroeder, Sha Pan, Marc Jevan Narayansingh, Shehzad Iqbal, Robert C. Brunham, and Francis A. Plummer  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                No there isn't, Dave. Read where it says "admixed" again, and think about why this does not contradict what Mike has said. You can't just see the word "admixed," and think it belies Mike's claim. You have to see which groups were admixed.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Secondly, there is plenty of admixture NOT explicitly acknowledged in the citations.  Think about those Amerindians from Mato Grosso, for example.  Are you telling me that these researchers have some way of eliminating the possibility of admixture of the Spaniards and the Incas?  Do they (and you) think that those Indians just evolved right there in the jungle, pure and pristine, being descendants of some nearby apes?  Come on.  No ... the ancestors of the Incas  came from the same place that ALL ancient nations have come from ... the Tower of Babel.  And those Amerindians probably came from the Incas, likely with some Spanish lineage mixed in.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Yes, Dave, I do think so. Unless you, personally, can come up with some evidence that the citation is lying, then you have no choice but to accept it. So, go out and do some research and debunk the citation's claim. And actually, yes they do have a way of determining no admixture, Dave. They can actually look at these people's DNA. If they see no other genes other than HLA that share alleles with individuals from other continents, then what can they determine?

                In any event, no assertions without evidence from you. If you have evidence that these populations have admixed, please present it.

                In the meantime, you're basically getting lost in the weeds again. The best you can hope for by proving these populations have in fact admixed is that it gives you more time to get from 10 to 500 HLA-B alleles.
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Please Dave,
                Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Not quite time to change the subject yet.  I know you're getting uncomfortable, especially now that Jeannot has challenged you too.  Your claim was that 450 or 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years or something because "Look, there's 90% similarity all over the world!"  And as we are seeing, the data does NOT support your claim.  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Actually, yes it does, Dave, absent evidence from you that the data is wrong. The data as presented absolutely does support Mike's claim, so unless you have contradictory evidence (which you do not), you're stuck with the problem of coming up with 440 alleles by the end of the ice age.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                WHAT DOES THE HLA-B DATA TELL US?
                In short, it tells us that Woodmorappe is correct when he refers to Parham's study which says ...      

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                So, Dave, how does your CGH explain 500 alleles in 250 years?  It doesn't.  And it doesn't have to as this Parham quote makes clear and as Mike's data makes clear.  
                Now some of you are very hard-headed and won't be convinced, so try this ...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Even if this were true, Dave, and it's not, you're still stuck with a huge problem. Even if you've got from the flood to the present time to come up with all these alleles (all 490 of them), you still have to explain two extra alleles appearing in every generation from the flood to the present day. Do you think you can do it? Because Woodmorappe can't help you there.

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Take that HLA-B data from Mike's table, put it in an Excel spreadsheet so you can sort it, then perfom various different sorts.  DAVE'S PREDICTION:  Australia will have a comparatively low number of alleles because there has been relatively little admixture since the Tower of Babel.  Europe will have many alleles because there has been a lot of admixture since the Tower of Babel.  N. America should fall somewhere between Europe and Australia because there has been admixture, but not as much as in Europe.

                RESULTS?  
                Australia: Only 11 alleles > 1% frequency
                N. America:  19 alleles > 1% frequency
                Europe:  25 alleles > 1% frequency
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                But we already know this prediction is false, Dave. This is the part you don't get! 90% (remember that figure?) of the alleles in Mike's chart appear to some degree in every human population on the planet.

                You're still not interpreting the chart properly. You're looking at frequency. You should be looking at presence. Ignore the frequency numbers, Dave. They're irrelevant. Why is it so hard to get this very simple concept through your skull?

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Russell--  I have spent a considerable amount of time answering Incorygible's claim that APO-AI Milano is an example of "upward evolution."  I have shown that it is clearly NOT.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Is this one of those "bogus" claims you think you've "systematically dismantled," Dave? Then I invite you to permalink to where you "dismantled" it. Because I read that entire exchange, and I know for a fact you did no such thing. You personally admitted that the Milano mutation was beneficial. Incoyrgible never claimed it was an example of "upward evolution" because the term has no meaning outside of your broken understanding of evolutionary theory. He claimed it was an example of a beneficial mutation, and you admitted that it was a beneficial mutation. So how did you disprove Incorygible's claim?

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Incorygible basically made the claim, then headed for the hills, not to be heard from since.  Why should I believe that you will not do the same thing if I go to the effort of investigating your claim?  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Um, maybe because you've never been able to do it before, despite your delusions of grandeur?
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 07 2006,11:06



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Russell--  I have spent a considerable amount of time answering Incorygible's claim that APO-AI Milano is an example of "upward evolution."  I have shown that it is clearly NOT.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                First of all, did anyone ever use the term "upward evolution" - other than you? I doubt it. APO-AIM is just one excellent example of a "beneficial" mutation - a conclusion against which you have made zero headway.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Incorygible basically made the claim, then headed for the hills, not to be heard from since.  Why should I believe that you will not do the same thing if I go to the effort of investigating your claim?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Oh, is that your new line? Last time it was "Oh, I haven't gotten around to it. Would you mind digging through the thread and reposting the evidence that I'm apparently too lazy to bother?"  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                And what would it gain me?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                In theory, it might be a learning experience. That is, if you weren't completely committed to an anti-intellectual creed for which learning is anathema.  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 Would you become a creationist if I showed you it is no example of "upward evolution"?  I have already examined 3 examples of most often cited supposed examples of "upward evolution in action"
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Well, what a monumental waste of time that was, since, again, you're the only one who entertains the notion of "upward evolution". I merely offer you just one more example of a useful mutation; one for which you can't blithely dismiss me as misinformed, since I did the work.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Honestly, I'm rather tired of chasing you guys' ghosts.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                I don't blame you, since you're clearly making a fool of yourself and casting your religion in a most unappealing light.


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                And I am in the process of systematically dismantling [Mike's] claim as I have done with so many other bogus claims here.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                If any of these "dismantlings" were, indeed, "systematic", they would have appeared in a serious academic journal. Why do you suppose they have not?  Oh, right. Academic censorship by the vast atheist conspiracy.

                Nah. For scientific insights, I think I'll put more weight on scientists' opinions. I'm much more interested in your religious ideas. Like, do you think the faith that Rev. Ted was preaching a week ago is in any way undermined by subsequent developments? Or, closer to home perhaps, do you think Jesus is more tolerant of deceit if the deceiver first deceives himself?

                All of which reminds me... you haven't updated us on the AiG response to the chromosome fusion debacle. Surely you're not going to tell us the subject didn't come up in your recent face-to-face?
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2006,11:11

                [edit: double post]
                Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 07 2006,12:26

                Tsk tsk tsk...What's the matter Dave?  You sober up this morning and now having second thoughts about your 'challenge'?

                I was the first to accept your challenge Davie, yet you have completely ignored my requests for your promised DETAILS.  You're not going to puss out already, are you Davie?


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                OA: I'll accept your challenge.  Why don't you present your evidence for YEC that was gathered using telescopes, microscopes, and calculators.  Start with telescopes - tell us IN DETAIL how the Hubble pictures or COBE results support a 6000 year old age of the universe.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Here Dave, here's some details on how observations from the Hubble telescope provided an independent verification that the universe in indeed just under 14 billion years old


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Age of Universe confirmed
                The Hubble Space Telescope has sighted the oldest stars in our galaxy, giving a new measure for the age of the Universe as a whole.  It puts this at between 13 and 14 billion years old - consistent with recent estimates by cosmologists based on other evidence.
                International astronomers used the Hubble to hunt for very small burnt-out stars in our galaxy, known as white dwarfs. These objects were found among a giant group of ancient stars - the globular cluster M4 - some 7,000 light-years away. The stars are still giving off heat, which can be measured by the orbiting space telescope.
                The cooling cinders give an indication of when the white dwarf stars were born - just under 13 billion years ago. The first stars are thought to have formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, suggesting the Universe is 13-14 billion years old. This is consistent with calculations by cosmologists based on measurements of how fast the Universe is expanding.
                'Real triumph'
                The results were announced at a press conference of the US space agency (Nasa) in Washington DC. Scientists said the age they came up with - just under 14 billion years give or take 500 million years or so - was calculated using a different method from earlier estimates. It offers independent verification that astronomers were on the right track, they told reporters. "It's almost as if we were saying, 'you always thought you knew how old you were, but you never had proof'," said Bruce Margon of the Space Telescope Science Institute. "One day, you open a drawer and there's your birth certificate, and you get the same answer. That's a real triumph." A 12-member international team carried out the research. The study has been submitted for publication to The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1950403.stm >

                Here's a more in depth look at the same data from the JPL in Pasadena

                < http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_97.html >

                So how about it Dave - please give us your DETAILED EXPLANATION as to how these observations support a 6000 year old universe from your CGH.
                Posted by: Diogenes on Nov. 07 2006,13:17

                I was considering moving into a scientific career, and was hoping one of the scientists on the boards could help me with some questions.  According to Dave every non-evolutionary biologist scientist in the world has to ask an evolutionary biologist permissions before they publish any findings, lest they slip up and accidently release information that contradicts the massive global conspiracy to convert the people to the liberal secularist religion of darwin.  Since I don't want to be a shill, that seems to remove Physics, Chemistry, Geology, non-Evolutionary Biology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Archeology, Linguistics, and Mathematics from consideration.  Is there any scientific fields far enough away from biology where I could work in peace?

                Secondarly, if I did decide to go into evolutionary biology, what is the current expected number of child sacrifices that is appropriate to bring to my thesis defense?  I've managed to buy 3 children so far, and have them locked up in my closet, but with the increased competativeness of modern academia I'm worried that 3 just isn't enough any more.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 07 2006,13:26

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 07 2006,10:58)
                HLA-B NO PROBLEM FOR THE BIBLICAL SCENARIO

                Mike PSS--      

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The "90%" statement is about the presence of an allele, not the frequency.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                OK, we can talk about the PRESENCE of the allele ... no problem.  I can readily explain it in terms of the Biblical scenario.  But first, why did you mention the 90%?  What point were you trying to make?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                I posted the 90% number because I'm lazy.  My initial review of the data showed ABOUT 90% of the alleles were matched in the different regions without going through the tedium of counting and crossing out.  I couldn't say ALL the alleles matched but wanted to have a ballpark number we could talk around.  This also means I think there is a greater than 80% match in the data.  If you want to come up with a more precise number feel free to post it.
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The Woodmoorappe chart shows three genes (A, B, C) and we are talking about only one gene (A).
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Two separate issues, Mike.  The Woodmorappe chart shows how genetic diversity can easily be maintained to a very high degree in a bottleneck such as the Flood.  The HLA-B allele question is a different matter.  You are trying to claim that there is not enough time between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice age for all these HLA-B alleles to have arisen.  And I am in the process of systematically dismantling your claim as I have done with so many other bogus claims here.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                Don't conflate your 'genetic richness' claim with the HLA-B allele arguments.  Woodmoorappe's chart says nothing to the points in the HLA-B discussion, unless you can show the large number of mutations necessary in the short amount of time you have available between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age.


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The table I referenced had a Citation that shows that the people tested were aboriginal to the region and showed no outside cross-breeding.  I mentioned this in almost every post about this table.
                DO YOU DENY THIS?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Yes, I deny this for two reasons ...
                First, there is some admixture explicitly acknowledged in the citations ...
                     

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Anthropology Citations

                 Submitter: BGRNAU
                   Population: Bulgarian
                     Report:  Roma from Bulgaria  
                     Authors:  M. Ivanova, A. Michailova, E. Naumova  
                 Submitter: BRADON
                   Population: Brazilian (Af Eu)
                     Report:  Brazilian (Admixed, African and European) from the Northeast region of State of São Paulo, Brazil  
                     Authors:  P. Louzada-Junior, N.H. Deghaide, M.B. Araujo, A.G. Smith, M.H.S. Kraemer, E.A. Donadi  
                 Submitter: BRAPTZ
                   Population: Guarani-Kaiowa
                     Report:  Guarani-Kaiowá Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                   Population: Guarani-Nandewa
                     Report:  Guarani-Ñandeva Amerindians from Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil  
                     Authors:  M. L. Petzl-Erler and L. T. Tsuneto  
                 Submitter: CANLUO
                   Population: Kenyan 142
                     Report:  Kenyan from Kenya  
                     Authors:  Ma Luo, Joanne Embree, Suzie Ramdahin, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, Simon Njenga, Job B. Bwayo, Kristine Jacobson, Luvinia Kwan, Marlis Schroeder, Sha Pan, Marc Jevan Narayansingh, Shehzad Iqbal, Robert C. Brunham, and Francis A. Plummer  
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Dave,
                When you mix and match data, like you've done above, you can get a confused picture about the results.  Remember, I'm only using the North American data for my claim yet you posted a hodge-podge of Citation data from different regions.
                The BGRNAU citation is from the Europe region.
                The BRADON citation is from the Other region.
                (Geez Dave, why would they put this admittedly admixed population in the Other region instead of the South American region)
                The BRAPTZ citation is from the South America region.
                The 'Guarani-Nandewa' citation is from the South America region.
                The CANLUO citation is from the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

                Why don't you only cite the North American region (you know, the region WE ARE TALKING ABOUT).  Here's the table from the North American Citation, let's only look at this....
                Quote (NA Citation @ Nov. 7 2006, 13:56)
                Search Criteria
                  Population Area:   North America

                 Submitter: MEXGOR
                   Population: Lacandon
                     Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
                   Population: Seri
                     Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
                     Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
                 Submitter: USAERL
                   Population: Canoncito
                     Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Maya
                     Report:  Maya from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 17
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 99
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Sioux
                     Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Zuni
                     Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                 Submitter: USALEF
                   Population: Yupik
                     Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
                     Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
                 Submitter: USAMFV
                   Population: Amerindian
                     Report:  Native American from the United States  
                     Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                On to your next false claim....


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Secondly, there is plenty of admixture NOT explicitly acknowledged in the citations.  Think about those Amerindians from Mato Grosso, for example.  Are you telling me that these researchers have some way of eliminating the possibility of admixture of the Spaniards and the Incas?  Do they (and you) think that those Indians just evolved right there in the jungle, pure and pristine, being descendants of some nearby apes?  Come on.  No ... the ancestors of the Incas  came from the same place that ALL ancient nations have come from ... the Tower of Babel.  And those Amerindians probably came from the Incas, likely with some Spanish lineage mixed in.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                Your argument by assertion doesn't work here.  And if you argue by assertion please get your asserted facts straight.  I am saying that the sampled population wasn't admixed with the Spaniards (or English or French or Africans or....), but I do agree that there can be considered full admixture with the Incas (same region populated AFTER ISOLATION.  I have never denied this.

                Also, I'm not arguing about ape origination in Matto Grosso (where in he11 did you come up with that one?).  Let's just concentrate on the North American citations quoted above, mmmkay?


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Please Dave,
                Answer the ice age questions too.  How many years after the flood did the ice age occur?  When did the ice age end?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                Not quite time to change the subject yet.  I know you're getting uncomfortable, especially now that Jeannot has challenged you too.  Your claim was that 450 or 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years or something because "Look, there's 90% similarity all over the world!"  And as we are seeing, the data does NOT support your claim.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                 
                But Dave,
                Understanding the time between the flood and the ice age end gives everyone a concrete number of years to analyze the data.  This means we have to hold multiple factoids in our brains to analyze the data and come to some conclusion.  Also, as you mentioned above, we need to know the timeline consequence of the Tower of Babel within the ice age question (before, during, or after.... I say during but early on in the ice age).


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                WHAT DOES THE HLA-B DATA TELL US?
                In short, it tells us that Woodmorappe is correct when he refers to Parham's study which says ...      

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177)
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                So, Dave, how does your CGH explain 500 alleles in 250 years?  It doesn't.  And it doesn't have to as this Parham quote makes clear and as Mike's data makes clear.  
                Now some of you are very hard-headed and won't be convinced, so try this ...
                Take that HLA-B data from Mike's table, put it in an Excel spreadsheet so you can sort it, then perfom various different sorts.  DAVE'S PREDICTION:  Australia will have a comparatively low number of alleles because there has been relatively little admixture since the Tower of Babel.  Europe will have many alleles because there has been a lot of admixture since the Tower of Babel.  N. America should fall somewhere between Europe and Australia because there has been admixture, but not as much as in Europe.

                RESULTS?  
                Australia: Only 11 alleles > 1% frequency
                N. America:  19 alleles > 1% frequency
                Europe:  25 alleles > 1% frequency

                Hmmmmmm ... I guess the Bible isn't so silly after all !!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Dave,
                You can make frequency predictions to support your hypothesis all day.  I will look at your frequency prediction myself to see if it stands the smell test.

                However, we are only talking about allele presence, not frequency.  HOW did all the alleles get to the regions, not how many of each are there.  If one allele makes it to the region that's one more data point in the 'presence' column no matter what the frequency.

                So........
                Please try and deconstruct only the North American citations.  Posting a global hodge-podge of citations you disagree with (especially since the researchers already classified the results with admixture in mind) doesn't help your case at all.  Your entire argument hinges on the citations being wrong in some way.  Please be specific and show us how the North American (ONLY) citations don't represent aboriginal populations.  All your other verbose prose after this is only so much hot air unless you disprove the citations.

                Have at it....  disprove the North American citations.

                Mike PSS

                *******************************
                deadman,
                do you have access to the 'American Journal of Physical Anthropology'?  During my web search for 'worldwide distribution of hla alleles' I found a couple abstracts from this journal that looked promising.

                I don't think I need to cross-reference any other data than what I presented, but if Dave gets aphasiac during this discussion then we might need to pummel him with more references.
                *******************************
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2006,13:29

                Quote (Diogenes @ Nov. 07 2006,13:17)
                I was considering moving into a scientific career, and was hoping one of the scientists on the boards could help me with some questions.  According to Dave every non-evolutionary biologist scientist in the world has to ask an evolutionary biologist permissions before they publish any findings, lest they slip up and accidently release information that contradicts the massive global conspiracy to convert the people to the liberal secularist religion of darwin.  Since I don't want to be a shill, that seems to remove Physics, Chemistry, Geology, non-Evolutionary Biology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Archeology, Linguistics, and Mathematics from consideration.  Is there any scientific fields far enough away from biology where I could work in peace?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                You could become an engineer…
                Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 07 2006,14:24

                Let me see if I can summarize where we are with this whole HLA-B debate, since Dave gives every indication of being lost in minutiae again. It's as if we're arguing about a particular pine needle in a National Forest, while Dave denies there's even a forest.

                So, here's the crux of the matter, Dave. Please let me know which parts of this summary you disagree with.

                • Currently, the world human population displays ~500 alleles for the HLA-B gene.

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                • At the time of the flood, when all humans except the eight on the ark were exterminated, there could have been at most 16 alleles for the HLA-B gene (if none of the eight had been related), but as a practical matter only 10 alleles for the gene, because five of the individuals were related by blood, and there could have been as few as one allele, if everyone was homozygotic with the same allele.

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                • The continents broke up and reached their current positions within a day or so (but less than a year) after the flood ended.

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                • The ice age began shortly after the flood ended, lowering sea levels and allowing humans to travel by land bridges from Europe/Africa/Asia to North and South America, Australia, Oceania, etc.

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                • After the ice age ended, there was no significant human contact between the Old World and the New World until the 15th Century A.D.

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                • 80-90% of all HLA-B alleles were present throughout the world human populations after the radiation to the New World, even in populations that had not admixed since their initial radiation after the Tower of Babel (Big scary note to Dave: THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE FREQUENCY OF THOSE ALLELES; ONLY THEIR PRESENCE)

                • In other words, somewhere between 390 (80% of 500 - 10 existing on the ark, if all eight people were heterozyotic for the HLA-B gene) and 449 (90% of 500 - 1 existing on the ark, if all eight people were homozygotic for the HLA-B gene) had to have arisen between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age

                [ ] Agree [ ] Disagree

                (Another note to Dave: for every box you mark "Disagree," please indicate the reasons for your disagreement).

                Once we can figure out where we agree and where we disagree, we can then figure out whether the HLA-B gene is a problem for Dave's UCG"H," and if not, exactly what mechanism Dave proposes for the increase in allelic diversity since the flood.

                Does this sound like a good plan?

                [edit: One other thing, Dave. Even if you disagree that all HLA-B alleles were present by the time of the post-ice-age isolation, you still have to explain how they have evolved up through the present day.

                The only effect that your disagreement about the global distribution of HLA-B alleles has on the debate is that it buys you a few more generations for those 490-499 alleles to have evolved. Instead of only having ~10 generations, you have ~225 generations. Instead of having to explain the appearance of 50 new alleles per generation, you only have to explain the appearance of 2 alleles per generation. So you can spend another couple of weeks arguing with Mike about whether those populations are truly free of post-ice-age admixture, but even if you win that argument, it's not going to do you much good. So perhaps you should just bite the bullet and provide your mechanism for generating 490 novel alleles in 225 generations, and save yourself a lot of time.]
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 07 2006,14:54

                .
                MORE BS FROM AF
                .
                I told Dave this: " Numerous literate cultures existed before and after your flood date. They didn't die, You lose."
                Dave says


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                I challenged you to prove this to me back when we were talking about Egypt. You ran from that. Instead, you opted for a ludicrous charge of plagiarism just because I reproduced some pretty common objections to Egyptian chronology and they happened to be worded similarly to some internet list you found.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Please repost where you said that, Dave. You claim that I "ran" from this statement of yours? REPOST IT AND SHOW WHERE YOU SAID THIS, OR RETRACT IT, LIAR. During that exchange about where you posted up a list...it wasn't just any list of factors, it was WORD FOR WORD , and you then claimed it wasn't from that PDF, then you admitted it "might have been." This is plagiarism, regardless, Dave. You posted  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
                1) had no era from which to date events
                2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
                3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
                4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
                ...possibly??
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Remember, Dave says this list of objections is common. PUT THE LIST THROUGH A SEARCH ENGINE AND SEE WHAT YOU GET. BELOW IS THE RESPONSE I GAVE DAVE


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Take Dave's list of objections. Notice he didn't cite any source. Remove the numbers.
                ( the Egyptians  had no era from which to date events  did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son  never gave the duration of a dynasty  did not designate contemporary dynasties)

                Run it through a search engine. Guess what singular result you get?
                A .pdf citing a quotemine.
                Conclusion: Dave not only quotemined, but plagiarized as well.
                The .pdf is an excerpt of a book entitled " All Through the Ages" by Christine Miller, published by a Christian vanity press located at  http://www.nothingnewpress.com/atta.shtml . This is what Christine Miller cites....Although Christine Miller doesn't list a source, I know where SHE got it from. I know you will NOT find that particular quote anywhere else on the web, not even creationist sites use it, mainly because they use OTHER quotemines on this issue of Egyptian chronology.
                Dave said he "heard" it. Then used it. With the wording exactly the same as the quotemined bit by Christine Miller. The funny part is Miller just screwed it all up, too.  " MR. M. Mariette." ( so it can't be "monsieur")  The actual name of the guy was AUGUSTE Mariette...and when did he live? why, he DIED in 1881. < http://www.uwm.edu/Course/egypt/0100/discoverersB.html >
                This has to be the DEEPEST OLDEST QUOTEMINE YET FROM DAVE.

                Dave didn't "hear" it in his little circle of friends...that quote is as obscure as they get, and originally written in French. He didn't read it at some creationist site...they don't use it...to confirm this yourself, run any part of it through a search engine.

                The creationist books don't use it, so far as I know...or maybe Dave can point to where it IS used? I bet he can't.

                The conclusion? He took it and got caught and is now frantically trying to rehabilitate his "image" as a lawyer would say. He simply trawled the web, found a pdf quote, used it and tried to hide it.
                That's quotemining...perpetuating a quotmine ...plagiarism (THEFT). Any other questions, Dave?

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                REMEMBER DAVE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YO GOT IT FROM, YOU POSTED IT IT WORD FOR WORD IN THE SAME ORDER AND WORDING AS MILLER. YOU POSTED IT WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION, THIS IS PLAGIARISM.

                Okay, so you want to discuss the literate civilizations that existed prior to and after your alleged flood date, dave? great, let's do that.

                Oh, and REMEMBER TO POST YOUR ALLEGED STATEMENT WHERE YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE OFFERED TO DISCUSS EGYPT PREVIOUSLY ...AND CLAIMED I "RAN" DAVE.  
                Your next claim is interesting, too, Dave. You make this claim:


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                I'm still waiting for you to show me proof that the Egyptians originated prior to the Tower of Babel (c. 2200 BC).
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Let's emphasize that, Dave...you claim the Tower of Babel incident was at 2200 BCE, the Flood is at 2300, then you cite this:


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                The Xia Dynasty (Chinese: &#22799;&#26397;; Pinyin: xià cháo; Wade-Giles: hsia-ch'ao), ca. 2205 BC–1766 BC, is the first dynasty to be described in Chinese historical records, which record the names of seventeen kings over fourteen generations
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Note that the youngest possible Date for the Xin that you cite ...****is FIVE YEARS AFTER**** your alleged Tower of Babel incident.
                Now that's some good tard.

                **************************************************************
                Next claim from Dave


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                You claimed that Don Batten is wrong. I don't know enough about dendrochronology to refute you myself, so I challenged you to do a conference call with Don. Never heard from you again. Tsk tsk.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                You're right, Dave, I didn't answer you on that, because it's hot air. You want to stage a debate between me and Don Batten? Cool. Let's do it online. Spoken exchanges allow for too much opportunity for the kind of tactics you engage in commonly, Dave...Written ones are much more permanent and less susceptible to the rhetorical games that creationists like to play. I'm quite prepared to do this online, Dave. The gauntlet is thrown in your face, along with my spit. Take it up, dippy, see if "Dr." Don Batten will agree.

                ********************************************************************
                On to AFDave's "Interpretations" of The Grand Staircase, Grand Canyon and Brushy Basin (Morrison) strata

                Dave says:



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Deadman, nailing you down on what you think about "dating the layers of the Grand Canyon" is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Note that this is after I had to tell Dave five times to quit misquoting and quotemining me.



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                You gave me a whole bunch of citations from studies that have attempted to date the few "dateable" layers and I showed you very clearly why those prove nothing about the real deposition dates of the sedimentary layers of the GC. They prove nothing for two reasons: 1) they are "calibrated" by fossil evidence (like at Koobi Fora) and 2) even if this was not the case (which it always is, at least at the GC), the "date" of the ash layer would only tell us when the ash was formed, not when the layer was deposited, since we are not talking about air fall tephra.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                The interesting thing here is that I used an ICR publication to show that the Brushy Basin ash fall layer was connected  BY THE ICR'S STEVE AUSTIN to an offshore arc of volcanics.  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                "The gigantic Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation stands as mute testimony of this violence. Three observations, including super-cracks, super-deposits, and widespread soft-sediment deformation, suggest a violent rending of fissure vents in the Sierra region that was the source for the Brushy Basin ash." ...from "Do Volcanoes Come in Super-Size?"  by Steven A. Austin and William A. Hoesch < http://www.icr.org/article/2830/ >

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                I also gave Dave a ton of dates for the Morrison/Brushy Basin, all of which correllate...without fossil calibration.  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Some Dating Citations Relating to the Morrison/Brushy Basin
                Bazard, David R. and Robert F. Butler (1994)  Paleomagnetism of the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation: Implications for Jurassic apparent polar wander. Journal Of Geophysical Research, V. 99, No. B4, p. 6695-6710. A total of 200 samples were collected from 25 sedimentary horizons at Norwood Hill in southwest Colorado. At Montezuma Creek in southeast Utah, 184 samples were collected from 26 sites. Magnetic dating is at 147 Ma (Tithonian) to 160 Ma
                Bilbey, SA (1992) Stratigraphy and sedimentary petrology of the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous rocks at Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaw Quarry with a comparison to the Dinosaur National Monument Quarry, Utah [PhD thesis] Salt Lake City Umv Utah. (see K-Ar biotite dates below)
                Chronic, 1990. Roadside Geology of Utah. Mountain Press Publishing. p. 90. "Layers of volcanic ash just above the Morrison formation radiometrically dated (K-Ar) to 147 Ma" (bentonites)
                J. Pálfy, P.L. Smith, and J.K. Mortensen (2000) A U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar time scale for the Jurassic. Can. J. Earth Sci./Rev. can. sci. Terre 37(6): 923-944  Dates on the Morrison ranging from 148-156 Ma
                Kowallis, Bart J. and Julia S. Heaton (1987) Fission-track dating of bentonites and bentonitic mudstones from the Morrison Formation in central Utah. Geology: Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 1138-1142. "Fission-track ages from a section through the Morrison Formation in central Utah show that most of the Morrison Formation is Late Jurassic or perhaps earliest Cretaceous, ranging in age from 130 to 157 Ma." (Fission Track has large error margins)
                Kowallis, B J , J S Heaton, and K Braghurst (1986) Fission-track dating of volcanically derived sedimentary rocks Geology, 14, 19 22.
                Kowallis, B J , E H Christiansen, and A L Demo (1991) Age of the Brushy Basin Member of  The Morrison Formation, Colorado Plateau, western USA Cretaceous Res , 12, 483-493 152.9 ± 1.2 Ma  Ar-Ar date
                Kowallis, Bart J., Eric H. Christiansen, Alan L. Deino, Fred Peterson, Christine E. Turner, Michael J. Kunk  and John D. Obradovitch (1998) Modern Geology, 1998, Vol. 22, pp. 235-260
                "The Brushy Basin Member, at the top of the formation, gives single-crystal, laser-fusion and step-heating, plateau- Ar/ Ar ages on sanidine that range systematically between 148.1 ±0.5 at the top of the member to 150.3±0.3Ma near the bottom. The Tidwell Member, at the base of the Morrison Formation, contains one ash bed about 3 m above the J-5 unconformity thai occurs in al least two widely separated sections. This ash has been dated by Ar/ Ar dating of sanidine and gives ages of 154.75 ±0.54 Ma (Deino NTM sample, laser-fusion), 154.82±0.58Ma (Deino RAIN sample, laser-fusion), 154.87±0.52 (Kunk NTM sample, plateau), and 154.8±1.4Ma (Obradovich NTM sample, laser-fusion). The Morrison Formation, therefore, ranges in age from about 148 to 155Ma "
                Lee, M J and D G Brookms (1978) Rubidium-Strontium minimum ages of sedimentation, uranium mineralization, and provenance, Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic), Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico Amet Assoc Petr Geol Bull, 62, 1673 1683 (148±9Ma Clay Rb-Sr)
                Steiner, M.B., S.G. Lucas, and E.M. Shoemaker (1994) Correlation and age of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation from magnetostratigraphic analysis. In Caputo, M.V., J.A.Peterson, and K.J. Franczyk (Eds.) Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA. Denver: Rocky Mountain Section SEPM, 315-330. "the magnetic reversal correlates with the Kimmeridgian reversal seen in sea-floor data"
                Trujillo, Kelli C. , Kevin R. Chamberlain and Ariel Strickland (2006) Oxfordian U/PB Ages from SHRIMP Analysis for the Upper Jurassic Morisson Formation of  Southeastern Wyoming With Implications for Biostratigraphic Correlations. Paper Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of The Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section. Gunnison Co. 17-19 May 2006  "U/Pb SHRIMP analyses yielded a weighted mean 206Pb/238U date of 156.3 +/- 2 Ma"
                Age ± Error (1a) Material Method Location & Member (Brushy Basin unless noted)
                 
                Lee and Brookins. 1978      148±9Ma Clay Rb-Sr New Mexico
                Bilbey. 1992                          147.2±1.0Ma Biotite K-Ar Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry
                Bilbey, 1992                          146.8±1.0Ma Biotite K-Ar Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry
                Kowallis and others, 1986  144±8Ma Zircon Fission Track Notom, Utah
                Kowallis and Heaton, 1987 142-195±9Ma Zircon Fission Track Notom, Utah
                Kowallis and Heaton, 1987 157 ±7 Ma Zircon Fission Track Notom. Utah (Tidwell Member)
                Kowallis and Heaton, 1987 145±13Ma Apatite Fission Track Notom, Utah
                Kowallis and others, 1991  147.6 ± 0.8 Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Montezuma Creek
                Kowallis and others, 1991  147.0±0.6Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Montezuma Creek
                Kowallis and others, 1991  145.2 ±1.2 Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Montezuma Creek
                Kowallis and others. 1991  147.8±O.6Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Montezuma Creek
                Kowallis and others, 1991  149.4±0.7Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Montezuma Creek
                Kowallis and others, 1991  152.9± 1.2Ma Plagioclase Ar-Ar laser-fusion Dinosaur Natl. Mon.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Jon F gave Dave examples of sediment dating, via smectite, biotite , illite, etc. I gave Dave a clear example, based on the ICR assertion that the Brushy Basin originated in the Volcanics of California. Dave Ran his ass off.

                **********************************************************************
                Dave's LOONY moon rock dating claim

                Dave says ALL RADIOMETRIC DATING IS CALIBRATED BY FOSSILS. I POINT TO LUNAR SAMPLES AND ASK HOW THEY ARE CALIBRATED BY FOSSILS. DAVE POSTS THIS:

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Analysis of the lunar samples from Apollo 11 indicates anomalous compositions for several elements. In particular, the isotope 40Ar is overabundant as compared with 36Ar in the fine-grain samples, the ratio being much greater than that expected in the solar wind composition (1) and several times greater than could be accounted for by in situ decay of 40K (2).   Lunar Atmosphere as a Source of Argon-40 and Other Lunar Surface Elements  R. H. Manka 1 and F. C. Michel 2  Science 17 July 1970: Vol. 169. no. 3942, pp. 278 - 280 DOI: 10.1126/science.169.3942.278
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Has Dave shown in any way this related to fossil data? NO Note also that the cited article is from 1970 and has nothing to do with the issue of fossil calibration. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. The article is about expected results from decay rates that have been statistically analyzed. Nothing more, no mention of fossils at all in that article.

                On to Koobi Fora
                Dave claims that the Geologists who did the Koobi Fora work essentially faked their data, by throwing out dates and agreeing upon a date that was ONLY based on fossil correllation...but that is not what happened at all...and when Dave is told to look at what the geologists themselves say, he claims:  "And of course, they would deny it, just like you do"

                Okay, let's look at this again, too:  

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                http://www.in-cites.com/scientists/DrIanMcDougall.html
                Jack Miller still teaches at Cambridge. His General information: Assistant Director of Research
                Telephone: +44 (0) 1223 337 184 FAX: +44 (0) 1223 360 779 E-mail address: <mailto:jam2@esc.cam.ac.uk> . Fitch and Miller assigned an age of 2.61 + 0.26 million years to the KBS tuff, using the K/Ar method. F. J. Fitch and J. A. Miller (1970) “Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site,” Nature 226: 226-28
                In 1976, Fitch and Miller revised the age of the tuff to 2.42 + 0.01 million years, by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, while another group, at Berkley, obtained 1.82 + 0.04 million years by the K/Ar method. The controversy raged on for several years, produced several books and considerable ill will, as well as two other paleontologists who re-examined all the fossil data and eventually came to the same conclusion as  Basil Cooke: the KBS tuff could not be more than two million years old. In 1985 MacDougall, at the Australian National University, published an age of 1.88 + 0.02 million years for the tuff, and in 1987 a laboratory at Berne obtained an age of 1.87 + 0.04 million years from the residue of the original sample used by Fitch and Miller. This provided confirmation of the age obtained at Berkley and of the paleontology of Cooke, but no explanation of the 2.42 million year age obtained over and over again at Cambridge was then available. I am informed by Dr. Cooke that that the anomalous radiometric ages come from two groups of feldspars, one derived from the wall rocks and incorporated into the tuff along with the other, which was a part of the magma that produced the tuff.

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                That was part of what was posted during that little discussion. Note that Dave not only shifts his claims around multiple times during that discussion, but like in the APMilano discussion, he deliberately misquotes material.

                In short, Dave is a fraud.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 07 2006,15:01

                BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

                For Dave to say that the Guarani of the Mato Grosso region of Brazil ( near PARAGUAY)  had gene flow with the Inca of Peru ( on the OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTINENT)...despite thousands of miles between them, thousands of enemies, no history of trading, no language similarities for communication and no lingua franca to use for trade or gene flow...well, that's hilarious. That's like saying the New York state Iroquois had stabilizing gene flow with the Navajo of Arizona WAVE THOSE HANDS, FLYBOY!!!!!
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 07 2006,22:22

                Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 07 2006,16:01)
                BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

                For Dave to say that the Guarani of the Mato Grosso region of Brazil ( near PARAGUAY)  had gene flow with the Inca of Peru ( on the OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTINENT)...despite thousands of miles between them, thousands of enemies, no history of trading, no language similarities for communication and no lingua franca to use for trade or gene flow...well, that's hilarious. That's like saying the New York state Iroquois had stabilizing gene flow with the Navajo of Arizona WAVE THOSE HANDS, FLYBOY!!!!!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Sorry deadman,
                I actually gave Dave this point in my present discussion of HLA-B gene presence.

                No matter how wrong Dave may be in this, the data I presented are purely of a regional (continental) nature.  I'm sure we could seperate the different tribes from the continental regions, but in my case I actually group all the continental populations together as a single entity.

                This doesn't change the fact that the Guarani AND the Inca originated through the land bridge of Alaska during the ice age.  AND the Guarani and Inca tested for the data table were aboriginal in nature to the region.  

                It would actually be interesting for Dave to say....
                "But the Guarani contributed 50 alleles and the Inca contributed another 50 alleles and the Tierra del Fuego indians another 50 alleles (etc. and so on)."

                THAT would be some good tard.

                Mike PSS
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 07 2006,22:32

                Good grief AFD you're galloping  drunkenly slouching from one windmill to another on that tired old creationist nag of yours.

                What with you're forgotten tales of Knights battling Moors in Lisbon to your refusal to look through a telescope for fear of shattering the music of the spheres you demonstrate the fools journey never ends.

                You are living proof that your religious institution is a testament to human folly and regards sanity as a danger.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 07 2006,23:29

                Mike: Oh, no worries, I really didn't pay that much attention to this particular argument ( no offense to you, of course), I've been doing other things and just peeking in once in a while.
                His contention about the Guarani and Inca is still a source of amusement, but, yes, there were likely three waves that made it over the Bering or along the coast, according to the best available data.
                Christy Turner, Joe Greenberg and a host of others in paleoanth, linguistics, archaeology and genetics pretty much agreed on this **general** scheme, although linguists in particular are not real happy with the "lumper" mentality of Greenberg, who died not all that long ago.
                Anyways, no argument from me on this deal.
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 08 2006,00:17

                Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2006,00:29)
                ...there were likely three waves that made it over the Bering or along the coast, according to the best available data.

                ...although linguists in particular are not real happy with the "lumper" mentality...
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                "Lumpers and Splitters"

                Don't all arguments always end up this way? :D
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 08 2006,01:33

                I suggest "Big endian and little endian" Swiftly.
                Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 08 2006,02:13

                WOW you guys keep donkey punching Davey and he keeps coming back for more. How sick is that?

                k.e. clarify, are you big endian or lil' endian?

                Big endian clearly RULES as does toilet paper coming off the outside of the roll.

                Davey, care to discuss the most recent Archaeopteryx without cutting and pasting AiG crap?

                Didn't think so.

                Baboon dogs Davey!

                Willfull ignorance, etc ,etc.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 08 2006,04:37

                People who crack their hard-boiled eggs on the little end are clearly the Children of Satan.

                Mike: it IS weird how often that lumper/splitter thing is the source of contention. I guess it's like De Saussure and others have said: we tend to think of things in terms of binary opposites. That's part of Dave's problem--it's all black and white for him.

                Heya Cousin Crabster!
                Posted by: Russell on Nov. 08 2006,07:45



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                Heya Cousin Crabster!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                cousin? Are you both of native American extraction?

                What, with the election results and all, davy may be too depressed to keep up this farce. And the creationist threat will probably resume its rightful, mosquito-like place in the battle of ideas. So I may be in the market for avocational reading of a more educational sort. I'm currently reading "1491", and I'm interested in learning your opinions about that book. Largely reflective of current thinking? Am I likely to be misled in any particular areas?

                This all should probably be taken up in a separate thread, but I just couldn't resist the opportunity to emphasize creationism's new, "improved" irrelevancy, for davy's benefit.
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 08 2006,07:46

                Crabby Appleton asked:


                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                k.e. clarify, are you big endian or lil' endian?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                I have to confess no deviancy on the egg opening front
                although I did experiment once, I can't remember why, it might have been while I was going out with a girl who was a 'spiritualist' in the Madame Blavatsky mold. The daughter of a Irish shipyard worker from Glasgow who enjoyed brief fame in post war Paris as a jazz trumpeter of some note , according to him at least. She held regular seances with a medium to contact her long dead mother cruelly taken by thrombosis induced by a long plane flight. The seances were always successful provided  coin of realm was given in exchange. Anyway she went off to hug trees, it was never going to work out. She was definitely 'little endian', delicious for a while but any sharing of eggs in future was doomed to failure due to our polar oppositeness and my 'Houdini' attitude to her 'Great Bear Indian' or some such, on the 'other side'. Ever since I have been careful to observe any possible partners for endian compatibility and will quiz them on their contact with ghosts, djins and other apparitions. Of course I make allowances for the fact that women are completely unfathomable anyway so which end they open their eggs, I take with a grain of salt.
                Posted by: don_quixote on Nov. 08 2006,09:07

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)
                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                (emphasis mine)

                Dave, I admit I'm too lazy, in the same way that I'm too lazy to teach a geranium maths.

                You have demonstrated that you will never learn; that indeed you don't want to learn.

                I admire the patience of Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming.

                You guys deserve a medal!
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 08 2006,09:22

                don_quixote salutes-



                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                I admire the patience of Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming.

                You guys deserve a medal!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Hey what about me?

                No medal for  mudflinging lazily and  throwing rotten eggs desultorily ?

                Let me tell you the effort required to unpick the mindless ad nausium quote mining, mangling , whistling in the dark, denial, egotistical misinformation from AFD is not trivial even though the consequences are.
                Posted by: BWE on Nov. 08 2006,11:27

                Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)
                Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.

                Most of you are too lazy to even do it.  All you want to do is sit on the sidelines and mindlessly throw rotten eggs.  At least Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming are not lazy.  They have at least engaged me and gone to some effort to try to support their view.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, but at least they tried hard.

                Anyone up to the challenge besides those mentioned?
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                OMG. The irony. Oh the irony.

                OK. Core samples show that Earth (blessed are those who love her) is more than 10,000 years old. This makes your theory wrong.

                Damm. I said I wouldn't bite.
                Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 08 2006,13:19

                Russ: Yup. My mom's full-blooded Mescalero Apache, my father's family is from Alsace-Lorraine. I was born in New Mexico. Crabby's one of my insane...er...spirited northern cousins.

                **I should add that one of my primary motivations for slapping AFDave around was his comment that my ancestors were "devolved."

                Oh, and KE gets my vote for "Best performance in the Beckett-Joyce-Borges Tradition"
                Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 08 2006,20:00

                Every few pages I stop by to check whether afdave is still the same old loonytune maroon as he was a few pages back, only more so.

                For going on several hundred pages, the answer remains, "Yep!"

                Hats off to the hardworking davesmackers!  Ya rock!
                Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 09 2006,00:42

                Bozho DM, I found these bloody brass knucks, I think they're yours. The tiswin is on me. I think the lead shot filled sap is Mikes. What'll you have mate? Eric, I think this dented 'luminum bat is yours, what's yer poison?

                Russell, I haven't had time to read 1491 yet but a perusal of a review looks like it covers many topics I feel to be current. I am a firm believer in the Pre Clovis immigration of my ancestors into the new world, most likely by a coastal route, the weather in an inland corridor between glaciers would have been too brutal IMHO. I have also been watching developments at Caral Supe. I've often thought of bringing it up to Davey but he pretty much blew off Catalhuyuk so I'm sure he'd do the same with evidence of people in the new world that predate his flood. He ignored mention of Monte Verde and other sites previously. (Keep in mind Russ that when DM calls my people his "spirited northern cousins", it's just his envy showing. My ancestors preceded his by quite a bit and got a better location, location, location than his did! Teehee.)

                k.e., Sounds like you engaged in a few episodes of swizzling (not that there's anything wrong with that!;), who hasn't had a girlfriend who is all wrong for them but trips their trigger for a time just the same. Hmm... time to cue up some Mojo Nixon. I enjoy my coddled eggs with a few grains of salt too.

                Stevie, Hardworkin' Davesmackers sounds like a killer name for a rock band!
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 09 2006,01:54

                Looks like AFD's slinked off to commiserate with all those other fine upstanding evampire-istas, how does that crow taste AFD?
                Posted by: don_quixote on Nov. 09 2006,04:45

                Quote (k.e @ Nov. 08 2006,09:22)
                don_quixote salutes-

                 

                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                I admire the patience of Mike, Deadman and Jon Fleming.

                You guys deserve a medal!
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                Hey what about me?

                No medal for  mudflinging lazily and  throwing rotten eggs desultorily ?

                Let me tell you the effort required to unpick the mindless ad nausium quote mining, mangling , whistling in the dark, denial, egotistical misinformation from AFD is not trivial even though the consequences are.
                ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                Medals for all the Davesmackers.

                Hey, fundiesmacking should be an Olympic sport!
                Posted by: k.e on Nov. 09 2006,06:46

                Hi ho AFDavO ......giddy up!
                Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 09 2006,08:23

                ***(deep breath)***
                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MY FACTUAL REBUTTAL TO AFDAVE'S FOGGY REASONING THAT ANSWERED MY REPLY TO HIS MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION ABOUT HLA-B GENES
                ***(pant)**(pant)**(pant)***

                Dave,
                Here's a quick summary (the one's you like) from my admittedly long reply to your admittedly long post a couple days ago.
                • The 90% similarity number between North America HLA allelic presence and Euro-Asia-Africa is an estimate only.  You can challange this number or accept the estimate.  I don't think I'm far off on this.
                • When talking about HLA-B, the only thing the Woodmoorappe chart shows is the 'bottleneck' of allelic presence at the ark as it relates to ONE gene (we've been using 'A' in almost all cases to discuss the HLA-B gene).
                • I'm talking about North American populations only at the present time.  When you posted your table of Citations here was my response (refer to the previous posts for the data mentioned below)...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When you mix and match data, like you've done above, you can get a confused picture about the results.  Remember, I'm only using the North American data for my claim yet you posted a hodge-podge of Citation data from different regions.
                  The BGRNAU citation is from the Europe region.
                  The BRADON citation is from the Other region.
                  (Geez Dave, why would they put this admittedly admixed population in the Other region instead of the South American region)
                  The BRAPTZ citation is from the South America region.
                  The 'Guarani-Nandewa' citation is from the South America region.
                  The CANLUO citation is from the Sub-Saharan Africa region.

                  Why don't you only cite the North American region (you know, the region WE ARE TALKING ABOUT).  Here's the table from the North American Citation, let's only look at this....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                • Discussing the timing between the UCGH flood and the end of the UCGH ice age (AND the Tower of Babel incident) is a functional part of the HLA-B allele discussion.  This is NOT a seperate topic since the presence of HLA-B alleles in the North American population involves knowing this timing with some accuracy.  Please answer the ice age and Tower of Babel timing questions within the UCGH framework.
                • Your attempt to discredit the citations has been smacked down since you don't even mention or address the citations we are discussing (North America).  Any conclusions you may have drawn after your discrediting statements are null and void of logic, reason, or testament since your discreditation of the citations has been discredited itself by me.  Please address only the North American citations if this is the line of argument you wish to pursue.  
                  {NOTE TO AFDAVE: On page 75 of the thread, deadman says...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My mom's full-blooded Mescalero Apache, my father's family is from Alsace-Lorraine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This would mean deadman is 'admixed' but what about his mom?  Would a 'full-blooded Apache' qualify to be part of the North American Citation since her family allegedly indicates no previous admixture to before 1492 (that's what 'full-blooded' implies)?  I'm only using this as a pertinent example, I definately DON"T want to get into discussing deadman's relations in more detail (factual OR conjectured) than to relate the bare statements made to the Citations that are listed in the HLA-B allele table.


                  This summary can be purchased for $4.99 at your favorite anti-evolution critic sites.  (A little tactic I picked up by learning about ID.  Always charge for your work no matter what the content.  The DI actually charged $15 for their rebuttal to the Dover trial.  Hucksters every one.)

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 09 2006,10:12

                  Continuing with "1491", in lieu of our apparently-still-in-mourning
                  amateur scientist  
                  investigative journalist  
                  youth educator  
                  fundie clown
                  Crabby wrote:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am a firm believer in the Pre Clovis immigration of my ancestors into the new world, most likely by a coastal route, the weather in an inland corridor between glaciers would have been too brutal IMHO.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The book left the impression that pieces of the puzzle remain to be found (no, dave, that doesn't mean "Ha! that proves my 'hypothesis' is correct"). But I do also come away with the conclusion there was some pre-Clovis influx from Siberia, and that a coastal route is the most likely one. With sea level changes and all (ice age, Dave, not flud) most if not all of the archeological evidence may now be underwater.  

                  The overall thesis of the book, which you probably got from your perusal of a review, is that (1) the pre-Columbian American population was a heck of a lot higher than has generally been appreciated, as was the degree of decimation - in both quantity and quality of life - due to viral epidemics introduced by the Europeans, (2) the paths that civilization took do not match general expectations of social anthropologists, who anticipated that cultivation of fields should precede and drive higher social organization, (3) the "untouched wilderness"/"noble savage" mythology is way off; the "pristine state" of nature eulogized by Thoreau was actually the result of massive pre-Columbian human intervention.

                  Really a fascinating read. I recommend it.

                  On a completely tangential note, as long as I have the attention of at least a couple of people who have significant indiginous ancestry... The author sticks to the term "Indian" - and gives a number of good reasons for doing so. I've always avoided that term, I guess largely because most "Indians" I have personally known are from southern Asia. Your thoughts?
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 09 2006,11:25

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 09 2006,10:12)
                  On a completely tangential note, as long as I have the attention of at least a couple of people who have significant indiginous ancestry... The author sticks to the term "Indian" - and gives a number of good reasons for doing so. I've always avoided that term, I guess largely because most "Indians" I have personally known are from southern Asia. Your thoughts?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Native American" correctly refers to anyone born in the Americas, regardless of ethnic origin, as does indigenous.  The correct word to use in reference to the first known inhabitants is "aboriginal."
                  I'm a native American, but not an Indian.  In a similar sense, I have a friend from Libya who is an African American, but who is not black.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,12:06

                  Russell: I tend to use "Amerind" to eliminate confusion. Designations like "First Nations" and Native Americans" tend to be unwieldy.
                  I prefer the coastal route theory and am using that in a work I'm writing, the problem is in evidence. When you consider the refinement of kayaks, umiaks and Aleut baidarkas (my friend Bearshield was making them for a while, customized to operator body measurements, old-style)...the age of sites like Monte Verde, etc., and weigh in all the factors, I like the coastal route. I can't say enough about baidarkas..eminently seaworthy, capable of storing goods, they can "surf" the large waves that move across ocean expanses, and were used to trade across the Bering Strait.
                  On a side note, I took a couple of grad classes with people interested in the development of complex societies and it's just one big muddle...there are lots of trajectories that lead to heirarchical, stratified systems...you can "farm" the sea as the Northwest coast Kwakiutl, Haida, and early Scandinavians did, or the California Chumash. Still, agriculture was/is generally thought of as a major factor. I still recommend T. Douglas Price and J. Brown's " Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity" as a guide. The editors gathered the best data they could from research across the globe to take a look at commonalities/differences in the elaboration of cultural systems.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,12:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The DI actually charged $15 for their rebuttal to the Dover trial.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hah. "Hucksters" indeed.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 09 2006,17:32

                  NORTH AMERICA ONLY?  OK.  NORTH AMERICA ONLY, THEN.
                  Mike, despite your recent summary, I always have a hard time determining exactly what it is you are trying to assert.  Let me take a shot.

                  I think you are trying to say that ...

                  HLA-B poses a serious problem for the Biblical record because how in the world did 500 or so HLA-B alleles arise in the 250 years or so between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice Age.

                  I think the reason you say that only 250 years were available for these 500 alleles to arise is because you observe that ...

                  Approximately 90% of the HLA-B alleles in the N. American indigenous population ALSO appear in Euro-Asia-Africa indigenous peoples also.

                  I hope I am stating your position correctly.

                  *********************************

                  MY ANSWER
                  1) There are NOT 500 alleles in your chart.  There are 225.
                  2) There are only 18 -- did you catch that? -- 18 alleles in North America that occur at a frequency greater than 1%.
                  3) There are only 2 -- TWO! DOS! ZWEI! -- 2 alleles in N. Am > 10 % frequency.

                  I'm also not sure how you can be sure of eliminating the possibility of ANY admixture in the sampled N. Am. groups.  Are you telling me that in the last 500 years, there was ZERO intermarriage between Euro-Asia-Africa peoples and the Native Americans?

                  OK.  Over to you.

                  *****************************************

                  DR. WIELAND ACKNOWLEDGES ERROR, POSTS CORRECTION, THUS ONCE AGAIN PROVING ATBC SKEPTICS WRONG ABOUT CREATIONISTS BEING EVIL LIARS.

                  I just received word from Dr. Wieland regarding the Chimp Chromosome issue.  He was apparently unaware that there was erroneous information up on the web and has now posted an author's note to explain that this information is wrong and was based on information from Dr. LeJeune that he read in 1979.  He noted that there are some 4500 articles posted on the AIG website and the reason it was there so long is because no one had brought the error to his attention before I did.  The reason AIG had not acted upon my request yet is simply because they are swamped with questions and they are understaffed.  I was able to get in touch with Dr. Wieland directly after my recent trip to AIG.  Dr. Wieland is now in a separate creationist organization from AIG and he has put the author's note in his instance of the article at < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1061 >
                  The editor at AIG has also been informed now directly by Dr. Wieland and I expect that the AIG instance of the article will be changed shortly also.

                  I DON'T CARE WHICH PARTY ... I JUST WANT GOOD PEOPLE
                  This may come as a shock to you, but I voted for a Democrat in my US House district.  Ike Skelton is a great guy and a good legislator, so he got my vote.

                  The Democratic Party as a whole used to be very good, back when Al Smith was in politics (how many of you remember him?).  Al Smith explained in a speech one time how the Democratic Party was betrayed ... after the betrayal it was more like a Socialist Party, but there are still plenty of good people in our country who are Democrats.

                  Who knows ... maybe the party will morph back to being a good, limited goverment type party again if WE THE PEOPLE put enough pressure on them.

                  (I was not in mourning ... I was in NY for two days ... got a tour of the NYSE ... very cool! )

                  (You know ... the NYSE ... that icon of capitalism that creationists don't know anything about because we don't know how to turn a profit in the real world :-)   )

                  ********************************

                  RUN, RUN, RUN, FAST AS YOU CAN, YOU CAN'T CATCH ME ... I'M DEADMAN!
                  Dave says


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  I challenged you to prove this to me back when we were talking about Egypt. You ran from that. Instead, you opted for a ludicrous charge of plagiarism just because I reproduced some pretty common objections to Egyptian chronology and they happened to be worded similarly to some internet list you found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please repost where you said that, Dave. You claim that I "ran" from this statement of yours? REPOST IT AND SHOW WHERE YOU SAID THIS, OR RETRACT IT, LIAR.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No, YOU are the one with selective memory loss, proven many times on this thread.

                  YOU RAN.

                  Then you went off on your "plagiarism" nonsense.

                  Here, let me show you.  I said ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Deadman ... what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
                  1) had no era from which to date events
                  2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
                  3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
                  4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
                  ...possibly??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HAHAHAHA. Look at dave's "list" of things he claims is problematic in dating Egyptian works prior to his flood. : (quotes above list) ... Now where did Dave get this claim from? Why, he plagiarized it. (quotes some internet source)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ....on and on and on for the next several pages whining and moaning about what an evil plagiarizer I am and ...

                  TOTALLY RUNNING FROM THE HEART OF THE MATTER

                  I even gave you this, but you still ran away ...

                  AFDave...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DM ... I didn't say those were my own words ... I'm sure they came from somewhere ... I just do not have a reference ... yours may well be correct.  You are so feisty that you overlook the fact that I am not claiming authority on this topic ... I simply want you to explain how you deal with these supposed problems.  If you are so sure Egyptian chronology goes back to 3150 BC, great!  Convince me!  Maybe this will be the first topic we actually agree on.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So there's TWICE I asked you the question, yet now you say ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please repost where you said that, Dave. You claim that I "ran" from this statement of yours? REPOST IT AND SHOW WHERE YOU SAID THIS, OR RETRACT IT, LIAR.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hint for Deadman:  If you are going to lie and pretend you don't know anything about me asking a question, try doing it in a more subtle manner so you cannot be exposed so easily.

                  So ... let's see if Deadman runs again ... the question for the THIRD time ...

                  what makes you think the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC?  More of your speculation?  Putting the overlapping chronologies end to end?  Ignoring the facts that the Egyptians ...
                  1) had no era from which to date events
                  2) did not distinguish between sole reigns and joint reigns of father and son
                  3) never gave the duration of a dynasty, and
                  4) did not designate contemporary dynasties
                  ...possibly?? [CITATION:  Talk to Deadman ... he thinks he has the original source for this quote]

                  ... frankly, I don't know the original source of these 4 items and I could care less ... all I want to know is why Deadman thinks the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC.

                  It's a pretty simple question, really.

                  **********************************************

                  DEADMAN IS HYPED ABOUT 5 YEAR DISCREPANCIES IN ANCIENT HISTORY

                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let's emphasize that, Dave...you claim the Tower of Babel incident was at 2200 BCE, the Flood is at 2300, then you cite this:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  The Xia Dynasty (Chinese: &#22799;&#26397;; Pinyin: xià cháo; Wade-Giles: hsia-ch'ao), ca. 2205 BC–1766 BC, is the first dynasty to be described in Chinese historical records, which record the names of seventeen kings over fourteen generations
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Note that the youngest possible Date for the Xin that you cite ...****is FIVE YEARS AFTER**** your alleged Tower of Babel incident.
                  Now that's some good tard.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  5 years!!  Horrors!! I guess he thinks I'm looney because the Xia Dynasty could not have been established within 5 years after the Tower of Babel.  Well, I didn't say that it was.  I merely point out the remarkable fact that WIKIPEDIA (not me) has the earliest Chinese dynasty (Xia) beginning in 2205 BC.  My date for the Tower of Babel is AROUND 2200 BC, not EXACTLY 2200 BC.  I don't know if it's possible to nail these dates down any closer than within a few hundred years in ancient history.

                  This Wikipedia article is simply good evidence that the beginning of the Chinese nation was quite possibly VERY CLOSE to the Tower of Babel incident.

                  *******************************************

                  Plant Physiologist Batten vs. Anthropologist/Dendro Expert Deadman Debate?
                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You're right, Dave, I didn't answer you on that, because it's hot air. You want to stage a debate between me and Don Batten? Cool. Let's do it online.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll see what I can do.  Maybe I can get him to join this thread and address your objections.  Better yet, let me see if I can get him to agree to join a new thread that you start specifically about dendrochronology.  That would be great.  Plant Physiologist Batten vs. Anthropologist/Dendro Expert Deadman.  Cool.

                  ********************************************

                  DEADMAN AND THE RM DATING OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE
                  Lots of vertical space, yet all you did was regurgitate what I said.  Quit misquoting you about what?  I can't even get a straight answer out of you.  Do you or don't you think the Grand Staircase layers can be dated radiometrically (or at least bracketed)?  I think you do.  And yes, you gave tons of dates, but they all apply to a small handfull of ash layers.  And no, of course the researchers are not going to be so stupid as to say "look, our dates are correct because of fossils."  They are far more subtle as was shown by the Koobi Fora example.  And the fact remains, dates are rejected if they don't agree with "accepted dates" AKA "dates which agree with the Grand ToE Fairy Tale."

                  **************************************************

                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave says ALL RADIOMETRIC DATING IS CALIBRATED BY FOSSILS. I POINT TO LUNAR SAMPLES AND ASK HOW THEY ARE CALIBRATED BY FOSSILS. DAVE POSTS THIS:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Analysis of the lunar samples from Apollo 11 indicates anomalous compositions for several elements. In particular, the isotope 40Ar is overabundant as compared with 36Ar in the fine-grain samples, the ratio being much greater than that expected in the solar wind composition (1) and several times greater than could be accounted for by in situ decay of 40K (2).   Lunar Atmosphere as a Source of Argon-40 and Other Lunar Surface Elements  R. H. Manka 1 and F. C. Michel 2  Science 17 July 1970: Vol. 169. no. 3942, pp. 278 - 280 DOI: 10.1126/science.169.3942.278
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Has Dave shown in any way this related to fossil data? NO Note also that the cited article is from 1970 and has nothing to do with the issue of fossil calibration. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. The article is about expected results from decay rates that have been statistically analyzed. Nothing more, no mention of fossils at all in that article.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually it does.  HOW, pray tell, do they know that 40Ar is "overabundant"?  Something cannot be "overabundant" without having some expectation that you are comparing it to.  What is that expectation?  Well, their expectation is that it should be quite low compared to what it actually is.  Why?  "Well of course, because the moon is 4+ BILLION years old! After all, ToE is a proven fact and the earth is 4+ billion years old, so the moon is too, so there shouldn't be so much Argon in the rocks!"

                  The truth is, as we see once again, the scientists NEED Deep Time, or else ToE would fall apart, so they discard "anomalous" data.

                  Why is it "anomalous"?  Simply because it disagrees with ...

                  THE GRAND EVO FAIRY TALE OF MOLECULES TO MAN OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS WITH SUPPOSED CONFIRMATION OF THE FOSSIL RECORD

                  *******************************************

                  NICE TRY ON KOOBI FORA, DEADMAN
                  This one was such an obvious example of fossils "correcting" RM dates that there is no need to say anything further.

                  ******************************************

                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For Dave to say that the Guarani of the Mato Grosso region of Brazil ( near PARAGUAY)  had gene flow with the Inca of Peru ( on the OTHER SIDE OF THE CONTINENT)...despite thousands of miles between them, thousands of enemies, no history of trading, no language similarities for communication and no lingua franca to use for trade or gene flow...well, that's hilarious. That's like saying the New York state Iroquois had stabilizing gene flow with the Navajo of Arizona WAVE THOSE HANDS, FLYBOY!!!!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Thousands of miles?  Why don't you go look here for the extent of the Inca empire ...

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca >

                  ... then pull out your map of Brazil and look where the state of Mato Grosso is.

                  The SW edge of Mato Grosso is maybe 200? maybe 300? miles from the edge of the Inca empire.

                  So tell us, Deadman, are you saying you are quite sure that the Amerindians of Mato Grosso definitely ARE NOT descended from an Inca/Spanish admixture?  How can you be sure of this?  (Don't dodge this question, please, and I won't have to chase you down later ... this will save us all some trouble.)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,18:40

                  Bwahahaha.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DEADMAN AND THE RM DATING OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE
                  Lots of vertical space, yet all you did was regurgitate what I said.  Quit misquoting you about what?  I can't even get a straight answer out of you.  Do you or don't you think the Grand Staircase layers can be dated radiometrically (or at least bracketed)?  I think you do.  And yes, you gave tons of dates, but they all apply to a small handfull of ash layers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, I gave you dates on the Morrison/Brushy Basin. Which happens to be part of the Grand Staircase, along with citations for another half-dozen GS strata. But Davey-boy has a very selective memory. One might even say it's pathologically so.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On page 129 of this thread, Dave freaks out after a hard night of whatever he was arguing about with his family, then posts on dendro, varves and radiometric. He got caught using lies and quote-mined claims. so on page 130, he decides to pick apart one aspect of the Grand Canyon. He says

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... I would like to know WHICH of these layers were dated RADIOMETRICALLY. Is it correct that NONE of the layers above the Great Unconformity can be dated RM? How about the layers below the GU? I'm thinking that the only layers that CAN be dated RM are the Zoroaster Granite and the Vishnu Schist. Is this correct?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Meteor Crater in Arizona penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion.

                  Nishiizumi et al. (Nishiizumi, K., Kohl, C.P., Shoemaker J.R., Arnold, J.R., Klein, J., Fink, D. and Middleton, R., 1991. In situ 10Be and 26Al exposure ages at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2699-2703.) report a minimum age of 49.2±1.7ka, based on 10Be and 26Al analyses of samples from the crater walls and ejecta blocks at the crater rim.

                  Phillips et al. (Phillips, F.M., Zreda, M.G., Smith, S.S., Elmore, D., Kubik, P.W., Dorn, R.I. and Roddy, D.J., 1991. Age and geomorphic history of Meteor Crater, Arizona, from cosmogenic Cl-36 and C-14 in rock varnish. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2695-2698.) report a 36Cl exposure age of 49±0.7ka for dolomite ejecta on the crater rim.

                  Both sets of dates are in turn statistically identical to quartz thermoluminescence dates of 49±3ka reported by Sutton (Sutton, S.R., 1985. Thermoluminescence measurements on shock-metamorphosed sandstone and dolomite from Meteor Crater, Arizona. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B5), pp. 3690-3700.)
                  the Precambrian Cardenas basalt in the east grand canyon is dated at about 780 to 810 million years: E.H. McKee and D.C. Noble, "Age of the Cardenas Lavas, Grand Canyon, Arizona," Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87 (Aug. 1976): 1188-1190.
                  which agrees with paleomagnetic data presented by:
                  Radiometric dating of the underlying Vishnu Group places its metamorphosis at about 1750 million years ago. GSA Bulletin: Vol. 108, No. 9, (pp. 1167-1181).
                  Two radiometric ages have been published for the the reworked tuff deposits found in the highest member of the Chinle, a K-Ar date of 239±9 Ma, and a U-Pb date of 207±2 Ma (Riggs, N. R., S. R. Ash, and J. M. Mattinson. 1994. Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 26(6):61).
                  Riggs, N.R. S.R. Ash, A.P. Barth, G.E. Gehrels and J.L. Wooden (2003) Isotopic age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation, Arizona: An example of dating a continental sandstone. GSA Bulletin; v.115:11; p. 1315-1323 [Using Multigrain TIMS (thermal-ionization mass spectrometry), single-crystal TIMS, and SHRIMP (sensitive, high-resolution ion-microprobe).]

                  Ash beds within the Carmel have yielded Ma Laser-fusion single-crystal 40Ar/39Ar dates between 166.3 and 168.0 ± 0.5 (Kowallis, et al. 2001. The record of Middle Jurassic volcanism in the Carmel and Temple Cap Formations of southwestern Utah. GSA Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 373-387).
                  Kowallis, B.J., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Peterson, F., Turner, C.E., Kunk, M.J., and Obradovich, J.D., 1998, The age of the Morrison Formation: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 235-260. 40Ar/39 Ar on sanidine in the Brushy Basin Member in Utah and Colorado yields ages of 148 to 150 million years old
                  Tuff from the Jurassic Morrison Formation is dated to 155-148 mya (Peterson, F., and Turner, C.E., 1998. Stratigraphy of the Ralston Creek and Morrison Formations [Upper Jurassic] near Denver, Colorado: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 3-38).


                  Igneous sills on top of the Cretaceous Mancos Shale have been dated (K-Ar) at 66 million years ago, and ash layers in the Green River Shale have been dated at 50.2 +/- 1.9 mya (Buchheim, H. P., and Eugster. 1998. The Green River Formation of Fossil Basin, southwestern Wyoming. In J. Pitman, and A. Carroll, (eds.), Modern and Ancient Lacustrine Depositional Systems: Utah Geological Association. )
                  Smith,M. E., B. S. Singer, A. R. Carroll, and J. H. Fournelle (2006) High-resolution calibration of Eocene strata: 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of biotite in the Green River Formation. Geology, May 1, 2006; 34(5): 393 - 396.
                  W. C. Clyde, W. S. Bartels, G. F. Gunnell, and J.-P. Zonneveld (2004) 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming: Discussion
                  GSA Bulletin, January 1, 2004; 116(1-2): 251 - 252.
                  Smith M. Elliot, Brad Singer and Alan Carroll ( 2003  )40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming. GSA Bulletin; v.115:5. p. 549-565
                  Pietras, J.T., A.R. Carroll, B.S. Singer and M.E. Smith (2003 )10 k.y. depositional cyclicity in the early Eocene: Stratigraphic and 40Ar/39Ar evidence from the lacustrine Green River Formation. Geology; July 2003; v.31:7; p. 593-596
                  Hicks, F.H., Obradovich, J.D., and Tauxe, L., 1995. A new calibration for the Late Cretaceous time scale: The 40Ar/39Ar isotopic age of the C33r/C33n geomagnetic reversal from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Elk Basin, Wyoming, USA: The Journal of Geology, v. 103, 243-256.
                  Obradovich, J.D., 1993, A Cretaceous time scale, in Caldwell, W.G.E., and Kauffman, E.G., editors, Evolution of the Western Interior basin: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 39, p. 379-396. upper part of Dakota Formation -- Tropic Shale. " Bentonite Layer A dates 93.49 +/- 0.89 Ma (Obradovich, 1993). Bentonite B, which lies higher in the upper Cenomanian biozone of Neocardioceras juddii, was dated at 93.59 +/- 0.58 Ma. Bentonite C, which may lie in the lower Turonian biozone of Pseudaspidoceras flexuosum, was dated at 93.25 +/- 0.55 Ma, and bentonite D, in the lower Turonian biozone of Vascoceras birchbyi, was dated at 93.40 +/- 0.63 Ma."
                  McIntosh, W.C., Peters, L., Karlstrom, K.E., and Pederson, J.L., 2002. New 40Ar-39Ar dates on basalts in Grand Canyon: Constraints on rates of Quaternary river incision and slip on the Toroweap fault and implications for lava dams Geological Society of America Abstracts with. Programs, Rocky Mountain Section.
                  Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742
                  " We hypothesize that this differential incision is due to west-down slip on the Toroweap fault of 94 ± 6 m/m.y. based on measured offset of the newly dated Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river."

                  Carlos M. González-León et. al. (2005) New data on the lithostratigraphy, detrital zircon and Nd isotope provenance, and paleogeographic setting of the El Antimonio Group, Sonora, Mexico. Geological Society of America Special Paper 393: The Mojave-Sonora Megashear Hypothesis: Development, Assessment, and Alternatives: pp. 259-282. "Lower Jurassic El Antimonio sections are known in southern Nevada and southeastern California and include the Moenkopi, Virgin Limestone, Union Wash, Silverlake, and Fairview Valley Formations and the Kings sequence. New U-Pb geochronology on detrital zircon and Sm/Nd isotope and petrographic data from terrigenous samples of the El Antimonio Group may help to elucidate its provenance and to support this paleogeography. Zircon grains from samples of the lower, middle, and upper parts of the El Antimonio Group yielded ages that cluster ... 340, 270-240, and 190 Ma."

                  Fenton, Cassandra R., Poreda Poreda, Robert J., Nash, Barbara P., Webb, Robert H., and Cerling, Thure E., (2004), “Geochemical Discrimination of Five Pleistocene Lava Discrimination of Five Pleistocene Lava-Dam Outburst-Flood Deposits, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona”, The Journal of Geology, Vol. 112, pp. 91-110.


                  Galen P. Halverson, Paul F. Hoffman, Daniel P. Schrag, Adam C. Maloof and A. Hugh N. Rice. 2005: Toward a Neoproterozoic composite carbon-isotope record. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 117, No. 9, pp. 1181-1207.

                  C.M. Dehler, M. Elrick, J.D. Bloch, L.J. Crossey, K.E. Karlstrom and D.J. Des Marais. 2005: High-resolution d13C stratigraphy of the Chuar Group (ca. 770-742 Ma), Grand Canyon: Implications for mid-Neoproterozoic climate change. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 32-45.

                  Ochs, S., 1988, Stratigraphy, depositional environments, and petrology of the lowermost Moenkopi Formation, southeastern Utah: Salt Lake City, M.S. Thesis, University of Utah.

                  Richard F. Holm. 2001: Cenozoic paleogeography of the central Mogollon Rim-southern Colorado Plateau region, Arizona, revealed by Tertiary gravel deposits, Oligocene to Pleistocene lava flows, and incised streams. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol.

                  J. Michael Timmons, Karl E. Karlstrom, Carol M. Dehler, John W. Geissman and Matthew T. Heizler. 2001: Proterozoic multistage (ca. 1.1 and 0.8 Ga) extension recorded in the Grand Canyon Supergroup and establishment of northwest- and north-trending tectonic grains in the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 163-181.
                  Foster, D. A., A. J. W. Gleadow, S. J. Reynolds, and P. G. Fitzgerald, Denudation of metamorphic core complexes and the reconstruction of the transition zone, west central Arizona; constraints from apatite fission track thermochronology, Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, (2), 2167-2185, 1993
                  Jacqueline E. Huntoon, Russell F. Dubiel, John D. Stanesco, Debra L. Mickelson and Steven M. Condon. 2002: Permian-Triassic depositional systems, paleogeography, paleoclimate, and hydrocarbon resources in Canyonlands and Monument Valley, Utah. GSA Field Guide 3: Science at the Highest Level: Vol. 3, No. 0, pp. 33-58.

                  Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742
                  " We hypothesize that this differential incision is due to west-down slip on the Toroweap fault of 94 ± 6 m/m.y. based on measured offset of the newly dated Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river."
                  Kenneth L. Cole and Larry Mayer. 1982: Use of packrat middens to determine rates of cliff retreat in the eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona. Geology: Vol. 10, No. 11, pp. 597-599. "cliff retreat, which is comparable to other cliff-retreat rates reported from arid environments, implies that the Colorado River cut through the Redwall Limestone in the vicinity of Horseshoe Mesa about 3.7 m.y. B.P."

                  Wendell Duffield, Nancy Riggs, Darrell Kaufman, Duane Champion, Cassandra Fenton, Steven Forman, William McIntosh, Richard Hereford, Jeffery Plescia and Michael Ort. 2006: Multiple constraints on the age of a Pleistocene lava dam across the Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 421-429

                  STEPHEN T. NELSON, JON P. DAVIDSON and KIM R. SULLIVAN. 1992: New age determinations of central Colorado Plateau laccoliths, Utah: Recognizing disturbed K-Ar systematics and re-evaluating tectonomagmatic relationships. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 104, No. 12, pp. 1547-1560. "incision of meanders on the Mogollon Slope occurred in the late Pliocene to Pleistocene Epochs as a result of integration of the Little Colorado River with the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon."


                  RICHARD L. REYNOLDS, MARK R. HUDSON, NEIL S. FISHMAN, and JOHN A. CAMPBELL. (1985) . Paleomagnetic and petrologic evidence bearing on the age and origin of uranium deposits in the Permian Cutler Formation, Lisbon Valley, Utah Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 719-730

                  Roberto S Molina Garza, John W Geissman, Spencer G Lucas (2000) Palaeomagnetism and magnetostratigraphy of uppermost Permian strata, southeast New Mexico, USA: correlation of the Permian-Triassic boundary in non-marine environments. Geophysical Journal International Volume 141, Issue 3, Page 778-786
                  Hamblin, W. Kenneth, (1994), “Late Cenezoic Cenezoic Lava Dams In The Lava Dams In The Western Grand Canyon”, Geological Society of America Memoir 183:139

                  Faulds, J. E., D. L. Feuerbach, C. F. Miller, and E. I Smith, Cenozoic evolution of the northern Colorado River extensional corridor, southern Nevada and northwest Arizona, in The Geologic Transition, High Plateaus to Great Basin-A Symposium and Field Guide, The Mackin Volume, M. C. Erskine, J. E. Faulds, J. M. Bartley, and P. D. Rowley (eds.), Utah Geol. Assoc. Publ., 30 [also Pacific Sec., Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Publ. GB78], 239-271, 2001.

                  Fenton, C. R., R. H. Webb, P. A. Pearthree, T. E. Cerling, and R. J. Poreda, Displacement rates on the Toroweap and Hurricane faults: Implications for Quaternary downcutting in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geology, 29, 1035-1038, 2001
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Let's get another thing straight, Dave, do you want to discuss the civilizations that preceded the flood date you gave and lived right through it? Will you run? will you try to avoid the posts? Or will you deal with it honestly and straightforwardly and not try to find excuses to run off "rabbit trails " as you call them? Yes or no, Dave. You gave this statement:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I simply want you to explain how you deal with these supposed problems.  If you are so sure Egyptian chronology goes back to 3150 BC, great!  Convince me!  Maybe this will be the first topic we actually agree on.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the midst of me demonstrating the line-forline, word -for -word plagiarism you engaged in, which you tried to excuse by saying you "heard it at a lecture," then admitted you MIGHT have read on that .PDF.

                  IS IT CITED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET? ANY OTHER WORK THAT YOU HAVE?? NO, NOT THAT **YOU ** HAVE MENTIONED. JUST THAT ONE SITE THAT YOU TOOK IT FROM, PLAGIARIST



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  all I want to know is why Deadman thinks the Egyptians lived prior to 2350 BC.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's not **JUST** the Egyptians, Dave, it's The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chinese, Harrappans, ProtoMyceneans and others. I want to discuss this, Dave, and I am not limited to Egyptians at all. IN this discussion, I will bring in any data I see fit, at any time I please. All I expect is that you actually address the issues DIRECTLY.

                  ON the issue of moon rocks argon, Dave says :

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HOW, pray tell, do they know that 40Ar is "overabundant"?  Something cannot be "overabundant" without having some expectation that you are comparing it to.  What is that expectation?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The expectation is on decay rates/production of isotopes, a statistically observable and quantifiable phenomenon, Dave, as I SAID IN MY POST ABOVE.  

                  Finally, on the Guarani: the historical homeland of the Guarani is on the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, along the Parana and Paraguay rivers, Longitude 53 or so. The Inca empire reached it's greatest extent in the 15th century, along the central Chilean Coast, THEN CONTRACTED. This is over a thousand miles away, at BEST. The heartland of the Incan Empire is fully over two thousand miles away, even in a straight line ACROSS THE ANDES.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 09 2006,18:43

                  Okay, let's get a few things straight, Dave. First, 500 alleles in 225 generations is an insurmountable problem for your "hypothesis." So even if you have 4,500 years from the flood to the present time to get from the 10 alleles (max) on the ark to the present 500 alleles, you've still got the same problem your "hypothesis" has with the ark in general: nowhere near enough time to get from the maximum possible diversity on the ark to the observed diversity today. You're talking about evolution and mutation rates far in excess of anything proposed by legitimate evolutionary theory.

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,17:32)
                  NORTH AMERICA ONLY?  OK.  NORTH AMERICA ONLY, THEN.
                  Mike, despite your recent summary, I always have a hard time determining exactly what it is you are trying to assert.  Let me take a shot.

                  I think you are trying to say that ...

                  HLA-B poses a serious problem for the Biblical record because how in the world did 500 or so HLA-B alleles arise in the 250 years or so between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice Age.

                  I think the reason you say that only 250 years were available for these 500 alleles to arise is because you observe that ...

                  Approximately 90% of the HLA-B alleles in the N. American indigenous population ALSO appear in Euro-Asia-Africa indigenous peoples also.

                  I hope I am stating your position correctly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It doesn't just present a serious problem because you've only got 250 years, Dave. It presents a huge problem even if you've got 4,500 years. Mike's argument, that HLA-B alleles were distributed around the globe prior to the 15th century, just makes your problem an order of magnitude worse. But it's already fatal to your "hypothesis," even if you get the whole 4,500 years.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  *********************************

                  MY ANSWER
                  1) There are NOT 500 alleles in your chart.  There are 225.
                  2) There are only 18 -- did you catch that? -- 18 alleles in North America that occur at a frequency greater than 1%.
                  3) There are only 2 -- TWO! DOS! ZWEI! -- 2 alleles in N. Am > 10 % frequency.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First, who cares if there are only 225 alleles? Mike already told you his chart only listed 225 out of 500—did you forget? Extra alleles could only hurt you, not help you, if it turns out any of those additional 275 alleles are also present in NA.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm also not sure how you can be sure of eliminating the possibility of ANY admixture in the sampled N. Am. groups.  Are you telling me that in the last 500 years, there was ZERO intermarriage between Euro-Asia-Africa peoples and the Native Americans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Read the citations and understand the methodology. If you can pick holes in the methodology, then you've got an argument. Until you do that, you're hand-waving.

                  Also, I wouldn't think I'd need to explain this, but in your case I shouldn't take chances. It's not a requirement that there be no intermarriage between Old-World peoples and Native Americans, Dave. It's only a requirement that there be no Old-World ancestry in the people whose genotype was used in the sample. Do you think there are no North Americans at all whose ancestors have never intermarried with anyone from the Old World?

                  In any event, are you at some point going to come up with a mechanism for an additional 490 alleles (minimum) in even 4,500 years, let alone 250 years?

                  Also, now might be a good time to come with an estimate for the end of the ice age. Given that somehow every extant written record throughout history neglects to mention it, it couldn't have gone on for too long.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,18:59

                  And no, the Guarani are NOT immediately related to the Inca, they speak an entirely different language, THEIR language is the "lingua franca" of the Areas outside the Andes, and they are not related except distantly, when they migrations to South America settled in thousands of years ago.

                  And as far as you claiming NOT to know what I said about dating the Grand Staircase strata, these are all links to the times I asked you to stop quote-mining and lying about what I ACTUALLY said -- which was that layers COULD be and WERE dated
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >

                  That's FIVE TIMES I ASKED you to quit quotemining ME, and ***still you persisted,**** just as now you're pretending " not to remember" this?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 09 2006,19:12

                  For those interested in a well-written popular science treatment of the coastal migration theory of peopling the Americas, you might try:

                  Lost World: Rewriting Prehistory---How New Science Is Tracing America's Ice Age Mariners by Tom Koppel  (Atria 2003).  The softback came out last year...

                  Much more interesting than anything aflunaticslivedave has to say.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 09 2006,19:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The editor at AIG has also been informed now directly by Dr. Wieland and I expect that the AIG instance of the article will be changed shortly also.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You do? Really? Well, let us know when it happens. Meanwhile, I'm not particularly impressed with the "correction"  you present here. What fraction of the AiG readers of the original error are likely to stumble across - and notice - the "correction"?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  He was apparently unaware that there was erroneous information up on the web
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If that's really true, the guy is hopelessly incompetent.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the reason it was there so long is because no one had brought the error to his attention before I did.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wow. How long was that? You mean no competent person read it or commented on it? In how long? ?  What does that tell you about how reliable this source is?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 09 2006,20:17

                  Another Freudian slip by Anti-Fact Dreamer


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE GRAND EVO Creationist FAIRY TALE OF MOLECULES   dirt TO MAN OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS in a single moment   WITH SUPPOSED CONFIRMATION OF THE FOSSIL RECORD   Bible


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That Dave Tard^^2 is circular reasoning, whistling in the dark, wishful thinking, dreaming, pissing against the wind and a failure of logic that completely explodes any thruth in Creationism...in other words Creationism is a lie.

                  Your mere assertions are are less than worthless.

                  But just to check .......give NASA a call and check the date of birth of the present universe.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 09 2006,20:23

                  Well, they fixed Weiland's/LeJeune's error on the creationontheweb site... sort of...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  EDITOR'S NOTE: This magazine article, written in 1979, is retained for historical reasons, but the principal argument it contains, even though it was presented by one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time, should not be used. It has been known for a considerable time that the information on a strand of DNA can be read in either direction. That does not of course mean that humans descended from chimps, merely that it is not appropriate to use this argument to indicate otherwise. As we have stated elsewhere, we should always be 'hanging loose' about any particular argument, prepared to abandon it in the face of information to the contrary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (my emphasis)

                  The reason for the correction, however, is still totally wrong.  A strand of DNA is only read in one direction (5' to 3').  The issue at hand is that DNA is double stranded, and that the strands are antiparallel (which has been known since the days of Watson and Crick).  Therefore there is no objective "head" or "tail" to a chromosome.  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 09 2006,20:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't even notice that! The funny thing is that clowns with this little perspective feel sufficiently informed to pronounce:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  it was presented by one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Meanwhile, speaking of Wieland, I found this extremely < amusing gem >:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Haggard tragedy
                  by Carl Wieland

                  When any significant Christian leader falls from grace in a major, public way, to say that it’s painful for God’s people is an understatement. The recent scandal involving Ted Haggard has reverberated around the globe. It is in many ways perhaps the most disastrous of such episodes that many of us have observed in our Christian lifetimes, involving as it did one of the most powerful and prominent evangelicals in the world. This man was not only the pastor of a huge church, he was the head of the largest association of evangelicals in America, and hence the world. He apparently had the ear of the White House, too, with weekly phone conferences with the President.
                  ...
                  An evolutionized culture increases the likelihood of these things
                  ...
                  There is also some chance that a person who has fallen from grace may not be a believer at all, but a ‘tare’ (Matthew 13:24–30). He/she may have chosen to ‘go along’ and ‘play the game’ because it is such a great career opportunity, or for the fame or adulation, etc.

                  For all we know, Haggard, like the late evangelist Charles Templeton (who renounced his professed faith entirely), may have developed personal doubts about the reliability of the Bible because of the persistent evolutionary indoctrination of our age. Such doubts would make giving in to temptations just that little bit easier to justify.

                  Even if not, and Haggard never ceased to believe in the truth and authority of the Bible, there is no doubt that the changes in the culture itself, brought about by its general movement away from biblical absolutes, have made it more ‘respectable’ and somehow easier for even believers in those absolutes to give in to temptations to sin, which bombard them from every angle. Those bombardments themselves have increased in proportion to the retreat of Christian influence in culture in general. Even 30 years ago it would have been much more difficult to find the means to engage in such sin. Laws against wrongdoing (as well as general societal disapproval) certainly increase the difficulty and shame of sinful acts (Romans 13).

                  There is more, too, that needs to be said in relation to the link between moral decline and evolution—and the importance of repeatedly stressing that link.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [bolding is mine]
                  So, you see, even if the Rev. Ted did fall from grace, it was the fault of, yes, evolution, and the "evolutionized" culture!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 09 2006,20:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,18:32)
                  NORTH AMERICA ONLY?  OK.  NORTH AMERICA ONLY, THEN.
                  Mike, despite your recent summary, I always have a hard time determining exactly what it is you are trying to assert.  Let me take a shot.

                  I think you are trying to say that ...

                  HLA-B poses a serious problem for the Biblical record because how in the world did 500 or so HLA-B alleles arise in the 250 years or so between the end of the Flood and the end of the Ice Age.

                  I think the reason you say that only 250 years were available for these 500 alleles to arise is because you observe that ...

                  Approximately 90% of the HLA-B alleles in the N. American indigenous population ALSO appear in Euro-Asia-Africa indigenous peoples also.

                  I hope I am stating your position correctly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes Dave,  you got my position fairly correct.  

                  However, I'm not saying that this point is a 'problem for the biblical record', I'm saying that the UCGH needs a valid and cohesive explanation for this apparent anomoly in the data.  I'm saying that the data in front of everyone on this board seems to contradict the present UCGH theory.  IF you can 'square-the-circle' by using the biblical record that's fine.  OR you can come up with another valid explanation for this anomoly.  Right now you haven't presented any cogent statements to explain the data within the UCGH.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MY ANSWER
                  1) There are NOT 500 alleles in your chart.  There are 225.
                  2) There are only 18 -- did you catch that? -- 18 alleles in North America that occur at a frequency greater than 1%.
                  3) There are only 2 -- TWO! DOS! ZWEI! -- 2 alleles in N. Am > 10 % frequency.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  MY REBUTTAL
                  1)  I already told you that the researchers never tested for all 500 alleles.  I'm not going to make predictions on the other 275 alleles right now until I get more data (if I need it).  The fact is there ARE 500 HLA-B alleles (I gave you a reference table in the past that listed them).  It would be an assertion on my part to say the remaining 275 alleles would show the same regional distribution, but I won't say anything to these alleles until/unless I present more date.  However, It would behoove you to assume that the other 275 alleles show a similar regional distribution (presence, not frequency of course).
                   Tell you what Dave, why don't you try and explain 215 HLA-B alleles in 250 years.  At the end of your explanation change the '215' to '490' and see if your explanation still holds up.  Then we can see if these other 275 alleles need supporting data or not.

                  2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.  Selection of the allele within a population(which leads to frequency) doesn't matter.  This is a rabbit-trail of your own making so please send the ferret down this trail and "nip it in the bud".

                  3)  See point DEUX) above.  
                  (Why don't you make a prediction here Dave.  Why don't you say that we can clearly identify two of the HLA-B alleles that were present on the ark since they are the most common.  So far you've made one prediction about allelic frequency as it relates to time of regional admixture since the ice age.  Now you can make a second prediction that identifies the ark alleles.  If your predictions hold up to scrutiny then maybe your hypothesis will start to make sense.)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm also not sure how you can be sure of eliminating the possibility of ANY admixture in the sampled N. Am. groups.  Are you telling me that in the last 500 years, there was ZERO intermarriage between Euro-Asia-Africa peoples and the Native Americans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I have said before that this is your ONLY point worth making.  BUT you have to make sense.  I'm NOT telling you that admixture didn't happen within North America (like your second sentence insinuates).  I AM telling you that the North American data in the table came from indiginous populations of the continent (countering the hand-waving assertion in your first sentence).  The Citation shows that this selection avoids any admixture with outside populations (except South America which I'm not arguing against).  
                   So you better support your position with more than hand-waving and personal increduality.  You have clear access to the Citation page from the data table.  DISCREDIT THE ACTUAL CITATION WITH ACTUAL FACTS.  HANDWAVING JUST WON'T DO.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK.  Over to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Right Back At You.

                  Mike PSS

                  Oh, and Dave,
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5 years!!  Horrors!! I guess he thinks I'm looney because the Xia Dynasty could not have been established within 5 years after the Tower of Babel.  Well, I didn't say that it was.  I merely point out the remarkable fact that WIKIPEDIA (not me) has the earliest Chinese dynasty (Xia) beginning in 2205 BC.  My date for the Tower of Babel is AROUND 2200 BC, not EXACTLY 2200 BC.  I don't know if it's possible to nail these dates down any closer than within a few hundred years in ancient history.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is this your answer to the ice age question?  If it is, then you have some serious 'splainin' to do.  If the UCGH flood ended 4500 years ago (Usher??) which is 2500 B.C. then there is only ~300 years between the flood and the first written records in China (2205 B.C.).  That is why the Tower of Babel and the ice age have to happen in this period, not after.
                  Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 09 2006,21:07

                  Deadman:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  **I should add that one of my primary motivations for slapping AFDave around was his comment that my ancestors were "devolved."

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why is Dave's opinion of your ancestors so important to you? He probably doesn't care about your opinion of his ancestors. Or is that part of the problem?

                  Not needling, just curious.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,21:20

                  Dave cited 2300 BCE as the flood date..which falls within the "acceptable" range for the "flood" based on Genesis genealogy. But it sure screws up the Ice Age. Especially when the Chinese, Sumerians, etc. didn't write about that, either.
                  Gee, global floods that no one notices at the required time period...ice ages that no one notices. This is why Dave likes avoidance.
                  Say, Dave...how old is the great pyramid? Do you think there's radiocarbon dates for it? How's about that Old Kingdom that extends right through your dates? How about archaeoastronomical data? How about dendro? Thermoluminescence? Fission dates? Neutron activation? Ever hear of the Turin King List and the Westcar Papyrus?  Why don't ice cores and sea floor cores show this "ice age" of yours, Dave? We can "see" the little ice age of the  middle ages in both, but not your "Great" ice age? What's up with that, genius?
                  Better start copy-pasting AiG and ICR drivel quick!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,21:27

                  **Note to Paley -- I didn't say it was "important" just a  primary motivation. I have to find reasons to "want" to slap Dave around since this is all OLD ground we cover here, and so I use what I can as motivation. Ultimately, I really don't give a crap what Dave "thinks," if it can be termed that -- I care about slapping "him" (the creationist arguments) around.
                  Sometimes we invent motives entirely...kids shooting basketball pretend to be Michael Jordan beating the buzzer...or we magnify little things. Truth is that Dave's arguments are largely boring.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 09 2006,21:29

                  Dave Hawkins, you're a coward.

                  You issued a challenge to the board to discuss IN DETAIL your CGH, remember?

                  I was the first to accept your challenge, remember?

                  I chose the topic "age of the universe', and provided DETAILED evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope that corroborates calculations of a universe over 14 billion years old.

                  You job is to provide a DETAILED explanation for why the Hubble data supports your 6000 year old universe claim.

                  Why are you cowardly avoiding your own challenge?

                  Sure make you look like a big


                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 09 2006,21:42

                  Crikey AFD if you keep this up I'm actually going to learn something about alleles, against my wishes

                  Do you actually want that?

                  Mike who I'm pretty sure already said he was no expert in the field, just a bright guy who can actually read for understanding is showing you a clean pair of heels there Davey Boy.

                  Now that after you spectacularly flunked the 'Information Theory' part of this on going saga of Creationist Stupidity (Intelligent design...indeed)

                  I have not had a great deal of faith in your ability to pin a tail on anything resembling a target.

                  You are showing a consistent failure here AFD, your poor comprehension and lack of even the most basic raw ability in every subject you have addressed so far is not the mark of what most people would call 'intelligent'
                  that is: the ability to grasp and understand abstract concepts quickly. I'll bet you just scraped through your degree.

                  So I ask this question:
                  Is making a fool of yourself in public a secret desire for recognition?
                  Are you a suppressed clown Davey?
                  Are you gunning to be more ironic than say Jerry Seinfeld?

                  Me? Why would I need to fill my head with a fact that is useless to me? Or you for that matter?

                  It would take only a single proof for your g$d to convince me of its existance and it has never happened and I'll take any bet you like that it will never happen.

                  A reverse < Pascal's Wager >

                  You see AFD my g$d is the same as you g$d identical in fact.

                  My g$d is made in my own image and rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith, or does not punish belief or disbelief at all.

                  IN FACT AFD my g$d is an atheist, that's right AFD he doesn't believe he exists!!!

                  There is no heaven and ####, they are just states of mind in the here and now ......that is what Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God.

                  Your g$d only exists because you believe he exists. What if you stopped believing in him? Would the world not exist?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 09 2006,21:57

                  Deadman ... Miles and miles of citations for "dates" on the handful of layers on the Grand Staircase ... yet Deadman still cannot answer a simple question ... "What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This from a guy who thinks his ancestor is a chimp ... and further back than that ... pond scum!!  And he's serious!!

                  Mike PSS ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course frequency matters.  And there is no way you can show that many of those alleles were not the result of some admixture.  This has become a goofy discussion and has ended up like all the other ones ...

                  1) You guys present some "horrendous" obstacle for my CGH
                  2) I dissect it and look at the details (apparently you guys must not expect me to do this)
                  3) It turns out that once I dissect it, I understand it even better than you guys do (Grey Wolf's eye color "mutation" was another good one)
                  4) You guys wind up backpedalling and talking nonsense

                  Bottom Line:  HLA-B is no problem at all for my CGH.  I have shown that at most there might have been the need for 18 new alleles in a 250 year span.  Don't try to tell me this is a problem.

                  And please spare me the nonsense about "there was no admixture."  This is getting about as silly as "white noise has more information than a Churchill speech."

                  *********************************

                  Aftershave--  Get your reading glasses.  I issued a challenge regarding Points C & D.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 09 2006,22:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,19:57)
                  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This from a guy who thinks his ancestor is a chimp ... and further back than that ... pond scum!!  And he's serious!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, I don't.  On either count.  Please retract.  You wouldn't want to lie about someone, would you?

                  I mean, this incident has to be embarrassing for them; not even knowing how DNA is read, which is AP highschool level biology.

                  EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  Good grief, I'm going to start putting up pictures of obese felines if you keep this up.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 09 2006,22:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This from a guy who thinks his ancestor is a chimp ... and further back than that ... pond scum!!  And he's serious!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Or one who thinks that dirt magically sprung into a 15 year old boy without a navel who could talk .


                  AFD go into ANY major museum around the world and you will find human artifacts that are over 20,000 years old.

                  Last month I saw some bronze cooking pots from China that were 5500 years old.

                  Oh and guess what AFD NOT one single museum has any crappy creationist toy arks or other genesis stuff, except crappy creationist amusement halls with modern fakes.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 09 2006,22:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,22:57)
                  Mike PSS ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course frequency matters.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Unbelievable.
                  Dave, why do you confuse your paragraphs with three or four different subject statements.  I have to break apart every sentence because they are saying different things.  Time to break out the bold all caps.

                  DAVE, IF THE ALLELE IS PRESENT IN THE REGION IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY THERE ARE.  THE SAMPLED PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTATION OF THE POPULATION.  IF A SAMPLE SHOWS 1% FREQUENCY THIS REFLECTS AN INFERRED ALLELIC POPULATION OF MAYBE 50,000 OR MORE INDIVIDUALS.  WHO CARES.  THE ALLELE IS PRESENT IN THE INDIGINOUS POPULATION.  END OF STORY.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And there is no way you can show that many of those alleles were not the result of some admixture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  WRONG DAVE,
                  The Citation shows exactly that this is not the case.  The sample population was selected for no admixture after 1492.  Prove the Citation wrong with whatever facts you come up with.  Your only waving your hands around because you can't disprove the citation that's listed.
                  THE CITATION SHOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN POPULATION SAMPLED IN THE HLA-B TABLE IS VALID.  YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT EXISTS.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This has become a goofy discussion and has ended up like all the other ones ...

                  1) You guys present some "horrendous" obstacle for my CGH
                  2) I dissect it and look at the details (apparently you guys must not expect me to do this)
                  3) It turns out that once I dissect it, I understand it even better than you guys do (Grey Wolf's eye color "mutation" was another good one)
                  4) You guys wind up backpedalling and talking nonsense
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  My Rebuttal
                  1)  I presented an anomoly that needs explaining.  You haven't explained it yet.  The anomoly STILL EXISTS.  The UCGH needs to explain this anomoly.

                  2)  You have looked at SOME of the details but not ALL of the details.  You have successfully limited the discussion to 225 alleles (although I said we have to consider all 500 if needed).  You have done some Excell math to compare alleles.
                   What you haven't done is LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF THE CITATION.

                  3)  Your 'perception' of your own understanding is yours to keep.  Your 'representation' of that same understanding is what is under question here.  Maybe it's the language, maybe it's the regional dialict, maybe it's the mindset.  But you have to at least complete this sentence before your 'representation' of the understanding is recognized by everyone else.
                  The frequency of the alleles present in the North American population matters because......
                  Please fill in the rest of that sentence and I can comment on how much understanding you have.

                  4)  I haven't backpedalled at all.  I gave you a couple points that you presented in good faith and I agreed upon them (see 2) above).
                   Please quote the lines and statements that you deem nonsense so we can clarify this misunderstanding.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Bottom Line:  HLA-B is no problem at all for my CGH.  I have shown that at most there might have been the need for 18 new alleles in a 250 year span.  Don't try to tell me this is a problem.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  WHERE DID YOU GET 18 ALLELES?
                  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL THE ALLELES PRESENT IN THE POPULATION.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And please spare me the nonsense about "there was no admixture."  This is getting about as silly as "white noise has more information than a Churchill speech."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING A DATA POINT TO REFUTE THE NORTH AMERICAN CITATION IN THE HLA-B DATA TABLE.  

                  IF THIS IS THE NONSENSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO ABOVE THEN YOU BETTER PULL OUT YOUR DICTIONARY AND GIVE ME A DEFINITION OF NONSENSE.  BECAUSE I DISAGREE FULLY WITH YOUR PRESENT DEFINITION.


                  Mike PSS

                  p.s. And DAve,  Is Mike PSS a liar, ignorant or both because I believe that RM Dating is a valid methodology for determining the age of rocks and strata.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 09 2006,22:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Coming from you, all questions and statements are simple, Dave...consider the source...you.
                  I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself. There are far more -- many, many more.
                  The Evidence for Sumer, Natufian and Assyrian, Babylonian groups etc, is very extensive, Dave.

                  And you didn't answer my question that I asked YOU. Do you plan on directly addressing the issues raised **and my questions on each aspect of them?** Or will you pull your usual avoidance routine as you did on dendrochronology ?

                  By the way, it's amusing that you consider dendrochronology wrong -- while admitting you don't know enough about it to respond to meaningful debate.  That seems on a par with your style, though. Ignorance is your fortress.

                  After you give your word, worthless as it may be, on what I asked above, I will detail the data that shows cultures existing prior to and after your flood and babel and ice age claims, Dave. The data will include historical records from the cultures themselves, radiocarbon dates, dendro, thermoluminescence, ESR, Neutron activation, archaeoastronomical data, and much, much more. I want your agreement to deal with MY QUESTIONS , though. I want an actual debate, not just you running and hiding. You can start with the radiometric 14C dates on the pyramids ( < http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html > )      that precede the flood date you believe in...and why there are no sediments showing a global flood affected them.
                  By the way, Dave, I didn't see your apology for using the same quotemines of me five times, as shown by the links I posted. And don't say that you didn't see those posts back then...you acknowledged them previously. So, when was I ever equivocal about dating the Grand Staircase layers, Dave? Can you cite ANY instances where I said that all GS sedimentary layers **cannot** be dated?

                  Or did you just invent that, too, like your "evidence" for your "hypothesis" that you can't seem to support?

                  Oh, and another note, Dave: Did you also notify ICR that their claims on information theory and Spetner saying mutation cannot "increase information" was refuted by Schneider himself, including slapping Spetner around?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection Thomas D. Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information.Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799
                  Notice the date on Schneider's refutation of Spetner. It was from the year 2000. That was six years ago, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There goes another of your heroes, crawling in the gutter with you, Dave...won't you rescue him?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 09 2006,23:39

                  Well, well, Dave scores his first point against the forces of ignorance:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. Wieland is now in a separate creationist organization from AIG and he has put the author's note in his instance of the article at < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1061 >
                  The editor at AIG has also been informed now directly by Dr. Wieland and I expect that the AIG instance of the article will be changed shortly also.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  An AiG search for "Wieland LeJeune" yields

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Cytogenetics - another blow to evolution
                  ... by Dr Carl Wieland. Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist
                  and holder of the chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris ...
                  www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i1/cytogenetics.asp - 34k
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Clicking the link...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Page Not Found

                  Your browser requested information that was not available on the Answers in Genesis web server. If you followed a link from another page to get here, please notify us so we can try to take care of the problem on the page that links here. If you typed in a URL that was advertised on TV/radio or a magazine or newspaper, check to make sure that you typed it in properly—it should not include punctuation (eg. '.';) at the end.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,00:46

                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 09 2006,21:57)

                  Aftershave--  Get your reading glasses.  I issued a challenge regarding Points C & D.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave Hawkins, you’re a coward and a liar.  Get a better memory so you can remember your lies.

                  Here are your exact words

                         
                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)

                  Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                  As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your challenge was to pick a single issue related to your CGH, which I did.  You only said *preferably* on Points C & D.  You reiterated that the challenge was open when you gave two other examples not related to C or D, and said "...whatever...", confirming that ANY issue related to your CGH was fair game.

                  I picked the age of the universe, which certainly is an issue directly tied to your CGH.  I gave you the details you specifically asked for.

                  I was the first to accept your challenge exactly as you put it forward, and now you’re too much of a d*ckless wimp to back up your big mouth.

                  You’re a liar and a coward Dave Hawkins, and everyone here can see it.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 10 2006,00:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,21:57)
                  *********************************

                  Aftershave--  Get your reading glasses.  I issued a challenge regarding Points C & D.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AaaaaaaaaHHHHHHHRRRRgggGGG!!! !!! !!!! !!!

                  The irony is making my testicles bleed.

                  Dave::: CORE SAMPLES?? ??

                  or portuguese or the xian founders of America.

                  Great Bealzubub dipshit, I've accepted every goddamm one of your stupid monkeyshit challenges and your pathetic little  donkey-fucking replies have not once even aknowledged that.

                  Buttfucking moron with a stupid gOD. That's what you are.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,01:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,21:57)
                  Mike PSS ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)  FREQUENCY DOESN'T MATTER.  ONLY PRESENCE.  The fact that the allele is PRESENT in North America means it came over with the migratory population.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course frequency matters.  And there is no way you can show that many of those alleles were not the result of some admixture.  This has become a goofy discussion and has ended up like all the other ones ...

                  1) You guys present some "horrendous" obstacle for my CGH
                  2) I dissect it and look at the details (apparently you guys must not expect me to do this)
                  3) It turns out that once I dissect it, I understand it even better than you guys do (Grey Wolf's eye color "mutation" was another good one)
                  4) You guys wind up backpedalling and talking nonsense

                  Bottom Line:  HLA-B is no problem at all for my CGH.  I have shown that at most there might have been the need for 18 new alleles in a 250 year span.  Don't try to tell me this is a problem.

                  And please spare me the nonsense about "there was no admixture."  This is getting about as silly as "white noise has more information than a Churchill speech."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, eighteen alleles in 250 years is a HUGE problem for your "hypothesis." You'll notice that 18 alleles in 250 years is still almost one new allele every generation. Do you understand how high the mutation rates would have to be to achieve that? And why do we not see the same high mutation rates today? Did your "ice age" increase mutation rates somehow?

                  Where did you show that there would need to be at most 18 alleles, Dave? You still can't get past this ridiculous notion that "frequency" has anything to do with anything. PRESENCE is what's important, and everyone here understands that except for you. Why is that?

                  You're entitled to say that "there was no admixture" is "nonsense" when you have some evidence. Right now all you have is personal incredulity. Do you honestly believe that there is not a single individual out of the 330 million people living in North America who isn't descended from an ancestor from the old world subsequent to the 15th century? Now who's spouting nonsense?

                  Bottom line, Dave: no matter how you slice it, you still need to get from 10 alleles at the end of the flood to 500 alleles today. It either took place in 250 years or in 4,500 years. Either one is an impossibility; one is just more impossible than the other.

                  This is rapidly turning into yet another "Portuguese moment" for Dave. Or was that a "white noise" moment?
                  Posted by: Drew Headley on Nov. 10 2006,02:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,21:57)
                  And please spare me the nonsense about "there was no admixture."  This is getting about as silly as "white noise has more information than a Churchill speech."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please AFDave, do not even go there. Your objections to the whitenoise argument were refuted by many on this board including myself. Along with that, your citations of Dr. Schneider were shown to be out of context and incorrect not only by those of us on the board but also Dr. Schneider himself.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 10 2006,02:26

                  Davey says,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (You know ... the NYSE ... that icon of capitalism that creationists don't know anything about because we don't know how to turn a profit in the real world :-)   )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is a perfect example of why we know you're a liar Davey.

                  No one has said creationists can't turn a profit, or be hard working contributors to local, national and international economies.

                  What HAS been stated many times is that no corporation makes money by using a creationist science model to extract resources, they don't use creation science to drill for oil or mine coal. Your attempts to avoid this issue has been noted by many. Oil and coal companies use index fossils and RM dating on a daily basis to determine where to drill the next well or dig the next mine or pit.

                  We do have plenty of examples where evangelicals bilk others of their hard earned money while living the vida loco. Your kids4cults site is greeted with so much cynicism because you fundies have such a long track record of deceiving others for profit.

                  Your failure to defend your own hypothesis is your biggest failure though Davey. It's a HUGE FAILURE.

                  Why aren't angiosperm fossils ever found in conjunction with coal deposits?  Is it due to liquefaction/sorting during the flood Davey? Why weren't the gymnosperm fossils liquefied too?

                  Your "hypothesis" has so many holes in it you don't even even pretend to defend it while you spend an inordinate amount of time to trying to dismantle ToE which even your Creo "scientists" can't even keep up with.

                  The biggest laugh you've provided me though is the Baboon dogs nonsense. Got a purty pitcher of a baboon dog?

                  I can provide you with a pitcher of a "baboon faced dog" Davey.



                  Does that dog look abnormally short Davey?

                  I breed block headed, web toed, otter tailed, pointing (mutant degenerate) Labrador Retrievers Davey. You're as ignorant about dog breeding as you are about every other subject you've posted on here.

                  Go back to school and study comparative anatomy for 2 years and then we'll discuss why the latest Archaeopteryx specimen is the perfect transitional fossil your "theory" cannot handle.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,05:44

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Actually, I don't.  On either count.  Please retract.  You wouldn't want to lie about someone, would you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You're kidding!  Really?  Even if I define "pond scum" as "a single celled organism" and if by "chimp", I mean "ape like ancestor"?  My choice of words are simply convenient approximations.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I mean, this incident has to be embarrassing for them; not even knowing how DNA is read, which is AP highschool level biology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course, all mistakes are embarrasing, but this is a minor one compared to all the mistakes of Darwinists/Long Agers such as ...
                  1)  Life organized itself spontaneously with no outside intelligence
                  2)  All life descended from a single celled organism over millions of years
                  3)  RM + NS can create new life forms
                  4)  Humans are descended from ape-like ancestors
                  5)  The fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution
                  6)  There was no Global Flood



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.  This has all been covered here.  Nothing presented by Mike poses any real problem to the idea of a Global Flood.  I'm just not getting what you think the hangup is.  At first, Mike and Grey Wolf were trying to say that 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years.  Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.

                  K.e...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD go into ANY major museum around the world and you will find human artifacts that are over 20,000 years old.

                  Last month I saw some bronze cooking pots from China that were 5500 years old.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm ... hmmm.  How were they dated?  It wasn't from historical records ... we can be sure of that!

                  Mike PSS...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WRONG DAVE,
                  The Citation shows exactly that this is not the case.  The sample population was selected for no admixture after 1492.  Prove the Citation wrong with whatever facts you come up with.  Your only waving your hands around because you can't disprove the citation that's listed.
                  THE CITATION SHOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN POPULATION SAMPLED IN THE HLA-B TABLE IS VALID.  YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT EXISTS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No admixture, huh?  You said there was none in ANY of the data, so I checked your facts.  You were utterly wrong as I showed in the table extract.  There was EXPLICITLY ADMITTED admixture and there was HIGHLY PROBABLE admixture as I showed.  

                  Now if you want to argue no admixture in N. Am, fine.  Post your proof ... don't make me go find it.

                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's what I thought.  All you have is flimsy, bad-assumption RC dating to try to pretend that Egypt is older than ~2300 BC.  

                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  By the way, it's amusing that you consider dendrochronology wrong -- while admitting you don't know enough about it to respond to meaningful debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I just think Don Batten is a better expert than you are (or I am).  And I've never quote mined you a single time.  You have found ONE error in my "heroes" writings.  I've seen none in Spetner's writings.  Compare that to the numerous, massive errors in the writings of your heroes, beginning with Darwin.

                  Drew...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please AFDave, do not even go there. Your objections to the whitenoise argument were refuted by many on this board including myself. Along with that, your citations of Dr. Schneider were shown to be out of context and incorrect not only by those of us on the board but also Dr. Schneider himself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. YOU and Eric were soundly refuted.  Dr. Schneider did not understand the context of the debate and I made it quite clear that I agreed with his response.  The only thing I didn't agree with was YOUR statement that "white noise has more information content that a speech" when stated in the context of a discussion about biological information which I clearly defined.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,06:07

                  Just to make sure no corpses try again to climb out of their coffins ...

                  What Dr. Schneider said in conclusion was this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', [WHICH DREW AND ERIC DID]and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a mess.[IT WAS]  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear. [ERIC AND DREW SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS.  THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT WAS "DAVEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS." (WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE) DR. S, HOWEVER, MAKES HIMSELF QUITE CLEAR, AND OF COURSE I AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENTS.  I STILL THINK THAT DREW AND ERIC WERE ORIGINALLY VICTIMS OF THE CONFUSION SPOKEN OF BY DR. S WHERE PEOPLE EQUATE "RANDOMNESS" WITH "INFORMATION."] You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white noise" is sent over a noisy channel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,06:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Drew... Quote  
                  Please AFDave, do not even go there. Your objections to the whitenoise argument were refuted by many on this board including myself. Along with that, your citations of Dr. Schneider were shown to be out of context and incorrect not only by those of us on the board but also Dr. Schneider himself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No. YOU and Eric were soundly refuted. Dr. Schneider did not understand the context of the debate and I made it quite clear that I agreed with his response.  The only thing I didn't agree with was YOUR statement that "white noise has more information content that a speech" when stated in the context of a discussion about biological information which I clearly defined
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  By who?

                  You? In your infantile dreams g$d boy.

                  Is that a crystal meth and lying c*cks*cker moment for you AFD?

                  ARE YOU  STILL TRYING TO EQUATE YOUR CRAZY CREATIONIST "biological information " with Dr. Schneider's measurements of mutation rates of the genome when it is treated as information (the real one not the Falwell, Haggard, Bush version)?


                  YOU WILL NOTE "white noise has more information content that a speech" refered to the quantative size of a digital recording AS DATA INFORMATION not the coloquial NON SCIENTIFIC use of the word as 'meaning something to a human'.

                  And context? What friggin context is that?

                  The context of baldfaced lying in public?

                  Seems to be a lot of it about lately don't you think AFD?

                  AFD you were sprung and when you found out that Eric contacted Dr. Schneider you squirmed and changed 'the context' so it looked you were not lying.

                  er...do you have a blue dress?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,06:28

                  Just to make sure no corpses try again to climb out of their coffins ...

                  What Dr. Schneider said in conclusion was this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', [WHICH DREW AND ERIC DID]and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a mess.[IT WAS]  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear. [ERIC AND DREW SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS.  THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT WAS "DAVEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS." (WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE) DR. S, HOWEVER, MAKES HIMSELF QUITE CLEAR, AND OF COURSE I AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENTS.  I STILL THINK THAT DREW AND ERIC WERE ORIGINALLY VICTIMS OF THE CONFUSION SPOKEN OF BY DR. S WHERE PEOPLE EQUATE "RANDOMNESS" WITH "INFORMATION."] You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white noise" is sent over a noisy channel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, as it turns out, Eric's original thesis -- Davey doesn't know what biological information is -- was just the opposite of the actual situation.  It was actually Eric who had no idea of a good definition of biological information.  He and Drew tried to bluff their way through by invoking Shannon theory, but they got very confused in the process and wound up with a MESS, to use Dr. S's words.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,06:29

                  It's going to be a long night in the graveyard.

                  Walking dead AFD repeats again and again the vampires curse.

                  I'm glad to hear you agree with Dr Schnieder's statements on information.
                  I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a rats ass what you think particularly if he had the misfortune to read a few of your posts.

                  You originally quote mined his paper to support your farcical definition of "biological information" which as far as I can tell seems to preclude the human genome from arising by RANDOM mutations over 3.5 billion years...when .....wait for it...... Dr Schnieder CLEARLY SHOWS that it can!!!
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,06:36

                  Who invoked Shannons theory AFD?

                  And what other theory besides Shannon's was being used?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,06:46

                  I did because it appeared that Eric and Drew were making the classic error that Dr. S talks about.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,07:32

                  ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
                  Getting back to the MHC Complex alleles, let me repeat what Woodmorappe says ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (Parham et al. 1995, p. 177) (in Woodmorappe, p. 203)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's another interesting point from a 1994 study ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Although there are tens of alleles per locus and the HLA alleles tend to be relatively evenly distributed in the population, there are about four of them that occur almost all over the world at non-trivial frequencies (Cavalli-Sforza 1994, p. 130), quoted in Woodmorappe, p. 206-207
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Can HLA genes mutate rapidly?  Woodmorappe cites studies that indicate "Yes." (Pease--1985, Klein--1986, Zangenberg et al.--1995).

                  Also, the MHC "alleles" are really haplotypes of over fifty genes (Gilpin and Willis 1991, p. 555).  And the MHC Complex is a supergene, and the closely linked genes hitch-hike with each other, thereby facilitating the origin and multiplicaiton of genetic polymorphism (Kaufman et al. 1995, p. 67)  

                  TRANSLATION: The possibility of rapid increase in allelic diversity by even simple mutations is facilitated by the simplicity of the changes necessary to generate large numbers of alleles.  An example from Woodmorappe ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For instance, it appears that the most polymorphic locus of the MHC complex also has the most easily-generated diversity of HLA alleles.  Of the 44 known alleles of the DRB1 locus (Apple and Erlich 1992, p. 69), ten pairs of these alleles differ from each other by only one residue at position 86 (Titus-Trachtenberg et al. 1994, p. 165).  Other alleles differ from each other only at position 57 (Apple and Erlich 1992). (Woodmorappe, p. 207-208)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Bottom line:  Woodmorappe does a very thorough job showing the feasability of the Biblical record of the Flood, the Babel dispersal, etc.

                  You guys should quit bashing creationists and start READING them for once.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,07:54

                  AFD the Creationist energizer bunny.

                  Who make great cultural and scientific learnings for American people and drinks unfermented coolaid.


                  AFD we read to understand you read and don't understand
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,08:08

                  AFDAVE SELECTIVELY READS OTHERS POSTS THEN RESTATES OLD ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REBUTTED.
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.  This has all been covered here.  Nothing presented by Mike poses any real problem to the idea of a Global Flood.  I'm just not getting what you think the hangup is.  At first, Mike and Grey Wolf were trying to say that 500 HLA-B alleles had to arise in 250 years.  Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Your reading comprehension sucks.  I posted about this in my reply to you yesterday.  Your still stuck on this frequency idea.  Please complete this sentence...
                  The frequency of the alleles present in the North American population matters because......

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WRONG DAVE,
                  The Citation shows exactly that this is not the case.  The sample population was selected for no admixture after 1492.  Prove the Citation wrong with whatever facts you come up with.  Your only waving your hands around because you can't disprove the citation that's listed.
                  THE CITATION SHOWING THE NORTH AMERICAN POPULATION SAMPLED IN THE HLA-B TABLE IS VALID.  YOU HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT EXISTS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No admixture, huh?  You said there was none in ANY of the data, so I checked your facts.  You were utterly wrong as I showed in the table extract.  There was EXPLICITLY ADMITTED admixture and there was HIGHLY PROBABLE admixture as I showed.  

                  Now if you want to argue no admixture in N. Am, fine.  Post your proof ... don't make me go find it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HERE'S YOUR PROOF.  CHOKE ON IT.  I < POSTED A REBUTTAL > TO THIS SILLINESS TWO DAYS AGO.
                  YOU QUOTED CITATIONS THAT WERE NOT IN NORTH AMERICA.  I CORRECTED YOUR MISTAKE.  PLUS I NEVER SAID 'THERE WAS NONE IN ANY OF THE DATA'.  I'M ONLY ADDRESSING NORTH AMERICA.


                  Also, please show either the calculations or reasonable estimates (you know, actual numbers) that relate your 'HIGH PROBABILITY OF ADMIXTURE' statement to the actual facts.
                  Here's the North American citation table you can work with.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Search Criteria
                   Population Area:   North America

                  Submitter: MEXGOR
                    Population: Lacandon
                      Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
                      Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
                    Population: Seri
                      Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
                      Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
                  Submitter: USAERL
                    Population: Canoncito
                      Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                    Population: Maya
                      Report:  Maya from Mexico  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                    Population: Pima 17
                      Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                    Population: Pima 99
                      Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                    Population: Sioux
                      Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                    Population: Zuni
                      Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
                      Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                  Submitter: USALEF
                    Population: Yupik
                      Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
                      Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
                  Submitter: USAMFV
                    Population: Amerindian
                      Report:  Native American from the United States  
                      Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DO YOU NEED ANOTHER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY?
                  DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING AND COMPREHENDING MY PREVIOUS POSTS?
                  DO YOU NEED GLASSES?


                  Stop waving your hands all over the place Dave.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,08:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, the MHC "alleles" are really haplotypes of over fifty genes (Gilpin and Willis 1991, p. 555).  And the MHC Complex is a supergene, and the closely linked genes hitch-hike with each other, thereby facilitating the origin and multiplicaiton of genetic polymorphism (Kaufman et al. 1995, p. 67)  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is gibberish. Are you trying to tell us you looked up and read, and understood the original research referenced here, or even the secondary sources (Gilpin & Willis; Kaufman), or are you simply taking "Woodmorappe's" word for it?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  TRANSLATION: The possibility of rapid increase in allelic diversity by even simple mutations is facilitated by the simplicity of the changes necessary to generate large numbers of alleles.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  More gibberish. Did you make that up? Or are you paraphrasing "Woodmorappe"? Or are you, in fact, just plagiarizing again?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  An example from Woodmorappe ... "For instance, it appears that the most polymorphic locus of the MHC complex also has the most easily-generated diversity of HLA alleles.  Of the 44 known alleles of the DRB1 locus (Apple and Erlich 1992, p. 69), ten pairs of these alleles differ from each other by only one residue at position 86 (Titus-Trachtenberg et al. 1994, p. 165).  Other alleles differ from each other only at position 57 (Apple and Erlich 1992). (Woodmorappe, p. 207-208) "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The point being...?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Bottom line:  Woodmorappe does a very thorough job showing the feasability of the Biblical record of the Flood, the Babel dispersal, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right. And the reason that this is not now the prevailing view in immunogenetics is - not that "Woodmorappe" is writing about stuff he's totally unqualified to write about - but because all the immunogeneticists hate Jesus.

                  I've said it before, dave, your "science" is laughable; there's really no more point engaging with you on it than with an all-out flat-earther. But your religion fascinates me. Here's the question I'm pondering at the moment: is it your religion that leads you so thoroughly to eschew humility*, or is it a kind of innate personality trait that merely expresses itself in the jargon of religious fanaticism?

                  *E.g. "I may just pick up a PhD in molecular biology in my spare time, to validate my already existing, biblically-based superior understanding of the subject" [my paraphrase; feel free to provide exact quote]

                  "It turns out that once I dissect it, I understand it even better than you guys do" [exact quote]
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,08:34

                  AFDave gets caught lying about his latest 'challenge', then cowardly runs the other way.   :D :D :D

                  Does that 'science-y' stuff scare you Dave?

                  How does it feel to go through life as a d*ckless, spinless coward and liar Davie?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,08:39

                  Let's see ... who was that crowing about how Dr. Schneider refuted Spetner?

                  Check out today's article at ...
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com >

                  (Now k.e don't come back with "but you [Dave] like Dr. Schneider" ... I only "like Dr. Schneider" when he makes truthful statements, not erroneous ones.)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,08:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,08:32)
                  ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

                  You guys should quit bashing creationists and start READING them for once.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Your statements on this post (actually, Woodmorappe's statements) are ALL OVER THE PLACE.  You start out with statements about MHC complex then contunue to HLA genes in general then make statements about HLA-DRB1.

                  Here's a < playbook of definitions from Wikipedia >.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The best-known genes in the MHC region are the subset that encodes cell-surface antigen-presenting proteins. In humans, these genes are referred to as human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes, although people often use the abbreviation MHC to refer to HLA gene products. To clarify the usage, some of the biomedical literature uses HLA to refer specifically to the HLA protein molecules and reserves MHC for the region of the genome that encodes for this molecule; however this convention is not consistently adhered to.

                  The most intensely-studied HLA genes are the nine so-called classical MHC genes: HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DPA1, HLA-DPB1, HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DRA, and HLA-DRB1. In humans, the MHC is divided into three regions: Class I, II, and III. The A, B, and C genes belong to MHC class I, whereas the six D genes belong to class II.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When we're talking about HLA-B, we are talking about one gene.  NOT THE ENTIRE MHC COMPLEX.  Your having a rough enough time concentrating your efforts on one gene.  Don't try and take on the entire MHC complex now.

                  If you want to take on the entire MHC complex, let's start with this statement from the same Wikipedia page.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  One of the most striking features of the MHC, particularly in humans, is the astounding allelic diversity found therein, and especially among the nine classical genes. In humans, the most conspicuously-diverse loci, HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-DRB1, have roughly 250, 500, and 300 known alleles respectively -- diversity truly exceptional in the human genome. The MHC gene is the most polymorphic in the genome. And population surveys of the other classical loci routinely find tens to a hundred alleles -- still highly diverse. And perhaps even more remarkable is that many of these alleles are quite ancient: It is often the case that an allele from a particular HLA gene is more closely related to an allele found in chimpanzees than it is to another human allele from the same gene!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  WOW!!!  ANCIENT ALLELES THAT RELATE TO CHIMPS BETTER THAN HUMANS.  WHO'D 'AVE THUNK?

                  Also Dave,
                  When you say this...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And the MHC Complex is a supergene, and the closely linked genes hitch-hike with each other, thereby facilitating the origin and multiplicaiton of genetic polymorphism (Kaufman et al. 1995, p. 67)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  are you saying that gene alleles are transferrable between genes?  I would like to see the whole quote in context instead of a snippet like you stated.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,09:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. Schneider refuted Spetner?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, once again, you read the creationist "executive summary", and assume that's a "fair and balanced" take on the whole discussion?

                  I don't know - or really much care - about this particular incident. But if you go back through the archives of this site, you'll see I engaged another creationist who called herself "Avocationist". She indignantly accused Richard Dawkins of all kinds of evil and/or incompetence, based on some silliness this guy Spetner wrote. After a great deal of tedious explanation that was very much like pulling teeth, "Avocationist" had to admit that Dawkins was right, and Spetner was mistaken. She claimed she was going to e-mail Spetner and ask him to do the right thing. Funny thing, he never responded.

                  Sound familiar? Check it out!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,09:39

                  DECONSTRUCTING DAVE'S ASSERTIONS REQUIRES CAREFUL READING.  SOMETHING DAVE DOESN'T DO WITH MY ASSERTIONS (SEE PREVIOUS POST WHERE DAVE STATES THINGS I'VE REBUTTED TWO DAYS AGO).
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
                  Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Here's the HLA allele table again.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Click this underlined < link to the front page. >
                  On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
                  Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Click on the arrows at the left side to expand the allele tables out.
                  There are 74 alleles present in the North American column.  My contention was that 90% of the NA alleles matched alleles from Asia-Africa-Europe.  When you compare each allele to the presence in the Europe, North-East and South-East Asia, and Sub-Sahara Africa column you find only B*3911 (also found in South America also), B*4015 (found only in NA), and B*4404 (also found in Other column).

                  So.... I count only 3 alleles out of 74 that are unique to North (or South) America.  That is a 95.9% similarity in allelic presence.  I still stand by my approximation of 90%.

                  Also,
                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
                  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.


                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS

                  *Edit- fixed the quoted links to the HLA tables.*
                  Posted by: CloneBoySA on Nov. 10 2006,09:41

                  I've been following this thread from the original one, way back in the distant past.

                  I wish to thank afdave for providing many hours of merriment, as he blunders from one topic to the next, his shouts of victory ringing more hollow each time he claims it. I am amazed at afdave's persistence, and his inability to admit that he may be wrong. I don't think I've ever seen anyone more dedicated to making a fool of himself.

                  I wish to thank the other posters, for providing a wealth of knowledge about evolution and the evidence that supports it, and comprehensively demolishing afdave post after post. I wish I could add in and help out, but my knowledge is in other fields.

                  As much as I would like to ridicule afdave, my concern is the fact that afdave represents a growing number of people, who wilfully blind themselves to science, seeing science as a threat to their world-view. Even here in South Africa, there are those who would like to turn the clock back on science. Their narrow-minded, dogmatic view of the world, and their attempts to impose that view on the rest of us is a worry. Anyway, enough of a tangent, and back to the demolishing! :)

                  David
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,09:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave represents a growing number of people, who wilfully blind themselves to science, seeing science as a threat to their world-view.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are right that we are growing.  But you are wrong about WHY.  The reason is because lots of really smart people are starting to see that the "Darwinian Emperor" has no clothes!  And you have a cockeyed definition of science if you think I am against it.  Remember, I implemented science to succeed in business, thus allowing me to have lots of time on my hands to refute folks like you. :-)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,09:53

                  QUICK TEST OF THE HLA-B ALLELE TABLE

                  A quick count of region sample size and number of alleles expressed in the region gives us the following numbers.

                  Region          2n Size Tested       Alleles expressed
                  Europe               3210                       89
                  North America     1299                       74
                  North-East Asia    760                        65
                  South-East Asia   5489                      101
                  Sub-Sahara Africa 3526                      104

                  I would say the sample size for North America and North-East Asia are valid, but with a higher standard deviation in the allelic expression than the other regions.  Without a rigorous statistical treatment I would rather see the sample size above 3000 to narrow the standard deviation.  I think this data check can still confirm the numbers we are talking about from this table.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,10:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The reason is because lots of really smart people are starting to see that the "Darwinian Emperor" has no clothes!...Remember, I implemented science to succeed in business
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't remember. Did your business rely, for instance, on gravity?

                  But more to the point - among the many challenges you've, um, "deprioritized": I asked you to come up with a single creationist, working with a specifically creationist idea, who has come up with a single scientific advance in the past 100 years. Still waiting...
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,10:38

                  Mike PSS...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
                  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.

                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Search Criteria
                  Population Area:   North America

                  Submitter: MEXGOR
                   Population: Lacandon
                     Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
                   Population: Seri
                     Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
                     Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
                  Submitter: USAERL
                   Population: Canoncito
                     Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Maya
                     Report:  Maya from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 17
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 99
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Sioux
                     Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Zuni
                     Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                  Submitter: USALEF
                   Population: Yupik
                     Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
                     Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
                  Submitter: USAMFV
                   Population: Amerindian
                     Report:  Native American from the United States  
                     Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??

                  ********************************

                  Russell--  It was Computer Science, not gravity.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,10:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It was Computer Science, not gravity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  mmmm-hmmmm.

                  Would it be unfair to say "computer science" is to "science" as "home economics" is to "economics"?

                  And those creationist scientific ground breakers?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,10:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:07)
                  Just to make sure no corpses try again to climb out of their coffins ...

                  What Dr. Schneider said in conclusion was this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', [WHICH DREW AND ERIC DID]and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a mess.[IT WAS]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave? Is that the problem? You "confused" noise in the transmission with a signal that was a digital recording of white noise? How does that make you any less wrong?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear. [b][ERIC AND DREW SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Excuse me? I said nothing about this? What do you think I meant when I said "a digital recording of white noise"? Is there the slightest ambiguity there at all, Dave? Would it be possible for any thinking being to assume from that statement that I was talking about noise in the transmission channel itself? And if this was the cause of your confusion, why are you not now saying, "Oh, I see what you're saying. In that case, yes, a digital recording of white noise has more information than a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech"? Could it be because you're still confusing "meaning" with "information."
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT WAS "DAVEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS." (WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It was shown to be accurate. You still cannot make the distinction between "meaning" and "information."
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DR. S, HOWEVER, MAKES HIMSELF QUITE CLEAR, AND OF COURSE I AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENTS.  I STILL THINK THAT DREW AND ERIC WERE ORIGINALLY VICTIMS OF THE CONFUSION SPOKEN OF BY DR. S WHERE PEOPLE EQUATE "RANDOMNESS" WITH "INFORMATION."]</b>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He doesn't make himself clear enough to get you to understand what he's saying. You're still wrong. The only one confused here, Dave, is you.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white noise" is sent over a noisy channel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And that's the part you're not getting, Dave. Based on your continuing failure to understand why you're wrong, it's pretty clear you next to nothing about information theory, which for an electrical engineer is pretty surprising.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 10 2006,11:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?

                  Also, Mike, it's a good thing you only have 70-500 alleles to work with, here.  If there were several thousand, there's a chance their frequency would all be under 1%, and wouldn't count!

                  On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.

                  Also, Dave, one son with a Cubs hat and one with a Cardinals hat?  That's a broken family just waiting to happen.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,11:10

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It was Computer Science, not gravity.
                  mmmm-hmmmm.

                  Would it be unfair to say "computer science" is to "science" as "home economics" is to "economics"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Russell--  Your body (and all life on earth) was built by one giant computer program.  The most exciting advances in computer science in the future will come from ... [drum roll] ... God's Computer Science ... Cell and Micro Biology.

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  I'm saying YOU were confused.  Possibly you still are.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,11:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The most exciting advances in computer science in the future will come from ... [drum roll] ... God's Computer Science ... Cell and Micro Biology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  yeah, yeah. And those creationist ground-breakers? Still waiting...
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,11:38

                  Yet More BS From AF


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's what I thought. All you have is flimsy, bad-assumption RC dating to try to pretend that Egypt is older than ~2300 BC.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nope.
                  That is what I gave you to start with , Dave.


                  And you seem unable to deal with it except to claim that you somehow "know" personally that 14C dating is "flimsy " and based on "bad assumptions." which you have not demonstrated.
                  Oh, I know you'll copy-and-paste lots of ICR and AiG crap and claim it "proves" these things, but the fact is that you don't KNOW the basis for 14C correllation/calibration is flawed at all, nor have you shown it.
                  I am taking this one method at a time, and you have not responded to the C14 dating at all except to claim that you believe it to be flawed and based on bad assumptions. Show it.

                  ************************************************************************************

                  Your normal tactic has been to try to sow confusion.



                  You do this by deliberately feigning utter ignorance, changing topics, associating parts of a topic with unrelated subjects, then exploiting the confusion that you create by posting ICR/AiG material that has to be painstakingly demonstrated false.

                  As time passes, you allow details to pile up and then run back and forth between them, again playing completely stupid. This is precisely what you are doing on the HLA topic now.

                  During that time, you seek to find any other aspects that you can deliberately misuse/misread/creatively interpret, then THOSE false views have to be painstakingly demonstrated false. When a sufficient level of detail has been reached, you try to confuse sub-categories. You avoid direct questions. You feign ignorance again. You cite or create for yourself, out of whole cloth, erroneous and/or utterly fake "refutations."  

                  Eventually, you either claim "victory" based on some minor point, or you run from the topic entirely, as you did with Jon and Mike on radiometric dating of rocks.


                  The funny part to me is that you view this as honest and ethical.

                  ************************************************************************************

                  I am not going to allow you to do that. If you say 14C dating is false, show me how it is false. Don't pretend you already have, because you have not.  

                  Remember that in this discussion of Carbon Dating, you will have to deal with all the methods by which dates in the last 10,000 years are calibrated.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,11:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,09:50)
                  You are right that we are growing.  But you are wrong about WHY.  The reason is because lots of really smart people are starting to see that the "Darwinian Emperor" has no clothes!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And you're wrong about who, Dave. Creationism is not growing among scientists. It is growing among lay people with little to no understanding of science.

                  Belief in creationism says more about the lamentable state of science education in the U.S. than anything else. And just so you know, Dave, when I was in high school back in the 70s, we talked about evolution for about five minutes out of one biology class my sophomore year. And I went to school in the People's Atheistic Republic of Massachusetts.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And you have a cockeyed definition of science if you think I am against it.  Remember, I implemented science to succeed in business, thus allowing me to have lots of time on my hands to refute folks like you. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, you disagree with essentially all of science. You disagree with all of astronomy, all of cosmology, all of geology, most of biology, a lot of chemistry, a lot of quantum physics, and you disagree with the scientific method itself. You once claimed you believed "90-95%" of science. No. You believe only that science which doesn't contradict your own beliefs, which is about 2-5% of science.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,11:52

                  And Once Again, I Will Ask You, Dave
                  You didn't answer my question that I asked YOU. Do you plan on directly addressing the issues raised **and my questions on each aspect of them?** Or will you pull your usual avoidance routine as you did on dendrochronology, information theory, APO, Geological Radiometry?

                  Do I have your utterly worthless word that you will answer questions and directly deal with issues one at a time as they arise?

                  THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAVE ASKED THIS
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 10 2006,11:54

                  Dave, you claim to be an honest man. You further claim that Wieland is an honest man who made an honest (if embarassing) mistake. Could you please focus all of that honesty on the "Editor's Note" that Wieland has inserted (at your prompting).

                  As background, remember that you now claim to have a clear enough understanding of basic biology, as presented to you by members of this forum (including myself) many months ago, to recognize why Wieland's claim of DNA supposedly being read "backwards" was wrong. (I won't cite your recent musings regarding recanting this concession because us "evolutionists" can't be trusted.)

                  Once again, here is the "correction":



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  EDITOR'S NOTE: This magazine article, written in 1979, is retained for historical reasons, but the principal argument it contains, even though it was presented by one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time, should not be used. It has been known for a considerable time that the information on a strand of DNA can be read in either direction. That does not of course mean that humans descended from chimps, merely that it is not appropriate to use this argument to indicate otherwise. As we have stated elsewhere, we should always be 'hanging loose' about any particular argument, prepared to abandon it in the face of information to the contrary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Could you please address the following three questions, related to the three bolded portions of the above quote:

                  1. The "principal argument" of Wieland's AiG article, apparent to any reader (before the article was pulled, that is), was that chromosomal fusion would cause DNA to be read 'backwards'. If you don't believe me, let's look at how you presented this article to us < way back when >:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HUMAN-CHIMP CHROMOSOME NUMBER PREDICTION

                  This is a common 'proof' for Ape to Human Evolution, but as is so often the case, this appears to be wishful thinking on the part of Neo-Darwinists.  There are two major problems that I see with this Neo-Darwinist assertion, which they most recently displayed in the Dover case ...  

                  (1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle.
                  (2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, Wieland implies in his correction that this "principal argument" (DNA being read backwards) was advanced by "one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time" (LeJeune). And yet, let's look at the article and see who introduces the error:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Prof. LeJeune does not delve into technicalities or all his reasons for saying this, but one apparent reason seems to be as follows: A chimp has two more chromosomes than man, which two appear as if ‘homologous’ to a single one in man. The evolutionist would have to say that in the process of the chimpanzee and man’s common ancestor becoming ‘humanized’, the two chromosomes (which remained independent in the chimp) became joined in man. The strong biochemical resemblance between man and chimp would be used as further evidence to support the notion that the chromosomes are indeed homologous. The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, it seems to me (based on the cited support available) that Wieland is introducing not LeJeune's argument, but his own "technicalities" for why humans could not have evolved from (other) apes. So, applying that honesty of yours, what do you make of Wieland's claim in his correction that the "principal argument", found to be in error regarding basic biology, was originally advanced by LeJeune? Does Wieland demonstrate and document this basic mistake in biology made by LeJeune? Or is it fair to conclude that the mistake seems to have been made by Wieland, based on his own misunderstandings of biology? (See #2.)

                  2. With all the understanding of basic biology that you now possess, including the nature of Wieland's mistake, what is your opinion of the accuracy of Wieland's new claim that "It has been known for a considerable time that the information on a strand of DNA can be read in either direction"?

                  3. What do you make of Wieland's suggestion that creationists should abandon this argument in the face of information to the contrary? Was this "information to the contrary" available when Wieland wrote his "historical" article? If so, how available? Do you think it was a matter of basic textbook biology back then? Or do you think there have been advances (relevant to Wieland's error) in our understanding of chromosomes and DNA since Wieland wrote his piece that have only since rendered his argument obsolete? When was this contrary information available, Dave? When does Wieland's "correction" imply it became available?

                  Finally, do you assess Wieland's "correction" to be an honest admission of error? (And of course, be honest.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,11:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,10:38)
                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, why don't you READ the freaking citations Mike has provided to you. Those citations will EXPLAIN how it is known that there is no admixture.

                  And once again, since you clearly missed it the first time around. Let me try this in all caps and bold to see if that helps:

                  IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS NO ADMIXTURE IN ANY MEMBERS OF THESE POPULATIONS. IT IS MERELY A REQUIREMENT THAT THE INDIVIDUALS TESTED SHOW NO EVIDENCE OF ADMIXTURE.

                  Is that clear—and emphatic—enough for you, Dave? Or are you going to continue to plow ahead with your misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and invalid assumptions intact? Are you going to have another "white noise moment"? Pretty soon will have a choice of "Portuguese," "whitenoise," and "HLA" moments to describe your utterly wrong understanding of straightforward concepts.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're still not getting the distinction between "alleles" and "genes." We are talking about 61 mutations to a single gene in ten generations or less! And we're still talking about five hundred mutations to a single gene in 225 generations or less! That's you're choice, Dave. You either explain six mutations to a single gene in a single generation or you explain two mutations to a single gene in a single generation.

                  I simply cannot believe that you can't see why this is a problem for your "hypothesis." I think it's that you won't see it as a problem for your "hypothesis."
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,12:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:38)
                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  PROGRESS.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AND REGRESSION.
                  Dave, don't talk to me about the table.  DISPROVE IT YOURSELF.  POST A COGENT REBUTTAL.
                  I AM saying there was no hanky panky (not sure if all the tribes subscribe to your definition of mairriage in this case) related to the sampled population.  The Citation specifically eliminates this posibility.
                  GO AND REFUTE THE CITATION.  I BELIEVE THEM UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  IF YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD CAN PROVE WITH DATA AND REFERENCE THAT THIS CITATION IS INVALID THEN I'LL TREAT THAT AS A PROPER REBUTTAL.
                  YOUR APPEAL TO INCREDUALITY IS NOT CONVINCING.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  I can read into data a little better than you apparently.  If indigenous North America only has 3 alleles independent of Euro-Asia-Africa between the end of the ice age and 1492 (~3700 years) then how do you explain 61 mutations in only 250 years.
                  Did the end of the ice age depress the mutation rate?
                  Did the ice age accellerate the mutation rate?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,12:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:10)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  I'm saying YOU were confused.  Possibly you still are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I'm not confused by the distinction between the noise generated by transmission of a signal across a noisy channel, and a digital recording of broadband white noise. You most assuredly were. In fact, it's possible you still are.

                  Nor am I confused by the distinction between "meaning" and "information."  You continue to remain confused about the two, despite the fact that half a dozen people have tried to pound it into your skull with the back of a shovel.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,12:54

                  Completely O/T, but I thought I'd announce the completion of my first novel. It took 24 hours to write.

                  I joined the < National Novel Writing Month Project >, the goal of which is to write a 50,000-word novel in 30 days, from November 1st through November 30. It's not a contest, in the sense that no one wins—or, alternatively everyone who writes 50,000 words wins. You don't get judged on quality, plot development, characterization, or anything. (In other words, Dave, every 50,000-word novel contains approximately the same amount of information :)). It's just gotta be 50,000 words.

                  Do people cheat? Of course. But there's something wrong with someone who cheats when it's not a contest. It's only fun if you play fair.

                  Anyway, it took me about eight days to get to 50,000 words, and slightly under 24 hours of actual editing time. It was kind of fun.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,12:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The funny part to me is that you view this as honest and ethical.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I suggest the parallel with GWB's performance over the past week is pretty instructive. Caught in a no-way-around-it, "I did not have sex with that woman", < LIE >  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Reporting on President Bush's announcement of Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, media outlets, with few exceptions, have avoided characterizing Bush's assertion the previous week that he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on as a "lie" or intentional misrepresentation -- this, despite Bush's own admission of a deliberate deception.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Bush excuses it as, basically, "that was just all part of the campaign".

                  For davy, it's all about a "campaign"; science is not a search for "truth", or an honest inquiry into how things work. It's a campaign. And all's fair, etc. etc.

                  I also think Deadman hit the nail on the head with his analysis of davy's modus operandi. So, for that reason, I want to support his suggestion that we focus on C14 dating. Here's a technique that earned its discoverer a Nobel prize, is widely used by multiple branches of science, but davy thinks he's debunked, based on the propaganda of these creationists, who - I take this opportunity to remind you - have absolutely NO scientific accomplishments to point to.
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 10 2006,13:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,07:07)
                  Just to make sure no corpses try again to climb out of their coffins ...

                  What Dr. Schneider said in conclusion was this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', [WHICH DREW AND ERIC DID]and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a mess.[IT WAS]  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear. [ERIC AND DREW SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS.  THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT WAS "DAVEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS." (WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE) DR. S, HOWEVER, MAKES HIMSELF QUITE CLEAR, AND OF COURSE I AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENTS.  I STILL THINK THAT DREW AND ERIC WERE ORIGINALLY VICTIMS OF THE CONFUSION SPOKEN OF BY DR. S WHERE PEOPLE EQUATE "RANDOMNESS" WITH "INFORMATION."] You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white noise" is sent over a noisy channel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're not off the hook here.  I (and others) pointed out several times that you should have been referring to signal-to-noise ratios rather than Shannon information, yet you completely disregarded all of those posts.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,13:25

                  Russell: yeah,he's using the same standard Creationist fallacies/rhetorical games that we all recognize.
                  We also understand the only way to combat it is by working Dave into a corner like the rat he resembles and cutting off his "escape routes" as Mike/eric/you/many others are gradually doing on HLA.

                  Don't fall for the diversionary tactics and finish him off on this topic, if you wish. I'm content to wait on cutting his throat with all the data on civilizations that lived through his "flood date."

                  He's been avoiding it for well over 200 pages now ( it was brought it up on page 18 of the first part of this thread), and I have lots of patience. This all resembles  a dirty but neccessary service, like hunting vermin.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,13:25

                  Here's a reference for you Dave.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies
                  < http://www.iiirm.org/publica....DNA.pdf >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Although the article is a little long in detail, look at the Appendix pp.45-133.  Read some of the Study Summaries to see how each study population was selected as indigenous.  This type of analysis is done to verify the the individuals as valid sample participants.

                  Hope this helps,
                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,13:51

                  I take it back, it was page 12 of the previous part of this thread :  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=1958;st=330 .

                  The very reason I wanted to bring up that topic was to cut his feet out from under him. If the Bible is the basis of all his claims, then it must be shown accurate.

                  Over many pages, I managed to nail Dave down on a "flood date" that accorded with the genealogy given in Genesis, which  is then tied into (working backwards) the building of the First Temple, Exodus, the Covenant of Abraham, Moses.

                  Basically, this "chronology" shows that the flood must have occurred about 1300 years before the building of the First Temple. This places the flood at 2300 BCE or so. Dave agreed that this is what the Bible gives.

                  Pretending it is not roughly accurate requires admitting that the Bible is then flawed, because it omits generations. If it is flawed in omission ( which it is elsewhere, too) then it is not unflawed. Dave is trapped with his cognitive dissonance.

                  This is why Dave has avoided this topic for 250 pages.

                  Even more so than Tyre NOT vanishing under the sea, or Nebuchadrezzar NOT conquering and making the Nile Valley a desert wasteland, it shows that Dave's inerrancy claims are false.

                  As legal practitioners say: "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus." (If THE major claim of an argument is found false, the rest should be taken as suspect, at the least)  I'll be content with saying: "once a liar, always a liar."
                  Posted by: Drew Headley on Nov. 10 2006,13:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:10)
                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  I'm saying YOU were confused.  Possibly you still are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave, if you were not confused then why did I repeatedly need to correct your math and interpretation of Shannon information. Here is an example you never even addressed.
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=37099 >

                  This was in reply to your post asserting that the information content of a whitenoise signal could only exceed that of speech if you increased the transmission rate. You cited Shannon information theory to try and prove this, and you only showed that you misunderstood the theory. People on this board spent at least 10 pages correcting your misinterpretations.

                  Also, I am still getting the feeling that you are confusing information with meaning, this is not the case as Dr. Schneider points out in his primer on information theory:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of
                  the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  . What other reason do you have for asserting that the Churchill speech has more information than the fact that it has meaning to us? Do you have a metric that would give it more information than whitenoise?

                  We can waste our time going over the same material, or you can actually give me your calculation which shows that speech will exceed whitenoise in information needed to represent it. I did the math to prove my point, why not you do the math to prove yours. Your last post trying to do this showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Shannon's equations, which is addressed in the post linked above.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2006,14:23

                  Since these multiple alleles (however many there are) would be arising in separate lineages, wouldn't the limiting factor be the number of individuals born during the period, rather than the number of generations and/or years?

                  Henry
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,15:38

                  Let's not forget Liar Dave Hawkins' "challenge", shall we?

                     
                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)

                  Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                  As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The one I accepted on his own stated terms

                   
                  Quote ( OA @ Nov. 06 2006,18:00)
                  I'll accept your challenge.  Why don't you present your evidence for YEC that was gathered using telescopes, microscopes, and calculators.  Start with telescopes - tell us IN DETAIL how the Hubble pictures or COBE results support a 6000 year old age of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The one he promptly cowardly reneged on and lied about making as soon as he was taken up on his offer

                   
                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 09 2006,21:57)

                  Aftershave--  Get your reading glasses.  I issued a challenge regarding Points C & D.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Lying comes as easily as breathing for Fundy AFDave.

                  Hey Dave, just between us friends - how much money did you scam from the poor parishioners at your Tri-Cities Ministries?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,15:48

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2006,13:51)
                  Pretending it is not roughly accurate requires admitting that the Bible is then flawed, because it omits generations. If it is flawed in omission ( which it is elsewhere, too) then it is not unflawed. Dave is trapped with his cognitive dissonance.

                  This is why Dave has avoided this topic for 250 pages.

                  Even more so than Tyre NOT vanishing under the sea, or Nebuchadrezzar NOT conquering and making the Nile Valley a desert wasteland, it shows that Dave's inerrancy claims are false.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And, as I never tire of pointing out, Dave has already admitted that no Bible he's ever read is inerrant ("it's close"), and he's not aware of any Bible in existence that actually is inerrant.

                  Interesting that Dave believes he's competent to tell, absent any independent evidence, which parts of the bible are correct and which aren't. He still seems to be laboring under the logical fallacy that if some portions of the Bible can be corroborated by independent evidence, all of it must be true, even those parts contradicted by independent evidence.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,16:26

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll deflect this to those who actually got their hands dirty and/or got in harm's way.  I don't consider my time in the AF as sacrifice at all ... it was pure fun flying jets and I never got shot at.  Of course the reason for this is because I'm a creationist and a coward and a dilletante ... or at least that's what I've been told here :-)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, Dave, one son with a Cubs hat and one with a Cardinals hat?  That's a broken family just waiting to happen.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Little league :-)

                  **************************************

                  Cory-- Dr. Wieland says he thinks he read it in a book by LeJeune way back then.  How should I know for sure?  Who cares anyway.  He wrote something erroneous 27 years ago in an obscure article.  Get over it.  Some of you guys have this funny idea that someone can ONLY make correct statements about reality if ...

                  1) They subscribe to ToE
                  2) They are not a creationist
                  3) They have a PhD in the exact field in question
                  4) They have never made an erroneous statement, ever

                  This is not a logical way to investigate reality, friends.

                  **************************************************

                  Deadman--  We're not arguing Biblical inerrancy now.  That is a separate topic.  At this point in my CGH, we are only treating the Bible as a good, historical record, which may or may not conflict with outside data from science and archaeology.  I have found no conflict so far and you have shown me none yet.

                  Is the best you've got to prove that Egypt predates the Flood your "pyramids are dated by C14 at 3500BC" (or whatever it was) ??  You have no historical records to confirm this, right?  It's all just based on C14 and your erroneous assumption that C14 levels were the same BEFORE the Flood as they were AFTER the Flood, right?  Thought so.  Ditto for China I suppose.

                  Thank you very much.  No further questions, your honor.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,16:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And, as I never tire of pointing out, Dave has already admitted that no Bible he's ever read is inerrant ("it's close"), and he's not aware of any Bible in existence that actually is inerrant.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That "selective amnesia" is an interestig part of Dave's pathology, beyond the obvious lies, quotemining, plagiarism.

                  Consider this analogy:

                  A guy gets stopped by the cops for running a red light. He goes to court saying " the cop said I could run red lights."  The cop says that he did no such thing. The case is held over for hearings.

                  The guy is stopped 4 additional times, and tells the same cop " You said I could run red lights" The cases go to court and the cop proves he said the exact opposite by producing a video tape of each incident, with the lawbreaking driver acknowledging several times that the cop said "do NOT run red lights"

                  Would he be convicted? H3ll yes.

                  This is precisely analogous to Dave claiming I had said that Grand Staircase sediments could NOT be dated, when in fact I said the precise opposite FIVE TIMES, in increasingly irate terms.

                  I also GAVE him and Jon GAVE him specific examples of dating GS sediments , but he claims just a few pages back that I have been ambiguous about my position?  

                  IF he's not serious, then he's being deliberately deceptive. If he IS serious about not understanding my position, then he's got some real problems mentally.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,16:44

                  DAVE RUNS AGAIN, RUN DAVE RUN



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is the best you've got to prove that Egypt predates the Flood your "pyramids are dated by C14 at 3500BC" (or whatever it was) ?? You have no historical records to confirm this, right? It's all just based on C14 and your erroneous assumption that C14 levels were the same BEFORE the Flood as they were AFTER the Flood, right? Thought so. Ditto for China I suppose.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No, Dave, this is what I said:


                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2006,11:38)
                  Yet More BS From AF
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's what I thought. All you have is flimsy, bad-assumption RC dating to try to pretend that Egypt is older than ~2300 BC.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nope.
                  That is what I gave you to start with , Dave.


                  And you seem unable to deal with it except to claim that you somehow "know" personally that 14C dating is "flimsy " and based on "bad assumptions." which you have not demonstrated.
                  Oh, I know you'll copy-and-paste lots of ICR and AiG crap and claim it "proves" these things, but the fact is that you don't KNOW the basis for 14C correllation/calibration is flawed at all, nor have you shown it.
                  I am taking this one method at a time, and you have not responded to the C14 dating at all except to claim that you believe it to be flawed and based on bad assumptions. Show it.

                  ************************************************************************************

                  Your normal tactic has been to try to sow confusion.



                  You do this by deliberately feigning utter ignorance, changing topics, associating parts of a topic with unrelated subjects, then exploiting the confusion that you create by posting ICR/AiG material that has to be painstakingly demonstrated false.

                  As time passes, you allow details to pile up and then run back and forth between them, again playing completely stupid. This is precisely what you are doing on the HLA topic now.

                  During that time, you seek to find any other aspects that you can deliberately misuse/misread/creatively interpret, then THOSE false views have to be painstakingly demonstrated false. When a sufficient level of detail has been reached, you try to confuse sub-categories. You avoid direct questions. You feign ignorance again. You cite or create for yourself, out of whole cloth, erroneous and/or utterly fake "refutations."  

                  Eventually, you either claim "victory" based on some minor point, or you run from the topic entirely, as you did with Jon and Mike on radiometric dating of rocks.


                  The funny part to me is that you view this as honest and ethical.

                  ************************************************************************************

                  I am not going to allow you to do that. If you say 14C dating is false, show me how it is false. Don't pretend you already have, because you have not.  

                  Remember that in this discussion of Carbon Dating, you will have to deal with all the methods by which dates in the last 10,000 years are calibrated.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You have never refuted C14 Dating, ever. You avided it like you did dendro. You avoid answering me when I ask if you will answer questions and abide by normal rules of debate and deal with issues exactly as they arise.

                  You avoid, period. You, Sir, are a fraud

                  You claimed to want to deal with my evidence for the civilizations that preceded and continued through your alleged flood date, then you run from it. Tsk. Typical Dave
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,16:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,17:26)
                  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Declaring victory already.  Unfortunately it's all in your own mind at present.  If "61 alleles in 250 years" is no problem I suggest you get the points of this thread over to AIG so they can post it on their site.  We can have another article on their website with glaring obvious holes in reasoning.

                  Is this your "moving on..." statement or are you going to try and explain the appearance of 61 mutations appearing in a population in 250 years?

                  OR, are you going to address the admixture issue you so want to cling to (but I have reinforced at every post of additional information)?

                  No sweat Dave,
                  We can put this one to bed at the point it's at.  This board knows EXACTLY where we stand so far.  We can pick this up at any time you need.

                  However, leaving this point open means the whole earth settlement/migration issue after the flood can't be used to support your UCGH.  This issue presents a direct anomoly in this point.

                  I'm afraid you can't complete your C&D points at the present time.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll deflect this to those who actually got their hands dirty and/or got in harm's way.  I don't consider my time in the AF as sacrifice at all ... it was pure fun flying jets and I never got shot at.  Of course the reason for this is because I'm a creationist and a coward and a dilletante ... or at least that's what I've been told here :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I put 6.5 years in the AF, enlisted, all overseas in Europe.  No shooting but near enough to get Desert Shield/Storm ribbons.  Lot's of beer to (mmmmm.... beeeeerrr...).

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,16:51

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 09 2006,22:58)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Coming from you, all questions and statements are simple, Dave...consider the source...you.
                  I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself. There are far more -- many, many more.
                  The Evidence for Sumer, Natufian and Assyrian, Babylonian groups etc, is very extensive, Dave.

                  And you didn't answer my question that I asked YOU. Do you plan on directly addressing the issues raised **and my questions on each aspect of them?** Or will you pull your usual avoidance routine as you did on dendrochronology ?

                  By the way, it's amusing that you consider dendrochronology wrong -- while admitting you don't know enough about it to respond to meaningful debate.  That seems on a par with your style, though. Ignorance is your fortress.

                  After you give your word, worthless as it may be, on what I asked above, I will detail the data that shows cultures existing prior to and after your flood and babel and ice age claims, Dave. The data will include historical records from the cultures themselves, radiocarbon dates, dendro, thermoluminescence, ESR, Neutron activation, archaeoastronomical data, and much, much more. I want your agreement to deal with MY QUESTIONS , though. I want an actual debate, not just you running and hiding. You can start with the radiometric 14C dates on the pyramids ( < http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html > )      that precede the flood date you believe in...and why there are no sediments showing a global flood affected them.
                  By the way, Dave, I didn't see your apology for using the same quotemines of me five times, as shown by the links I posted. And don't say that you didn't see those posts back then...you acknowledged them previously. So, when was I ever equivocal about dating the Grand Staircase layers, Dave? Can you cite ANY instances where I said that all GS sedimentary layers **cannot** be dated?

                  Or did you just invent that, too, like your "evidence" for your "hypothesis" that you can't seem to support?

                  Oh, and another note, Dave: Did you also notify ICR that their claims on information theory and Spetner saying mutation cannot "increase information" was refuted by Schneider himself, including slapping Spetner around?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  contrary to probabilistic arguments by Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection Thomas D. Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information.Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol. 28, No. 14 2794-2799
                  Notice the date on Schneider's refutation of Spetner. It was from the year 2000. That was six years ago, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There goes another of your heroes, crawling in the gutter with you, Dave...won't you rescue him?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I bolded and italicized the pertinent passages. This post was from yesterday. I gave you a previous post from today. Will you pretend you didn't see that this foray into 14C dating of civilizations was stated BY ME to be "just the beginning?" How dishonest can you really be? Wait, don't answer that, it's already obvious
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,17:04

                  I'll remind Liar Dave Hawkins and the lurkers that a few months ago I tried for weeks to get him to discuss the multiple independent methods that are used to calibrate C14 dating back to over 50000 YBP.  I presented actual calibration data from the Black Forest dendrochronolgy samples, lake Suigitsu varves, ice core samples, ocean sediment cores etc.  Liar Dave was lost, because while AIG has a bullsh*t answer for each separate cal method, they have NO answer for why all the cal methods cross-corrolate and agree with one another.

                  Liar Dave avoided the topic as long as he could, then finally promised he'd look at the evidence "at a later date."  But we all know what a valuable and honest thing Dave's word is, right? :D :D :D

                  How about it Dave - is it a "later date" yet?  :p   I still have all the cal data at hand, ready for you to give your YEC explanation.  Or should I wait until your next cowardly "challenge"  :p
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,17:05

                  Mike PSS-- On further thinking about your perceived difficulty with Native Americans sharing some alleles with different groups, I thought of something.  We would naturally EXPECT them to share alleles with the Asian people groups because they migrated to N. America FROM Asia.  And of course, the Asian peoples migrated from the Tower of Babel region.  So we should further restrict this discussion to alleles shared w/ Europeans and Africans, but disregard Asians.  Do you agree?

                  OK, Deadman ... here you go ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [snip discussion of basic C14 theory] ... However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

                  Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

                  Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

                  Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

                  Other factors affecting carbon dating
                  The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

                  The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

                  Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

                  Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

                  Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

                  Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

                  In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood. Click here for the references < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your C14 dates for Egypt are unreliable because you guys don't account for the nature of the pre-Flood atmosphere.  What else ya' got?

                  Spetner refuted by Schneider ... gimme a break!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,17:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Remember that in this discussion of Carbon Dating, you will have to deal with all the methods by which dates in the last 10,000 years are calibrated.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's the part you fear, Dave. That's why you tried your little gambit on changing the topic away from carbon dating.

                  IF you claim that gas levels have been significantly different in the past 10,000 years, those corroborating dating methods would show it. IF you claim that there was some kind of magical radiation that affected isotope levels, the corroborating methods would show it.

                  And they don't.

                  Will you invoke another miracle, as you did on the ages of stars and so many other topics? Or will you just avoid it entirely again, Dave? Better hitch up your panties, you're in for a rough ride.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 10 2006,17:13

                  Is it my imagination or does Dipshit issue challenges, I accept them and then he bows out?

                  Am I nuts here?

                  RM Dating? OK. Let's go there. Ice cores, dendrochronology, varves and the like corroberate various RM techniques and in fact calibrate them.! When we use fossils as another corroberation, it is because there are so many other ways to verify that fossils add MORE weight to the evidence. Not the other way around.


                  Rrrrr.

                  Can I please say bad things about this guy? He's soooo deserving.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 10 2006,17:13

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 10 2006,13:55)
                  I also think Deadman hit the nail on the head with his analysis of davy's modus operandi. So, for that reason, I want to support his suggestion that we focus on C14 dating. Here's a technique that earned its discoverer a Nobel prize, is widely used by multiple branches of science, but davy thinks he's debunked, based on the propaganda of these creationists, who - I take this opportunity to remind you - have absolutely NO scientific accomplishments to point to.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ditto on this.  Who was the nobel winner?

                  Here's some pertinent links:
                  < http://www.c14dating.com/ >
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 >
                  < http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/ >
                  Neat! This one has a program for "an online calibration program for post-nuclear weapons testing C-14 samples."
                  And of course...
                  < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html >.

                  And we have the counterpoints at:
                  < http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14e.htm >
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp >
                  < http://icr.org/article/117/ >
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,17:16

                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 10 2006,17:05)
                  Your C14 dates for Egypt are unreliable because you guys don't account for the nature of the pre-Flood atmosphere.  What else ya' got?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here ya go Dave, a repeat of my June 2006 post with the C14 calibration curves that you claim don't exist.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  let’s hold little Davie’s hand and walk through the evidence again.

                  1. Natural processes in the biosphere produce small amounts of radioactive carbon C14 to go along with natural C12
                  2. Living things ingest carbon with the current C14/C12 ration
                  3. When things die, the C14 begins to decay and the ration of C14/C12 in the sample decreases.
                  4. C14 decays with a half life of 5730 years.  You, AFDave, have already agreed that this is true.
                  5. By measuring the C14/C12 ration in the sample, we can estimate when the living thing died if we know the original C14/C12 ratio.
                  6. The C14/C12 ratio is known to have varied at times in the past, so we must independently calibrate the C14 dating results.

                  One way to calibrate is by lake varves.  A varve is a seasonal layer put down in a lake due to biological activity (pollen, etc.) that can be accurately counted to give a yearly date.  Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the layers can be accurately dated by layer count.  C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  This has been done for many different varve sources.  The most famous is lake Suigetsu in Japan, with an annual varve count going back over 29,000 YBP

                  < http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalDataGraph/suigetsu2000.gif >

                  Another way to calibrate is by dendrochronology – tree ring counting. Tree rings are seasonal growths, and by matching overlapping tree ring patterns dates can be accurately measured back to 11,000 YBP.   C14 readings on the same tree samples are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  Many forests have been subject to dendrochronology studies.  Trees from the Black forest in Germany have extended the dates back over 11,800 YBP

                  < http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalDataGraph/intcal_1998.gif >

                  Another way to calibrate is by ice core samples.  Ice cores show regular seasonal patterns that can be counted to show yearly dates.  Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the core layers can be accurately dated by layer count.  C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  Ice core samples from glaciers in Greenland have extended dates back over 50,000 YBP

                  < http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalDataGraph/cariaco2004.gif >

                  There are other similar, equally independent ways of calibrating C14/C12 ratios using speleotherms (cave stalactite growths), coral growths, marine core samples, etc.  When all are taken together, they provide an accurate calibration of C14 dating looking like this

                  < http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalDataGraph/calpal_2001.gif >

                  So Dave, the questions for you still remain

                  Why do all these independent calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?

                  Why do the all these independent calibration curves extend back well over your 6000 YBP creation date, and as far as 50,000 YBP?

                  Why do none of these independent calibration curves shows the 100X C14/C12 ratio spike you claimed was caused by the FLOOD?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Dave, got any more big fat lies for us to wiggle your way out of this one?  :D
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,17:16

                  No, no, no, Davey. You're not going to get away with just citing claims by AiG and ICR. I want data. This is science.

                  I want citations of studies showing that these claims are supported.:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

                  Other factors affecting carbon dating
                  The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

                  The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I want supporting data showing any of that is true, showing ice cores and sea cores and other data that support the claims. Don't just toss out unsupported blatherings and expect people to accept it, Dave.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,17:23

                  IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO REFUTE CARBON DATING, I SUGGEST YOU ADDRESS OCCAM'S POST ON CALIBRATION, DAVE, PIECE BY PIECE, WITH CITATIONS OF VALID, PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES  
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  BWAHAHAHAHA
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,17:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,16:26)
                  Argy ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you really need to do some remedial reading in genetics. I don't know squat about genetics, but a statement like "I think [the number of alleles] was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture" shows a screaming ignorance of what the term "allele" means.

                  A newly-occurring allele cannot possibly be the result of "admixture." A statement like this falls squarely in the category of "not even wrong."


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your point is completely unsupported by evidence, reason, or even logic. Mike has demonstrated that 90% of the alleles listed are present in all populations worldwide. By your own admission, there is an irreducible minimum of 61 alleles that were distributed throughout all human populations by the end of your "ice age." 61 alleles arising in 10 generations is a physical impossibility. 61 alleles arising in 225 generations is an impossibility. 500 alleles arising in 10 generations is an impossibility. 500 alleles arising in 225 generations is an impossibility. Therefore, your reduction of the entire human race to eight individuals 4,500 years ago is an impossibility.

                  In two words, Dave, you lose.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Has Mike PSS made a watertight case for the impossibility of the biblical account? Yes.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You can't even understand the difference between an allele and a gene, Dave. The chances of your ever being able to defend a Ph.D. thesis in genetics is zero.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, anyone with an ounce of honesty (an anyone that clearly does not include you) can see that the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread amount to insurmountable obstacles to your "hypothesis," which is why the scientific community rejected your "hypothesis" over a century ago.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you have never been able to address a single objection to your "hypothesis." The monthly posting of several dozen questions and objections you've never been able to answer is proof positive of that.

                  I told you on the first day of this thread that you would have to "chase the rabbits down every trail," Dave, because every single one of them represents a fatal flaw in your theory. There are tens of thousands of rabbits needing chasing, Dave, and you haven't seen more than a tiny fraction of them yet. You haven't caught a single one of them yet, either.

                  Your confident assertions of victory in these debates are merely whistling past the graveyard.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Cory-- Dr. Wieland says he thinks he read it in a book by LeJeune way back then.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He was lying. LeJeune never said any such thing. It was Wieland's interpretation of what LeJeune that was in error, not anything actually said by LeJeune.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,17:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. Wieland says he thinks he read it in a book by LeJeune way back then.  How should I know for sure?  Who cares anyway.  He wrote something erroneous 27 years ago in an obscure article.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wait a minute... Wieland wrote that 27 years ago!?. And he's only just now figured out it was wrong? ? ?  And davy continues to think this crew is a reliable source of scientific information? ? ?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your C14 dates for Egypt are unreliable because you guys don't account for the nature of the pre-Flood atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK dave. Help us out here. What is there to know about the "pre-flood" atmosphere that could render 14C dating noticeably, let alone significantly, inaccurate?

                  See, if you want to salvage all your creationist nonsense with a sort of blanket, get-out-any-argument-free card like "maybe there's something we don't know yet that will prove that up is in fact down", then this whole exercise is sort of pointless, no?  If you want to salvage your, shall we say "dissident" view of Egyptian chronology on the basis of differences between "pre-flood" atmosphere and conventional assumptions, you're going to have to (1) demonstrate how large those differences would have to be to result in such huge errors in age estimates, and (2) give some reason to believe such differences might exist - some reason other than that they have to exist in order for your theory to be true. (That would be known as "question begging")
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,17:28

                  You guys are hilarious ... go go go!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,17:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,17:05)
                  Mike PSS-- On further thinking about your perceived difficulty with Native Americans sharing some alleles with different groups, I thought of something.  We would naturally EXPECT them to share alleles with the Asian people groups because they migrated to N. America FROM Asia.  And of course, the Asian peoples migrated from the Tower of Babel region.  So we should further restrict this discussion to alleles shared w/ Europeans and Africans, but disregard Asians.  Do you agree?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is Dave finally beginning to see the light? And understand what Mike PSS's point was from the beginning?

                  The whole point of Mike's raising the issue in the first place was to point out that all of these alleles must have arisen before the end of the "ice age" removed the land bridges from Old World to New.

                  If North American indigenous populations share alleles with Asian populations, Dave, then those alleles must necessarily have arisen before the end of the ice age, correct?

                  That's what this whole monster detour was all about. Glad to see you're finally starting to figure that out.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,17:31

                  Your avoidance is hilarious, Dave. Run, run, run. Now how about citing some actual data? THIS IS SCIENCE, NOT HAND-WAVING.

                  You can start here: an entire library of back issues of the journal Radiocarbon: < http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/ >

                  And Once Again, I Will Ask You, Dave
                  You didn't answer my question that I asked YOU. Do you plan on directly addressing the issues raised **and my questions on each aspect of them?** Or will you pull your usual avoidance routine as you did on dendrochronology, information theory, APO, Geological Radiometry?

                  Do I have your utterly worthless word that you will answer questions and directly deal with issues one at a time as they arise?

                  Of course, you won't answer that , Dave. Your tactics require that you avoid by raising as much confusion as possible and leaping between topics while playing dumb, lying and not giving direct answers.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,17:38

                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 10 2006,17:28)

                  You guys are hilarious ... go go go!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeah Dave, and you're a lying cowardly blowhard.

                  On Monday we'll be serious at jobs that require knowledge and understanding of scientific principles

                  ..and you'll still be a lying cowardly blowhard.  :p
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,17:41

                  Mike:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who was the nobel winner?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe Willard F. Libby (no relation to "Scooter", so far as I know) won a Nobel in 1960 for the carbon dating thing. The follow-up Nobel to davy, or the "scientists" at AiG for debunking carbon dating is apparently still pending.

                  Davy:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You guys are hilarious ... go go go!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Is that your idea of a thoughtful contribution to the discussion? Are you implying that there are no meaningful challenges for you in the past several posts? Or are we "hilarious" the same way Charlie Brown is hilarious for thinking Lucy might, just might, not yank the ball away this time?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,17:44



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I believe Willard F. Libby (no relation to "Scooter", so far as I know) won a Nobel in 1960 for the carbon dating thing. The follow-up Nobel to davy, or the "scientists" at AiG for debunking carbon dating is apparently still pending.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yup and I took my classes on dating methods with Ranier Berger who worked with Libby at UCLA. TAMS and plasma mass spectrometry, Davey. Oi, I should add Berger died not all that long ago, but he was hilarious. The first time I walked in his class he was pouring liquid gas on the floor and saying " ACH! Der florr iss on fie-yer!"
                  Posted by: The Wayward Hammer on Nov. 10 2006,17:44

                  After watching this discussion for several months I am starting to suspect that Dave is either:
                  - A truly superior troll
                  - Dave Springer (made a fortune in computers? Really)
                  - insane

                  The first two may be redundant.  Dave, I too am an engineer, but with an opposite path.  Raised in KC, now in Texas.  You have had your head handed to you completely in this thread.  With your display of logic, I am forced to revoke your engineering degree.  My apologies, but you forced my hand.

                  Regards,
                  The Engineering Gods, as spoken through the Wayward
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,17:46

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 10 2006,17:28)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your C14 dates for Egypt are unreliable because you guys don't account for the nature of the pre-Flood atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK dave. Help us out here. What is there to know about the "pre-flood" atmosphere that could render 14C dating noticeably, let alone significantly, inaccurate?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave < echoed the claim > that the pre-flood atmosphere contained as much as one hundred times the carbon as the current atmosphere. Presumably that carbon content was in the form of CO2. Or was it CO, or maybe CH4? In any event, the least problematic assumption for Dave's "hypothesis" is that the CO2 content of the preflood atmosphere was about 6%.

                  Can anyone see why this might present a problem for Dave's "hypothesis"? A show of hands, please, and don't everyone yell out the answer at once.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,18:06

                  Maybe the Ark-ites and everything else had really cool Bronze Age protective helmets and breathing apparatus, made of giant sea shells like in the 1960's version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and they actually lived underwater. It's POSSIBLE!!!
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 10 2006,18:09

                  ericmurphy

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can anyone see why this might present a problem for Dave's "hypothesis"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah, I see a number of problems. But - and forgive me if this is covering well-trod ground; I have to admit I haven't always followed with rapt attention - doesn't davy have to come up with some way that the 14C/12C has to be radically different from the present? How different would that have to be? And what could account for such a difference?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,18:56

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 10 2006,18:09)
                  ericmurphy    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can anyone see why this might present a problem for Dave's "hypothesis"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah, I see a number of problems. But - and forgive me if this is covering well-trod ground; I have to admit I haven't always followed with rapt attention - doesn't davy have to come up with some way that the 14C/12C has to be radically different from the present? How different would that have to be? And what could account for such a difference?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave has never, to my knowledge, explained why a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the pre-flood atmosphere would have any effect whatsoever on the C12/C14 ratios determined through radiocarbon dating. However, the "paper" he cites, by John Baumgardner, Ph.D., points up what appears to me to be a surprising level of ignorance on the part of Dr. Baumgardner.

                  Baumgardner claims, as does Dave, that the fact that even very old carbon sources, such as Pennsylvanian coal seams, contain some C14 is inexplicable under old-earth theories. Correct me if I'm wrong, Deadman, but doesn't this claim imply that both Dr. Baumgardner and Dave are unaware that C14 is constantly manufactured in the atmosphere and underground by natural processes?

                  The reason we don't see, e.g., naturally-occurring Plutonium 239 is because Pu-239 has a half-life of ~20,000 years, and no naturally-occurring process manufactures fresh Pu-239. With an earth 230,000 Pu-239 half-lives old, it would be surprising if there was more than a few such nuclei left anywhere on earth. C14, with a half-life of 5,700 years, should be entirely absent if it were not constantly being replenished by ongoing natural processes.

                  I can't imagine a Ph.D. would be unaware of this, so I can only assume Dr. Baumgardner knows his argument is fallacious but assumes dupes like Dave won't know this.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 10 2006,19:15

                  Calibration curves for C14 data, huh ...

                  Would those be anything like "calibration" of RM "dates" at Koobi Fora?  

                  Perhaps?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,19:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, Deadman, but doesn't this claim imply that both Dr. Baumgardner and Dave are unaware that C14 is constantly manufactured in the atmosphere and underground by natural processes?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Or they ignore it, as you note. Or space aliens ate those parts of their brains holding that information.

                  I still like that scubadog.

                  Seriously, though, Baumgardner and Dave's thought processes, if they can be termed that --are alien to me.

                  I don't see you posting supporting data from peer-reviewed sources, Dave. Got any, or are you just going to try to fake your way through this, too?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 10 2006,19:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,19:15)
                  Calibration curves for C14 data, huh ...

                  Would those be anything like "calibration" of RM "dates" at Koobi Fora?  

                  Perhaps?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave. Actually, they look < like these forty-one curves, > which you would know if you'd ever followed the link posted by Occam's Aftershave < way back on June 14. >

                  Now. Would you care to explain how all 41 of these curves match C14 curves completely as a result of random chance, Dave?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,20:10

                  From Dave's favorite source, Wikipedia: As of 2006 , the earth's atmosphere  is about 0.038% by volume (381 ppmv)
                  The longest ice core  record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800,000 years before the present. during this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 ppmv during ice ages , increasing to 280–300ppmv during warmer interglacials. The data can be accessed at < http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo....ta.html >

                  Wagner F , Bohncke SJ , Dilcher DL , Kurschner WM , van Geel B ,Visscher H . (1999) Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science.1999 Jun 18;284(5422):1971-3.
                  < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi....9J7WAt2 >

                  Wagner F, Aaby B, Visscher H.(2002).Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Sep 17;99(19):12011-4. Epub 2002 Aug 29

                  Indermühle, Andreas, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker (1999). "Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations ". Science 286 (5446): 1815.

                  Studying past CO2 levels is big news , what with threats of global warming, Davey-doodles. Did you hitch up those panties for this ride?

                  Nah, seriously, Dave, I'm waiting for those citations from 1957 from you. At least The Li'l Thumper Southern Baptist Illustrated Encyclopedia (122 pp., wow!;) )
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,21:29

                  That < Vostok Ice Core Data >
                  is an awesome link deadman.

                  AFD get out your quill and pen a letter to your local congressman and get him to pass a law saying the government MUST NOT SAY THE EARTH IS MORE THAN 6000 years old.

                  Heck I'll do it for you, give me his name and address.

                  Those dirty rotten scientists at NASA JUST DON'T GIVE A FUCK about AiG......AFD get on the phone to the boss and GET THAT FIXED NOW.

                  I'M WAITING!!!!

                  Contact those useless bastards working on the VOSTOK ice cores and FIX THOSE DATES.

                  Isotopes of Hydrogen and Oxygen have been used to develop Earth temperature histories
                  extending over 400,000 years.


                  WTF AFD ? How can that be ?

                  It was raining 394,000 years before g$d turned dust into a boy? And a bone into woman who LISTENED TO A TALKING SNAKE?

                  Send them one of those highly successful fliers you handed out to your buddies in the Air Force, you know the ones they used to wipe their asses...you ass.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,21:40

                  Sorry AFD that letter shouldn't go to NASA it should go to

                  NOAA


                  BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,22:20

                  In case anyone else is interested in this subject, here's some other relevant citations:

                  Spahni,R., T. Stocker, et al (2005). Atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide of the late Pleistocene from Antarctic ice cores Science Vol. 310, Issue 5752, pp. 1317-1321, 25 November

                  Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T., et al  (2005).  Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene.  Science 310: 1313-1317.

                  Dansgaard,Willi.(2004) Frozen Annals: Greenland Ice Sheet Research. Copenhagen: Dept. of Geophysics of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

                  K.K. Andersen et al, North Greenland Ice Core Project members, (2004)., "High-Resolution Record of Northern Hemisphere Climate Extending into the Last Interglacial Period." Nature 431: 147-51

                  Ahn, J., M. Wahlen, and B. Deck. (2003). Atmospheric CO2 Trapped in the Ice Core from Siple Dome, Antarctica. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media. < http://nsidc.org/data/docs/agdc/nsidc0202_wahlen/ >

                  Mudelsee, M.  2001.  The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka.  Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589

                  Sigman, Daniel M. and Edward A. Boyle.(2000)  "Glacial/Interglacial Variations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Nature 407: 859-69

                  Falkowski, P., et al.(2000)  "The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System." Science 290: 291-96

                  Bauch,Henning A. et al.,(2000)  "Siberian Shelf Sediments Contain Clues to Paleoclimate Forcing." Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 81(21): 233, 238

                  Alley, R.B. (2000) The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and our Future (Princeton University Press)

                  Petit,J.R. et al.,(1999) "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica." Nature 399: 249-36.

                  Jerry F. McManus, et al.,(1999) "A 0.5-Million-Year Record of Millenial-Scale Climate Variability in the North Atlantic." Science 283: 971-75.

                  Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B.  1999.  Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations.  Science 283: 1712-1714.

                  Edouard Bard,(1999) "Ice Age Temperatures and Geochemistry." Science 284: 1133-34.

                  Lonnie G. Thompson, et al.(1998) , "A 25,000-Year Tropical History from Bolivian Ice Cores." Science 282: 1858-64

                  Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, et al (1997). CO2 record between 40 and 8 kyr B.P. from the Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 102, NO. C12, PAGES 26,539–26,546 < http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JC00182.shtml >

                  Lorius, C., J. Jouzel and D. Raynaud (1993). The ice core record: past archive of the climate and signpost to the future. In: Antarctica and Environmental Change. Oxford Science Publications. pp 27-34.

                  Etheridge, D.M., G.I. Pearman, and F. de Silva. (1988). Atmospheric trace-gas variations as revealed by air trapped in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica. Ann. Glaciol. 10:28-33.

                  Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. (1987). Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature 329:408-14.

                  Neftel, A., H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, and R. Zumbrunn. (1982.) Ice core measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr. Nature 295:220-23
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,22:38

                  And just in case you decide to go diverting off to irrelevant topics, Dave: I want to see citations about CO2 or any other relevant data that would affect Carbon Dating as you claim, ***in the past 10,000 years***

                  I don't want cheesy crap like the "papers" from ICR that consist of sheer hand-waving BS -- like "Dr." Don Batten's "study" on dendrochronology that merely cites three dendro studies that were tossed out and a claim about NZ pine trees. I want hard data, from REPUTABLE sources
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2006,22:38

                  Re "woman who LISTENED TO A TALKING SNAKE?"

                  Why not, Harry Potter does. ;)

                  Henry
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 10 2006,23:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Re "woman who LISTENED TO A TALKING SNAKE?"

                  Why not, Harry Potter does.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  What?

                  ARE YOU comparing a childrens literary reference to Genesis?

                  Mythos vs Myth.

                  SURELY you don't expect me to take that seriously!!


                  ...oh right.

                  //end of sarcasm ......and sorry for calling you Shirley.

                  Actually girls and snakes have  erotic overtones in ancient Mythology. Joeseph Campbell alludes to it in one of his talks I haven't been able to find any in depth analysis on the Genesis context though.

                  Not sure about boys and snakes apart from the obvious but then Rowlings? is a female.

                  'xcuse me while I syphon the python.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 10 2006,23:20

                  Oh crap Liar Dave Hawkins, what ya gonna do now?

                  Look at all that DETAILED DATA that supports C14 calibration back over 50,000 years!

                  AIG can't tell you why all the data cross-correlates
                  ICR can't tell you why all the data cross-correlates
                  Morris, Woodmorappe, Ham, Batten...NONE of 'em can tell you why all the data cross-correlates

                  Gonna crank up the PhotoShop ap and create some more bogus data to help your side?  :D Lies are easy for you, right Dave?  Just pull a few more whoppers from your nether regions.

                  You a$$ is hanging out in the breeze here Liar Dave - what ya gonna do?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 10 2006,23:29

                  And just to remind you, Dave:

                  Becker, B., 1993. A 11,000-year German Oak and Pine dendrochronology for radiocarbon calibration: Radiocarbon 35:201-213.

                  Kromer, B., and Becker, B., 1993, German Oak and Pine 14C calibration, 7200 BC - 9400 BC: Radiocarbon 35:125-135.
                  (remember you posted 93-year-old non-dendrologist/non-archaeologist H.S. Gladwin saying deciduous trees can't be used for chronologies, Dave? What is an oak tree? A conifer?)

                  Furgeson, C. W. (1970), Dendrochronology of bristlecone pines, Pinus aristata. Establishment of a 7484-year chronology in the White Mountains of eastern-central California, USA. In: I. U. Olsson (Ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proc. 12th Nobel Symp. Wiley, pp. 629-40.

                  Edwards, R.L., Cheng, H., Murrell, M.T., Goldstein, S.J., 1997. Protactinium-231 Dating of Carbonates by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry: Implications for Quaternary Climate Change, Science 276, 782  Cronin (Principles of Paleoclimatology, 1999) says this:  "The Devil's Hole calcite is a calcite vein which has grown via precipitation from ground water in a shallow fissure. Core DH 11 is 36cm long. The calcite has been dated by U series at approximately 1cm intervals, making the DH record "probably the best directly dated continuous stratigraphic record covering the past few hundred thousand years yet available" (Cronin, p.186). Edwards, cited above, used Protactinium-231 to bolster the Uranium series data

                  Hajdas, G. Bonani, and B. Zolitschka., 2000. Radiocarbon dating of varve chronologies: Soppensee and Holzmaar after Ten Years: Radiocarbon 42, 349-354.

                  Hajdas, I., Ivy, S.D., Beer, J., Bonani, G., Imboden, D., Lotter, A.F., Sturm, M. & Suter, M. 1993: AMS radiocarbon dating and varve chronology of lake Soppensee: 6000 to 12,000 14C years BP. Climate Dynamics 9, 107-116.

                  Landmann, G., Reimer, A., Lemcke, G. and Kempe, S., (1996). Dating Late Glacial abrupt climate changes in the 14,570 yr long continuous varve record of Lake Van, Turkey. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 122: 107-118.

                  Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., (1998). Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production, Science 279 (5354): 1187- 1190.

                  Winograd, I.J., et al., (1997). Duration and Structure of the Past Four Interglaciations," Quaternary Research Vol. 48, pp. 141-154.

                  Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R.G., and Zinder, A., (1990), Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals, Nature, 345, 405-410. ( Look, Dave!! CORALS, TOO!!;) )

                  Edwards, R. L., Beck, J. W., Burr, G. S., Donahue, D. J., Chappell, J. M. A., Bloom, E. R. M., Druffel, E. R. M., Taylor, F. W., (1993). A large drop in atmospheric 14-C/12-C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230-Th ages in corals: Science, vol. 260 (14 May 1993), 962-967


                  Gee...no massive changes in global CO2 in the last 10 k years...and carbon dating is backed up by all these additional methods. My, my, my.

                  Ya better hitch those panties up higher, Dave. By the way, Dave, you won't find any massive changes in the Earth's magnetic field strength of the last 10,000 years in any published data I know of. No citations for massive increases/decreases in cosmic rays, either, both of which would be visible in effect ( Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., (1998), Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production, Science, v. 279, 20 Feb 1998.)

                  CAN YOU CITE ANY PUBLISHED, PEER-REVIEWED DATA BACKING YOUR CLAIMS ON THIS DAVE?

                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,01:11

                  The citations I gave you above are only the tip of the iceberg, Dave, however, I want you to back the claims made in the post you put up. MAKE SURE YOU BACK YOUR CLAIMS WITH VERIFIABLE DATA

                  I could fill pages of this thread on methods that BOTH calibrate or correllate to Carbon Dating, and more importantly, I actually **know** about this material, having taken like...ya know,  actual classes on it. I could post up on obsidian hydration, Electron Spin Resonance, Thermoluminescence, Neutron Activation, Fission tracks, deep sea cores, and much, much more, while you're left with ...no citations, and no knowledge of the subject on your own.

                  Remember the Beryllium10 used to date the Barringer Meteor crater that PENETRATED the Toroweap and Coconino sandstone layers at that you SAID was laid down in the "global flood" but the meteor crater proves to be about 50,000 years old? Do you think Be10 and AL26 can be used in other applications?   Nishiizumi et al. (1991) reported an age of 49.2±1.7ka, based  on 10Be and 26Al analyses of samples from the crater walls and ejecta blocks at the crater rim. Phillips et al. (1991) reported an indistinguishable 36Cl exposure age of 49±0.7ka for dolomite ejecta on the crater rim. Both sets of dates are in turn indistinguishable from quartz thermoluminescence dates of 49±3ka reported by Sutton (1985) for shocked sandstone breccia on the crater floor. I gave you all of that before, so is this important?

                  Because Be10 is a cosmogenically created radionuclide.
                  Increased cosmic rays would increase surface cosmogenic radionuclides which are formed by the collision of cosmic radiation and atoms on Earth. These  nuclides are formed in space, in the atmosphere, ( like C14 and Be10) and within minerals at or near the earth's surface ( for example, Be10, 26AL and 21 Ne). The accumulation of cosmogenic nuclides in minerals at or near the Earth's surface provides a basis for geological DATING. Independent evidence **strongly** suggests that production rates of these nuclides have remained constant in the last 10,000 years, validating their use in geochronometry. Be10 has a half-life of 1.5 Myr and  is primarily produced by spallation from O, Mg, Si, and Fe, and is most commonly measured in quartz, olivine and magnetite. 26Al is a radionuclide with a half-life of 0.7 Ma, is primarily produced by spallation from Si, Al, and Fe, and is most commonly measured in quartz and olivine. 36Cl is a radionuclide with a half-life of 0.3Ma, is mostly formed by spallation from Ca and K and by neutron capture from 35Cl, and is commonly measured in whole rock samples. An increase/decrease in cosmic radiation hitting the Earth, disrupting C14 dating...would leave traces

                  How about deep sea cores --  Forams and other things used to determine paleotemperatures in the last 10,000 years. Temperatures that would have risen drastically under the influence of the kinds of atmospheric carbon ICR would require to effectively repudiate C14 dating. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS??????

                  So...let's look at what Dave said:
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your C14 dates for Egypt are unreliable because you guys don't account for the nature of the pre-Flood atmosphere. What else ya' got?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, Davey-dupe you can see above, you're quite wrong.

                  Now let's look at the AiG article claims:
                  THE AIG ARTICLE ALSO CLAIMS THAT COSMIC RAYS AND A STRONGER EARTH MAGNETIC FIELD WOULD SKEW C14 DATES, BUT WE DON'T SEE THESE THINGS OCCURING IN THE DATA
                  You're left with hand-waving again, Dave. Flap away, Flyboy. And hitch up those panties again...remember, we haven't really even begun looking at ALL the dating methods that show ancient civilizations lived RIGHT THROUGH your flood date.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,02:09

                  It's hilarious. I went and looked through the ICR and AIG and other creationist "articles" that I could find
                  What do I find cited by AiG in Dave's post?

                  K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14, 1965.

                  Sheee-it, boy,that's some CUTTING-EDGE WORK THERE.
                   
                  No offense, Dave, but you're a stone chump for buying this crap. Not only did the guys from ICR LIE DIRECTLY TO YOU, but THIS is what YOU ACCEPT? HAHAHAHA.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2006,02:13

                  Here's the deal, DM. In order for you to convince Dave that you're right with your radiometric mumbo-jumbo, there has to be no possibility of doubt whatsoever. The probability that your bogus radiometric dating "techniques" never, ever, under any circumstances ever return an incorrect date has to be greater than one, and we all know that's impossible. Therefore, there is simply no way you can be correct with any of your dates. Or, at least, any of your dates that are more than 6,000 years old.

                  On the other hand, all Dave has to do to win his arguments is show, basically just by stating it, that it is not completely impossible, even with occasional suspension of natural law, for his biblical account to be correct (or at least in the ballpark—you know, like if the earth is not exactly 6,000 years old, it could be 8,000, or 12,000 years old. Maybe even 15,000 years old).

                  This is why Dave keeps winning these arguments. With rules like that, how could he ever lose?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,02:31

                  "Winning" in his own mind is fine.

                  But, like virtually every anti-YEC here has said previously ...this is the kind of data that cuts his throat and makes him look like the utter lying bumbling fool that he is.

                  He can claim victory all he wants--I'm happy just showing the actual data, and I'm sure you and others feel exactly the same.

                  Plus it's fun just to make fun of his blowhard pretentiousness. And boy, does he Blow. Hard.
                  Posted by: Roland Anderson on Nov. 11 2006,04:48

                  Just checking in as a lurker and occasional poster to say thanks for all the informative posts refuting AFDave's garbage. It really beggars belief that he's still at it. What kind of cognitive dissonance will this poor chap go through when he finally starts to crack? Dear oh dear oh dear.

                  Back to your regularly scheduled programme...
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,06:19

                  IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE WEAKNESS OF ToE THAT BASICALLY THE SAME 10 OR SO GUYS CAN WRITE ARTICLES EXPOSING THAT WEAKNESS ... AND MAKE SUCH A HUGE WORLDWIDE IMPACT!!

                  This from your buddy John Woodmorappe ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism

                  by John Woodmorappe

                  Summary
                  Artificially-inflated 14C dates have been found to occur when trees absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from local, volcanogenic, subterranean sources. This is not to be confused with wood contamination because the carbon is firmly locked within the wood fibres. A similar effect has long been recognised with the fictitious ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates that occur in molluscs when they absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon from carbonate rocks. In addition, creationists recognise that the global atmospheric buildup of 14C after the Creation and Flood would have produced artificially-old carbon-14 dates. However, the widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.

                  ***************************************
                  The carbon-14 dating method is based on the assumption that tiny amounts of radioactive 14C, produced as cosmic rays hit nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, become incorporated within the bodies of living things. After death, generally no new 14C can enter the body, nor can any 14C leave. Instead, the 14C gradually disappears from the body by undergoing radioactive decay. This occurs at a half-life of approximately 5,700 years. By assuming [THERE WE GO AGAIN, MAKING THOSE BAD ASSUMPTIONS] that 14C in the present atmosphere, and hence in the organism at the time of death, was essentially the same in the past, and that a closed system has existed since the death of the organism, we can compute how many half-lives of 14C have passed, and hence how many years have elapsed, since the organism died.

                  Based on these uniformitarian assumptions, dates up to about 40,000 years are believed to be attainable. But even under these assumptions, there is ample evidence that carbon-14 dating has serious problems. According to conventional geology, the 14C in once-living objects older than about 100,000 years should have all gone, yet we frequently find objects supposedly millions of years old that contain measurable quantities of carbon-14.1 [REMEMBER, WE WENT OVER THAT ALREADY--REMEMBER ALL THAT C14 IN DIAMONDS AND COAL?]  And even conventionally-believable dating results are often discarded if they conflict with some preferred hypothesis.2

                  Alternative global-biospheric conditions
                  Creationist scientists are willing to leave these uniformitarian mental boxes and thus have studied carbon-14 dating from a decidedly non-uniformitarian viewpoint. One creationist model3 envisions the earth created some six thousand years ago, the Flood about 1700 years thereafter and 14C building up either after Creation or after the Flood. Because most living objects buried during the Flood contained very little 14C when they died,[REMEMBER ... I SAID THERE WAS A MUCH HIGHER C12 LEVEL IN THE ATMOSPHERE PRE-FLOOD -- A GOOD GUESS IS 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS (Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidemann, 1992; Giem, 2001)] they already possessed inherited carbon-14 dates (usually at infinity, but sometimes at a few tens of thousands of years, as discussed earlier1). Post-Flood organisms successively acquired less extreme ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates at the time of death until they eventually converged upon ‘real-time’ ages a few thousand years ago.4

                  An additional mechanism for spuriously-high carbon-14 dates
                  It turns out that there is another mechanism, probably active after the Flood, that creates greatly-exaggerated carbon-14 dates. Unlike the earlier-discussed global processes, it operates at the local level (relative to each living thing), and is particularly successful at altering the 14C content of living trees. Let us consider its revolutionary implications.


                  a. The ratio of 14C and 12C is measured to calculate the ‘age’ of matter.

                  b. If the tree imbibes its carbon from a lower 14C source than the general atmosphere (e.g. takes up CO2 from volcanic gases) then the ratio will be higher in 12C than usual and therefore show an incorrect old ‘age’.
                   
                  For the longest time, it had been supposed that, given standard assumptions, carbon-14 dates from properly-decontaminated wood are virtually foolproof. After all, a tree grows a ring each year, and no new structural material is subsequently added to the ring. When newer, mobile, material is leached away by chemicals, the remaining structural wood fiber undoubtedly contains only the carbon (and hence 14C) that it contained during the year that the ring formed. And, so the reasoning continues, since closed-system conditions are almost guaranteed and since trees get their carbon from the CO2 in the air, and not from the soil,5 each ring must reflect the 14C concentration in the atmosphere when it formed.

                  The key word in the above-described set of assumptions is ‘air’. Trees absorb whatever carbon dioxide gas is within their vicinity. In the absence of other sources, the only source of CO2 is the atmosphere. But what other source could there possibly be? One source is volcanogenic gases. And, since deep subterranean carbon usually had no prior contact with the atmosphere, it has zero 14C and therefore an infinite carbon-14 age. Now, consider a tree that imbibes half of its CO2 from the air and the remaining half from local volcanogenic gases. Its concentration of 14C at time of death is only half that of the ambient atmosphere, and hence it dies having a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 age of 5,700 years (one half-life).

                  Tuscany, Italy, is probably the first place where ‘inherited’ carbon-14 dates on wood were described.6 These dates, much too old to be attributed to any past civilization in Italy, were determined from timbers located several kilometers from a volcano. Since that report, other examples of this phenomenon have surfaced from all over the world.7 A recent, detailed study8 has shed further light on the dynamics of this process. Particularly interesting is the fact that these ‘bad’ carbon-14 dates do not occur haphazardly, but to the contrary:

                  ‘The pattern of 14C depletion in the annual rings is remarkably consistent between all three of the trees cored, suggesting that either changes in CO2 flux are occurring homogeneously across the entire area of the tree kill, or that trees integrate CO2 flux very well over relatively large areas.’9

                  Under the right conditions, inherited carbon-14 dates can therefore mimic ‘real’ ones.

                  14C depletion after the Flood
                  All the foregoing examples are infrequent, and localized. But the situation must have been very different for some time after the Flood. A great deal of ‘infinitely-old’ carbon dioxide must have been percolating from the depths, all over the world, and over considerable geographic regions, as a result of residual volcanic activity, upper-mantle activity, etc. As the growing plants and trees absorbed much of this 14C-free CO2 flux, they necessarily acquired quasi-homogenous ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates—not as an exception, but as a rule. A large fraction of the ‘very old’ carbon-14 dates we presently obtain by routine use of the carbon-14 dating method may therefore owe to this mechanism in addition to, or instead of, the earlier-discussed buildup of global atmospheric 14C since the time of Creation or the end of the Flood.3 Clearly, this volcanogenic CO2 mechanism deserves further study.

                  References and notes
                  1. Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins 51:6–30, 2001. For a variety of technical reasons discussed in the paper, these occurrences cannot, at least for the most part, be explained away as contamination. Return to text.
                  2. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, p. 41, 1999. This, of course, is also true of the dating methods used to obtain much older dates than those presumably obtainable by the carbon-14 method. Return to text.
                  3. Brown, R.H., Radiometric dating from the perspective of Biblical chronology; in: Walsh, et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, pp. 42–57, 1986. For example, suppose that the Flood was 5,700 years ago, during which time a living thing died containing a 14C content 0.125 times that of living things today. At the moment of its death, it already had a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 ‘age’ of 17,100 years (three half-live periods ‘built in’: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125). Owing to the fact that another half-life of time has actually passed since the Flood, that once-living thing now has a 14C that is 0.0625 that of presently-living things, and a total apparent carbon-14 age of 22,800 years. Return to text.
                  4. I do not discuss the significance of several-thousand-year tree-ring chronologies and their calibration of carbon-14 dating. This is a separate issue. Return to text.
                  5. Note that this contrasts with subfossil molluscs, which often have anomalously-high carbon-14 dates, as reported in earlier creationist literature. The mollusc, unlike the tree, may have additionally absorbed some carbon from dissolved limestone, which has no 14C. Thus the mollusc, at the time of its death, has a shortage of 14C relative to the atmosphere, and hence a fictitiously-high age. Return to text.
                  6. Saupe et al., A possible source of error in 14C dates, Radiocarbon 22(2):525–531, 1980. Return to text.
                  7. Olsson, I.U., Experiences of 14C dating of samples from volcanic areas, PACT 29:213–223, 1990. Return to text.
                  8. Cook et al., Radiocarbon study of plant leaves and tree rings from Mammoth Mountain, CA: a long-term record of magmatic CO2 release, Chemical Geology 177:117–131, 2001. Return to text.
                  9. Cook et al., Ref. 8, p. 126. Return to text.
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 11 2006,06:57

                  davey says:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  By assuming [THERE WE GO AGAIN, MAKING THOSE BAD ASSUMPTIONS] that 14C in the present atmosphere

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *chop*
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [REMEMBER ... I SAID THERE WAS A MUCH HIGHER C12 LEVEL IN THE ATMOSPHERE PRE-FLOOD -- A GOOD GUESS IS 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS (Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidemann, 1992; Giem, 2001)]

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  whats the difference between "assuming" and "guessing" ?
                  Is that all you've got? Guesses?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,07:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I SAID THERE WAS A MUCH HIGHER C12 LEVEL IN THE ATMOSPHERE PRE-FLOOD -- A GOOD GUESS IS 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dude, can't you read?
                  Besides this wild guess based on something that never happened (Flood), you were told many times that, if there had been a 500x higher level of amtospheric C12 before the flood, we would see a huge sudden discordance in the calibration curves built with independent data (varves, dendrochronology...) arround 4500y BP. We don't, you lose and your hypothesis is bunk.

                  Anyway, we're not here to disprove your hypothesis. It has been 150 years ago. We're here to show people how ridiculous YECs are. And you help us a lot.
                  Keep it up!  :)
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 11 2006,07:27

                  Geez Davey C4T got your tongue?

                  Only 10 fairy tale believers writing anti evolution stuff?

                  Seems like a nice round number what are their credentials?

                  Oh BTW if they are affiliated with AiG or any other creationist outfit then their credentials are no better than Ted Haggard   and all the other lying loonies in that outdoor asylum for adult misfits.

                  So let me get this straight ...they all believe the mud to man in a minute fraction of a second?

                  Got any calibrated data to support that? ...you  could use C14 .....at 6000 years old the reliability is almost 100%

                  You just get the grid reference for the GoE (Garden of Eden) from your factual history of the world (Encyclopedia Sumeria) and pick up some mud near the tree with the talking snake and stick it in your mass spectrometer and Adam's your uncle.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,07:28

                  Varves ... dendrochronology ... "calibration" ... please!  Spare me.  Do you guys have no shame?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 11 2006,07:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,07:28)
                  Varves ... dendrochronology ... "calibration" ... please!  Spare me.  Do you guys have no shame?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  do you have any evidence for your own hypothesis?
                  Care to present it?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,07:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,07:28)
                  Varves ... dendrochronology ... "calibration" ... please!  Spare me.  Do you guys have no shame?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  When did your refute that? Oh, you didn't.
                  Trees growing in greenhouses... that magically re-adjust the C-14 calibration curves. Yeah. You do have no shame. :)

                  What about the basalts of the altantic ocean, then? Do you really want to play the buffoon again, Davey?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 11 2006,07:38

                  I'll ask you again.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A GOOD GUESS IS 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  are guesses all you've got?

                  edit:

                  davey, do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

                  "The majority of evidence on first sight appears to indicate an old earth"

                  ?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 11 2006,08:07

                  ooops AFD another foot in mouth moment what you meant to say was this



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Varves ... dendrochronology "calibration" Bible genealogy and people living to 900 years.... wishful thinking and common stupidity...  ... please!  Spear me.  WE Evangelicals have no shame!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 11 2006,09:10

                  Ya gotta love this:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE WEAKNESS OF ToE THAT BASICALLY THE SAME 10 OR SO GUYS CAN WRITE ARTICLES EXPOSING THAT WEAKNESS ... AND MAKE SUCH A HUGE WORLDWIDE IMPACT!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The first thing ya gotta love, of course, is the ALL CAPS FORMAT. I mean, you can always tell when someone has some REALLY COMPELLING argument when you see that!

                  But imagine turning this around, just for fun. Imagine that the overwhelming majority of the world believed in the biblical fairy tale, but that 10 persistent "evolutionists" managed to convince the entire (oh, excuse me...) ENTIRE scientific community. Would davy think... "Well, that settles it! Those 10 guys must have a pretty airtight case!"

                  I'm guessing, no.

                  By the way... I think this focusing on 14C is paying off. The more you focus on a particular, the more far-fetched the creationist argument becomes. (It may be a corollary of the Heisenberg principle.)

                  Dave, you've presented all kinds of desperate arguments for why this that or the other 14C measurement might be anomalous; but glaringly missing is any kind of explanation for why all those dating methods cohere so stunningly in the first place. In other words, you can't have "anomalies" without "nomalies". Where did those undeniably solid trends come from?

                  Oh, wait. Don't tell me. It's those Jesus-hating atheistic high priests of the scientific establishment, enforcing their completely invented dogma with Stalinist ruthlessness.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2006,10:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,06:19)
                  IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE WEAKNESS OF ToE THAT BASICALLY THE SAME 10 OR SO GUYS CAN WRITE ARTICLES EXPOSING THAT WEAKNESS ... AND MAKE SUCH A HUGE WORLDWIDE IMPACT!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, do you know how much impact these "10 or so guys" are having on the scientific community?

                  Essentially none.

                  The only impact they're having is on dupes like you who have neither the specialized knowledge nor the inclination to see why their arguments are steaming piles of bullshit.

                  Dave, no one is "assuming" anything. Go back to those 41 curves that Occam's Razor sent you five months ago, look at them, and understand that 1) no one is assuming that the 12C/14C ratios were the same in the past as in the present, and 2) the C14 curves match the curves obtained from entirely independent methods of dating exactly

                  This is where your "refutation" of radiocarbon dating dies its death, Dave. You just can't smell the stink.

                  And now you're saying the preflood C02 levels were 300-500 times current levels? So Noah grew up breathing an atmosphere that was fifteen percent CO2?

                  Unbelievable.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 11 2006,11:19

                  ericmurphy says

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And now you're saying the preflood C02 levels were 300-500 times current levels? So Noah grew up breathing an atmosphere that was fifteen percent CO2?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A quick Google shows that 5% CO2 will cause a medical emergency. Even the attempt to escape from one bramble bush seems to get Afdave caught in another.

                  Coming back to HLA-B alleles, Dave seems to accept that 61 alleles need to appear in 250 years. However, it is worse than that. They must also become sufficiently widely-dispersed that each would be carried to the Americas, to Africa, Europe and Australia.

                  Thinking about the timeline, if 8 people came off the ark and increased their population 5 times per generation (FAR higher than any recorded sustained population increase) then in 6 generations there would be 25,000 people. Let's be generous and assume the population of Egypt was 10% of World population (after all, by this time there were well-developed societies in China, the Indus Valley, Europe, Meso-America, etc) and that half the population was male. If half are of working age (and with that rate of population growth, in practice it would be far less) and that 3/4 are food producers, soldiers, priests and other administrators, this means that a grand total of 156 built Unas's pyramid. They were busy little bees, weren't they?

                  Oh, but I forgot. All the evidence for thriving civilizations around 2500 BC is a figment of multiple flawed dating techniques and a vivid imagination. ;)

                  Sometimes I think Afdave must feel like that mountain climber I heard about a couple of weeks ago. While hanging from a long rope over a huge drop he disturbed a nest of very aggressive bees. He is continually being assailed from all sides and reconsidering his position is as unthinkable as the climber letting go of the rope. At other times, I think he is not smart enough to even realize he is being stung.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,11:57

                  Heh. 300-600 times the present CO2 levels would kill people. Think what it would do to the atmosphere, and then to temperatures. Steamed Noah. Check Health and Safety recommendations on CO2 levels. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the body's regulator of the breathing function. It is normally present in the air at a concentration of 0.03% by volume. Any increase above this level will cause accelerated breathing and heart rate. A concentration of 10% can cause respiratory paralysis and death within a few minutes. In industry the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day is 0.5%. (taken from a few sources). DO THE MATH, DAVEY...WHAT IS .03 TIMES 300?  

                  From Davey's favorite source, Wikipedia:  NIOSH considers that indoor air concentrations of carbon dioxide that exceed 1000 ppm are a marker suggesting inadequate ventilation (1,000 ppm equals 0.1%). ASHRAE recommends that CO2 levels not exceed 1000 ppm inside a space. OSHA limits carbon dioxide concentration in the workplace to 0.5% for prolonged periods. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health limits brief exposures (up to ten minutes) to 3% and considers concentrations exceeding 4% as "immediately dangerous to life and health."

                  Oddly enough, Davey-doodles has yet to post a single journal article from a reputable peer-reviewed source. Remember, this is science, Daveyboy. We can't just accept wild speculation from your masters.

                  And oddly enough, no studies that I know of show this incredible spike in atmospheric CO2, although there are dozens upon dozens of studies available. A post just on those would take up an entire page.

                  And no studies show the huge changes in cosmic ray intensity required. Or the huge changes in the Earth magnetic field required to affect cosmic radiation.


                  So dave is left with reposting the same EMPTY vapid wild speculation again and again.

                  You're not doing a very good job of showing how C14 dating is invalidated by the actual evidence, Dave...you haven't POSTED ANY
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 11 2006,12:37

                  Because davy is taking such a thrashing on this 14C story, I've decided to help him out.

                  Sure, CO2 concentrations greater than about 2-3% cannot be endured by modern humans (or, I guess, a lot of other animals, as far as that goes). But don't forget modern genomes have deteriorated continuously since "the Fall". Who's to say that Noah, his family, his floating zoo, and all their ancestors weren't capable of fixing CO2? The fact that we can no longer photosynthesize is just more evidence for the biblical theory!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,13:09

                  So, let's recap:

                  Noah and his relatives set off in a boat loaded with hundreds and hundreds of animals, minimum. Every day they have to feed them, and clear their waste. Eight people.

                  They are "sailing" for a YEAR in water that is being criss-crossed by CONTINENTS ZIPPING ALONG AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. The water doesn't boil, even though this would generate enormous heat that is somehow miraculously prevented.

                  They are sailing in a CO2-loaded atmosphere that would kill them, based on the MINIMAL boundary Dave cites(300 times the present concentrations) Miraculously, it doesn't kill them
                  Miraculously, this doesn't increase surface temperatures either
                  Miraculously, we don't see this increase in atmospheric CO2 in any paleoclimate studies.
                  Miraculously, we don't see continuous global strata dated to that time period.
                  Miraculously, animals drowned arrange themselves into neat order to be fossilized.
                  And on and on and on..."miracle" after  "miracle" all with no evidence provided by Dave.

                  Instead, what we have is radiometric rock dating NOT disproved by Dave...or "Creation Science"
                  Dave won't even TRY to deal with MikePSS' annihilation of his claims.
                  We have Carbon Dating NOT disproved by any actual evidence of increased CO2, or changes in cosmic ray or magnetic fields
                  We have multiple methods like dendro, varves, ice cores, deep sea cores, etc., etc. not even vaguely disproven or even challenged by valid data.

                  Dave posts up wild speculation without any actual data to support it, then claims others are making "wrong assumptions" ...yet the data, as given in a couple of dozen posted studies on paleoclimatology and Paleoatmospheres...supports a relatively steady and unchanged atmosphere in the past 10,000 years.

                  The only thing left to do is point at Davey-doodles and laugh and laugh.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 11 2006,15:44



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The only thing left to do is point at Davey-doodles and laugh and laugh.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Us laugh at little Davie Hawkins, with his big red nose and his pants down around his ankles???

                  Why, that's all we've been doing for the last six months!   :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,16:42

                  Dave actually said that the pre-flood atmosphere had 500x more CO2? I think he was talking about C12.
                  Posted by: tsig on Nov. 11 2006,16:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:37)
                  Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

                  Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

                  Get it now?

                  ******************

                  Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.

                  Again, RM dating has nothing to do with the real age of rocks.  My comment was intended to mean that if you don't believe in God, then why not pick a good fairy tale and pretend it's true?  Perfectly logical course of action.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

                  Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

                  Get it now?"

                  Dave, you just equated your god with Hitler.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,17:26

                  Whoops!  Did I say 300-500X IN THE ATMOSPHERE?  Looks like I did ... judging by the flagellations I see happening.

                  Let me fix that ...

                  Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.  Period.

                  There ... do we feel better now?

                  Living plants and animals would have contained most of this biospheric C, with only a tiny fraction of the total resident in the atmosphere.  The vast majority would have been 12C. (RATE Book Vol. 2, p. 618)

                  *****************

                  PS What's with the folks that think my Hitler analogy means God=Hitler?  Are you guys that desperate to find something wrong with creationists?
                  Posted by: tsig on Nov. 11 2006,17:46

                  Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,11:51)
                  Dammit, I work so hard on my beautiful graphic, improvius goes to all the work of making it work for me and no one even says yay or boo. I am not going into computer graphics now and it is all your faults.

                  Also, there is a different mutation rate when you are dealing with sexual selection as opposed to cloning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  yeah, BWE great graphic.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,17:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,17:26)
                  Whoops!  Did I say 300-500X IN THE ATMOSPHERE?  Looks like I did ... judging by the flagellations I see happening.

                  Let me fix that ...

                  Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.  Period.

                  There ... do we feel better now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Huh... yeah.
                  Can you follow this argumentation and show us how this huge amount of C produces the calibration curves you were shown?
                  And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?  :D
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,17:56

                  Where's the citations for this increase in carbon at the required date range, Dave? The paleoenvironmental studies for the  Terminal Pleistocene-- >Early Holocene-->Present are extensive. Similarly for oceanic/geological carbon reservoirs.  

                  Cite some  actual peer-reviewed studies, showing their validity. I have yet to see ONE that upholds this claim.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,17:58

                  OK.  Take 2 with the correction about the atmosphere.


                  IT IS A TESTAMENT TO THE WEAKNESS OF ToE THAT BASICALLY THE SAME 10 OR SO GUYS CAN WRITE ARTICLES EXPOSING THAT WEAKNESS ... AND MAKE SUCH A HUGE WORLDWIDE IMPACT!!



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism

                  by John Woodmorappe

                  Summary
                  Artificially-inflated 14C dates have been found to occur when trees absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from local, volcanogenic, subterranean sources. This is not to be confused with wood contamination because the carbon is firmly locked within the wood fibres. A similar effect has long been recognised with the fictitious ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates that occur in molluscs when they absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon from carbonate rocks. In addition, creationists recognise that the global atmospheric buildup of 14C after the Creation and Flood would have produced artificially-old carbon-14 dates. However, the widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.

                  ***************************************
                  The carbon-14 dating method is based on the assumption that tiny amounts of radioactive 14C, produced as cosmic rays hit nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, become incorporated within the bodies of living things. After death, generally no new 14C can enter the body, nor can any 14C leave. Instead, the 14C gradually disappears from the body by undergoing radioactive decay. This occurs at a half-life of approximately 5,700 years. By assuming [THERE WE GO AGAIN, MAKING THOSE BAD ASSUMPTIONS] that 14C in the present atmosphere, and hence in the organism at the time of death, was essentially the same in the past, and that a closed system has existed since the death of the organism, we can compute how many half-lives of 14C have passed, and hence how many years have elapsed, since the organism died.

                  Based on these uniformitarian assumptions, dates up to about 40,000 years are believed to be attainable. But even under these assumptions, there is ample evidence that carbon-14 dating has serious problems. According to conventional geology, the 14C in once-living objects older than about 100,000 years should have all gone, yet we frequently find objects supposedly millions of years old that contain measurable quantities of carbon-14.1 [REMEMBER, WE WENT OVER THAT ALREADY--REMEMBER ALL THAT C14 IN DIAMONDS AND COAL?]  And even conventionally-believable dating results are often discarded if they conflict with some preferred hypothesis.2

                  Alternative global-biospheric conditions
                  Creationist scientists are willing to leave these uniformitarian mental boxes and thus have studied carbon-14 dating from a decidedly non-uniformitarian viewpoint. One creationist model3 envisions the earth created some six thousand years ago, the Flood about 1700 years thereafter and 14C building up either after Creation or after the Flood. Because most living objects buried during the Flood contained very little 14C when they died,[REMEMBER ... I SAID THERE WAS A MUCH HIGHER C12 LEVEL PRE-FLOOD -- POSSIBLY 300-500X PRESENT LEVELS (Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidemann, 1992; Giem, 2001)] they already possessed inherited carbon-14 dates (usually at infinity, but sometimes at a few tens of thousands of years, as discussed earlier1). Post-Flood organisms successively acquired less extreme ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates at the time of death until they eventually converged upon ‘real-time’ ages a few thousand years ago.4

                  An additional mechanism for spuriously-high carbon-14 dates
                  It turns out that there is another mechanism, probably active after the Flood, that creates greatly-exaggerated carbon-14 dates. Unlike the earlier-discussed global processes, it operates at the local level (relative to each living thing), and is particularly successful at altering the 14C content of living trees. Let us consider its revolutionary implications.


                  a. The ratio of 14C and 12C is measured to calculate the ‘age’ of matter.

                  b. If the tree imbibes its carbon from a lower 14C source than the general atmosphere (e.g. takes up CO2 from volcanic gases) then the ratio will be higher in 12C than usual and therefore show an incorrect old ‘age’.

                  For the longest time, it had been supposed that, given standard assumptions, carbon-14 dates from properly-decontaminated wood are virtually foolproof. After all, a tree grows a ring each year, and no new structural material is subsequently added to the ring. When newer, mobile, material is leached away by chemicals, the remaining structural wood fiber undoubtedly contains only the carbon (and hence 14C) that it contained during the year that the ring formed. And, so the reasoning continues, since closed-system conditions are almost guaranteed and since trees get their carbon from the CO2 in the air, and not from the soil,5 each ring must reflect the 14C concentration in the atmosphere when it formed.

                  The key word in the above-described set of assumptions is ‘air’. Trees absorb whatever carbon dioxide gas is within their vicinity. In the absence of other sources, the only source of CO2 is the atmosphere. But what other source could there possibly be? One source is volcanogenic gases. And, since deep subterranean carbon usually had no prior contact with the atmosphere, it has zero 14C and therefore an infinite carbon-14 age. Now, consider a tree that imbibes half of its CO2 from the air and the remaining half from local volcanogenic gases. Its concentration of 14C at time of death is only half that of the ambient atmosphere, and hence it dies having a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 age of 5,700 years (one half-life).

                  Tuscany, Italy, is probably the first place where ‘inherited’ carbon-14 dates on wood were described.6 These dates, much too old to be attributed to any past civilization in Italy, were determined from timbers located several kilometers from a volcano. Since that report, other examples of this phenomenon have surfaced from all over the world.7 A recent, detailed study8 has shed further light on the dynamics of this process. Particularly interesting is the fact that these ‘bad’ carbon-14 dates do not occur haphazardly, but to the contrary:

                  ‘The pattern of 14C depletion in the annual rings is remarkably consistent between all three of the trees cored, suggesting that either changes in CO2 flux are occurring homogeneously across the entire area of the tree kill, or that trees integrate CO2 flux very well over relatively large areas.’9

                  Under the right conditions, inherited carbon-14 dates can therefore mimic ‘real’ ones.

                  14C depletion after the Flood
                  All the foregoing examples are infrequent, and localized. But the situation must have been very different for some time after the Flood. A great deal of ‘infinitely-old’ carbon dioxide must have been percolating from the depths, all over the world, and over considerable geographic regions, as a result of residual volcanic activity, upper-mantle activity, etc. As the growing plants and trees absorbed much of this 14C-free CO2 flux, they necessarily acquired quasi-homogenous ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates—not as an exception, but as a rule. A large fraction of the ‘very old’ carbon-14 dates we presently obtain by routine use of the carbon-14 dating method may therefore owe to this mechanism in addition to, or instead of, the earlier-discussed buildup of global atmospheric 14C since the time of Creation or the end of the Flood.3 Clearly, this volcanogenic CO2 mechanism deserves further study.

                  References and notes
                  1. Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins 51:6–30, 2001. For a variety of technical reasons discussed in the paper, these occurrences cannot, at least for the most part, be explained away as contamination. Return to text.
                  2. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, p. 41, 1999. This, of course, is also true of the dating methods used to obtain much older dates than those presumably obtainable by the carbon-14 method. Return to text.
                  3. Brown, R.H., Radiometric dating from the perspective of Biblical chronology; in: Walsh, et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, pp. 42–57, 1986. For example, suppose that the Flood was 5,700 years ago, during which time a living thing died containing a 14C content 0.125 times that of living things today. At the moment of its death, it already had a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 ‘age’ of 17,100 years (three half-live periods ‘built in’: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125). Owing to the fact that another half-life of time has actually passed since the Flood, that once-living thing now has a 14C that is 0.0625 that of presently-living things, and a total apparent carbon-14 age of 22,800 years. Return to text.
                  4. I do not discuss the significance of several-thousand-year tree-ring chronologies and their calibration of carbon-14 dating. This is a separate issue. Return to text.
                  5. Note that this contrasts with subfossil molluscs, which often have anomalously-high carbon-14 dates, as reported in earlier creationist literature. The mollusc, unlike the tree, may have additionally absorbed some carbon from dissolved limestone, which has no 14C. Thus the mollusc, at the time of its death, has a shortage of 14C relative to the atmosphere, and hence a fictitiously-high age. Return to text.
                  6. Saupe et al., A possible source of error in 14C dates, Radiocarbon 22(2):525–531, 1980. Return to text.
                  7. Olsson, I.U., Experiences of 14C dating of samples from volcanic areas, PACT 29:213–223, 1990. Return to text.
                  8. Cook et al., Radiocarbon study of plant leaves and tree rings from Mammoth Mountain, CA: a long-term record of magmatic CO2 release, Chemical Geology 177:117–131, 2001. Return to text.
                  9. Cook et al., Ref. 8, p. 126. Return to text.
                  [url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp [/url]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So please, let's stop this silliness about how C14 proves all these ancient dates, mkay?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,18:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,17:26)
                  Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.
                  ...
                  Living plants and animals would have contained most of this biospheric C
                  ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you talking about total C or biospheric C? You seem confused.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,18:08

                  This is the relevant part of your post by Woodmorappe, Dave:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The key word in the above-described set of assumptions is ‘air’. Trees absorb whatever carbon dioxide gas is within their vicinity. In the absence of other sources, the only source of CO2 is the atmosphere. But what other source could there possibly be? One source is volcanogenic gases. And, since deep subterranean carbon usually had no prior contact with the atmosphere, it has zero 14C and therefore an infinite carbon-14 age. Now, consider a tree that imbibes half of its CO2 from the air and the remaining half from local volcanogenic gases. Its concentration of 14C at time of death is only half that of the ambient atmosphere, and hence it dies having a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 age of 5,700 years (one half-life).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, I will ask you again: cite ANY PEER-REVIEWED study that shows this increase in volcanic-produced gases, or any spike in the required time range. I gave you two DOZEN paleoclimatic/atmospheric studies I cited that WOULD have shown this had it occurred. But it doesn't show up in ANY study shown by you.

                  Cite the data, Dave...lay out a coherent supported case.

                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,18:15

                  Let me be even clearer, Dave...YOU have the burden of showing this increase in volcanic gasses...YOU bear the responsibility of showing actual data that shows the increases in said gasses via a tested, reliable method

                  CITE THE STUDIES SHOWING THIS DAVE, WITH EXPLICIT DATA AND METHODOLOGY LAID OUT

                  "MAYBE" isn't good enough
                  "COULD BE" isn't good enough
                  "MIGHT BE" isn't good enough
                  "PERHAPS" isn't good enough

                  THIS IS SCIENCE -- SHOW THE ACTUAL DATA THAT SHOWS THIS MASSIVE INCREASE IN VOLCANICALLY-PRODUCED GASSES AND THIS INCREASE IN CARBON LEVELS THAT YOU CLAIMED

                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 11 2006,18:20

                  And I suppose the level of Strontium was also 500 times higher before the flood?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2006,18:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,17:26)
                  Whoops!  Did I say 300-500X IN THE ATMOSPHERE?  Looks like I did ... judging by the flagellations I see happening.

                  Let me fix that ...

                  Shoulda said ... 300-500X the TOTAL C.  Period.

                  There ... do we feel better now?

                  Living plants and animals would have contained most of this biospheric C, with only a tiny fraction of the total resident in the atmosphere.  The vast majority would have been 12C. (RATE Book Vol. 2, p. 618)

                  *****************

                  PS What's with the folks that think my Hitler analogy means God=Hitler?  Are you guys that desperate to find something wrong with creationists?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  More miracles, Dave, for which you have not the tiniest speck of evidence.

                  So the biosphere had 300-500 times the mass of the current biosphere? You know this how? By pulling the idea out of your (or someone else's—eeew!) butt?

                  And where is all that carbon now, Dave? Keeping your "floodwaters" company somewhere?

                  Do you think it's not true that the "vast majority" of carbon today is 12C? 14C is like one trillionth [edit: one trillionth of one percent]of the total amount of carbon. We went through all this months ago, Dave, and you didn't have an answer for it then, either.

                  But we already know you're wrong, Dave, because if the 12C/14C ratio were not what we know them to have been in the past, then the carbon curves would not match the 41 other curves used to calibrate them. You've ignored this glaring flaw in your argument long enough; it's time to deal with it.

                  As for the Hitler thing, Dave: here's why it's troublesome. The Jews should have been concerned about Hitler so that they could have avoided the ovens. Should scientists be concerned about God so they can avoid the ovens? It's just stunning how incapable you are of seeing where your own bad, wrong, broken ideas lead. Do you ever actually, you know, think about what you're saying?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,18:33

                  Jeannot...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Jeannot ... have you ever heard of coal and oil?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,18:37

                  I still don't see any actual data showing your conjectures have evidence, Dave. I see a whole load of guesswork and maybes, but no actual data supporting your claims.

                  Why is that, Dave?

                  Why do NO methods of looking at the paleoatmosphere show what you need?

                  Why can't you provide genuine analyzable studies showing this increase in terrestrial carbon?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,18:59

                  Just in case you think you actually HAVE sources on the claims you made, Dave-- I'd like to see some calculations on the amount of volcanic gas needed to result in the radiocarbon date skewing you claim.

                  Also, I'd like to see you *snort* calculate the amount of carbon needed to accomodate your claims. Give me an estimate on biomass.

                  If all oil was produced during this period of 6,000 years, Dave, I'd like you to show me how much biomass would be required to produce the amount of oil and coal and shale oil we have used in the past and have in known reserves. Do you think it might exceed by orders of magnitude the amount of biomass currently present on the Earth?

                  In short, Dave, I want
                  1) actual hard data supporting your claims, not "maybe" and "could be" and "might be."
                  2) I want actual calculations of your suggestions, showing that they are even remotely feasible

                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2006,19:06

                  Re ""miracle" after "miracle""

                  It's not just a sandwich spread, huh?

                  Re "CONTINENTS ZIPPING ALONG AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS."

                  Where's the cops when ya need 'em?

                  Re "weren't capable of fixing CO2"

                  Why would they need to fix it, was it broken? :)

                  Re "The fact that we can no longer photosynthesize is just more evidence for the biblical theory!  "

                  So that's how carnivores got by without eating other animals before the "fall" - they wuz half plant! :p
                  (Or wait, wouldn't that be evidence for evolution if it was the case?)

                  Henry
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,19:26

                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I still don't see any actual data showing your conjectures have evidence, Dave. I see a whole load of guesswork and maybes, but no actual data supporting your claims.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Do you need me to cite some studies that show you the massive quantities of coal and oil that got buried by the Flood?  If you do, you are worse off than I thought.
                  Posted by: Jay Ray on Nov. 11 2006,19:30

                  This.  Is.  Comedy.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2006,19:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,19:26)
                  Deadman...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I still don't see any actual data showing your conjectures have evidence, Dave. I see a whole load of guesswork and maybes, but no actual data supporting your claims.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Do you need me to cite some studies that show you the massive quantities of coal and oil that got buried by the Flood?  If you do, you are worse off than I thought.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. He needs you show him actual hard data—you know, "evidence"—that all that coal (which is largely the remains of land plants) and oil (which is largely the remains of marine invertebrates) was actually, you know, buried by the "flood."

                  That's the part that's missing, Dave. Everyone knows coal and oil deposits exist. You have zero—zilch, nada, the big goose egg—evidence that 1) they were buried by your mythical "flood" (something else you have zero evidence for), and 2) that dates these coal and oil deposits to ~4,500 years ago.

                  In case you're wondering, we're not just going to take your word for it.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,19:50

                  Do you NOT understand English, Dave?

                  This is what I said:

                  1)If all oil was produced during this period of 6,000 years

                  2) I'd like you to show me how much biomass would be required to produce the amount of oil and coal and shale oil

                  3) Which we have used in the past and have in current known reserves.

                  Do you think it might exceed by orders of magnitude the amount of biomass currently present on the Earth?
                  Posted by: Jay Ray on Nov. 11 2006,19:58

                  I wish creationists would just come out and say, "Okay.. due to my calculations, we need a miracle here, here and here.  And here.. And here.  And right here.  And here..."  Etc.

                  All this dodging and ducking and shucking and jiving is, well, embarassing.  Get to the point, will you?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,20:03

                  I also asked:

                  I'd like to see you *snort* calculate the amount of carbon needed to accomodate your claims. Give me an estimate.

                  YOU said that there was 300-600 times the amount of carbon present. I want hard data on this, and

                  I WANT TO SEE ACTUAL CALCULATIONS SHOWING THIS IS THE LEVEL REQUIRED BY YOUR GUESS WORK, NAMING VARIABLES, AND SHOWING HOW IT IS A VALID CALCULATION.

                  *********************************************************

                  I ALSO WANT TO SEE ACTUAL CITED DATA ON THE CARBON LEVELS OF THE PAST, SHOWING THIS INCREASE IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS
                  *********************************************************
                  I WANT TO SEE ANY KIND OF STUDIES SHOWING THIS INCREASE IN VOLCANIC CO2 WOODMORAPPE CLAIMS.
                  I GAVE YOU TWO DOZEN STUDIES ON ATMOSPHERES OF THE PAST. NONE SHOW WHAT YOU WANT. NONE.
                  SHOW ME ONE STUDY THAT DOES HAVE THIS EVIDENCE.


                  THE REASON I WANT TO SEE ACTUAL ANALYZABLE STUDIES IS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN NONE THAT ACTUALLY HOLD HARD DATA. THEY ARE ALL GUESSWORK.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 11 2006,20:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I wish creationists would just come out and say, "Okay.. due to my calculations, we need a miracle here, here and here.  And here.. And here.  And right here.  And here..."  Etc.

                  All this dodging and ducking and shucking and jiving is, well, embarrassing.  Get to the point, will you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The problem here is, AFDave is so stupid and immoral that he's basically unembarrassable.

                  He's been repeatedly caught lying, quote mining, creating his own bogus data charts and trying to pass them off as real, making mouthy 'challenges' then running away when they get accepted, ignoring every last piece of evidence that doesn't fit his little "Creation God Hypothesis", etc.

                  He is an embarrassment to all honest Christians everywhere.  Anyone with half a brain or an ounce of integrity would have gotten a clue long ago.  "Liar For Jesus" Dave Hawkins has neither.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 11 2006,20:14

                  Go read the papers, Deadman.  I gave the citations.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 11 2006,20:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,20:14)
                  Go read the papers, Deadman.  I gave the citations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  None of the citations you gave even discusses the possibility that the amount of carbon present on the planet before the flood was somehow higher than it is now. Nor do they provide any mechanism by which a larger amount of carbon could have changed the 12C/14C ratio.

                  Try again.

                  In the meantime, you're going to get exactly nowhere unless you can somehow explain away the 41 different calibration curves that all exactly match the radiocarbon curves. Until you do that, everything else you and other creationists talk about in the context of radiocarbon dating amounts to exactly nothing.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 11 2006,20:33

                  I did read the available papers, Dave. There are no calculations showing what I asked, nor are there the cited evidences that I asked for. It is all guesswork and hand-waving.

                  CITE SOME DATA THAT SUPPORTS THIS CLAIM OF LARGE INCREASES IN THE AMOUNTS OF VOLCANIC CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE DURING THE LAST 10K YEARS ...NAME ANY. IT SURE ISN'T IN ANY OF THE STUDIES I GAVE, NOR THAT YOU GAVE

                  CITE SOME DATA ON THIS MASSIVE INCREASE IN TERRESTRIAL CARBON DURING THE LAST 10 K YEARS.  SHOW THE DATA, BABY. WHERE IS IT? IT'S NOT IN ANY STUDIES YOU HAVE CITED
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 12 2006,00:04

                  Hey AFD there are no problems for you to show DM the excess CO2 you pulled OUT OF YOUR ASS

                  ......you can just go look at those ice cores and look for the HUGE PEAKS OF CO2 you know......the ones that go back 400,000 years


                  Do you know how many days that is AFD?

                  ....around 150,000,000 days before your g$d turned dust into Adam-stein ....IGOR pass the dirt....
                  BWhahahahahaha zzzzt bzzzzzz wheeeee zzt zzzt clank rrrriiiipppp   urp clunk


                  g$d: Look Igor ..look I have created a man.
                  Igor: yeah right boss ...looks like a sand castle to me.
                  g$d: shut up and plug him in
                  I: 'k ...just stand back

                  zzzzzzzzzztcrrrrrrrzzzpop

                  g$d:what's that smell?
                  I:..smells like burning pork.
                  g$d: look it moves..quick pull the plug.
                  I:ask it a question
                  g$d: can ...you ...hear...me?
                  Adamstein: urrrrrg
                  g$d: what would you like?
                  Adamstein: ARRRRRRGH....get me a cold beer and a woman.
                  g$d:F*CK ....is that all you guys think about?
                  I: Way to go Adamstein .....the pub closes in an hour get dressed and lets boogey.
                  Adamstein:..hey g$d got some spare cash?
                  g$d:I'll use my Armenian Express card .
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 12 2006,00:41

                  In case anyone cares, we've already been around this particular mulberry bush with Dave, and he's not doing any better this time around than < the last time he tried it. >

                  Dave's under the sorry misapprehension that his young-earth creationism is somehow a contender for an explanation of observation. Unfortunately, we contribute to that impression by even discussing his "arguments," rather than giving them the respect they deserve, i.e., ignoring them.

                  But I have to admit, it's pretty entertaining watching him stumble around.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 12 2006,00:53



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I have to admit, it's pretty entertaining watching him stumble around.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah like Wyle E. Coyote  he gets his 'Acme C14 cyantist trap (pat. pending) from AiG'

                  ...sets it up in the middle of the road and then hides behind a rock.

                  beep beep......rrrrrrrrm sniff snifff (nothing happens) beep beep......rrrrrrrrm.

                  AFD wearing his creationist Wyle E. Coyote getup in sheeps clothing checks trap .....kabooooooooom!
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 12 2006,03:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,18:33)
                  Jeannot...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Jeannot ... have you ever heard of coal and oil?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dude, you were babbling on "total C".
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2006,05:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 11 2006,18:33)
                  Jeannot...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And where did the carbon go? Maybe the same place the water went to, after the flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Jeannot ... have you ever heard of coal and oil?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  see, this is what we expect from your magic book. Statements of "fact" with ZERO supporting evidence that can only be accepted with big helpings of "faith". If that's what the condition you are suffering from could be called...

                  Where is coal and oil formation mentioned in your book? I thought it was your position that if it's not in the book it's not real? DO educate me.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 12 2006,08:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where is coal and oil formation mentioned in your book? I thought it was your position that if it's not in the book it's not real? DO educate me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's why I asked him to calculate the biomass needed to produce the oil, shale oil and coal present on pre-industrial Earth.

                  There are estimates available on all of that. Oil and coal, etc. are big business.

                  If all the oil and coal were produced in the amount of time he says -- then it would require a biomass that is greater than what we have today....by several hundredfold.

                  That's also why he pretended not to understand that question, or basic English
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2006,08:48

                  indeed. If davey had any integrity at all he'd have to come out and say something like "I dont have a good answer to that, but it's simply what I believe, even if there is no supporting evidence. It's faith".

                  As he does not, what can we conclude about his Motives?

                  And you'd have thought that the average human wrist would not be able to support 6 months+ of constant handwaving :)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 12 2006,09:08

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,18:05)
                  Mike PSS-- On further thinking about your perceived difficulty with Native Americans sharing some alleles with different groups, I thought of something.  We would naturally EXPECT them to share alleles with the Asian people groups because they migrated to N. America FROM Asia.  And of course, the Asian peoples migrated from the Tower of Babel region.  So we should further restrict this discussion to alleles shared w/ Europeans and Africans, but disregard Asians.  Do you agree?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I missed this final musing by Dave about HLA-B alleles.

                  Dave,
                  If you want to get even more specified in the UCGH timeline go right ahead.  I've been asking you for a month about the time between the flood ending and the ice age ending and the Babel incident.  The only way you can include your musings is by fixing dates even further and specify WHEN the Tower of Babel occured and WHEN the Asiatic population exodus happened to initially seperate this group from the African-European group.

                  Unfortunately this won't help either.  The Asia group shares over 95% similarity with the Africa-Europe group.  In a prior post I counted allelic appearance and the Europe group had 89 alleles in the table.  So you have to answer a tougher question.  HOW DID 75 { (89-10)*0.95 } HLA-B ALLELES APPEAR IN LESS THAN 50 TO 200 YEARS (this is where you need to fix the timeline).  In this case you CAN argue about admixture in recent times (Marco Polo anyone, silk road, Chinese adventures to Africa, etc....) so we need to see an accounting of how this admixture affected the entire HLA-B allele accounting.  Which alleles were original to the Asia population (and thus comparable to the North American population) and which alleles appeared from admixture.  Good Luck with that.

                  It's good that you recognize the origins of the North American population.  Now we only need to fix the ACTUAL date of migration(s).  I say 13,000 ybp and some say 15,000 ybp.  Deadman has posted numberous sources for this discussion.  Mind you, I don't think anyone else is saying that the HLA-B alleles appeared in 250 years.  Two or Three in 13,000 years maybe, but even we wouldn't propose 61 alleles appearing in 13,000 years.
                  ********************************
                  Ahhhhhh......  Carbon-14.......
                  Here's a couple snipits to keep the discussion focused.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  14C is the SAME as 12C in terms of chemical and biological function.  Unless these plants have a nuclear accellerator in their uptake mechanism then I'm going to call you on this one.  It takes a lot of centrifuges to seperate 235U from 238U, and that is a 3 neutron difference.  
                  HOW MUCH EQUIPMENT DOES IT TAKE TO SEPERATE 14C FROM 12C?
                  IS THIS DISCRIMINATION EQUIPMENT A NEW TRAIT OF PLANTS?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whaaaaaaaaat????????
                  I'd like to see a correlated atmospheric chart that relates to this claim.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And this is one of Dave's "stakes in the ground" as it relates to dating methods.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ummmmmm.......
                  CAN WE GET A MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP QUOTED?  IT'S FINE TO MAKE STATEMENTS BUT LET'S SEE THE MATH.
                  WHAT IS THE STRENGTH/DEFLECTION RATIO?
                  WHAT IS THE MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY OVER TIME?
                  WHAT IS THE COSMIC RAY FREQUENCY VERSUS 14C PRODUCTION CURVE LOOK LIKE?


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This brings back a point made in a past discussion about the Grand Canyon.
                  ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?
                  This means we can identify the pre-flood and post flood layerring of the geologic column.  NEAT!!!!

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well......
                  Ground Sloths ARE slow so collecting data must be slow too.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Click here for the references < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2006,09:35

                  now, if you follow that link to AIG and that article, the *best* bit's are right at the end



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So, they might as well admit that it's not science, it's not supposed to be science, and that if it came down to it they'd still try and burn galileo given the chance.

                  But how many scientific articles do you see ending in a warning against misue and naming the court? LOL



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This Agreement, and all interpretations thereof, shall be deemed to be in accordance with Kentucky law. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with Kentucky law in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, which court shall be deemed to be the court of proper jurisdiction and venue
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  putting alot of faith in Boone County courts huh? Must not be those same courts that keep saying ID is in fact religion.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do you need me to cite some studies that show you the massive quantities of coal and oil that got buried by the Flood?  If you do, you are worse off than I thought.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  davey, Why dont you just list them instead of threatening to? Please list those studies. In fact, why dont you start a webpage listing all your overturnings of modern thinking?

                  Oh, of course, it'd just be a collection of links to AIG. Keep up the navel gazing.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 12 2006,09:53

                  Dave's normal tactic is to wait for a large number of questions to pile up, so he can pick and choose among them and ignore the difficult ones. I am not going to continue to add to the questions asked so far

                  Dave has and will deliberately feign utter ignorance ( as he just did with my question on biomass and coal/oil )

                  Dave will change topics, associating parts of a topic with unrelated subjects, then exploit the confusion that is created by posting ICR/AiG material that has to be painstakingly demonstrated false.

                  As time passes, he allows details AND QUESTIONS to pile up and then run back and forth between them, again playing completely stupid. .

                  During that time, he will search to find any other aspects that can deliberately misuse/misread/creatively interpret, then THOSE false views have to be painstakingly demonstrated false.

                  When a sufficient level of detail has been reached, he will try to confuse sub-categories. He will avoid direct questions and feign ignorance again. He will cite or create for himself, out of whole cloth, erroneous and/or utterly fake "refutations."  
                  ********************************************************************

                  He has done much of this already with this discussion on c14. He has posted the same Woodmorappe article twice...(Woodmorappe is actually Jan Peczkis, a Chicago High School teacher with a degree in geology from Northwestern, I think). At any rate, the citations in the article don't answer what I asked Dave to answer.

                  I asked for evidence from reputable peer-reviewed journals supporting Dave's claims on these things occuring in the last 10,000 years:

                  1) Large amounts of volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere that would affect carbon dating, a mechanism/model by which this manages to affect dating

                  2) Large amounts of carbon increase on Earth and a mechanism/model by which this affects radiocarbon dating.

                  3) Analyzable, detailed calculations on the biomass needed to produce the coal, shale oil and oil found on pre-industrial Earth. WITH citations for the figures given.

                  This is just the beginning, since it is Dave who says he can show C14 dating to be unusably wrong, he bears the burden of proof.

                  I want citations and calculations, Dave, with detailed  and described analyzable models and methods.

                  I want citations from peer-reviewed journals and scientific articles, not claims from a High School teacher from Chicago who cites crap that has no evidence supporting his claims.

                  None of the articles on early atmospheres supports your claims, Dave. And I gave you TWO DOZEN.

                  You have NO studies showing that any increase in carbon occurred in the last 10,000 years, and as eric points out, you have not shown how this is KNOWN by a KNOWN model to affect anything relevant to radiocarbon dating.

                  As I said before, Dave:

                  CITE THE STUDIES SHOWING THIS DAVE, WITH EXPLICIT DATA AND METHODOLOGY LAID OUT

                  "MAYBE" isn't good enough
                  "COULD BE" isn't good enough
                  "MIGHT BE" isn't good enough
                  "PERHAPS" isn't good enough

                  THIS IS SCIENCE -- SHOW THE ACTUAL DATA, NOT HAND-WAVING CLAIMS WITH NO SUPPORT
                  Posted by: edmund on Nov. 12 2006,14:23

                  afdave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mike PSS:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  14C is the SAME as 12C in terms of chemical and biological function.  Unless these plants have a nuclear accellerator in their uptake mechanism then I'm going to call you on this one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Mike, plants don't take up different carbon isotopes in the same ratios, and plants with C3 metabolism take up the isotopes differently than do plants with C4 metabolism. Take a look at this page, especially part (IV) near the bottom:
                  < Stable Isotope Overview >
                  But don't start gloating, Dave. Based on that site, differential uptake of carbon isotopes seems to make plants appear too young rather than too old. Second, this process can be corrected for when using carbon-dating techniques. Third, and most importantly, differential uptake of carbon isotopes cannot begin to explain why many different independent dating methods available converge on the same (very old) ages. Once you have dealt with this log in your eye, then you can criticize Mike for having a mote in his.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 12 2006,16:29

                  Quote (edmund @ Nov. 12 2006,15:23)
                  afdave:        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mike PSS:        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  14C is the SAME as 12C in terms of chemical and biological function.  Unless these plants have a nuclear accellerator in their uptake mechanism then I'm going to call you on this one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Mike, plants don't take up different carbon isotopes in the same ratios, and plants with C3 metabolism take up the isotopes differently than do plants with C4 metabolism. Take a look at this page, especially part (IV) near the bottom:
                  < Stable Isotope Overview >
                  But don't start gloating, Dave. Based on that site, differential uptake of carbon isotopes seems to make plants appear too young rather than too old. Second, this process can be corrected for when using carbon-dating techniques. Third, and most importantly, differential uptake of carbon isotopes cannot begin to explain why many different independent dating methods available converge on the same (very old) ages. Once you have dealt with this log in your eye, then you can criticize Mike for having a mote in his.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ouch edmund.
                  Look's like I got served.


                  I stand corrected on this point.  I do enjoy, however, that the actual scientific facts reverse the actual effect that AIG is looking for.  Awsome.


                  I also like being compared to Larry Niven (one of my fav's).

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: edmund on Nov. 12 2006,17:36

                  Sorry if that post sounded harsh, Mike. My hat is off to you and the others who repeatedly try to help Dave to understand that he's got sequoias lodged in his optical apparatus.

                  Yes, someone's being served on this thread, but it isn't you.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 12 2006,18:08

                  Re "Back to your regularly scheduled programme...  "

                  Er - WHY? ;)

                  Henry
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 12 2006,19:19

                  See, Dave, here's why your attempts to refute the accuracy of radiocarbon dating are pathetically ineffectual:

                  A plant is born. It starts incorporating carbon (12C and 14C) into its tissues. Different plants differentially incorporate different isotopes of carbon into their tissues in proportions that are well known and well-characterised. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  The starting ratios of 12C/14C are well-known and well-characterized. Curves have been drawn that indicate those ratios throughout the time periods that radiocarbon dating can be used. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  Once the plant dies, the ratio of 12C/14C in the plant's tissues is no longer in equilibrium with the atmosphere, and that ratio slowly diverges from the atmospheric ratio at rates that are well-known and well-characterized. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.


                  Carbon-14 decays at rates that are well-known and well-characterized. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  All these different mechanisms that you and your creationist buddies think present a problem for radiocarbon dating are not a problem for radiocarbon dating, because they've been taken into account, and are well-known and well-characterized. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  The thing that's so utterly hilarious about you, Dave, is that you, who have made mistake after mistake after mistake in your understanding of a breathtakingly broad swath of human knowledge, and are guilty of misinterpretation after misinterpretation after misinterpretation of scientific data, think you are somehow more qualified to analyze radiocarbon dating techniques than the scientists who have made a career out of studying those techniques, and have worked to isolate and characterize all possible sources of error. Those sources of error are well-known and well-characterized. How do we know that they're well-known and well-characterized?

                  Because dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  See those sentences in bold up there, Dave? The ones that appear over and over again? Those sentences spell the death for your attempts to "refute" radiometric dating techniques. They point to the thing that you have steadfastly avoided, ducked, run away from, and otherwise failed to address.

                  Dates derived from radiocarbon dating correlate extremely well with multiple other completely independent dating methods.

                  Until you've dealt with that giant, glaring problem with your "refutation" attempts, I (and everyone else here) am fully entitled to ignore everything you have to say about the subject.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 12 2006,19:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Actually, Mike, plants don't take up different carbon isotopes in the same ratios, and plants with C3 metabolism take up the isotopes differently than do plants with C4 metabolism. Take a look at this page, especially part (IV) near the bottom:
                  Stable Isotope Overview
                  But don't start gloating, Dave. Based on that site, differential uptake of carbon isotopes seems to make plants appear too young rather than too old. Second, this process can be corrected for when using carbon-dating techniques. Third, and most importantly, differential uptake of carbon isotopes cannot begin to explain why many different independent dating methods available converge on the same (very old) ages
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think it's worth pointing out that, to a "first approximation", Mike PSS was right. There is something known as "the isotope effect" in which there is a subtle difference between chemical kinetics involving one isotope vs. another. But (1) it's very subtle and (2) apparently* works in the wrong direction for afdave's "hypothesis" .

                  *I'm taking Edmund's word for it, at this point, knowing there's a good chance I would confirm it if I took the trouble. Unlike any of afdave's assertions.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 12 2006,22:29

                  There was 300 - 500 x as much C? Where? In biomass? Noah and his buddies must have felt like characters from Antz.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,08:09

                  DEADMAN ... READ THE PAPERS I REFER YOU TO AND YOU'LL GET THE INFORMATION ... HERE'S YOUR PROOF FOR PRE-FLOOD CARBON BEING 200-500X PRESENT LEVEL

                  Note that ...
                  * I am slightly modifying my lower estimate from 300 to 200
                  * This data is from the 24th Brookhaven Symposium in Biology (Reiners 1973)
                  * Reiners ratio of Present(C ) / Fossil(C ) = 1/500
                  * Rubey's ratio is 1/176, Brown thinks 1/200 is a good number, but says 1/1000 is possible
                  * Please spare me the nonsense about "Oh that's GRISDA you are quoting - a creationist source."  The data is from Brookhaven (a famous non-YEC source), not GRISDA.

                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf >

                  CONCLUSION:  AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES ... CONVENTIONAL C14 "DATING" IS BASED UPON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS, THE MOST SERIOUS BEING THE ASSUMPTION OF UNIFORM C LEVELS IN THE BIOSPHERE THROUGHOUT EARTH HISTORY
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,08:20

                  PRE-FLOOD CARBON 200-500X PRESENT LEVELS, HUH ...  HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR ALL THAT BIOMASS?

                  Jon Fleming's friend, Dr. Snelling answered this question 20 years ago!  You guys are falling behind on your reading of creationist literature (i.e. real scientific literature as opposed to the fake science Darwinist literature)  Shame!  Shame!...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Coal beds and Noah’s Flood

                  by Andrew Snelling

                  Coal beds formed from plant debris catastrophically buried by Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago? Evolutionists believe that the material in coal beds accumulated over millions of years in quiet swamp environments like the Everglades of Florida. Evolutionary geologists often object to the creationists’ explanation of coal bed formation, so what are their arguments and what answers do we give to them?

                  Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

                  This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Noah’s Flood, since instead of today’s vegetation volume only compacting down to 1-3% of known coal reserves, today’s vegetation volume would compact down to at least 30% of the known coal reserves. But where did the other 60% come from?

                  Two other factors are very relevant here. The evolutionists’ argument based on the volume of vegetation on today’s land surface ignores the fact that 60% of today’s land surface is covered by deserts or only sparse vegetation. In addition, there are the vast icy wastes of Antarctica beneath which are rock layers containing thick coal beds. So if all of today’s land surface was covered with the lush vegetation suggested by Antarctica’s coal beds, under the influence of a global sub-tropical greenhouse effect before Noah’s Flood—implied by the Bible’s description of the ‘waters above’ (the so-called water vapour canopy) and the mist that watered the ground daily (instead of today’s unreliable intermittent rain) - then the volume of such vegetation on today’s land surface would be sufficient to produce at least another 50% of the known coal reserves. So what about the remaining 10%?

                  But this all assumes that the area of land surface available for vegetation growth has always been the same. This assumption simply is not correct. In Genesis 1:9-10 we are told of God’s work at the outset of the third day of Creation Week, when He gathered the waters (which initially covered the entire globe) into one place so as to let the dry land appear. God called the waters ‘seas’ (plural), but they were gathered together in one place. This implies that, instead of land masses surrounded by seas (today’s world), in the pre-Flood world there was one sea surrounded by one large land mass. The language used in Scripture also implies that there was probably more land area then on the face of the globe than ‘seas’ (see Taylor, 1982). This being the case therefore, it is likely that there was at least twice as much land area available for vegetation growth in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s world (i.e. at least 60% land versus 40% sea in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s roughly 30% land verses 70% oceans). If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation, then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves.

                  A Better Way
                  But there is another way of comparing vegetation growth and volume with the known coal beds, a way that is probably far more reliable, and that is by comparing the stored energy in vegetation with that in coal. International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. She also said that only . 03 % of the solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is stored as chemical energy in vegetation through photosynthetic processes. (Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, Vol. 5, 1975, p. 17) From this information we can estimate how many years of today’s plant growth would be required to produce the stored energy equivalent in today’s known coal reserves:

                  Divide 14 days by .03%
                  i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.
                  So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.

                  Conclusion
                  Either way, whether by comparison of energy stored in vegetation growth and in coal (i.e. the time factor), or by vegetation growth, climate, geography, land area and compaction ratio (i.e. the volume factor), we can show conclusively that the evolutionist’s objection is totally invalid. There was ample time, space and vegetation growth for one Noah’s Flood to produce all of today’s known coal beds.

                  References
                  Holmes, A., 1965. Principles of Physical Geology, Nelson, London.
                  Taylor, C., 1982. ‘Linguistics, Genesis and Evolution, Part Three: the Seas’, Ex Nihilo, 7(3), 1985.
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,08:27

                  DEADMAN, WHAT EXACTLY WAS YOUR PROBLEM WITH DR. BATTEN'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST DENDROCHRONOLOGY?
                  Here is what he says ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)

                  Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.

                  ***************************************

                  by Don Batten, Ph.D. (Plant Physiologist who did very well in private industry thus refuting common ATBC nonsense about creationists not being able to function in the real world)

                  *****************************************

                  Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

                  However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.

                  Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.

                  Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.

                  Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

                  Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).

                  The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2

                  The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.

                  Conclusion
                  Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.

                  References
                  1. Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47–54, 1986. Return to text.
                  2. Newgrosh, B., Living with radiocarbon dates: a response to Mike Baillie. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 5:59–67, 1992. Return to text.
                  3. Rohl, David, A Test of Time, Arrow Books, London, Appendix C, 1996. Return to text.
                  < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,08:40

                  AFD Please spare me the nonsense about that's GRISDA you are quoting a source that babbles on about a flud for which there is NO EVIDENCE.

                  They CUT AND PASTED A TABLE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THESIS.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  * Please spare me the nonsense about "Oh that's GRISDA you are quoting
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ....Snicker
                  Seriously AFD you really are now talking out of your arse.

                  Get this fixed AFD


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CONCLUSION:  AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES ... CONVENTIONAL C14 "DATING" creationism IS BASED UPON FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS, THE MOST SERIOUS BEING THE ASSUMPTION OF UNIFORM C fantastically elevated LEVELS IN THE BIOSPHERE THROUGHOUT EARTH HISTORY of 6000 years
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,08:44

                  PLAGIARISM ACCORDING TO DEADMAN

                  Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb
                  Mary had a little lamb, it's fleece was white as snow.

                  [NO CITATION]

                  Deadman:  Plagiarism!!  Plagiarism!!

                  ***********************************

                  So, Deadman, now that I have shown that ...

                  "C14 dating of pyramids does not a pre-Flood Egypt make."

                  ... do you have anything HISTORICAL to offer to show that Egypt and China pre-dated the Great Flood of Noah?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 13 2006,09:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,08:09)
                  * Please spare me the nonsense about "Oh that's GRISDA you are quoting - a creationist source."  The data is from Brookhaven (a famous non-YEC source), not GRISDA.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davey, Davey, Davey!






                  "Didja ever notice, when you tell one lie, you have to tell another, and another?"
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,09:23

                  Uh ... what "lies" would you be referring to there, Mr. Crabby?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,09:27

                  k.e ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They CUT AND PASTED A TABLE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THESIS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh really?  How does it NOT support my thesis?  Be specific please.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,09:41

                  Psst...hey asshat Dave

                  The table cited in that article is only concerned with estimates of the total carbon reserves on the planet today.  It says NOTHING about WHEN or HOW the carbon got there, YOU MORON.

                  Dave, why do all those completely independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, and show dates back to over 50,000 YBP?

                  Why does NOT ONE of the sets of calibration data show the 200X carbon 'spike' you claim happened?

                       
                  Quote (Liar Dave @ 13 2006,09:23)

                  Uh ... what "lies" would you be referring to there, Mr. Crabby?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That would be the lies you told about Deadman's posts, the lies you told about your quote mining activities, the lies you just recently told about your 'evolutionist challenge' that you pussed out of.

                  Those lies Dave, and many others...
                  Posted by: edmund on Nov. 13 2006,09:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PRE-FLOOD CARBON 200-500X PRESENT LEVELS, HUH ...  HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR ALL THAT BIOMASS?

                  Jon Fleming's friend, Dr. Snelling answered this question 20 years ago!  You guys are falling behind on your reading of creationist literature (i.e. real scientific literature as opposed to the fake science Darwinist literature)  Shame!  Shame!...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I can't help but notice that the entire point of Dr. Snelling's article is that pre-Flood biomass did not have to be much larger than modern biomass.

                  In other words, Dave, you claimed that pre-Flood biomass was very, very large-- and tried to support that claim with an article that claims EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

                  Words fail me.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 13 2006,10:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,09:23)
                  Uh ... what "lies" would you be referring to there, Mr. Crabby?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh Davey, the lie that the page of quote mined nonsense is data from this  Carbon and the biosphere; proceedings of the 24th Brookhaven symposium in biology, Upton, N.Y., May 16-18, 1972.

                  by G M Woodwell;  Erene V Pecan;  Brookhaven National Laboratory

                  amongst all the other lies you've told here.

                  You do realise that the Seventh Day Adventists consider you apostate dontcha Davey?

                  OT, why does this image



                  cause the Weird Al song Weasel Stomping Day come to mind? Dammit that song is gonna be in my head all day!
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,10:22

                  Did anyone notice how that crappy C&P of orgainic carbon inventory data inserted into flood apologetics.

                  puts scare quotes around fossil.

                  A dead give away AFD.....real "truthy".

                  Proof AFD?

                  Go back and read the whole tract it's utter hogwash they do not offer a proof it is just an empty assertion.

                  They offer no refutation of ice cores, oil well cores, corroborative RM dating or any of the other mountains of other data.

                  They just come out with the same old "the flood did it" please send money.

                  I hope you didn't pay for that rubbish because if you did you have been duped.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,10:29

                  Aftershave ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The table cited in that article is only concerned with estimates of the total carbon reserves on the planet today.  It says NOTHING about WHEN or HOW the carbon got there, YOU MORON.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... let this humble MORON point out Items 13 & 14 on Table 1.  Mmmkay?  And you are right ... we're not talking about WHEN or HOW.  We're talking about ... IT IS THERE ... and it's a big problem for Long Agers.  (You know ... hard evidence?  That stuff you don't like.)

                  Edmund...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can't help but notice that the entire point of Dr. Snelling's article is that pre-Flood biomass did not have to be much larger than modern biomass.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh no.  His point was that there was plenty of land area and time to produce the massive coal beds which are a part of the total pre-Flood C inventory.  My heading was a bit confusing ... it did sound like I was explaining where ALL the 200X biomass came from ... Snelling only explains how the massive coal beds got there ... not the rest of the biomass.  I cannot explain how it ALL got there.  I can only tell you that IT'S THERE, according to the Brookhaven report.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In other words, Dave, you claimed that pre-Flood biomass was very, very large-- and tried to support that claim with an article that claims EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No ... see above.

                  ********************

                  I see k.e and Crabby stumbling around about "those stupid 7th day adventists who don't know there was a global flood ... they just assert it .. yee haw!"

                  Uh ... guys ... we're not arguing WHETHER there was a Global Flood ... we already did that weeks ago.

                  We've moved on to C14 Dating.

                  You wanted my explanation for why I think Total C was much higher in the past rendering C14 dating way off.

                  Now you have it.

                  Just admit you've been wrong and we can all be happy!

                  :-)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,10:50

                  You didn't answer what I asked, Dave. Try re-reading what I asked you to provide.

                  I'm not going to copy-paste what I asked, Dave. It consisted of three neccessary things for you to show any factors that would show that the calibration curves or the very theory and method of carbon dating are wrong.

                  I asked for actual cited figures, Dave...numbers from those citations that you just gave, so that they can be analyzed in comparison to modern (post-1950) figures.

                  The reason I wanted that was because there was a scientist named Glenn Morton who once worked on this very topic: Morton, G. R. (1984). The Carbon Problem. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 20:212-219.

                  Morton cites data published by Hunt indicating that the carbon in the coal alone is 50 times that in the entire present biosphere...And the carbon in all oil deposits is 666 times that in the entire present biosphere! That in oil shales and other sedimentary rocks (which Morton doesn't mention) is 40,000 times that in the present biosphere.

                  So let's see some actual citations and figures, Dave. Let me quote Glenn Morton on this. It is ONE of the factors that caused him to leave this nonsense behind. He looked at all the data and concluded that there was FAR FAR MORE "organically generated carbon in oil, gas, coal and limestone than could possibly have been in the preflood earth's biosphere. This presents a tremendous problem for the young-earth position."

                  and he then says : " I will no longer support the suggested solution I presented in this article."

                  That's because he's not a YEC anymore, Dave, so whip out the actual figures from the data, including all the shale oil.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,10:52

                  Quote (Liar Asshat Dave @ Nov. 13 2006,10:29)
                  Uh ... let this humble MORON point out Items 13 & 14 on Table 1.  Mmmkay?  And you are right ... we're not talking about WHEN or HOW.  We're talking about ... IT IS THERE ... and it's a big problem for Long Agers.  (You know ... hard evidence?  That stuff you don't like.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes Asshat Dave, no one is disputing that the carbon IS THERE, you MORON.  That amount of carbon in the ground described in items 13 and 14 is not a problem since it has had over 3 billion years to accumulate.  It's only a big problem for asshat morons like you who insist it got there in only 1500 years.

                  Show us your hard evidence that all that mass was produced in just 1500 years.  Use your telescope, microscope, and calculator if you have to. :D :D :D

                  Oh, and like always Davie, you forgot to answer these questions:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, why do all those completely independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, and show dates back to over 50,000 YBP?

                  Why does NOT ONE of the sets of calibration data show the 200X carbon 'spike' you claim happened?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AIG and ICR don't have C&P answers to those ones Dave, you're gonna have to think for yourself for a change.  Is that why you're crapping your pants and cowardly running away again?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,11:10

                  By the way Dave, I also asked for any references showing this huge INCREASE in organic material that is all dated to the time range you need.

                  I also asked for any evidence showing a large spike in CO2 during the relevant time frame.

                  I did that because ...what do you think would happen to current levels of gasses if the organic carbon on Earth present in plants and animals were suddenly increased by 300 times?

                  Why don't we see this change in the temperatures ( at **least*** the albedo would change) and atmospheric gas levels?

                  NOW get crackin' on providing actual figures on all buried carbon sources, like coal, oil and shale oil reserves, , and look at how they compare to actual figures for today's biosphere.

                  It's wayyyyyy more than 300 times, Davey. This would mean a global forest, entangled with undergrowth and living things ( you said most of it was in living things) how many miles thick?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,11:18

                  Dave, no one denies that there's a lot of carbon sequestered in coal, oil, and calcium carbonate (i.e., limestone) deposits, as well as in other carbon sinks, all over the world. If you want to C&P a few thousand words proving this, feel free. But none of your C&Ping proves that all of these carbon sink are less than 6,000 years old.

                  But what you are presumably trying to prove here is that all this carbon somehow screws up radiocarbon dating results. It doesn't. First, you've presented no evidence that this extra carbon was sequestered after the relevant date, i.e., ~50,000 YBP. Second, you've proposed no mechanism whatsoever how more carbon in the environment would change the 14C/12C ratio. A particular piece of organic matter has a certain amount of carbon in it, no matter how much carbon is in the environment. Third, and this is the thing that kills your argument dead, you have no explanation for why it is that radiocarbon dates are corroborated by multiple independent dating methods.

                  If you want anyone to take your attempts at "refuting" radiocarbon dating techniques, I suggest you get busy dealing with those three gaping holes in your argument.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,11:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Uh ... guys ... we're not arguing WHETHER there was a Global Flood ... we already did that weeks ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well actually AFD forget weeks ago ...which you were completely unable to prove .........try a few centuries. Intelligent people have known for centuries that the old Biblical Mythology perishes under the hot glare of reason

                  Galileo and Copernicus shot most of it down long before Sir Walter Raleigh arrived in America when he saw all the new animals unknown in Europe he knew it was absolutely impossible for Noah to have collected examples of every species.

                  Your "One true word of g$d" AFD is a Myth.

                  The only stumbling going on AFD is your constant walking into doors, over ledges, into trees through windows ....a real comedy act.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,11:23

                  Oh, and when you're finished providing solid, analyzable estimates ( with actual figures provided) on the PRESENT biomass....compared with all the carbon amounts in PREINDUSTRIAL oil,coal and shale oil reserves...

                  You have the added problem of showing it's all the same age that you need.

                  Then you have the problem of showing that corroborating data from atmospheric gasses, sea-floor cores...( think what the run- off from that amount of organic carbon would produce both during and after the flood.) etc.

                  Looks like you have a lot of work ahead of you, Davey-boy. And when you look at the actual figures, make sure you present them, plus methodology.

                  This is science, Dave. This is a major Nobel-winning scientific advancement you want to overturn. I want to see data that is consistent and analyzable. Go to it, brainiac.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,11:26

                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You didn't answer what I asked, Dave. Try re-reading what I asked you to provide.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You mean ... I didn't answer it to your liking.  IOW it proves your C14 dating system is a sham.

                  Aftershave ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes Asshat Dave, no one is disputing that the carbon IS THERE, you MORON.  That amount of carbon in the ground described in items 13 and 14 is not a problem since it has had over 3 billion years to accumulate.  It's only a big problem for asshat morons like you who insist it got there in only 1500 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh I see ... you're still back on that are you?  I already showed you six ways from Sunday how the geological record is much better explained by a single Global Flood than by "billions of years of slow sedimentation."  

                  Of course, you didn't accept it because you want to believe in billions of years, but that's not my problem.

                  I note that the more perceptive members of your tribe have discarded "slow and gradual" and have opted for "catastrophism" and "punctuated equilibria" and "abrupt appearance" and such.

                  Remember Derek Ager and the others I quoted?

                  ****************************

                  Oh and wasn't dendrochronology one of the ways you supposedly "calibrate" Carbon 14 dating?

                  So much for that one.

                  Got another one?

                  (Do me a favor and check AiG first before you throw one at me, OK?)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,11:37

                  No, Dave, you didn't answer it at all. You didn't include the data I specifically asked for...estimates of all preindustrial coal, oil and shale oil that you said was produced in one massive event.

                  I wanted those figures compared to the current biomass. I want you to show those figures in detail, analyzable detail, with all the data laid out and methodology given.

                  I want you to support your claims that all the data is related and shown to be from the relevant time frame.

                  I want a mechanism by which this carbon would skew radiocarbon dating.

                  I want supporting data from atmospheric and other ( say, just sea floor cores) that would show this amount of carbon in living things was all present at the relevant time frame.

                  All I asked for was three things...but those three things have components to them, and you have to show all of it supports you.

                  You can't just say " look at all the carbon we have buried" and say it all comes from one event, Dave, and expect me to accept this uncritically. You have to support your claims. And you have failed miserably so far.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 13 2006,11:41

                  Dave,
                  I'll leave it to others for a back and forth on C14.

                  I only want to know a couple things from this discussion.

                  ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

                  You also mentioned something about 'primordial' coal.

                  HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

                  I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,11:51

                  Does anyone have a link for that Glenn Morton article on "The Carbon Problem" ??  I could not find it on Glenn's website.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,11:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,11:26)
                  Oh I see ... you're still back on that are you?  I already showed you six ways from Sunday how the geological record is much better explained by a single Global Flood than by "billions of years of slow sedimentation."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, not only did you not "prove" your "flood" happened. The posters here provided unassailable evidence that it could not have happened. Unlike you, the rest of us have memories. Remember that big huge long list of questions about your "flood" you didn't have answers for? If you like, I can repost it for you.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I note that the more perceptive members of your tribe have discarded "slow and gradual" and have opted for "catastrophism" and "punctuated equilibria" and "abrupt appearance" and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which has exactly zero to do with your flood. Do you think the asteroid that created the Chixulub crater had anything to do with a "flood," Dave?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and wasn't dendrochronology one of the ways you supposedly "calibrate" Carbon 14 dating?

                  So much for that one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you implying that you've somehow "disproved" dendrochronology as a dating technique too, Dave? I'd like to see your permalink for that, because I've read every message you've ever posted, and I know for a fact you did no such thing.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Got another one?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes. There are forty others. Remember? Or do I have to keep repeating it until you once again accuse me of being repetitive?

                  In the meantime, Dave, what exactly is your explanation for the concordance of 41 different independent dating techniques that all match radiocarbon dating exactly?

                  You don't have one, do you?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,11:55

                  Here is a simple test AFD.

                  Go and see what REAL science i.e.Geology has to say about the White Cliffs of Dover.

                  1.What remains of living creatures it is composed of
                  2.How long it took for the deposits to form
                  3.What creatures burrowed in it over the millions of years it formed.
                  4.What living creatures the silicate/flint inclusions came from.

                  Now what quantity of planktonic green algae would it take to form 300-400 meters of chalk.

                  < Start here >
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,12:03

                  Just in case you forgot, Dave, This is what I asked for yesterday ,  Nov. 12 2006,09:53 :

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Large amounts of volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere that would affect carbon dating, a mechanism/model by which this manages to affect dating

                  2) Large amounts of carbon increase on Earth and a mechanism/model by which this affects radiocarbon dating.

                  3) Analyzable, detailed calculations on the biomass needed to produce the coal, shale oil and oil found on pre-industrial Earth. WITH citations for the figures given

                  This is just the beginning, since it is Dave who says he can show C14 dating to be unusably wrong, he bears the burden of proof.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You claim to be able to overturn a Nobel-Prize-winning scientific advance, Dave. You have to do a whole lot better than citing claims from 1951, you have to provide excruciating detail that all supports you.

                  This is why you DON'T see that detail in the YEC "articles"...instead they wander off to irrelevant data or crap taken from obscure/outdated/self-referential ( i.e. written by other YEC's) "articles."

                  They engage in the same hand-waving as you do, Dave...and thus far, not ONE of them has presented their revolutionary claims disputing radiocarbon dating...to a peer-reviewed publication ....why? Are we back to claiming all the science journals are in on a global conspiracy? Or is it that their "evidence" doesn't hold up under modern data? Like thos gas levels that don't rise in paleoclimate studies during the past 10k years? Or temperatures that stay steady during that period, despite this 300-fold increase in carbon and living things? No sea floor data shows any spike in organics, no coral data shows it. No data at all shows it.

                  Maybe if you wave your hands JUST a little harder, you'll take off like a little hummingbird...but somehow , I don't think that'll happen, either.
                  Posted by: edmund on Nov. 13 2006,12:12

                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My heading was a bit confusing ... it did sound like I was explaining where ALL the 200X biomass came from
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PRE-FLOOD CARBON 200-500X PRESENT LEVELS, HUH ...  HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR ALL THAT BIOMASS?

                  Jon Fleming's friend, Dr. Snelling answered this question 20 years ago!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Confusing? No, Dave, your heading was very clear. You were claiming to explain where 200-500x the present-day carbon came from, and you cut-and-pasted an AiG article arguing that the pre-Flood biomass need only have been about 3x that of the present day.

                  If the pre-Flood biomass was as low as Snelling says, you don't have the immense amount of carbon being sequestered that you'd need to dilute out the C14.

                  In short, you pasted in an article that blew a massive hole in your own argument.

                  Your attempts at revisionism are not impressive.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,12:18

                  Oh, and just to point this out, Davey-boy: I'm not totally ignoring "Dr." Don Batten's claims...I've posted my objections before...it was you that said YOU "didn't know enough " about it to deal with it.

                  I'm setting it aside, because you have made a claim that radiocarbon dating is flawed at the most essential levels, and I expect hard data that backs it up, on the topics I described.

                  You need to show hard data, in detail, with cited facts and figues and credible publications...that overturn the basic theory and methods of C14 dating, Dave. So far you have offered nothing.

                  It's similar to when you pointed to ALL the sedimentary and ALL the aeolian ( wind-borne) layers and said " there's my proof" without backing it up when you were asked to.

                  Except now you have made a claim in which you cannot escape the burden of responsibility.

                  Extraordinary claims purporting to overturn Nobel-prize-winning  science...requires extraordinary evidence, baby. And you ain't got it.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 13 2006,12:30

                  I'm still busting a gut over Davey's idea of "real" science. It's tough to choose, but I think this is my favourite part of Snelling's 'calculations':



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A Better Way
                  But there is another way of comparing vegetation growth and volume with the known coal beds, a way that is probably far more reliable, and that is by comparing the stored energy in vegetation with that in coal. International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. She also said that only . 03 % of the solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is stored as chemical energy in vegetation through photosynthetic processes. (Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, Vol. 5, 1975, p. 17) From this information we can estimate how many years of today’s plant growth would be required to produce the stored energy equivalent in today’s known coal reserves:

                  Divide 14 days by .03%
                  i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.
                  So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So...here we have a ("better way", "far more reliable") estimation that attempts to equate growth and biomass with energy content. Right away we're going to get into trouble there, but let's let 'im run with it. Now, we're using solar energy at the earth's surface as our baseline for comparison. During plant growth, this energy is converted into biomass at an estimated efficiency of 0.03%. Not surprising -- it's tough to be really efficient when it comes to energy. However, while accounting for the (very low) efficiency of transfer in the solar energy --> biomass stage, note that there is no similar accounting for the efficiency of transfer in the biomass --> (known) fossil fuels stage. Apparently, we are supposed to assume that this transfer occurs at 100% efficieny. And it had better be on this order of magnitude, because if it's much less than 10% (VERY efficient), then 1,600 years isn't enough.

                  So, what are the real estimates for how much potential energy in biomass is converted into the potential energy found in fossil fuel deposits? Dave, do you believe that ALL (or even MOST, or even a significant amount) of plant biomass (or at least potential energy) alive on the planet will become part of the energy content in known fossil fuel deposits? Really?!
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,12:33

                  Quote (Asshat Liar Dave @ Nov. 13 2006,11:26)
                  Oh I see ... you're still back on that are you?  I already showed you six ways from Sunday how the geological record is much better explained by a single Global Flood than by "billions of years of slow sedimentation."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh really Asshat?  Then please provide the permalink to the part where you explained the geological data from China that shows a 500' deep canyon, carved into solid limestone, and then buried under 17000 feet of sediment.

                  How long does it take limestone to form Dave?
                  How long does it take to erode?
                  How did it get buried under more than 3 miles of sediment Dave?

                  Oh, and you STILL forgot to answer these questions

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why do all those completely independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, and show dates back to over 50,000 YBP?

                  Why does NOT ONE of the sets of calibration data show the 200X carbon 'spike' you claim happened?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Don't those big brown stains in your tighty whiteys start to stink after a while?  :p
                  Posted by: Michael Tuite on Nov. 13 2006,12:39

                  Hello Dave,
                  Just a quick, back of the envelope calculation (no evolutionist assumptions - just straight-forward chemistry) from the data in the chart you posted:

                  13180x10^12 metric tons of cabonates = 1.318x10^20 moles of calcium carbonate (limestone) - the most common carbonate rock

                  1129 kilojoules of heat are given off for every mole of calcite (the most common form of calcium carbonate) formed from solution

                  that's a whopping 1.488x10^26 Joules of heat generated by the formation of those cabonates or about half of what the sun emits every second

                  and, this is a conservative estimate because dolomite, the next most common carbonate mineral, gives off twice as much heat while forming

                  Time is the critical factor in dealing with this immense heat of formation. Over how long a period do flood geologists predict that the carbonates in the geological record were precipitated? Do you suppose they were solid by the time the flood waters receded?

                  Michael
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,12:40

                  Cory: that's only PART of the butt-gusting hilarity of the hand-waving in that "scientific" article...check these parts out: (my emphases)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  These asshats are claiming a ONE-TO-ONE ratio for vegetation and resultant coal formation!!!!!!! AND THEIR AUTHORITY FOR THIS IS "SOME GEOLOGISTS" WITH NO CITATION.

                  Here's another well-researched claim in that "article" Dave posted:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The language used in Scripture also implies that there was probably more land area then on the face of the globe than ‘seas’ (see Taylor, 1982). This being the case therefore, it is likely that there was at least twice as much land area available for vegetation growth in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s world (i.e. at least 60% land versus 40% sea in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s roughly 30% land verses 70% oceans). If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation, then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I won't even bother to say how silly this would be in an ACTUAL JOURNAL
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 13 2006,12:49

                  Quote (incorygible @ Nov. 13 2006,13:30)
                  I'm still busting a gut over Davey's idea of "real" science. It's tough to choose, but I think this is my favourite part of Snelling's 'calculations':

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Divide 14 days by .03%
                  i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.
                  So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, what are the real estimates for how much potential energy in biomass is converted into the potential energy found in fossil fuel deposits? Dave, do you believe that ALL (or even MOST, or even a significant amount) of plant biomass (or at least potential energy) alive on the planet will become part of the energy content in known fossil fuel deposits? Really?!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I was going to hold this one in reserve myself, but its out now.

                  Hmmmm....   100% efficiency..... perpetual motion...... 2nd Law Arguments.......   methinks there is a problem here.

                  Now, the article claims TOTAL solar energy that hits the earths surface.  I like energy too, but there are forms of energy that are not too useful for what you need to get done (i.e. a large, tepid lake has a lot of enthalpy compared to the surrounding environment BUT whet I really want is chemical potential energy to launch my rocket into space).

                  How much of that TOTAL solar energy is of a form that photosynthetic plants can use?

                  What is the efficiency of plant energy conversion when related to photosynthesis (even in the vaporous, heavily thermadore environment that is claimed pre-flood).

                  Dave likes to parse claimed numbers from science articles so the reverse action should be acceptable when looking at flood claims.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 13 2006,13:04

                  So... radiocarbon dating is flawed because:
                  - total biomass was hundreds of times higher before the flood. (evidence?)
                  - That makes dead organisms appear older than they really are. (how?)
                  - Dendrochronology is flawed too. (proof?)
                  - thus calibration curves are not valid (so where do the correlation come from?)

                  Very convincing, Davey. Keep it up!  :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,13:11

                  YOU made an extraordinary claim, Davey-boy. YOU claimed that radiocarbon dating was irrevocably flawed and unusable in relation to material before and after 2300 BCE, your "flood date".

                  Here's the game plan, Davey-boy:

                  1) If you cannot show that radiocarbon dating is flawed at it's most essential levels of theory and methodology, with all your data laid out in analyzable detail;

                  2) You better evoke another miracle real quick because;

                  3) I have a very large list of radiocarbon dates, in EXCRUCIATING detail...that says you're full of what is filling the space between your ears, too. This poses a problem for you because;

                  4) On each and every one of the citations I will give you , IN DETAIL, you will have to show "operator error" --and by that I mean you will have to show that the scientists involved did NOT eliminate contamination, or did NOT take calibration into their calculations, or they MADE SOME OTHER DEMONSTRABLE ERROR.


                  In short, Davey...you WILL have to be able to wave your hands so fast, you take flight like a little hummingbird...and do it for real,so EVERYONE can see it.

                  Oh, and just to remind you, Dave...Glenn Morton worked in oil...and it is this very topic we are discussing that led to a light going on in his head...one that caused him to see that YEC's were both deliberately lying and/or deluded to such a degree that they were willing to write the kind of "articles" you just posted.

                  That's why he walked away from their lies/delusion.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,14:15

                  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM?  NO ... IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO GRASP ... HERE IT IS AGAIN

                  1)  For your Carbon 14 dating system to work, you need to assume uniform C throughout earth history
                  2)  Of course you do this because you don't want the creationists to be correct
                  3)  There is overwhelming evidence that there was a massive Global Flood, which evidence you (incredibly! ) ignore
                  4)  The best explanation for the 200X-500X carbon existing in the fossil record is this Global Flood
                  5)  If there was this much carbon pre-Flood, then your C14 dates are way off

                  See?  That wasn't hard now was it?

                  Some of you seem to think this is really arcane, complicated stuff to figure out.

                  Much of it is not.

                  Much of the evidence for the truth of the BIblical record is as plain as the nose on your face!

                  Once again ... REALLY simple this time ...

                  1) Lots of pre-Flood carbon, 200-500X modern levels
                  2) Invalidates uniformitarian assumption for C14 dating
                  3) All that carbon gets buried in the Flood
                  4) The Brookhaven Symposium reports it
                  5) ATBCers don't get it
                  6) What's new?

                  (And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth! )
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 13 2006,14:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:15)
                  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM?  NO ... IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO GRASP ... HERE IT IS AGAIN

                  Once again ... REALLY simple this time ...

                  1) Lots of pre-Flood carbon, 200-500X modern levels
                  2) Invalidates uniformitarian assumption for C14 dating
                  3) All that carbon gets buried in the Flood
                  4) The Brookhaven Symposium reports it
                  5) ATBCers don't get it
                  6) What's new?

                  (And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth! )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Still waiting for an answer related to your flood and coal.  In case YOU forgot....
                  ***********************
                  ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

                  You also mentioned something about 'primordial' coal.

                  HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

                  I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.
                  *************************
                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 13 2006,14:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)  For your Carbon 14 dating system to work, you need to assume uniform C throughout earth history
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Huh, no. Calibration curves show that what you call "C" (which is the atmospheric C12/C14 ratio) wasn't exactly uniform. There is a standard correction for that deviation. With our without, the Earth appears far more than 6000 years old. (and we're not even considering other radionuclids like U or Sr)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  2)  Of course you do this because you don't want the creationists to be correct
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure, we are part of that evil atheist conspiracy.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  3)  There is overwhelming evidence that there was a massive Global Flood, which evidence you (incredibly! ) ignore

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Millions of dead things
                  burried in rock layers
                  all over the earth? :D


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  4)  The best explanation for the 200X-500X carbon existing in the fossil record is this Global Flood

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, I'm sorry there is much evidence of the contrary, namely carbon deposits (oil, limestone...) that can't result from a flood.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  5)  If there was this much carbon pre-Flood, then your C14 dates are way off
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where are the equations?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,14:43

                  As others have mentioned several times, Davey-boy...it is apparent to even a lightweight like you that there is lots of coal, oil , shale oil and carbonates in the Earth. The problem for you is that you have not shown
                  1) it all comes from a single deluge event at 2300 BCE
                  2) How this would skew radiocarbon dates...IN DETAIL...citing analyzable data and figures.


                  The problem is that you have offered no evidence that ALL of it is from your required period. In fact, the very article you cited ( even with the magic increase in land area and 1:1 ratio of vegetation-->coal ) only supported a doubling of current biomass . You need 200 times that, based on your own last statements. You have also neglected the oil and shale oil I specifically asked for...then you have the problem of carbonates in other sources.

                  Then you need to show it alllllllll dates from the required time period.

                  You have offered NO evidence to that effect, certainly nothing that is in your two posted "articles"
                  There is no independent confirmation via paleoatmosphere studies, either, which I specifically asked for.

                  Just waving your hands and saying " here's two articles, one estimating total carbon in biomass, and this one, citing "some geologists" in the text " well, that's not good enough, bright boy.

                  And no, you still haven't shown anything close to all sediments being part of some global deluge, and you refused to answer any questions on that. So that doesn't count either. In fact, you ran from Mike's annihilation of your claims on whole rock/isochron dating methods, etc.  

                  You need to show that there is a mechanism by which that carbon that YOU claim is ALL "from 2300 years BCE" would affect radiocarbon dating at all, HOW? SHOW IT...HOW would it give dates greater than your flood date? SHOW that any of it is supported.

                  You failed and you're merely weaseling again, Dave...Your "evidence" is flawed as posts above noted, your claims are flawed and you have not supported them.

                  You lose, and you know it, so you are avoiding showing actual data supporting your claim that all radiocarbon dates are flawed -- or how they could be in principle be flawed -- with supporting, verifiable data that can be analyzed.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,14:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,14:15)
                  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM?  NO ... IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO GRASP ... HERE IT IS AGAIN

                  1)  For your Carbon 14 dating system to work, you need to assume uniform C throughout earth history
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. All you need is a method by which you can calibrate C14/C12 ratios over the relevant dates. Such methods exist; they're the other 41 calibration curves. There's no requirement that there's been the same amount of carbon (where, Dave? On the planet? In the atmosphere? Sequestered in underground carbon sinks?). You have zero evidence that the amount of carbon (where, Dave?) has changed over the last 50,000 years.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)  Of course you do this because you don't want the creationists to be correct
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's been the same amount of carbon present on the earth since its formation, Dave. The only thing that's changed is where that carbon is.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3)  There is overwhelming evidence that there was a massive Global Flood, which evidence you (incredibly! ) ignore
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's no evidence that there was ever a "global flood," Dave, and it's been explained to you over, and over, and over again why such a flood is impossible without invoking miracles. Even W. H. Morris admits that such a flood is impossible without miracles. We can't ignore what ain't there, Dave.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4)  The best explanation for the 200X-500X carbon existing in the fossil record is this Global Flood
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Existing where, Dave? There's been the same amount of carbon on the planet since it was formed. The only thing that's changed is where that carbon is. Since your flood certainly did not happen, it cannot possibly be an explanation for how all this carbon moved from one place to another.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5)  If there was this much carbon pre-Flood, then your C14 dates are way off
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. You still have not demonstrated why more carbon (where, Dave?) would effect the ratio of C14 to C12. Without a mechanism to accomplish that, it doesn't matter how much carbon there is, nor does it matter where it is.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  See?  That wasn't hard now was it?

                  Some of you seem to think this is really arcane, complicated stuff to figure out.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, until you can explain the remarkable concordance between radiocarbon dates and dates obtained by multiple other completely independent methods, it's not complicated at all. Radiocarbon dating is accurate, and you have presented not one scintilla of evidence to suggest otherwise. I see a lot of hummingbird-flapping of arms, and that's all.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Once again ... REALLY simple this time ...

                  1) Lots of pre-Flood carbon, 200-500X modern levels
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where, Dave? Where was there more carbon 4,500 years ago than now?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) Invalidates uniformitarian assumption for C14 dating
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Has nothing to do with any assumptions for C14 dating
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) All that carbon gets buried in the Flood
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No evidence for "flood," no evidence that it buried anything. How did your "flood" manage to bury petroleum deposits under five miles of sediment?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4) The Brookhaven Symposium reports it
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They report that oil and coal deposits exist, genius. They don't claim they were produced 4,500 years ago.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5) ATBCers don't get it
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave doesn't get it.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  6) What's new?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Only that your arguments get dumber and dumber.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth! )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And this still ranks as one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Care to explain (this is easily the tenth time I've asked this question) why it's more probable that they got buried in a year than over billions of years?

                  One more thing, Dave. It's not "millions of dead things." It's "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dead things."
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,14:47

                  Quote (Asshat Liar Dave @ Nov. 13 2006,14:15)

                  EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM?  NO ... IT'S REALLY SIMPLE TO GRASP ... HERE IT IS AGAIN

                  1)  For your Carbon 14 dating system to work, you need to assume uniform C throughout earth history
                  2)  Of course you do this because you don't want the creationists to be correct
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  *BZZZZT*  Wrong Answer!  The whole point of doing the C14 calibration is because it is well known that the C14/C12 ratio has not been uniform over time.  You know that, but still feel compelled to lie about it.  Why is that Davie?
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3)  There is overwhelming evidence that there was a massive Global Flood, which evidence you (incredibly! ) ignore
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except for the fact you have presented ZERO such evidence here, and have seen TONS that directly refute you.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4)  The best explanation for the 200X-500X carbon existing in the fossil record is this Global Flood
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except you have no way to produce that much biomass in only 1500 years, and no way for it to be buried and turned into coal in 4500 years, and no water for your Flood, and no way to account for currently seen geological structures (like that buried canyon in China - remember Davie?)
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5)  If there was this much carbon pre-Flood, then your C14 dates are way off
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There wasn't, and they're not.  Why do you keep lying and avoiding the evidence that is presented?

                  How long does it take limestone to form Dave?
                  Why do all those completely independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, and show dates back to over 50,000 YBP?
                  Why does NOT ONE of the sets of calibration data show the 200X carbon 'spike' you claim happened?

                  The Lord HATES liars Dave - shouldn't you change your prevaricating ways before it's too late?
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 13 2006,14:57

                  Re "HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?"

                  OOH! OOH! I know this one - it's that one of them exists and the other doesn't - right? ;) :p
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2006,15:05

                  i think daveys been reading this
                  < THE INTERPRETATION OF C-14 DATES >

                  It's funny because you can read big chunks of it and it reads ok, but then they say things like
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  transition between the pre-biblical-flood biosphere and the contemporary biosphere  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  and it all goes funny again :)

                  Found, unsurprisingly at An Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Geoscience Research Institute

                  yuk

                  edit: on the teachers < faq > it says

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN THIS MANUSCRIPT DO NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OF ANY GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL. THEY MAY NOT EVEN REPRESENT MY VIEWS BY THE TIME YOU READ THEM.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  say it like you mean it why dont ya!
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,15:07

                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I won't even bother to say how silly this would be in an ACTUAL JOURNAL
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He's referring to the mention of Scripture in the article ...

                  Funny ...

                  Deadman laughs at the very Book that gave him the prosperity he now enjoys!

                  Sorta like spitting in your mom's face to show thanks for your Christmas presents.

                  ********************************

                  Calibration, huh ...

                  Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)

                  OK, I'll bite ... is Dendro your first one?  Tell me what's wrong with Batten's dendro article that I posted this morning.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2006,15:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:07)
                  Calibration, huh ...

                  Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)

                  OK, I'll bite ... is Dendro your first one?  Tell me what's wrong with Batten's dendro article that I posted this morning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  no, i think the way it works is that you 1st disprove radiocarbon dating and then get to put in the replacement.

                  radiocarbon dating: < http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm >
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 13 2006,15:16

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 13 2006,15:44)
                  No evidence for "flood," no evidence that it buried anything. How did your "flood" manage to bury petroleum deposits under five miles of sediment?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Back during flood times, water used to float on top of oil. Only your clouded Darwinist mind could think otherwise.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And this still ranks as one of the dumbest things you've ever said.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  With the Hitler bit being #1.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,15:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:07)
                  Calibration, huh ...

                  Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, why is it that you're the only one who even talks about "calibration" of the Koobi fora rocks? Could it be that there was no "calibration," in the sense you mean it, happening?

                  It was explained to you in exhaustive detail that the fossils were not use to calibrate the radiometric dating results, but what did you do? What you usually do. You ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,15:25

                  oldman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  no, i think the way it works is that you 1st disprove radiocarbon dating and then get to put in the replacement.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Already did.  You missed it. *sigh*
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,15:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:25)
                  oldman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  no, i think the way it works is that you 1st disprove radiocarbon dating and then get to put in the replacement.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Already did.  You missed it. *sigh*
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you haven't disproved anything. You seem to be under the misapprehension that just C&Ping a bunch of worthless mumbo-jumbo crap from AiG amounts to "disproving" something.

                  And in the meantime, you've presented zero evidence to support a single assertion in your UCG"H." You haven't even been able to answer simple questions about your chronology Mike PSS asked you weeks ago.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,15:31

                  Don't try to change the subject, Davey-boy...you were required to do multiple things that would then support your claim that radiocarbon dating is irrevocably flawed.

                  You have not done this.

                  You cited two creationist articles that are hilariously flawed and don't back your claims in the least to the degree required to make the claim that a Nobel-Prize-winning scientific advance is "disproven"

                  When you manage to address THAT , then we can move to other topics, intellectual coward
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,15:34

                  And I'm going to keep asking until you either answer the question or admit you have no idea: What accounts for the remarkable concordance of radiocarbon calibration curves with the other 41 calibration curves that match it exactly? More "miracles"?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,15:36

                  You're the one that changed the subject.  

                  We were discussing genetics, but someone (I think you) wanted to talk about C14 ... so I accomodated you.

                  And refuted you.

                  Now you're sore.

                  Don Batten has refuted your dendrochronology also.  What do you have to say about that?

                  And when are we going to hear of some HISTORICAL evidence of a Pre-Flood Egypt and China?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 13 2006,15:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:36)
                  You're the one that changed the subject.  

                  We were discussing genetics, but someone (I think you) wanted to talk about C14 ... so I accomodated you.

                  And refuted you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I must have missed that.  :D

                  Answer the questions, coward.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,15:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:36)
                  You're the one that changed the subject.  

                  We were discussing genetics, but someone (I think you) wanted to talk about C14 ... so I accomodated you.

                  And refuted you.

                  Now you're sore.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the kind of delusions of grandeur you exhibit are usually enough to land one in the loony bin.

                  I don't care what the particular topic is at any given point, Dave, because I can poke enormous holes in any claim you make without even trying.

                  If you think you've "refuted" anything about radiometric dating, you're sorely in need of professional help.

                  "Sore"? Hardly? I'm laughing my ass off at you as you make mistake after mistake after mistake, all the while declaring victory on every topic you discuss.

                  So start right here, Dave. Explain how there's less carbon now on and in the earth than there was 4,500 years ago. What became of that carbon? Did it get ejected into outer space?

                  If your claim is that there's the same amount of carbon now as there was 4,500 years ago, but it's just been sequestered into underground sinks like coal, oil, and calcium carbonate deposits, then present some evidence that it all happened 4,500 years ago. Because so far you haven't even attempted to marshal evidence to prove any such thing.

                  "Refuted"? You haven't even addressed the issue.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,15:49

                  My, my, my. You're bailing out on this already, Davey? You cite two monumentally flawed creationist articles and you expect people here to just accept it?

                  No dates on the carbon at all, just hand-waving saying " it's due to the flood" with NO corroboration at all?

                  No atmospheric or paleoclimate data supporting this hand-waving?

                  No mechanisms explicitly delineated with calculations showing the validity of the claimed refutation of C14?

                  No evidence supporting the amount of biomass needed to produce 200 times the level of the current amount ...which you yourself said you needed to explain this rapid massive increase in carbon that you claim?

                  Yeah, you really just should concede that you don't know what you're talking about and concede that you have not shown C14 dating to be wrong at all.
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 13 2006,15:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,16:07)
                  Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please, Dave.  All you know about the calibration methodology from Koobi Fora was that it was too sciencey for you to follow.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 13 2006,15:53

                  Don Batten:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you (and Don Batten) are an insult to real scientists. Do you think the C14 method is calibrated by datings relying on C14? What don't you understand in the expression "independent method"?

                  You'd better get educated on dendrochronology from relevant sources.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,15:56

                  Dm ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My, my, my. You're bailing out on this already, Davey? You cite two monumentally flawed creationist articles and you expect people here to just accept it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh no.  Didn't expect anyone here to accept it.  Just wanted to say what kind of hand waving you would do to try to dismiss it.  

                  If it's the calculations which bring your inflated C14 dates back to reality that you're looking for, I think I went through that long ago.  Anyway, it's in the RATE Books.  I suggest buying them.  What I had NOT shown before is the proof of 200X-500X pre-Flood carbon which Baumgardner refers to in the RATE Book v. 2.

                  Now that that's done, what's left?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,16:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:56)
                  Dm ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My, my, my. You're bailing out on this already, Davey? You cite two monumentally flawed creationist articles and you expect people here to just accept it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh no.  Didn't expect anyone here to accept it.  Just wanted to say what kind of hand waving you would do to try to dismiss it.  

                  If it's the calculations which bring your inflated C14 dates back to reality that you're looking for, I think I went through that long ago.  Anyway, it's in the RATE Books.  I suggest buying them.  What I had NOT shown before is the proof of 200X-500X pre-Flood carbon which Baumgardner refers to in the RATE Book v. 2.

                  Now that that's done, what's left?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you've been defeated by your lack of understanding about how science works. The reason no one here accepts your arguments is because you don't have to goods to support them. You think C&Ping massively flawed arguments from AiG that have holes you could drive a Mack truck through somehow will convince people who have been trained to evaluate evidence. You ain't got any evidence. You've got arm-waving on a galactic scale.

                  You've never even presented evidence that more carbon will change the C14/C12 ratio. Until you do that, trying to prove that somehow there was more carbon on the planet 4,500 years ago will get you exactly nowhere.

                  So nothing's been "done," Dave. You haven't demonstrated that there's any difference in the amount of carbon now and 4,500 years ago. You haven't demonstrated that the carbon on earth is distributed differently now from 4,500 years ago. You haven't demonstrated how a different amount of carbon, or a different distribution in the same amount of carbon, would affect C14/C12 ratios. You haven't come up with any explanation for how all the different calibration curves, from multiple different independent sources, all match up perfectly.

                  In other words, you accomplished nothing.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,16:10

                  except you didn't show that at all, Dave. Look at your citations. Then look at current amounts of carbon in sequestered states. Look at CURRENT estimates, not crap from 1951 deliberately selected because a half-century ago estimates were less refined.
                  Let me put it this way, even a creationist in 1979 ( not to mention Glenn Morton's analysis when he WAS a YEC)  estimates are orders of magnitude higher for current carbon levels. as Morton noted, there's 40 THOUSAND times the amount of carbon in the current biomass just in strata/soils not to mention coal/shale oil and oil reserves that are known.

                  It's easy to refute your claims, and those of the papers you cited...just by looking at current carbon reserves in sequestered states.

                  Add up the oil and shale oil that you failed to mention in any way. Add up the soil carbonates. What's the problem, little buckaroo? No courage?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,16:18

                  Here ya go, Dave, I'll get you started here:

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal > Look under current reserves

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum > Look for current reserves

                  Scharpenseel HW, Becker-Heidmann P. 1992. Twenty-five years of radiocarbon dating soils: paradigm of erring and learning. Radiocarbon 34:541-549. Gives estimates on carbon in soils & minerals, Dave. It's available at the Radiocarbon library I gave you.

                  Oh, and don't forget current atmospheric carbon.

                  Go do those current calculations,  genius, not some crap from over a half-century ago that is deliberately selected to lowball estimates.

                  AFTER YOU DO THAT, THEN we can discuss the mechanism, precisely, with calculations from you, on how this affects C14, THEN we will discuss your evidence that such a large mass of carbon actually existed at the time period you need and formed all the carbon reserves in shale oil/coal/oil/carbonate soils/minerals...and you can provide the climate and atmospheric data showing this happened in the last 10,000 years.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,16:32



                  I posted this just as another amusing aside...the above relects estimates available, and can be found at ...Dave's favorite source of info, Wikipedia...I brought this up just as a lark. The Green line represents CO2. blue is temp, red is atmospheric dust as seen in cores.

                  Now, here's Glenn Morton:
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [b]Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold. (See "Austin et al, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" 3rd ICC 1994, p. 615 and Michael Oard, A rapid Post Flood Ice Age," CRSQ 16(1979):29-37; Oard, An Ice age Caused by the Genesis Flood, 1990 ICR).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And, Humphries is a "physicist"

                  And Baumgardner evokes miracles to get rid of the heat caused by his flying tectonic plates whizzing across the oceans like speedboats, with little penguins perched on the prow.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,16:34

                  Quote ( Asshat Liar Dave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:07 )
                     
                  He's referring to the mention of Scripture in the article ...

                  Funny ...

                  Deadman laughs at the very Book that gave him the prosperity he now enjoys!

                  Sorta like spitting in your mom's face to show thanks for your Christmas presents.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well Dave, seeing as how you're constantly telling big fat sinful lies in front of your Heavenly Father, you've got no room to talk... :D

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Calibration, huh ...

                  Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)

                  OK, I'll bite ... is Dendro your first one?  Tell me what's wrong with Batten's dendro article that I posted this morning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah Asshat Dave, calibration.

                  Why does not a single friggin' one of the dozens of independent C14/C12 calibration curves you've been presented show your 200X-500X carbon spike?

                  That having to think for yourself is just killing you, isn't it Davie-poo?  :D
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,16:45

                  It's funny how Davey-dumplin' thinks the little "tricks" he uses on kids can also be used to divert attention away from his monumental failure thus far.
                  He's tried to bait me with dendro, and suddenly knowing about it after he earlier claimed NOT to know enough about it...twice. Once in the previous part of the thread and once in this one.
                  Then it's "The Bible gave you all the riches you have" crap.
                  Heh, the boy's quite a hoot, and quite intellectually dishonest.

                  Just to remind you, Davey-boy...here's what was asked of you:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Large amounts of volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere that would affect carbon dating, a mechanism/model by which this manages to affect dating

                  2) Large amounts of carbon increase on Earth and a mechanism/model by which this affects radiocarbon dating.

                  3) Analyzable, detailed calculations on the biomass needed to produce the coal, shale oil and oil found on pre-industrial Earth. WITH citations for the figures given.

                  This is just the beginning, since it is Dave who says he can show C14 dating to be unusably wrong, he bears the burden of proof.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 13 2006,16:58

                  AFDavie strikes me as a control freak, one who is used to getting his way by being manipulative, outright lying, and bullying.  His standard arsenal of BS-ing and saying "because I said so!" doesn't work here with people who are 98% more educated and 100% more intellectually honest than him.  It's left him looking like an assclown, but he's too stupid to realize that too.

                  I really feel pity for his wife and kids.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,17:03

                  I feel sorry for the kids, only. The wife has a choice...but I'll leave it to others to conjecture what this says about the situation
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 13 2006,18:18

                  afdave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We were discussing genetics, but someone (I think you) wanted to talk about C14 ... so I accomodated you.

                  And refuted you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I've just scanned the last 24 hours or so of exchange. And it's possible I missed something, but...

                  The idea behind 14C dating is that the 14C/12C ratio in the carbon getting incorporated into living things is essentially the 14C/12C ratio in the CO2 in the atmosphere, getting fixed by photosynthesis, and after incorporation, that ratio steadily, predictably, declines.

                  So (1) how much carbon is sequestered in coal, oil, limestone, whatever... doesn't enter into the discussion, and (2) no evidence for any catastrophic change in atmospheric - or any other reservoir - of C has been presented.

                  So, where's all this "refuting" you refer to?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 13 2006,18:42

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 13 2006,18:18)
                  I've just scanned the last 24 hours or so of exchange. And it's possible I missed something, but...

                  The idea behind 14C dating is that the 14C/12C ratio in the carbon getting incorporated into living things is essentially the 14C/12C ratio in the CO2 in the atmosphere, getting fixed by photosynthesis, and after incorporation, that ratio steadily, predictably, declines.

                  So (1) how much carbon is sequestered in coal, oil, limestone, whatever... doesn't enter into the discussion, and (2) no evidence for any catastrophic change in atmospheric - or any other reservoir - of C has been presented.

                  So, where's all this "refuting" you refer to?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You didn't miss anything. Dave seems to have this bizarre idea that, because (he claims) there was more carbon (where? he's not very specific about where—I can't tell if he means there was more total carbon on the planet, if there was more in the biosphere, more underground, more in the atmosphere, more in ants' butts), that would somehow magically change the C14/C12 ratio. He's never given the slightest reason for thinking a change in the total number of carbon atoms in circulation would somehow change the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms.

                  He hasn't "refuted" anything. Ever. On any subject.
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Nov. 13 2006,20:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:15)
                  (And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!;)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"????

                  Where are all the people??
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Nov. 13 2006,20:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,16:07)
                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I won't even bother to say how silly this would be in an ACTUAL JOURNAL
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He's referring to the mention of Scripture in the article ...

                  Funny ...

                  Deadman laughs at the very Book that gave him the prosperity he now enjoys!

                  Sorta like spitting in your mom's face to show thanks for your Christmas presents.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, so now Dave's claiming that the Bible provides Deadman with whatever "prosperity" he enjoys?!?!

                  Wait a minute! I think I read about this recently....

                  "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain!"
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,20:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Deadman ... Quote  
                  I won't even bother to say how silly this would be in an ACTUAL JOURNAL  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He's referring to the mention of Scripture in the article ...

                  Funny ...

                  Deadman laughs at the very Book that gave him the prosperity he now enjoys!

                  Sorta like spitting in your mom's face to show thanks for your Christmas presents.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ....Prosperity he now enjoys .... Ah yes the shining whore house on the hill with the pastor outside scamming donations saying the end is nigh .....eh Davey.

                  As usual A BIG FAT LIE

                  Cheap energy relies on Geology that shows the Earth is billions of years old,not the Bible

                  Modern medicine relies on Biology that shows Random Mutations plus Natural Selection is responsible for life on earth, not the Bible

                  Modern Technology relies on science that shows there is no evidence for any deities, not the Bible

                  The US Constitution does not have one sentence from the Bible, Thomas Paine (1736-1809) author  of "The Rights of Man" and anti religionist had more influence on the US Constitution than Moses.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 13 2006,21:31

                  Like many public "control freaks," I would suggest Dave is a private masochist.

                  Except, here he is, dah-dah-doing it in the road!

                  Ah, that's it, secretly all these fundy wing-nuts yearn for their sinful weaknesses to be exposed for all to see, so that they can then thesp through their forgiveness schtick.

                  But that means that, uh, Dave is just using us to out himself...

                  Suddenly, I feel so dirty.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 13 2006,22:02

                  CALCULATIONS?  OK. HERE'S CALCULATIONS FOR YOU
                  (Your C14 dates are still invalid even with only 100X pre-Flood biomass)

                  DM ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Go do those current calculations,  genius, not some crap from over a half-century ago that is deliberately selected to lowball estimates.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Deadman, let me help your comprehension ...

                  The OLDER data (1951) was 176X.

                  The newer data (1973) was 500X.

                  If you have newer data that's different, bring it on.

                  But your C14 dating is invalidated even if it's only 100X.

                  ... which is the ratio used in this 1990 paper.

                  All the calculations are right here ...

                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.pdf >

                  According to this paper, 100X trims approximately 38,000 years off a 43,000 year uniformitarian date, bringing it back to the realm of reality and sanity ...

                  5000 years.

                  Pretty neat, huh?

                  (You guys are so much fun!  Pass along my thanks to Wesley for letting me come over here and beat up on you!  You cannot buy this kind of entertatinment! )

                  ***************************************

                  Notta ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,22:10

                  I've read the "grisda" paper already, Dave...in fact, that's where I got some other citations from... like the 1976 date I gave...except I didn't mention the name of the author, Brown.
                  So you went and looked it up ( it's actually online, too at < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm > Dave, not just the PDF)...and in it, you can see it doesn't answer what I asked, either. No dates showing the carbon IS from the era you require, no supporting data, no atmospheric, no cores, no nothing, just guesswork that you seem to think is real impressive.
                  You should note that Brown, even with his fake calculations based on utter guesswork..places the flood at a date prior to your claimed date -- 3,350 + BCE.

                  I'm going to start from the beginning of the PDF...Brown states that he's accepting ONLY calibration by bristlecone given in 1968, which he then promply tosses out, saying his correllation is NOT based on bristlecone or uranium-thorium, only on his bible dates and an assumption of increasing ratios through time. (p.59)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The correlation developed will be an interpretation, and should be based only on fundamental data, not on other interpretations such as the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology model or the U-Th age model. It is to be compared with these other interpretations, but to be kept distinct from them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ...that's flaw one.

                  Flaw two: he is assuming because he wants the flood to be at 5000 BP, that the PREFLOOD Earth had ONE-ONE HUNDRETH the present C14/C12 ratio....with no citations as to the validity of this claim at all. In fact, the C14/C12 ratios have fluctuated, but not anything NEAR that degree, and this is shown in my citations on carbon , such as : Falkowski, P., et al.(2000) "The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System." Science 290: 291-96. and  Becker, B., Kromer, B., and Trimborn P., 1991 (17 Oct). A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary. Nature 353: 647-649

                  ** Special note to Dave--What is the known half-life of C14? --- is it 5,730 years? If this is so...how could the ratios be so drastically different at the flood???( one ONE HUNDRETH of the present?????) And NO citations given, my, my
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 13 2006,22:17

                  Quote (notta_skeptic @ Nov. 13 2006,20:17)
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,15:15)
                  (And in case you forgot ... Proof for the Flood >>> say it with me ... Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth!;)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"????

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good point NS. When you add the point Eric brought up



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  One more thing, Dave. It's not "millions of dead things." It's "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dead things."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  and consider that so few animals become fossils out of any population, there had to have been so many creatures running around it's a wonder Noah found room to build an ark!
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,22:19

                  Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  On the mountain of Purgatory I suppose.

                  That just HAS to be the stupidest thing have I ever heard in my WHOLE LIFE.

                  OK AFD take it away...you win....all you need to do now is write it down in your AiG scrap book and present it to NASA.

                  Which I am sure will start looking for oversized fish fossils on the tops of Martian mountains now that you have presented the definitive guide to the History of the Earth.


                  ....uh oh ......you said 'think' .....no one here is capable of that sort of 'thinking' .......we are all adults now.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,22:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dead things."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Easily the scale must be trillions of orders of magnitude larger.

                  Consider how many trillions of microscopic algea deposited over a 10's of million years contribute to some thing like the 400 meter chalk cliffs at Dover in England.

                  The carboniferous period 135 million years ago responsible for the worlds finite supply of Oil would probably exceed those figures on their own.

                  Not to mention the far larger known supplies of coal.

                  If AFD was to apply his error to say the distance between
                  NY and LA he would have them less than a 100 meters apart.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 13 2006,22:35

                  So where was all this C?

                  This has been asked before, but not answered, presumably because you can't find a suitable source to C&P from. I live in hope that you realize that it would have ludicrous implications if it were in the atmosphere and equally ludicrous implications if it were in biomass.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 13 2006,22:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02)
                  Notta ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  OH Davey!

                  So now you're claiming that crocodilians, turtles, frogs, newts, chickens, rabbits, skunks, badgers, sloths and rodents etc. managed to get to the tops of mountains before dinosaurs, pterosaurs, archaic mammals and birds?

                  Only archaic fish succumbed to the flood but no modern ones did?

                  If you teach third graders it's no wonder you're so used to bullying them into taking your word for it, because your explanations are goofy at best!

                  You NEED a Goliath of your own Davey 'cause it's clear you have no conscience of your own.
                  Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 13 2006,22:41

                  Just popped into this Schadenfreude thread (should anyone be laughed at so much?) to again get the gist of what's going on, and found this:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Where are all the people??  
                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The thought of frogs and anteaters, as well as old ladies and invalids, becoming mountain climbers is probably as facetious as any "idea" put out by our inveterate spinmeister (well, recycler of tales).  

                  I always wondered, too, how it happened that there were no vast plains or great swamps in the antedeluvian world.  Apparently frogs and anteaters all lived in river valleys, ready to sprint up the mountains at a moment's notice.  

                  I guess that answers the question of where all the CO2 came from, since apparently every last place on the continents was tectonically active, hence the volcanic emissions were enormous (doesn't quite explain how 20 or more atmospheres of CO2 were fixed by plants being assaulted with volcanic gases, but if Noah's ark could hold all of the animals (or at least the chromosomally-aberrant types having 500 alleles per gene) miraculously, why couldn't the plants live and grow miraculously?).

                  I suppose the greatest miracle of all is how the dead in their graves sprinted up the mountains, alongside the maim, the halt, the blind, plus the anteaters, elephants (anyone see an elephant climb a mountain?), and the frogs.  Hardly worth asking how the grasses (found most usually in prairies and plains) managed to outpace the liverworts and ferns, since we've already had our fun.

                  Glen D
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 13 2006,22:45

                  Richard Simons said:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...I live in hope that you realize that it would have ludicrous implications if it were in the atmosphere and equally I live in hope that you realize that it would have ludicrous implications if it were in the atmosphere and equally ludicrous implications if it were in biomass.if it were in biomass.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Davey doesn't get "ludicrous implications" he just does ludicrous credulity...by implication.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 13 2006,23:33

                  I thought there weren't any big mountains before the flood. Is that AFDave? Or a different creationist?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 13 2006,23:39

                  IN case you can't grasp this, Dave...R.H. Brown's "calculations" are based on his assumption of a steadily decreasing ratio (larger to smaller) from the "flood" date of 3000+ BCE to now...a flawed and demonstrably false assumption that is shown not ONLY by dendrochronology, AND ice core data, but also all the calibration methods developed since 1969.

                  Scientists can check how many C-14 per C-12 atoms there were in the atmosphere during every century up to and beyond your flood date, Dave... and "R.H. Brown " specifically states his "method" doesn't involve calibration by the known methods at all...just assumptions on his part that are shown false by more than two dozen methods.

                  He ASSUMES the ratio at the flood was ONE- ONE HUNDRETH the present and offers NO citations to back that, then proceeds to calculate a straightforward " equilibrium" model from this flawed basis.

                  Hughen, K. et al. 2004. 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science 303: 202-207.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The current standard calibration [then], Intcal98, extends back at HIGH RESOLUTION [my emphasis] to just ~14,600 calendar years before the present on the basis of annual tree rings (B. Kromer and M. Spurk, Radiocarbon 40, 1117 ,1998) and varved marine sediments  (K.A. Hughen  et al, Nature 391: 65, 1998).

                  Paired 14C and U/Th ages on corals (H. Kitigawa, J. Van der Plicht, Science 279: 1187, 1998)  provide additional calibration points back to ~40 cal ka BP [40 thousand calendar years before the present]....

                  HERE WE PRESENT A CALIBRATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF [delta] 14 C going back to 50 cal ka BP. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Bard, E., F. Rostek and G. Ménot-Combes. 2004. A better radiocarbon clock. Science 303: 178-179.

                  That's from the same issue...you said you get the journal Science now...look at it online. I subscribe to both Nature and Science so I know you can view it there. They cover the C14-C12 ratios, so your claim by R.H. Brown was dead on arrival, kid.
                  Posted by: someotherguy on Nov. 14 2006,00:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh my, somebody get the folks from < Fundies Say the Darndest Things > on the line.  This one's a keeper!
                  Posted by: Drew Headley on Nov. 14 2006,01:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02)
                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So wait, scavengers survived the flood?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,03:21

                  A Recap of Dave's Arguments and "Citations"
                  Davey-doodles the dilletante panty-dancer has presented 3 articles, REMEMBER THAT ALL CLAIMS HAVE TO APPLY TO THE LAST 2300-10,000 YEARS:

                  (1) < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp > by "Dr." Don Batten, a plant physiologist.  "Dr. " Don says : "Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible. " Wrong.
                  'Dr". Don Batten then presents the following arguments:

                  (a) " First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C." Not all plants, only some. And this is well-known in dating, thus Dr. Don is wrong

                  (b) "Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant" Already known and    accounted for by actually calibrating the 14C data against multiple independent methods, including actual atom-by atom counts from deep sea cores, ice cores and trees.

                  ( c) "even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records" What archaeologists? There are none mentioned in the citations. NONE. And given that I AM an archaeologist, I don't know any personally that say what "Dr." Don claims

                  In fact, the first 4 "citations" in the article are comments, no actual references given. Look for yourself

                  (d) "The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system." Already known and accounted for by calibration methods above. We look at the actual ratios on a fine scale back thousands of years, using over 2 DOZEN methods.
                   
                  [b](e)
                  "The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing" This is also well-known and is  accounted for by direct counting of C14/C12 ratios as above. In fact, entire Journals and Symposia are devoted to this, tracing it through time : see the publications of  the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA) Mandea, M., S. Macmillan, T. Bondar, V. Golokov, B. Langlais, F. Lowes, N. Olsen, J. Quinn, and T. Sabaka. 2000. International Geomagnetic Reference Field 2000. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 120.
                  THE IMPLICATION THAT THE MAGNETIC FIELD AND COSMIC RAY INTENSITY ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR ...IS FALSE.

                  (f) "the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. " NO CITED EVIDENCE OFFERED

                  (g) Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. NO CITED EVIDENCE OFFERED

                  So, to conclude: the only claims that have evidential support in the "Dr." Don Batten "article" are those that are already known and accounted for by Radiometricians working in Carbon Dating (items A, B, D, and E)

                  ******************************************************************************************

                  ****
                  (2)Next Dave cites John Baumgardener, he of the flying tectonic plates whizzing along like speedboats across the ocean, with little penguins perched on the prow.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp.
                  Batten claims the following:

                  (a ) "By assuming that 14C in the present atmosphere, and hence in the organism at the time of death, was essentially the same in the past, and that a closed system has existed since the death of the organism, we can compute how many half-lives of 14C have passed, and hence how many years have elapsed, since the organism died." But we don't ASSUME THAT...this is why we count atoms in scintillation and spectrometers--The better-equipped radiocarbon dating laboratories using the conventional gas or scintillation counting technique are capable of detecting concentrations of C-14 as low as 1.4×10-15 (one atom of C-14 per 700 thousand billion C-12 atoms). (from R.H. Brown, a creationist)  , and why we CORRELLATE to multiple INDEPENDENT Methods

                  ( b) "If the tree imbibes its carbon from a lower 14C source than the general atmosphere (e.g. takes up CO2 from volcanic gases) then the ratio will be higher in 12C than usual and therefore show an incorrect old ‘age’. Evidence offered from any sources that would corroborate this happening in the last 10 k years, such as cores? NONE

                  ( c) "A great deal of ‘infinitely-old’ carbon dioxide must have been percolating from the depths, all over the world, and over considerable geographic regions, as a result of residual volcanic activity, upper-mantle activity, etc. As the growing plants and trees absorbed much of this 14C-free CO2 flux, they necessarily acquired quasi-homogenous ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates—not as an exception, but as a rule. " Evidence offered to support this in recent geological history ? NONE
                  THAT"S ALL BAUMGARDENER HAD

                  ****************************************************************************************

                  Next, Dave offered a "table" based on data from 1951 on the total amount of carbon present TODAY. < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >  by R. H. Brown, a Creationist.  Did he offer any estimates on when this carbon was formed, showing his citations? No. In fact, when you read the article by Brown, it actually refutes Dave on his claims about Cosmic Rays severely affecting dates:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   From these observations it is apparent that the present cosmic ray intensity is essentially the same as the average that has been maintained for longer than any period that can be covered by radiocarbon dating...In my judgment there is not a sound basis for assigning any C-14 age discrepancy to the cosmic ray intensity factor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AND Brown notes that magnetic field changes are not a major source of discrepancies in C14 dating  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There does not appear to be any need to consider solar magnetic effects in seeking an explanation for order-of-magnitude discrepancies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Finally, the meat of R.H. Brown's arguments in this cited "paper:" ------ "one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere." POSTULATE?

                  Here is what ELSE he says :  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The model suggested in Table 3 requires a preflood biosphere carbon inventory nearly 130× greater than that of the contemporary biosphere. Many individuals do not consider so great a biosphere carbon inventory to be reasonable. It is unquestionable that a world with a biosphere containing this much carbon would be distinctly different from our present world. It is reasonable to presume that in the preflood world organisms were larger and more abundant and that the portion of the planetary surface capable of supporting luxurious growth was possibly two orders of magnitude greater than at present
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THIS INCREDIBLE SPIKE IN CARBON? NONE.

                  ******************************************************************************************


                  THAT'S IT--COMBINE THESE THREE SHODDY PAPERS WITH THE ONE FROM BROWN THAT I PREVIOUSLY FISKED,  AND THAT'S ALL DAVE CITED.
                  IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THIS, DAVE HAS BEEN GIVEN 35 PAPERS FROM PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS, ALL WITH CREDIBLE AND ANALYZABLE MATERIAL AND CITATIONS.
                  IN ADDITION, DAVE HAS FAILED MISERABLY IN DOING WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO DO TO DEMONSTRATE THE INVALIDITY OF RADIOCARBON DATING. DAVE WAS ASKED FOR EVIDENCE , ***ACTUAL CITED , PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES  *** ON THE FOLLOWING:
                     


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Large amounts of volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere that would affect carbon dating, a mechanism/model by which this manages to affect dating

                  2) Large amounts of carbon increase on Earth within the last 10,000 years  and a mechanism/model by which this affects radiocarbon dating.

                  3) Analyzable, detailed calculations on the biomass needed to produce the coal, shale oil and oil found on pre-industrial Earth. WITH citations for the figures given.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DAVEY-DOODLES THE DENSE DUMPLIN' FAILED ON ALL COUNTS---NONE OF THIS WAS CITED
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,03:44

                  I'm going to put this in little words so you understand it Dave: you were asked to show data that would support your claims in a large spike in carbon during the time you say the flood happened. You gave none...

                  none of the "articles" (all 4) cited anything corroborating their wild speculations on 500 - 175 times the current carbon . Not ONE independent method or study, just all guesswork.

                  IN fact two of the articles say they need  twice the landmass or  " two orders of magnitude" and offer no citations that any of this actually happened at all, either

                  The rest of the objections: cosmic rays, magnetic fields, etc....are all accounted for generously in the calibration curves for radiocarbon dating...calibration curves done by MANY, MANY INDEPENDENT METHODS THAT ALL AGREE WITH C14.

                  You're a miserable failure here, kid, and a miserable B-S-er. Stick to trying to brainwash other kids like you, ignorant enough to be fooled for a while
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,05:40

                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ...

                  LYING TO YOU !!


                  Sorry, but there's no nice way to put it ... they are simply lying to you ... and to our schoolkids.

                  With taxpayer dollars.

                  How do I know this?

                  Simple.

                  They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.

                  And they are mistaken.

                  Anyone with half an ounce of honesty can see this.

                  Do YOU have half an ounce of honesty?

                  Are you so naive as to write off a man's research work just because he's a Seventh Day Adventist Christian and he mentions the Bible?

                  Are you so naive as to close to your eyes to the ever increasing number of top notch scientists who are "jumping ship" from HMS Darwin and Long Age preconceptions?

                  You people tell me that you judge things on evidence alone ... yet I hear statements from you all the time that prove that this is not true.

                  ********************************************
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,05:52

                  The only one lying is you, Dave. You claimed you could show a spike in carbon at the required time...no data shows it. No evidence and studies  for any such spike are ever given in any of your citations. No data shows the increase in available landmass required by your claims.
                  I'll cite an article I just gave you , from Science: "data from the Cariaco Basin and the Iberian Margin indicate that the atmospheric 14C/12C ratios reached a maximum of about 700 per mil above the modern one at 39,000 to 41,000 calendar years BP" (E. Bard, Frauke Rostek and Guilemette Menot-Combes (2004) Science 303: p.179) That's NOT LARGE????? AND WE TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT, STUPID.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,05:58

                  DAVE SQUEALS:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.

                  And they are mistaken.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's a lie in itself, Dave. I'm going to give you citations for calibration studies that are all online at the Arizona U. site. I'd love for you to point out to me ANY of them that say what you just claimed. THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC ASSUMPTION OF WHAT YOU CLAIMED THERE, LIAR. NO ASSUMPTION OF SOME ABSOLUTE STEADY-STATE...WHICH IS ***WHY WE USE CALIBRATION, DOLT***  

                  The only thing that you CANNOT show is a huge spike in carbon at the date you require.

                  Stuiver, M., & Kra R.S. (eds.), 1986. Calibration issue. Radiocarbon 28(2B):805-1030.

                  Stuiver, M., Long, A., & Kra, R.S. (eds.), 1993.
                  Calibration issue. Radiocarbon 35(1):1-244.

                  Stuiver M,. & van der Plicht, J., (eds.) 1998. INTCAL98, Calibration Issue. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041-1164.

                  Reimer P.J., Hughen K.A., Guilderson T.P., McCormac G., Baillie M.G.L., Bard E., Barratt P., Beck J.W., Buck C.E., Damon P.E., Friedrich M., Kromer B., Bronk Ramsey C., Reimer R.W., Remmele S., Southon J.R., Stuiver M., van der Plicht J., (2002), Preliminary Report of the First Workshop of the IntCal04 Radiocarbon Calibration/Comparison Working Group,, Radiocarbon, 44(3),653-661

                  Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., van der Plicht, J., & Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041-1084.

                  Van der Plicht, J., Beck, J.W., Bard, E.., Baillie, M.G.L. … Bronk Ramsey, C. et.al., (2004), NotCal04 - comparison/calibration C14 records 26-50 Cal Kyr BP, Radiocarbon, 46(3),1225-1238

                  As I mentioned, all of these are available online at the URL below. Show me ONE quote that backs what you claim. The fact is that carbon ratios are carefully counted, atom by atom, and up to 26,000 years ago...show NO spike that you require
                  < http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/ >
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,06:10

                  Calling me a liar...because YOU claim I assume carbon has remained in steady ratio is an utter lie on your part, and the mark of a desperate man who cannot cite any data supporting his claim .

                  you posted 4 "articles" none of them peer-reviewed, none from known science journals...and even THEN, there were NO studies of ANY sort pointing to data that SHOWED an ACTUAL SPIKE in carbon.

                  ALL THE ARTICLES YOU POSTED used weasel words like " if we assume" and "perhaps" and "IF there was a large amount of carbon" ....yet NONE of them showed ANY evidence supporting that.

                  My fisking of your trash articles seems to have achieved it's goal, though, you're squealing like a pig.

                  Let me make this clear, Dave...I personally don't give a crap about convincing YOU...YOU are not sane, so far as I can see...what I DO care about is showing that your claim and alleged "evidence" is  hollow and vapid .

                  Just in case that's not enough for you, Dave, let me REPOST what I said EARLIER, ABOVE, when talking about "Dr. " Don Batten's claims -- Batten claimed that    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (b) "Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant" Already known and    accounted for by actually calibrating the 14C data against multiple independent methods, including actual atom-by atom counts from deep sea cores, ice cores and trees.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  MY answer is in bold...see how I acknowledged that WE KNOW THE RATIOS HAVE NOT BEEN PERFECTLY CONSTANT????? This was posted earlier today, before you accused me of lying...and I had already said I didn't ASSUME perfect or even NEAR-perfect steady ratios.

                  I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY, DAVE. BETTER HOP TO IT.
                  This is what you asked just now, Dave:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Anyone with half an ounce of honesty can see this.
                  Do YOU have half an ounce of honesty?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, DO YOU DAVE?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,07:24

                  SPEAKING OF TOP-NOTCH SCIENTISTS JUMPING SHIP FROM "HMS DARWIN", LET'S GET BACK TO GENETICS, I.E. POINTS C & D OF MY HYPOTHESIS

                  (I get the feeling that some people have been getting very uncomfortable with the direction that the genetics discussion was going, hence the subject change to C14.)

                  Well hang on, because you are going to get even more uncomfortable (if you're a Darwinist that is) when you hear the high points of Cornell professor Dr. John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

                  Again ...

                  CORNELL GENETICIST SHOWS THE PRIMARY AXIOM TO BE UTTERLY FALSE
                  Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University professor for more than 25 years in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.  He has published over 70 scientific publications, and was granted over 25 patents.  His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions -- the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization.  Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators.  John also started two successfull businesses deriving from his research -- Biolistics, Inc. and Sanford Scientific, Inc.

                  Dr. Sanford is now a YEC and has the following to say in the prologue of his new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable.  I began to question the Primary Axiom [the belief that man is the product of RM + NS].  I did this with great fear and trepidation.  By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia.  Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.  ALthough I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche.  ... Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. ... What should I do?  It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level -- having catastrophic impact on countless human lives.  Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false.  So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud:  the Emperor has no clothes!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  He quotes extensively from the genetics literature including Kimura, Muller, Neel, Kondrashov, Nachman and Crowell, etc.  He explains that attempts to salvage ToE with something other than RM+NS are futile because RM+NS is the only thing that could possibly work for ToE ... but it does not!

                  Excellent book ... available (as you might guess) from Answers in Genesis International ... <a href="www.answersingenesis.org" target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.org</a>

                  *************************************************

                  Let's look at some quotes from Appendix 1.  The following quotes show that, contrary to the Primary Axiom, the genome is DETERIORATING ... not improving ... and it's DETERIORATING FAST ... and our future is EXTINCTION, not some kind of "upward" evolution.

                  MULLER's FEAR
                  Muller, H.J. 1950.  Our load of mutations.  Amer. J Human Genetics 2:111-176.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "...it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1 ... if, to make matters worse, U [deleterious mutations per person per generation] should be anything like as high as 0.5 ..., our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements." pp. 149-150.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Way back in 1950, before they knew how high U really was, he was concerned about U=0.1.  He thought U=0.5 would be disastrous, but as we shall see, it is MUCH higher than this.

                  NEEL'S REALIZATION
                  J.V. Neel et al. 1986.  The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides.  PNAS 83:389-393.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "...gamete rates for point mutations ... on the order of 30 per generation ... The implications of mutations of this magnitude for population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound.  The first response of many population geneticists is to suggest that most of these occur in "silent" DNA and are of no real biological significance.  Unfortunately for that line of reasoning ... the amount of silent DNA is steadily shrinking.  The question of how our species accomodates such mutation rates is central to evolutionary thought."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Indeed it is.

                  KONDRASHOV'S QUESTION
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What a great question to put in the title of your journal article!  "Why have we not died 100 times over?"  Gotta love it!

                  KONDRASHOV'S NUMBERS
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 2002. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.  Human Mutation 21:12-27.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "...the total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100 ... at least 10% of these are deleterious ... analysis of human  variability suggests that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles ..."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Sanford says in his book that    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me, by way of personal communication, that 100 was just a lower estimate, and that 300 is his upper estimate.  He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious.  This means that from his perspective "U" (deleterious mutations per person per generation) would be 30-90.  This is 100 fold higher than would have previouly been considered possible."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Remember ... Muller was saying back in 1950 that U=0.5 would be "utterly out of line with human requirements."  U=30??!!  Whoa!!

                  NACHMAN AND CROWELL'S PARADOX
                  M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.  Genetics 156:297-304.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The human diploid genome ... about 175 new mutations per generation.  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction ... for U=3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain populationsize.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not likely if Planned Parenthood has anything to do with it!  :-)

                  Ladies and Gentlemen, let me inform you of something ... the Human Species is headed for extinction due to the Deterioration of the Genome.

                  Natural Selection can't save us.

                  Beneficial mutations can't save us.

                  Cloning can't save us.

                  Medical cures cannot save us.

                  As Dr. Sanford carefully details in his book.

                  This deterioration probably began at the time of The Curse related in Genesis 3.  The Apostle Paul describes it like this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The human race is under a death sentence, friends, a death sentence decreed by the Creator himself.  You can gripe and complain all you want to that "it's not fair" or "why would a supposedly loving God" do that to us" etc. etc., but the fact is, if you want to be honest with yourself, you have to admit that the human race is a DYING RACE.  Combine that with the fact that the Bible has endured the test of time and proven itself to be true in so many areas.  

                  Conclusion?  This book we call "The Bible" is The Message to Mankind from Our Creator.

                  And it tells us the only solution for our dying race -- Jesus Christ.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... and a very familiar verse even to skeptics ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The choice is yours.  God will not force Himself upon you, friend.

                  And the time may be short.

                  How long do you really have before you meet your Creator?

                  No one really knows.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2006,07:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,05:40)
                  They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.

                  And they are mistaken.

                  Anyone with half an ounce of honesty can see this.
                  **********************
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  your honesty can be measured in negative numbers.

                  Honestly, if i write an article and put it on the web, does it automatically become true? If it put it on a "believers" web-site does that make it doubly true? The reason we have peer-review is so that the only place for this sort of pseudo-scientific trash is on the believers web-sites. Find me a article supporting your position (btw, all the citations in the last were pre-1980 and i imagine alot of research into the enviroment has happened since then!;) that's in Nature or another reputable source, and then perhaps you'll have some credence. Not much, but it's a start!

                  Perhaps i'll start a website that appears to support your position, and when you start to C+P from it i'll come out and say it's all made up crap. But, it's all made up crap from you now aint it davey wavey?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,07:31

                  And Davey-boy bails out, after being shown a total liar. Claiming that *I* and other archaeologists "assumed a constant " ....when my very posts previously said otherwise.

                  Dave bails when he cannot-- by any of his articles --show a "spike" in carbon. They cannot show an increase in land mass available, they cannot show anything he needs in the period of his "flood date" of 2300 BCE...so he bails, like the intellectual and moral coward that he is.

                  My work is done for this morning.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2006,07:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,07:24)
                  The choice is yours.  God will not force Himself upon you, friend.

                  And the time may be short.

                  How long do you really have before you meet your Creator?

                  No one really knows.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Care to put a time-scale on that? Last time i saw my brand-new nephew he didnt seem to be suffering from a detoriating genome. Quite the opposite.

                  C'mon - if this is true, then there must be a predition you can give us? Such as

                  "currently there are X stillborn babies per year, this will increase to Y by the year Z"

                  Or whatever mesaure you want to give?

                  So your answer is



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one really knows.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If no one really knows HOW DO YOU KNOW?

                  What a great prediciton "the end of the world is nigh, but we're not quite sure when, but it'll be soon you can be sure of that, and although last time i said it was going to be the year 2000 i'm REALLY sure this time that it'll be 2010"..

                  You know those people that walk around with those signes? "the end of the world". that's you that is, davet.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 14 2006,07:36

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 14 2006,07:31)
                  And Davey-boy bails out, after being shown a total liar. Claiming that *I* and other archaeologists "assumed a constant " ....when my very posts previously said otherwise.

                  Dave bails when he cannot-- by any of his articles --show a "spike" in carbon. They cannot show an increase in land mass available, they cannot show anything he needs in the period of his "flood date" of 2300 BCE...so he bails, like the intellectual and moral coward that he is.

                  My work is done for this morning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  your work is indeed done. It's plain just from this page of the thread that the coward dave cannot even begin to talk about the massive spike you mention without some C+P stuff from AIG et al.

                  C'mon davey. If this spike was real there'd be evidence EVERYWHERE yet you cannot even C+P 1 single article that supports this.

                  Coward - change the subject all you want but you think people wont notice you've backed down on a major point? Ha, you'll be asked this one for months to come, no way are you getting away with this one.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,07:43

                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Calling me a liar...because YOU claim I assume carbon has remained in steady ratio is an utter lie on your part,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are not just a liar.  You are multi-faceted, liar.  You lie about science.  You lie about what I say.  Then you lie about your lies.  This one quote is a perfect example.  Anyone can see that I did not say you "assume carbon has remained in steady ratio"?  THIS is what I said ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is what you say.  And it is an utter, bald-face lie.

                  THIS is also what I said ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do you see that word ROUGHLY?  I understand you have "calibration" techniques.  I have acknowledged them many times.  But your big error is that you do not acknowledge that C12 and C14 have had HORRENDOUS variation throughout earth history.  You only acknowledge relatively small fluctuations.  This is why all your chitter chatter about little details in the papers I have cited is totally irrelevant.  You are missing (intentionally?) the "huge Sequoia tree in your optical apparatus" (to quote someone here).  

                  Massive C12 and C14 differences between the pre-Flood and post-Flood world totally invalidates your C14 dating claims.

                  **************************************

                  Oldman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Honestly, if i write an article and put it on the web, does it automatically become true? If it put it on a "believers" web-site does that make it doubly true? The reason we have peer-review is so that the only place for this sort of pseudo-scientific trash is on the believers web-sites. Find me a article supporting your position (btw, all the citations in the last were pre-1980 and i imagine alot of research into the enviroment has happened since then! that's in Nature or another reputable source, and then perhaps you'll have some credence. Not much, but it's a start!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know that saying this is like speaking to a brick wall, but the fact remains that there is much peer review going on in creationist journals (of which there are now at least 4 to my knowledge).  Of course establishment (ToE sycophant) journals are not even going to take a look at creationist writings.  How does peer review happen if one's peers will not even consider looking at the paper for one millisecond?

                  You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

                  No, friend, the modern science journals are so committed to methodological naturalism that the only solution is to do an "end run."

                  And that is exactly what is taking place as we speak.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,07:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But your big error is that you do not acknowledge that C12 and C14 have had HORRENDOUS variation throughout earth history.  You only acknowledge relatively small fluctuations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But the only relevant part that counts is during the time period you require. I and all others involved in dating ( see my cited articles) know that there were fluctuations during the periods that 14C is applied, and the biggest spike, as I said, is at 40-42 KBP.
                  "roughly" steady? No, not even that, not at that time period. A rise of 700 per mil above today's figures isn't "small"  And it is acknowledged, as I cited.
                  And, more importantly, since you have not and cannot show C14 dating invalid, you have no grounds to say I lied even about the Egyptians living through your flood date, much less the other cultures that did.
                  Thus once again, you are a liar yourself, boy. And I use "boy" in the same way that I will not call Don Batten a "Dr." , just as you are not a man worthy of the name.  
                  Your entire fiasco blew up in your smug, stupid face, and I'm glad to help that along.
                  Now you run along to your diversion, boy. Pretend it never happened, but you can count on me reposting it time and again, just to make you whine.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Massive C12 and C14 differences between the pre-Flood and post-Flood world totally invalidates your C14 dating claims.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Except you cannot and have not shown this at all, except as a figment of your imagination.

                  None of the four articles you gave cited any evidence at all that this increase occured at 2300 BCE - 10,000 BCE. Every time you get cornered, you resort to the same games that show you as a liar and fraud. This happened concerning Helium ratios and Fenton hill, the Grand Staircase where you claimed no layers were dated, during the isochron/whole rock debacle , during the Milano affair and Portuguese. Each time you were cornered and resorted to the same games of faking it through, or faking data, or faking that articles said something they did not. EACH time.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 14 2006,08:13

                  Anti-Fact-Dave's lies are becoming so obvious one would have to be a deluded fundy  (but I repeat myself) to not have them be blindingly obvious.
                  But here's another challenge for you to run away from afd -- you assert that:
                  "You lie about science.  You lie about what I say.  Then you lie about your lies.  "
                  Provide evidence to support this.  Deadman has not lied about the content of your posts.  Deadman has not lied about the unalterable fact that you have lied about him.  Provide evidence otherwise.
                  You can provide no evidence whatsoever to support a charge of lying against Deadman.

                  "THIS is what I said ... Quote  
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !! "
                  Prove it.  Give a permalink to a single post in this or your previous thread where Deadman asserts that C14 dating provided proof of a pre-flood Egypt.
                  You cannot because he did not.

                  As Dawkins says, belief in god is a contemptible reason to be moral.  And the real tragedy is that in your case even belief in god isn't enough to lead you to moral behavior.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 14 2006,08:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:43)
                  I know that saying this is like speaking to a brick wall, but the fact remains that there is much peer review going on in creationist journals (of which there are now at least 4 to my knowledge).  Of course establishment (ToE sycophant) journals are not even going to take a look at creationist writings.  How does peer review happen if one's peers will not even consider looking at the paper for one millisecond?

                  You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

                  No, friend, the modern science journals are so committed to methodological naturalism that the only solution is to do an "end run."

                  And that is exactly what is taking place as we speak.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now this is interesting.  Dave, how exactly do you conduct "peer review" without relying on methodological naturalism?
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 14 2006,08:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:24)
                  SPEAKING OF TOP-NOTCH SCIENTISTS JUMPING SHIP FROM "HMS DARWIN", LET'S GET BACK TO GENETICS, I.E. POINTS C & D OF MY HYPOTHESIS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ok.  So how did some of our mutant HLA-A alleles end up in chimps?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,08:51

                  Shirley...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You can provide no evidence whatsoever to support a charge of lying against Deadman.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "THIS is what I said ...  
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !! "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Prove it.  Give a permalink to a single post in this or your previous thread where Deadman asserts that C14 dating provided proof of a pre-flood Egypt.
                  You cannot because he did not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK.  That's easy.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 09 2006,22:58)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD..."What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Coming from you, all questions and statements are simple, Dave...consider the source...you.
                  I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself. There are far more -- many, many more.  The Evidence for Sumer, Natufian and Assyrian, Babylonian groups etc, is very extensive, Dave.

                  (snip)

                  You can start with the radiometric 14C dates on the pyramids
                  (http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html )    
                  that precede the flood date you believe in...and why there are no sediments showing a global flood affected them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Anything else you want to argue, Shirley?

                  ********************************

                  Oh and Deadman ... still waiting to hear your SPECIFIC objections to Dr. Batten's article that I posted most recently.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 14 2006,09:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:51)
                  Shirley...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You can provide no evidence whatsoever to support a charge of lying against Deadman.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "THIS is what I said ...  
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !! "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Prove it.  Give a permalink to a single post in this or your previous thread where Deadman asserts that C14 dating provided proof of a pre-flood Egypt.
                  You cannot because he did not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK.  That's easy.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 09 2006,22:58)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD..."What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Coming from you, all questions and statements are simple, Dave...consider the source...you.
                  I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself. There are far more -- many, many more.  The Evidence for Sumer, Natufian and Assyrian, Babylonian groups etc, is very extensive, Dave.

                  (snip)

                  You can start with the radiometric 14C dates on the pyramids
                  (http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html )    
                  that precede the flood date you believe in...and why there are no sediments showing a global flood affected them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Anything else you want to argue, Shirley?

                  ********************************

                  Oh and Deadman ... still waiting to hear your SPECIFIC objections to Dr. Batten's article that I posted most recently.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I've resisted coming into this thread because of a dislike for beating my head against the wall but...

                  Dave, do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?  Sometimes a preponderance of the former may be characterized as being equal to the latter, but they're two different things. You asked Deadman for evidence, and he gave it to you, then you move the goalposts and claim that you were asking for proof.  You'll never get anywhere if you don't understand the basic terms, or if you do understand them and prevaricate.

                  Since Dave has been backed into a corner wrt RC dating and is now attempting to escape via changing the subject, I suggest that we keep holding his feet to the fire on the subject at hand, and ignore his obfuscatory excursions into irrelevance. Let him either answer the questions he's trying to avoid, or drown in his own stupid flood.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,09:02

                  I could not care less what you "want" boy. You ran away from 14C dating, thus I consider dendro moot. (even though you lyingly claimed in the past I had no experience with dendrochronology). You lose again, boy.

                  And Davey-dope...why do you think I said "evidence" and not "proof?" Could it be that there is NO "absolute" proof in science?

                  This renders your claims of me saying "proof" false--there is no record of me saying "proof" about Egyptian cultures...thus your claim is a lie. Any other questions?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it.( From: An Introduction to Science; Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method Steven D. Schafersman Department of Geology Miami University ,1997

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory" < http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html >  Discover Magazine, May 1981

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 14 2006,09:25

                  AFD you *&^%$#*& scumbag

                  You compare your honesty to Deadman's?

                  He is a saint compared to you.

                  One wonders where else you dispose of the truth in your daily  life.

                  You take no responsibility for your mistreatment of children by distorting their reality; by promoting lies, YES LIES AFD, you are actually causing damage.

                  You're promotion of plainly insane propaganda from Creationists known and shown by you're Supreme Courts to be pathological liars is nothing short of criminal.

                  You absolutely disgust me.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,09:34

                  Because the page on the thread is going to turn over, I thought I'd take this opportunity  to remind readers to take a look at the previous page < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=2490 > , in particular my "fisking" ( point -by -point analysis or refutation ) of Davey-boy's claims...and his reaction, which was to (1) Falsely accuse me of lying (2) Swing into a frantic, near-hysterical diatribe about God cursing mankind with "degenerating genes" (3) Change the subject abruptly from radiocarbon dating (which he hopelessly muddled, posting up 4 articles in a row that did nothing to support his claims )  
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,09:41

                  Hey Liar Dave, here's an idea for you!

                  Since your buddy Hovind is out of circulation, looks like his "$250,000 Evolution Challenge" is kaput too.

                  Why don't you start something similar?  You could call it "Dave Hawkins' $25000 Creator God hypothesis Challenge!".  You could even reuse the text from the last challenge you reneged on and ran from

                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 06 2006 @ 16:42)

                  Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                  As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You've already got the lying and evading part down pat.  Best of all, you could use the money you helped swindle from the Tri-Cities parishioners to fund it!

                  Think of it Davie - you could be the next Dr. Dino!

                  Oh, BTW Dave:  How long does it take limestone to form?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,09:50

                  Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

                  Shameful !!
                  Posted by: Ved on Nov. 14 2006,09:54

                  Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 14 2006,00:33)
                  I thought there weren't any big mountains before the flood. Is that AFDave? Or a different creationist?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are correct. We went over this before with afdave, and he agreed. The bible passage goes:
                   
                  Quote (Bible @ King James Version, Gen.7)
                  [19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
                  [20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In other words the "mountains" were only a couple feet higher than the "high hills". There was nowhere to run!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,10:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except you failed to demonstrate that with evidence concerning radiocarbon dating, Boy Dave.
                  Furthermore, since you have chosen to avoid the topic, I consider it closed as well, while noting that you failed to provide the data/evidence/calculations that would support your claims of a flood at 2300 BCE ( and a "carbon spike") that would invalidate radiocarbon dating , which you proclaimed yourself capable of doing...look up the term "hubris".

                  Your personal incredulity is of little consequence, as interested readers can easily read the previous page and see my analysis of your posted "articles." < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=2490 >

                  Oh, and I should add this, Daveboy.."debating" you was a bit like me being "attacked" by a toothless old toy poodle, and about as taxing.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 14 2006,10:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,09:50)
                  Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

                  Shameful !!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, since you think that an pointing out an important distinction is "word games,"  I hope that you never leave fingerprints or other evidence somewhere where someone else commits, or has committed, a crime. Evidence=proof, right?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,10:13

                  100X, Deadman, 100X.  Think about it.  Have nightmares about it.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 14 2006,10:19

                  The only nightmare here is your dishonesty Dave.
                  I note with some amusement, zero surprise, and a modicum of disappointment that you have failed entirely to address my previous post.
                  You did not show where Deadman claimed that C-14 proved a pre-Flood Egyptian civilization.  Further, you quite dishonestly cherry-picked a late entry into the ongoing discussion with you, leading to Deadman providing a recap of a summary of a recap of a summary of a summary of the mountain of data you've been shown (but have refused to look at).
                  Even more shamefully, you completely ignored the remainder of the challenge.
                  You are a proven liar Dave.
                  You are a shameful coward and utterly dishonest, unfit for human civilization or society.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,10:19

                  Why would I have "nightmares" about non-existent and undemonstrated things, Dave? Do you have nightmares about leprechauns?

                  Maybe you do, considering your toy poodle courage and your seemingly pathological inability to distinguish your personal fantasy from reality.
                  Posted by: Ved on Nov. 14 2006,10:19

                  P.S. - Funny, when I was looking this passage up, the first place I looked had some kind of new fangled translation that went like this:
                  Quote (bibleresources.bible.com @ ,)
                  19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

                    20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, (Q)and the mountains were covered.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Kinda changes the meaning a bit, eh? Revisionist scum!
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 14 2006,10:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

                  Shameful !!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your tax dollars???? ...er if you read the tax laws I think you will find the Govt. explicitly says those tax dollars are theirs and you accede by living under its protection...the same rule of law that protects and allows you to distort truth.....sad but true.

                  A closet survivalist are we AFD?

                  Where is all your bluff and bluster about how great the country is?

                  What was Hovind's defense "invalid subornation of whatever" ?

                  There you go AFD ....sue the Govt.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 14 2006,10:21

                  afdave appears to be experiencing an all-out meltdown today. Not that any help is needed from me, but I can't help noting the following (hypocrisies? self-delusions? Orwellian gymnastics?).

                  (1) afdave crows about "more and more top-notch scientists jumping ship...", but failed to ever respond to my challenge to offer a single contribution to science by a  "creationist scientist" in the past 100 years. (Note: once-productive scientists who have, at some point after their last scientific contribution, lost their wits and become YECs, Scientologists, Raelians, etc ... don't count).

                  (2) still waiting for any clue as to how all this hand-wavy scatter-shot about total carbon reservoirs has anything to do with the 14C/12C ratios in atmospheric CO2 that is the basis of carbon-dating

                  (3) afdave asserts:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But your big error is that you do not acknowledge that C12 and C14 have had HORRENDOUS variation throughout earth history.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, forgive me if I've missed something; this thread is awfully long... but could someone point me to any evidence at all behind this assertion? And remember - we're talking about atmospheric CO2 - the source of carbon that gets fixed by photosynthesis and incorporated into living things.

                  (4) now and then, afdave hilariously contends that he thinks "evolutionist" scientists are just honestly mistaken, and are not actually evil. (At one point I believe he actually retracted his outrageous remark about "criminal lying to kids"). But today, in the midst of a thorough drubbing, it's back to this kind of discourse:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are not just a liar.  You are multi-faceted, liar.  You lie about science.  You lie about what I say.  Then you lie about your lies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,10:30

                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:13)

                  100X, Deadman, 100X.  Think about it.  Have nightmares about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Limestone canyons buried under 17000' of sediment Dave.  

                  Forty one C14 calibration curves from independent methods that all agree, and none show your 100X 'spike' Dave.

                  Two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone Dave

                  Evidence from the Hubble telescope that the universe is >14 billion years old Dave.


                  Think about them Dave..  Have nightmares about them.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,10:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02)
                  Notta ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How mobile are oak trees, Dave? We don't see them low in the geological column. How about grasses? They're not known for running abilities either. Koalas? Sloths? How about elderly humans, Dave? How mobile were they? Or were all pre-flood humans olympic track stars?

                  How well do freshwater fish climb, Dave, after they've been poisoned by cubic miles of seawater? Or, if your "flood" was freshwater, how well did saltwater fish climb?

                  Dear me, Dave, how can you be so gullible?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 14 2006,10:36

                  And... again my apologies if I have failed to scour this thread sufficiently to answer the following on my own...

                  but what does this refer to:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  100X, Deadman, 100X.  Think about it.  Have nightmares about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Anything relevant to the points I raised above? You know, about 14C/12C ratios in atmospheric CO2, and actual evidence for "horrendous" variations in the relevant 14C/12C ratios in the relevant fraction of earth's history?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 14 2006,10:42



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  you are still lying to public school kids
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AFD you realize it is legal to allow your Creation Myth in comparative religion classes along with every other Creation Myth ?

                  Your Mommy and Daddy replaced a South American  Creation Myth with yours isn't that correct?

                  Have a look here for Creation Myth comparisons
                  The Creation Myths from India go back 17* centuries, the Chinese even have their own Flood Myth.
                  *correction 17,000 BCE
                  < Creation Myths >

                  Babylonian Creation Myth, African Creation Myths, Korean & Japanese, Navajo Creation Myth, Norse Creation Myth, Creation Myth from India, Japanese Creation Myth, Comanche Creation Myth, Chinese Creation Myth, Chelan Creation Myth, Pima Creation Myth, Mayan Creation Myth, Miwok Creation Myth, Scandinavian (Norse), Salish Creation Myth, Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth, Hopi Creation Myth, Tahitian Creation Myth, Yokut Creation Myth, Comanche Creation Myth,  Egyptian Creation Myths, African - Mande, Yoruba
                  Creation Myths,  Micmac Creation Myth, Lakota Creation Myth,India, Romania, Mongol, etc..Chinese Creation / Flood Myth, Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth,Maori Creation Myth, Christian & Jewish, Creation Myth (Genesis), Aztec Creation Myth, Digueno Creation Myth, Apache Creation Myth, Dakota Creation Myth, Hungarian Creation Myth, Iroquois Creation Myth, Inuit Creation Myth, Huron Creation Myth, Hawaiian Creation Myth
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,10:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006 @ 22:02)

                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll reiterate Drew Headley's excellent question:

                  What scavengers Dave?  The single pair of hyenas and vultures that survived on the Ark?  How did they manage to clean up the entire planet of carrion before it decayed away?

                  You're really losing it this week Dave - better seek professional help soon. :p
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,10:45

                  "Have nightmares about the mighty Florblix, it'll GET YOU!!"

                  Heh, this was one of the more entertaining mornings I've had...slapping toothless toy poodle Dave until he cried and ran off, saying " I don't want to debate radiocarbon dating anymore!!"

                  I'd like to extend my gratitude and fond regards to all except Asshat Dave, the Palm Pilot.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,11:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,05:40)
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ...

                  LYING TO YOU !!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I don't know much about radiocarbon dating techniques. (Quite a bit more than you do, obviously, but way, way, WAY less than Deadman.) However, I am pretty experienced at weighing expert testimony. I do it all the time as part of my work. I'm accustomed to looking at trial testimony from two experts and determining which one is more credible.

                  And the truth is, Dave, based on nothing other than your citations about radiocarbon dating (i.e., ignoring your egregious errors in other radiometric techniques, genetics, information theory, linguistics, stratigraphy, etc.), it's pretty clear that you have next to no credibility. Your citations don't even support your own position!



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do I know this?

                  Simple.

                  They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history.

                  And they are mistaken.

                  Anyone with half an ounce of honesty can see this.

                  Do YOU have half an ounce of honesty?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How many times do you need to be told that it is not an assumption that C14/C12 ratios have been constant throughout history? The fact that you keep repeating this stupid canard over and over again torpedoes any credibility you might ever have had on the subject, and highlights your truly breathtaking dishonesty. Or stupidity. Whichever.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you so naive as to close to your eyes to the ever increasing number of top notch scientists who are "jumping ship" from HMS Darwin and Long Age preconceptions?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nope. Wrong. No "top-notch scientists" are "jumping ship," Dave. This is a product of your own imagination. There are something like half a million professional scientists in the U.S. today. Less than 500 hundred of them put any stock in creationism at all, and a vastly smaller number than that are young-earth creationists. What did you say? 10 of them, maybe? Out of half a million scientists?
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 14 2006,11:07

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 14 2006,11:45)
                  "Have nightmares about the mighty Florblix, it'll GET YOU!!"

                  Heh, this was one of the more entertaining mornings I've had...slapping toothless toy poodle Dave until he cried and ran off, saying " I don't want to debate radiocarbon dating anymore!!"

                  I'd like to extend my gratitude and fond regards to all except Asshat Dave, the Palm Pilot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm still really, really curious about how Dave's concept of peer review is supposed to work without methodological naturalism.  Do they just go over each other's work and say, "Nope, I can't figure out how to test this, either.  Looks good!"
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 14 2006,11:10

                  Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!;).

                  Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,11:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,07:43)
                  Deadman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Calling me a liar...because YOU claim I assume carbon has remained in steady ratio is an utter lie on your part,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are not just a liar.  You are multi-faceted, liar.  You lie about science.  You lie about what I say.  Then you lie about your lies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Do you think the rest of us can't read, Dave? Everyone here knows exactly who's been spewing lies on this thread, and it ain't Deadman.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   This one quote is a perfect example.  Anyone can see that I did not say you "assume carbon has remained in steady ratio"?  THIS is what I said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is what you say.  And it is an utter, bald-face lie.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is what you said: "They ASSUME that C14 and C12 have been roughly constant throughout earth history." That is a direct quote. Deadman isn't misquoting you. Your statement, that scientists assume the C14/C12 ratio has been roughly constant, is simply incorrect, and you've been told that it's incorrect countless times. That means you're LYING when you say it. Parsing out "roughly" helps you not at all, because the point is, no "assumptions" are being made at all. C14/C12 ratios have been measured. They're not "assumed" to be anything.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   But your big error is that you do not acknowledge that C12 and C14 have had HORRENDOUS variation throughout earth history.  You only acknowledge relatively small fluctuations.  This is why all your chitter chatter about little details in the papers I have cited is totally irrelevant.  You are missing (intentionally?) the "huge Sequoia tree in your optical apparatus" (to quote someone here).  

                  Massive C12 and C14 differences between the pre-Flood and post-Flood world totally invalidates your C14 dating claims.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when are you going to get it through your thick, brainless skull that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIS NOTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF CARBON (WHERE, DAVE?) WAS MUCH GREATER IN THE PAST.

                  Deadman asked you point-blank to come up with any data anywhere to support this ridiculous notion, and you came up empty-handed.

                  And you've still never explained why even a 500-fold increase the amount of carbon (where, Dave?) would have the slightest effect on C14/C12 ratios.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 14 2006,11:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:50)
                  Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

                  Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

                  Shameful !!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's some simple words for you Dave.

                  Simple questions, directly about your UCGH.  

                  I want to learn more about this hypothesis.

                  ARE GEOLOGIC LAYERS BELOW THE DEEPEST COAL DEPOSITS PRE-FLOOD?

                  You also quoted R.H.Brown who mentions something about 'primordial' coal.  
                  Quote (R.H.Brown @ 1979)
                  The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >

                  HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMORDIAL COAL DEPOSITS AND FLOOD DERIVED COAL DEPOSITS?

                  I assume that coal beds that exhibit fossil members are flood derived (lignite, most bituminous and sub-bituminous) and the non-fossil varieties are primordial (anthracite).  I could be wrong on this.

                  Mike PSS

                  It would be Shameful if you ignored these fundamental questions.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,12:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:13)
                  100X, Deadman, 100X.  Think about it.  Have nightmares about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow. Dave can't even pin this one simple figure down to within half an order of magnitude! He's cited 100X, 200X, 300X, 330X, 350X, and 500X at various times.

                  But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave, where did it come from, and where is it now?" The only carbon that matters with respect to radiocarbon dating, as Russell and others have pointed out, is atmospheric carbon, which can never been as much as 100 times as high as it is now without leaving obvious traces in historical records (like, when almost everyone died) and in various sources of physical evidence such as ice cores and varved lake beds.

                  But even if Dave's talking about the sum total of carbon on the planet, he's got the same problem he had with his "flood." He has no idea where this extra carbon came from, or what made it go away.

                  Furthermore, he's never explained how any excess carbon, whether it be atmospheric, biospheric, or sequestered in oil (which was buried under five miles of sediment how, Dave?), coal, chalk, or limestone, would have the slightest effect on C14/C12 ratios.

                  Until you have some evidence that there was "100X" carbon (whatever the he11 that means), and a reason why that would change C14/C12 ratios in atmospheric carbon, Dave, you're just spinning your wheels.

                  So don't expect anyone to believe you when you claim, two months from now, to have "refuted" radiometric carbon dating techniques.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,12:18

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!.

                  Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?

                  Improv...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm still really, really curious about how Dave's concept of peer review is supposed to work without methodological naturalism.  Do they just go over each other's work and say, "Nope, I can't figure out how to test this, either.  Looks good!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Peer review with creationists works the same way as any other peer review with the notable exception that they are not so naive as to exclude the possibility of an Intelligent Creator, and they consider evidence from archaeologically proven historical documents such as the Bible to be evidence.

                  Aftershave--  Let me propose an experiment for you ... drown one of those cats you are always posting pictures of in the ocean ... watch it from a safe distance in a boat and see what happens to it.  Do you think it will become fossilized?  Do you think there might be some sea critters interested in eating it for dinner?  Try it please and report the results to me.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,12:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ladies and Gentlemen, let me inform you of something ... the Human Species is headed for extinction due to the Deterioration of the Genome.

                  Natural Selection can't save us.

                  Beneficial mutations can't save us.

                  Cloning can't save us.

                  Medical cures cannot save us.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What a load of BS.  ???

                  Tell us Dave, how in the world does life expectancy increase year after year? Why do the human population become bigger and bigger?

                  BTW, Kondrashov is a well know evolutionary biologist for its hypothesis explaining sexual reproduction as a mean to purge deleterious mutations.
                  And don't forget that the mutations rates you've shown involve the entire genome, not a single locus.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,12:31

                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 14 2006,12:18)
                    I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It was a simple YES or NO question Asshat Dave - is even that beyond your power to comprehend?

                  Why do none of the multiple C14 calibration curves show your claimed 100x carbon spike Dave?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Aftershave--  Let me propose an experiment for you ... drown one of those cats you are always posting pictures of in the ocean ... watch it from a safe distance in a boat and see what happens to it.  Do you think it will become fossilized?  Do you think there might be some sea critters interested in eating it for dinner?  Try it please and report the results to me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where did the scavengers who ate the remains of the Flood victims come from Dave?  Since you're just making sh*t up as you go along anyway, give us another big juicy whopper to explain that one. :D
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 14 2006,12:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,13:18)
                  Improv...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm still really, really curious about how Dave's concept of peer review is supposed to work without methodological naturalism.  Do they just go over each other's work and say, "Nope, I can't figure out how to test this, either.  Looks good!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Peer review with creationists works the same way as any other peer review with the notable exception that they are not so naive as to exclude the possibility of an Intelligent Creator, and they consider evidence from archaeologically proven historical documents such as the Bible to be evidence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So then, if I were to write a creationist research paper, and the only evidence I included was "because an angel told me so," then it should be viewed favorably in the peer review process, right?

                  Hmm, maybe I should switch careers...
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 14 2006,12:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:18)
                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!.

                  Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't answer the question.  Do you have the data, or not?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 14 2006,12:52

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

                  R.H.BROWN AND HOW HE DID HIS MATH!  PRICELESS!


                  Reading into the R.H.Brown reference < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm > at the top is a 'REACTION' link.

                  On that page < (http://www.grisda.org/origins/07006.htm#Brown) > a Ross O. Barnes questions the 'carbon exchange reservoir' available that would impact atmospheric CO2 (and thus the 14C/12C ratio).

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Given the above limitation on increases in the inorganic exchange reservoir, the required increase in the active organic carbon reservoir is nearly 2000 times the present biospheric carbon inventory. Until some plausible model is presented for such a huge increase in the antediluvian organic carbon exchange reservoir, Brown's conclusion that "these considerations ... provide justification for confidence that C-14 age data for time prior to approximately 3500 B.P. are associated with a transition between the pre-biblical-flood biosphere and the contemporary biosphere" should be judged somewhat premature.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  R.H.Brown then responds.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Confusion regarding the term "biosphere carbon inventory" may be avoided by making specific that whatever term one may use for the concept, it is clearly understood to designate the active carbon inventory in the region of the planet that supports organisms.
                     Although the 14C/12C ratio in the surface layer of the ocean is typically about 5% below that in air, freshwater, soil surface, and the organisms which populate them, for the purposes of the treatment in ORIGINS 6:30-44, it is convenient and satisfactory to treat these four regions as one subregion of the general biosphere, designated "upper biosphere" in the treatment cited. The active carbon exchange reservoir, to use Dr. Barnes' choice of terminology, in this subregion is reliably estimated to be 4.03×1012 metric tons (Table 1, Item 9). Air and water contain 37.2% of this inventory in inorganic form; living and dead organic material represent the remaining 62.8%, 60.6% of which is associated with land and 39.4% is in the ocean (calculations from data in Table 1).
                     Assuming that flood sediments were formed about 5000 real time years ago, and that at their initial formation these sediments had a 14C/12C ratio no greater than the minimum detectable by current conventional gas or scintillation counting techniques, requires that 45,000-50,000 years of 14C age be accounted for on some basis other than that given by a simplistic uniform conditions model, as discussed in ORIGINS 6:30-44. This range of 14C age represents 7.85-8.73 half-lives for 14C. The reduction in 14C/12C ratio over this half-life range is in the range 231-425 (27.85 -28.73). For the task at hand one can postulate that before the flood the 14C production rate in the atmosphere was less in this ratio, the upper biosphere carbon inventory (active carbon exchange reservoir in the upper biosphere) was greater in this ratio, or any appropriate combination of intermediate factors for lower 14C production and greater inventory. In the following discussion the "upper limit" factor 425 will be used, recognizing that the true situation might be approximately twice as easy (231 factor) to accommodate.
                     We can speculate that the CO2 concentration in the preflood atmosphere was near 1%, approximately 20 times its contemporary value, since plants generally exhibit more vigorous growth as CO2 levels are increased up to this level, and the atmosphere becomes toxic at higher levels. It may be assumed that the carbon concentration in the water components of the upper biosphere, being in contact with the atmosphere, would be identified with a similar increase. Accordingly the factor F by which living and dead organic material must be increased to secure a total upper biosphere carbon inventory increase by a factor of 425 is given by

                  0.372 × 20 + 0.628 × F = 425,

                  from which F = 665.

                     To model a preflood biosphere that might meet these requirements, one can postulate a 665-fold greater number of contemporary-sized plants and animals, worldwide total, assuming a constant ratio of living to dead organic material; or one can postulate a net 665-fold increase in the volume of the average individual organism. A 665-fold increase in volume is associated with an 8.71-fold ( 3Ö665) increase in lineal size. [Recall 30-inch wingspan of fossil dragonflies, the size of fossil Equisetum, etc.]. Doubling the average lineal size of organisms would require only an 83-fold increase in their numbers to provide a 665-fold increase in biomass.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Talk about trying to make your numbers work out.  Mr. Brown's first assumption is that he has to find a way to fit all the 14C data into 5000 years.
                  There are so many other knee-slappers that I leave it to others to comment.
                  I do see that he admits the toxic nature of elevated CO2 levels (but still arbitrarily jacks them up by 20x).

                  But the kicker is at the end of his reply.  He states

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation,  just so it can fit Scripture.

                  Peer-review this article again Dave.

                  I think you'll have to reframe your whole 200x carbon argument because you can't use R.H.Brown to support it.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,12:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,12:18)
                  Argy...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!.

                  Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you still simply do not understand what "evidence" is. "Evidence" is not just C&Ping some unsubstantiated crap from AiG. "Evidence" for, e.g., a 100X spike in carbon (are you ever going to answer the question of where this excess carbon was, Dave? Because the only relevant place for it is atmospheric) would be something like "here's a graph of worldwide temperatures derived from [insert relevant physical evidence here] that demonstrates that atmospheric carbon levels were [insert supportable figure here]% higher than they are today. We have further evidence for this increased carbon content from [insert reference to other physical evidence here]."

                  That's what "evidence" looks like, Dave. Not "it is reasonable to suppose that," or "we postulate that," or "it is not inconceivable that," or "one way to interpret pre-existing data that normally is interpreted in a way that contradicts our assertions is—" That isn't evidence, Dave, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will ever make it evidence. But that's all you can come up with: baseless assertions, conclusions not supported by any actual data, special pleading, and wishful thinking. Worse, your assertions are flat-out contradicted by the mountain of actual evidence, supported by vast libraries of research, all reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, by scientists with actual expertise in the relevant fields, that Deadman's been shoving down your throat all morning.

                  We've read your posts and the "evidence" you've linked to, Dave, and we're all satisfied that you have not presented a single particle of evidence to support your claim of a "100X carbon spike. It's simply not there, and no amount of your bleating otherwise will change that fact.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Aftershave--  Let me propose an experiment for you ... drown one of those cats you are always posting pictures of in the ocean ... watch it from a safe distance in a boat and see what happens to it.  Do you think it will become fossilized?  Do you think there might be some sea critters interested in eating it for dinner?  Try it please and report the results to me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They're not going to be interested in eating anything for dinner, Dave, if they're all dead.

                  Or, now might be a good time to come clean on a simple, basic question I've been asking you for months: were your "floodwaters" seawater, or freshwater? Do you even know? Do you have any way of knowing?
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 14 2006,13:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,12:18)
                  Aftershave--  Let me propose an experiment for you ... drown one of those cats you are always posting pictures of in the ocean ... watch it from a safe distance in a boat and see what happens to it.  Do you think it will become fossilized?  Do you think there might be some sea critters interested in eating it for dinner?  Try it please and report the results to me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now for the really cool follow-up experiment:

                  Do the same thing, but with a cattail instead (or any other plant). Throw a dead plant in that ol' ocean. It will, of course, not be scavenged. Instead, it will -- in its ENTIRETY, no less -- be converted to coal at a one-to-one ratio within a few centuries. Neat, eh?

                  After all, it has to. Otherwise, Dave's 'energy content' numbers based on solar energy reaching the planet's surface and resulting estimated plant growth in relation to fossil fuel reserves aren't going to come out right. So almost all plants somehow have to find their way into known fossil fuel reserves. (Or was there something off in Snelling's 'more reliable' calculation, Dave?)

                  But wait... What about the plant that was inside the mouse that was inside the cat that we just heaved into the ocean? Now it's been scavenged! What's that going to do to our energy content now?  Jebus, this is getting really complicated. It's almost like there are...I don't know...a whole bunch of cycles or something that move organic material around. It also looks like at every point in those -- let's call 'em cycles, okay? -- cycles, bits of mass and energy are scattered to the wind (or the sea or the bellies of other bundles of matter and energy or the rocks below or...) Makes it kind of tough to know whether or not our cat or our cattail biomass is going to become coal or a fossil, doesn't it? Especially at a one-to-one ratio...

                  I'm getting really confused here, Davey. Are you sure you've got this stuff figured out as well as you seem to think?

                  Edit: Asshat, in case you don't 'get' my feigned confusion, you (and Snelling) need at least 10% of the biomass on this planet to be converted DIRECTLY into known fossil fuel reserves in order for your 'calculations' to be anything but a laughable farce (and even then...). And yet, you're the one using 'scavengers' (i.e., food and energy webs) as an argument why a good portion of that biomass will not become part of the "millions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth" (that includes not just fossils, but fossil fuels). You're shooting yourself in the foot, idiot.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 14 2006,13:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Peer review with creationists works the same way as any other peer review with the notable exception that they are not so naive as to exclude the possibility of an Intelligent Creator, and they consider evidence from archaeologically proven historical documents such as the Bible to be evidence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  First of all, in order for afdave to make this statement, he would have to have some idea how "any other peer review" - well, specifically scientific peer review - works. Clearly he doesn't.

                  Scientific peer review consists of vetting new observations and arguments by people who are likely to notice if the observations and arguments are  inconsistent with the accumulated experience of the relevant discipline, and if so, whether such discrepancies are addressed and appropriately acknowledged and cited. The result of this kind of peer review is what E.O. Wilson called "consilience" - where physics, chemistry, geology, biology all pretty much cohere.

                  Creationist "peer review", so far as I can tell, consists of accepting any and all random straw-clutching that could be construed either to be consistent with biblical accounts or cast doubt or confusion on the overwhelming scientific consensus that is inconsistent with the biblical stories.

                  That's why science, on the whole, is remarkably consistent. So much so that any apparent inconsistency is worth exploring.

                  "Creation science", on the other hand, is hilariously inconsistent. (Do I need to document this? I think not. It might be fun; and if there's enough demand perhaps another thread should be launched. But unless afdave and/or other creationists want/s to seriously, explicitly contend that there is a consistent body of "creation science", I'll leave it at that)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 14 2006,13:46

                  This is indeed turning into an even worse than usual day for Dave in this entirely one-sided "debate."

                  Only on the Internet or in cartoonland, of course, can one imagine that Wiley E. Coyote could survive repeated explosions, fatal falls, flattenings by semi-trucks, etc., only to rise again, dust off, and looking only a trifle worse for wear, imperturbably flip to yet another page in his Acme Explosives & Supplies, Inc. catalogue.

                  Only on the Internet or in cartoonland, of course, could Dave continue to extend his string of humiliating smackdowns, like a dauntlessly braindead dude hoping to dance his way across a wide river (De Nile?) by using the snouts of snapping crocodiles as stepping stones.

                  In anything like a real life, with real-world consequences, Dave would have been reduced to minced Croc-O-Meal, slithering down the Croc-O-Gullet of Croc # 1, sometime early the first day he showed up here...

                  Even if we grant Dave the magical cartoon powers that he evidently ascribes to his Sky Daddy, however, this is a day when only very small bits of Dave will be left over to dribble along to the snout of the next croc.

                  Don't touch that 'dile...
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,15:45

                  Argy--  YES.  And you also have this data thanks to my postings and links.  But if you still don't think you do after re-reading the last few pages, let me know.  Maybe I'll go through it again for you so you can see it more clearly.

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  where did it come from, and where is it now?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It came from the pre-Flood organic material including what is now fossil organic material and sedimentary carbonates.  Much of it is now in the fossil record.

                  I may have given an incorrect link earlier ... maybe that's why Argy didn't think I had posted my evidence.

                  In any case, the concept is pretty simple.  The paper linked above shows that at a minimum there was 100X more carbon in the biosphere pre-Flood.  What kind of carbon?  Not C14 because C14 is made from nitrogen in the atmosphere.  So it has to be C12.  This would make the C14 concentration 1/100 of what it is today all other things being equal.  Now of course there may be factors which affected C14 production in the past also, but none of the studies I have seen have found anywhere near the difference in pre-and post Flood C14 as have been found for pre- and post-Flood C12.  So if you have a C14 concentration pre-Flood that is 1/100 the modern C14 concentration, I hope you can see that this would throw off conventional C14 dates by an enormous amount.  How much?  Calculations have been done in this paper as to how much < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.pdf > (p.59)

                  Now, can we move back to genetics?
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2006,15:56

                  Re "So how did some of our mutant HLA-A alleles end up in chimps? "

                  No doubt it involved monkey business. :p
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2006,16:14

                  Re "[Recall 30-inch wingspan of fossil dragonflies,"

                  My understanding is that larger insects were a result of more oxygen in the atmosphere than we have at present. Right now the largest insects are pushing the limits of their breathing apparatus given current conditions.

                  Henry
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,16:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What kind of carbon?  Not C14 because C14 is made from nitrogen in the atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where does all this organic C come from, genius?
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,15:45)
                  Now, can we move back to genetics?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why not... Since you admittedly have nothing to back up your claims on radiocarbon there's no point to continue. ???

                  So, all life on Earth is doomed? I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens, not from deleterious mutations.  :O
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2006,16:29

                  Re "I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens,"

                  Like when the sun runs low on H in a few billion years, and then puffs up into a red giant?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,16:33

                  Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2006,16:29)
                  Re "I thought the apocalypse was supposed to come from heavens,"

                  Like when the sun runs low on H in a few billion years, and then puffs up into a red giant?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  By the time, all living things will be dead from "genome decay".
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 14 2006,16:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:45)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since ionizing radiation is harmful to organisms it is to be expected that when life was originally placed on this planet a mechanism for protection from radiation damage was provided. This protection could have been afforded by a capability for healing radiation damage to tissue, a capability that has largely diminished by the present time. It seems more reasonable to presume that such protection was provided, at least in a large measure, by a radiation shield that isolated the biosphere from cosmic radiation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  He just goes on and on like this.  Wild speculation is not evidence, Dave.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,16:50

                  Quote (Asshat Liar Dave @ Nov. 14 2006,15:45)
                  In any case, the concept is pretty simple.  The paper linked above shows that at a minimum there was 100X more carbon in the biosphere pre-Flood.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No Dave, the paper claims it with zero evidence, it doesn't show it.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What kind of carbon?  Not C14 because C14 is made from nitrogen in the atmosphere.  So it has to be C12.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So this 100X more carbon was tied up in a huge mass of living plants, right?  When living plants grow from seeds, where do they get their carbon from Dave? From CO2 in the atmosphere.  So now you’re telling us that the atmosphere back then had 100X more CO2 than it does now (which would kill every air-breathing creature) AND that these magic plants had the ability to somehow only take in CO2 formed from C12 atoms? :D :D :D

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This would make the C14 concentration 1/100 of what it is today all other things being equal.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why would an extra carbon reservoir of pure C12 in plants affect the atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 Dave?  That’s all that matters for radiocarbon dating.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now of course there may be factors which affected C14 production in the past also, but none of the studies I have seen have found anywhere near the difference in pre-and post Flood C14 as have been found for pre- and post-Flood C12.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How did the plants tell the difference between C14 and C12 Dave?  

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So if you have a C14 concentration pre-Flood that is 1/100 the modern C14 concentration, I hope you can see that this would throw off conventional C14 dates by an enormous amount.  How much?  Calculations have been done in this paper as to how much < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.pdf > (p.59)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Only if you had an atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 that is 1/100 of what it is today, then somehow spiked 100X

                  Why do none of the many independent C14 calibration curves show this 100X carbon spike Dave?

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, can we move back to genetics?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, looks like Davie is getting tired of having his ass kicked like a soccer ball in a World Cup final; he's crying and wants to go home :(  Pity – I was really hoping you’d come up with a good lie as to what scavengers ate all the billions of drowned Flood animals and people.  Guess I’ll save that for your next challenge, eh?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,16:54

                  There's direct links available for all the "grisda" .pdf's Dave keeps posting -- these are all the "citations" he posted and my fisking of them is on the previous page...also see Mike's mirth-filled discussion above --
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp >
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp. >
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm >

                  There's no "calculations" of anything realistic in any of them, and certainly no evidence supporting Dave's claims...but there IS (as Mike noted)  loads of "if " and "maybe" and -- "if we assume" and "reasonable estimates" --- that are utterly ridiculous. It's no wonder Dave wants to drop it. Check them for yourself, particularly the Grisda crap by R.H. Brown. Pay close attention to his "assumptions"
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 14 2006,17:13

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:50)
                  So this 100X more carbon was tied up in a huge mass of living plants, right?  When living plants grow from seeds, where do they get their carbon from Dave? From CO2 in the atmosphere.  So now you’re telling us that the atmosphere back then had 100X more CO2 than it does now.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This would make the C14 concentration 1/100 of what it is today all other things being equal.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why would an extra carbon reservoir of pure C12 in plants affect the atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 Dave?  That’s all that matters for radiocarbon dating.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To be fair, I don't think 100x more biomass would require 100x the pressure of atmospheric CO2.

                  Not to support Dave, but the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio matters only indirectly in radiocarbon dating. The assumption is on the organic ratio, which is the same as the atmospheric ratio. If a plant only contains some C12, it would appear older if we have an overestimation of its C12/C14 ratio when it died.
                  But Dave never cared to explain why plants of a larger biosphere would accumulate more C12, compared to our plants. Hence, he proved nothing. Zero. How do you call this sort of blithering? Hand waving?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,17:19

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,15:45)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf >
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  where did it come from, and where is it now?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It came from the pre-Flood organic material including what is now fossil organic material and sedimentary carbonates.  Much of it is now in the fossil record.

                  I may have given an incorrect link earlier ... maybe that's why Argy didn't think I had posted my evidence.

                  In any case, the concept is pretty simple.  The paper linked above shows that at a minimum there was 100X more carbon in the biosphere pre-Flood.  What kind of carbon?  Not C14 because C14 is made from nitrogen in the atmosphere.  So it has to be C12.  This would make the C14 concentration 1/100 of what it is today all other things being equal.  Now of course there may be factors which affected C14 production in the past also, but none of the studies I have seen have found anywhere near the difference in pre-and post Flood C14 as have been found for pre- and post-Flood C12.  So if you have a C14 concentration pre-Flood that is 1/100 the modern C14 concentration, I hope you can see that this would throw off conventional C14 dates by an enormous amount.  How much?  Calculations have been done in this paper as to how much < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.pdf > (p.59)

                  Now, can we move back to genetics?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except it wasn't, Dave, because you have no evidence that it ever was. That's the part that's missing, Dave. The paper you linked to gives absolutely no evidence to support its assertion that there was any more carbon in the biosphere pre-"flood" than there is now.

                  And it wouldn't matter if it did. This whole idea of more carbon "diluting" the amount of C14 is obvious horse-hockey. There is no reason to suppose that even if the atmosphere (the only reservoir of carbon that has any relevance for radiocarbon dating) were 100% CO2, the ratio of C14/C12 as incorporated into living organisms would be any different than it is under current conditions. This is why your claim about "100X carbon," even if true (and it's not), is utterly meaningless.

                  Did you miss the words "one can postulate" in the paper you linked to, Dave? That's a big red warning flag that we are not talking about evidence here, we are talking about hand-waving. Are you ever going to learn?

                  [edit for emphasis:] Dave, one more time in case you missed it the last dozen times different people have pointed it out to you. The total amount of carbon in the environment is meaningless in the context of radiocarbon dating. The only thing that matters is the ratio of carbon-14 in the atmosphere to the ratio of carbon-12 in the atmosphere. The only place your "100X carbon" would have the slightest effect on radiocarbon dating is if it were in the atmosphere. Has it been demonstrated to your satisfaction yet that an atmosphere with one hundred times the partial pressure of CO2 in the current atmosphere would be toxic to most aerobic life forms?

                  We can move back to genetics when you get straightened out on your miserable, pathetic misunderstandings of radiocarbon dating. I know you're anxious to stop the massacre here, but you haven't been beaten up enough yet to be off the hook.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 14 2006,17:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave]The paper linked above shows that at a minimum there was 100X more carbon in the biosphere pre-Flood.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe Occam and Deadman and Ericmurphy have already pointed this out, but just for the record, NO, the paper linked above does no such thing. The paper linked above calculated how much extra 12C there would have to be in order to accommodate the biblical chronology. There is not even a pretense of evidence or data of any kind to support the actual existence of all this 12C in biological circulation, "pre-Flood".
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [jeannot]If a plant only contains some C12 (for some reason Dave never provided), it would appear older if we have an overestimation of its C12/C14 ratio when it died.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's why, davy, we can't "get back to genetics" yet with any sense of closure on this topic. You need to provide some actual evidence that carbon getting incorporated into living things underwent an abrupt 100X change in 14C/12C ratio coincident with your alleged Flood. In lieu of that (because I'm pretty sure such evidence is not forthcoming) I doubt you can offer any reason to believe such an abrupt shift is even plausible, without relying - as your buddy Brown does - on the circular logic that such a shift is required - to salvage the biblical chronology.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [ericmurphy]Dave, one more time in case you missed it the last dozen times different people have pointed it out to you. The total amount of carbon in the environment is meaningless in the context of radiocarbon dating. The only thing that matters is the ratio of carbon-14 in the atmosphere to the ratio of carbon-12 in the atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Unless, of course, davy can show us evidence, or at least the plausibility of the notion, that "pre-Flood" life forms had some mechanism of carbon incorporation that didn't depend on photosynthesis, or otherwise fixing atmospheric CO2.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,17:56

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 14 2006,17:46)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave]The paper linked above shows that at a minimum there was 100X more carbon in the biosphere pre-Flood.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe Occam and Deadman and Ericmurphy have already pointed this out, but just for the record, NO, the paper linked above does no such thing. The paper linked above calculated how much extra 12C there would have to be in order to accommodate the biblical chronology. There is not even a pretense of evidence or data of any kind to support the actual existence of all this 12C in biological circulation, "pre-Flood".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, and I hadn't thought of it this way, the requirement (in order to satisfy the biblical chronology) that the amount of atmospheric carbon (although the paper doesn't say that) must be 100 times its current value is enough, all by itself, to falsify the biblical chronology, because there is no evidence of such a huge spike in the level of atmospheric carbon 4,500 years ago, or indeed at any time going back at least 50,000 years. Such evidence would indeed have been obvious and unmistakable, since at least part of it would have been a massive die-off of most land-based life.

                  Thanks for disproving your own "hypothesis," Dave.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 14 2006,19:15

                  DAVE USES AN INVALID REFERENCE FOR HIS ARGUMENT.
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:45)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf >
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  where did it come from, and where is it now?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It came from the pre-Flood organic material including what is now fossil organic material and sedimentary carbonates.  Much of it is now in the fossil record.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  DAVE, YOU CAN'T USE THIS REFERENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.  THE AUTHOR, R.H.BROWN, INVALIDATES THIS HIMSELF.  SEE MY POST AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE (86).

                  This means you have to go back and rehash your 200x carbon argument (whatever number you choose, I don't care) without that reference.

                  The "GRISDA 06030.pdf" file is null and void.
                  It is no more.
                  It is pushing up the daisies.
                  It has proverbiably gone to meet its maker.
                  It is travelling in the great beyond.
                  It is an "ex" reference.

                  Please don't use this reference again.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 14 2006,19:22

                  But, uh, flailed Davy, it's the massive die-off due to Da Flud that sequestered all that extra carbon in the sediments--well, except for the carbon tied up in the surviving scavengers that preferentially ate all the modern pre-Flood animules and plants that failed to fossilize in all those sediments--

                  --the scavengers I haven't identified yet, because I haven't got a clue how they survived the flood--

                  --but, uh, anyway, those scavengers must've then croaked from, uh, overindulging, after first passing all that carbon that otherwise would've produced fossils of the modern sort, but first their, um, feces must've added to the mojo carbon-sedimentation, uh, somehow, so really, see, all the modern animals are sequestered, but you'll never find them 'cause they passed thru the scavengers intestines first--

                  --uh, and, uh, the scavengers themselves didn't fossilized because, uh, they got eaten by all the modern animals that they (the scavengers) didn't eat--y'know, the fast ones, who wouldn't lay still for scavenging, 'cause they (the fast moderns) were all fleeing as fast as they could to their mountaintop refugia (however high the mountains were or weren't, in cubits, or squared cubes, or something), which--after descending post-Flud and eating the scavengers, the modern "fast" animals, all decided that they really like it up on the high (or not so high) mountains, so they all went back there, where they died (the fast, scavenger of the scavenger, modern animals) up there and, uh, of course we all know that it's the mountain tops (however high or low they were) that are the most exposed to the elements, so they would've been subject to the most rapid erosion, so they (the eroded mountaintops) would've completely disintegrated the fossils of the modern fast critters as they tumbled down the streams of, like, the Grand Canyon and what-not--

                  --uh, and as to where all the carbon came from, heck, it just came out of the b-b-bioshplere (dat'sh easy for me to say, after slugging down some gin after corrupting the minds of all those annoying rug-rats...), where it existed in the form of, uh, all those HUGE pre-Flud plants 'n' animules 'n' dragonflies--

                  --and don't even try to confuse me about the CYCLIN' of carbon through the bioshp--uh, the bio-thingy!--'cause only you arrogant science pussies would ride them wimpy li'l bikes anyway, instead of exercising like a MAN by pulling triggers and kickin' butts, ya bunch of pansies!--

                  --and, uh, having all this extra carbon (heck, it probably comes from the same deep sources as THE WATERS, and that's probably where it is today, too, ya weenies)--maybe 100 times extra, maybe a 1000 times extra, what's a zero among zeros, huh?--is just what proves that carbon dating is wrong, uh, I'm not fer sure HOW it proves that, since this whole isotope ratio thing is another pussy side-controversy that I already WON somewhere in the deep sources of my imagination, anyway, and, well, OLD carbon must just be a different ratio from NEW carbon, because, well, it just stands to reason that older stuff would be, uh, heavier or ratio-er or something, than younger stuff, because, well, look, we know that there "were giants in those days," right, and not just 'cause the Bible sez so, but because, c'mon, guys, keep up with me here, willya, 'cause all the animules and plants and dragonflies were heavier so, OF COURSE, the carbon that went into them was heavier, too!

                  Pretty much covers it all, right?

                  Won another one, heh heh, just like the whole Portuguese and Inca thing (or Portuguese and Lingua Franca, or was it Portuguese and Ingua-Lingua?)!

                  Weenies!  Couldn't tell Portuguese from Linguini if it can up and knocked ya in the noodles!
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,21:18

                  Mike PSS--

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But the kicker is at the end of his reply.  He states  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation,  just so it can fit Scripture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike, welcome to Origins research.  Has it taken you this long to realize that it is impossible for origins researchers to objectively know for sure if any model of Origins is correct?  I suppose you find this candid statement suprising coming from your world of deluded (or dishonest) scientists who think they have "proven ToE."  No origins researcher--creationist or naturalist--can say anything other than what Brown says at the end of the day.  All either one can do is propose plausible models to explain their view of origins.  The difference between them is this:  Creationists have a reliable historical record as a starting point for their proposed models.  ToE advocates do not.  All they have is their wild imaginations.

                  It appears that over and over again, you guys fail to see the approach that creationist origins researchers take, which is ...

                  1)  Use historical documents to determine events if they are available.  We have an excellent one.  It is called the Book of Genesis.
                  2)  Then they observe the evidence and compare it with the historical record.
                  3)  If the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the historical record, then they might throw out the historical record.
                  4)  However, it does not ... especially in the major points

                  For example ...

                  1)  It is obvious from observing the evidence that a Supremely Intelligent Creator is required to produce the designs in nature--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
                  2)  It is obvious from the evidence that all genomes are deteriorating--this is predicted in the Genesis Record.
                  3)  It is obvious from the evidence that there are strict limits on variation and speciation--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
                  4)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was a global, life-destroying flood--this agrees with the Genesis Record
                  5)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was much greater land surface and far more organic material prior to the Flood and that conditions were much more conducive to long life in humans--this agrees with the Genesis Record.

                  Are you getting the picture?

                  Creation researchers have an extremely reliable historical document in the Book of Genesis--it's verifiable history has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again.

                  Why should they question it in the unverifiable areas?  Especially when they can propose plausible models which agree with the record.

                  This is common sense.

                  This is good, honest origins research.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 14 2006,21:32

                  Such a schoo!

                  It takes a really open mind to let absolutely every hard piece of evidence fall through it...
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2006,21:42

                  Re "It's not "millions of dead things." It's "hundreds of billions if not trillions of dead things."  "

                  Maybe the "millions" refers to the number of documented fossil finds?

                  Henry
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,21:55

                  Oh Goody!  Asshat Liar Dave is going back to tell us again about how science should rely on common sense and intuition!  Does this mean you're finally gonna provide that YEC evidence from your telescopes, microscopes, and calculators that you promised two weeks ago?

                     
                  Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:36)

                  Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hey Dave, still think the Sun is just a "burning ball of fire"?  Or that the Human genome is bigger than that of an amoeba?  After all, it's only common sense. :D :D :D

                  I bet your narrow heinie is so sore from the kicking it just got on C14 dating that you won't be able to sit for a week.  No problem!  We'll just kick you in the nads instead over whatever anti-science BS you fling up next until you forget all about your aching keister.  :p
                  Posted by: Jay Ray on Nov. 14 2006,21:56

                  While I am enjoying the dismantling of AFD's carbon shenanigans, I am intrigued by something from his latest "its obvious that..." post.

                  The first four "obvious" claims I've heard (and heard them amply refuted) several times, but part of number five is a new one.

                  So, I ask in all sincerity, in what way is it obvious that, ...there was much greater land surface...?

                  Please, you can skip both the organic material argument (as it sounds like a rehash of the last three pages of carbon spike) and the general superior wholesomeness of the antediluvian world. I've heard those arguments, so there's no need to go there today.  

                  But the landmass thing is a new one by me.  Elaborate?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 14 2006,21:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Creation researchers have an extremely reliable historical document in the Book of Genesis--it's verifiable history has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Translation: "Creationist researchers don't really do research, but pick and choose the data to accept and reject everything that doesn't agree with a narrow, sophomoric interpretation of the Bible, and if that doesn't work, lie and fake data and make anything up, regardless of whether it's scripturally accurate --and can we please not discuss radiocarbon dating, Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar, isochrons, the fact that ICR lackeys lied directly to me, plagiarism, dating the layers of the Grand Staircase, quote-mining, Milano APO, or anything verifiable and concrete that I can't deal with? "

                  There are times when I actually feel sorry for Dave's mental condition, then he posts up crap like he just did and I'm glad to slap him around all day.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 14 2006,22:03

                  OA ... Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire ...

                  After you finish your cat experiment, why don't you call Virgin Galactic and see if they can give you a charter flight to the sun ...  when you return crispier, then we can talk about it some more :-)

                  You guys would never believe who called me today!

                  Any guesses?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,22:06

                  Hey Davie, I forgot:

                  Where did the scavengers come from, the ones you say ate all the millions of drowned animals and people from the Flood?

                  C'mon Davie, tell me a bedtime story... :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,22:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,21:18)
                  It appears that over and over again, you guys fail to see the approach that creationist origins researchers take, which is ...

                  1)  Use historical documents to determine events if they are available.  We have an excellent one.  It is called the Book of Genesis.
                  2)  Then they observe the evidence and compare it with the historical record.
                  3)  If the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the historical record, then they might throw out the historical record.
                  4)  However, it does not ... especially in the major points
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, how do you use historical records that go back at most a few thousand years to "determine" events that happened hundreds of millions to tens of billions of years ago?

                  And before you say, "But none of that 'deep time' ever happened!" allow me to diffidently point out that you're assuming what you're trying to prove. You're using the Bible to authenticate its own version of things. That's about as tight as circular logic ever gets.

                  Haven't we been down this particular road before with you?

                  And your claim that there's no evidence that contradicts the bible is thoroughly refuted by, basically, this entire thread—all 290 pages of it.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 14 2006,22:11

                  Quote (Asshat Liar Dave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:03)

                  You guys would never believe who called me today!

                  Any guesses?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The Air Force Academy, wanting their diploma back?  :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 14 2006,22:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:03)
                  OA ... Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire ...

                  After you finish your cat experiment, why don't you call Virgin Galactic and see if they can give you a charter flight to the sun ...  when you return crispier, then we can talk about it some more :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, Dave, let's get a little clarification here.

                  When you say "Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire…" are we to take that to mean that you believe that the sun actually is a ball of some sort of substance undergoing an exothermic chemical reaction? I.e., you do not subscribe to the theory that the sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion?

                  I just want to make sure I have you nailed down on this point before I register pure, unadulterated, mouth-agape dumbfounded disbelief.
                  Posted by: TangoJuliett on Nov. 14 2006,22:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:03)
                  You guys would never believe who called me today!

                  Any guesses?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  My intuition tells me it was your impotent faux god asking for money.  
                  Just how much did the brethren have to cough up for the creation of the universe?!?!?!?  Hmmm?
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 14 2006,22:55

                  Re "but, uh, anyway, those scavengers must've then croaked from, uh, overindulging,"

                  The scavengers were frogs? Guess it's not easy being green...

                  Henry
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 14 2006,23:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)  Use historical documents to determine events if they are available.  We have an excellent one.  It is called the Book of Genesis.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Bwhahahahahahahahahaha

                  get the fuck outa here


                  Let me get this straight ....you are claiming the imagined history of the Jewish people is like a newspaper report?

                  The whole tale is MYTH AFD.

                  Talking snakes, world wide flood, the sun stopping in the sky, incest, necromancy, talking sky demons, self immolating bushes, parting waters, pillars of salt,  900 year old men, instantly created adults from dust and bone, helio centricity, flat earthism, cults, slavery and feudalism; warlords and wardead; miracles and magic; ancestor worship and animal sacrifice;  propaganda, naked power and pride; envy and adultory; idols and passion; demons and djins; birth, rebirth and death;  rising dead and falling prophets; heroes, seers, sooth sayers and devils and women by the well; Failure and fornication; deceit and hubris; decrepitude and joy; Politics and polemic; Journeys and discovery; wrestling demons while sleeping, killing foes while waking.....

                  ...yes AFD a fantasy, a fantastic dream. Expressed in the language of dream; not real but figurative; not objective but subjective. Poetry and prose as opposed to factual reportage, where time and space are suspended and every demon and boon is hyper real, where mans deepest fears and desires are brought to the waking surface of conciousness as distilled life in a rich elixir of innuendo and metaphor. Imagined underworlds explored then reported as though they were real, 'true detective stories' 'swords and sandles' and 'soap opera' writen by master story tellers.

                  Myth.

                  Tall tales but 'true'.

                  Some assisted no doubt by psycho active substances, which I'm pretty sure AFD has never experienced...more the pity.

                  Just like all the other sub conscious projections of ancient man.

                  Taking any of that literally will cause insanity. i.e. to lose ones senses, to lose ones mind.

                  The Bible, as does other sacred religious texts, warns of that.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 14 2006,23:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The scavengers were frogs? Guess it's not easy being green...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You haven't heard of the great green moster?

                  It eats all in its path.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2006,03:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:03)
                  You guys would never believe who called me today!

                  Any guesses?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  lemme guess. Some kid that you taught your garbage to has all grown up and seen the light. The real light. And he called you up to express his hate?
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 15 2006,07:14

                  Well, it would seem obvious that the most probable caller would be reality, informing him that his check bounced.
                  Sadly, the call was refused and its existence denied.
                  So, probably something from the opposite end of the spectrum -- Dembski, or one of his lick-spittles?
                  As if we cared about the tawdry details of his wasted little life.
                  Davey, all 5 of your "it is obvious" points are the furthest thing from obvious.  In fact, there is zero evidence for any of them.  Zero.
                  Got that?  Write it down.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 15 2006,08:38

                  AssFlightDave the boy with wings made of feathers and wax makes a Freudian slip.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OA ... Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire ...

                  After you finish your cat experiment, why don't you call Virgin Galactic and see if they can give you a charter flight to the sun ...  when you return crispier, then we can talk about it some more :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Ah yes the Myth of Prometheus...I'm sure even his raptureness knows that one.

                  A story meant to be taken literally, as all the old myths were, to convey a concept; a moral; a warning to those who become so full of themselves with overconfidence in their own capabilities, or the rapture of knowing their gods, to be careful or one will meet a sudden coming down to earth (reality will catch up with those that equate their mortal splendor with those of the gods).

                  Science impacts Myth in a way that makes them quaint anachronisms, however as we see with AFD some things never change. Man the myth maker still tries to have myth maketh the man.

                  The purpose of Myth is to give identity to the tribe members and its place in the natural word.

                  A social reality is constructed which need not and in most cases will not, match the natural material world, however it must SEEM to the tribe to be true.

                  The keepers of the myth through the use of ceremony and obscurantism constantly remind the members that their very existence depends on the myth.

                  The easiest way to do that is to create 'an other' the outsiders, an enemy whose purpose is to destroy the myth and by extension the tribe's reality and the tribe itself, the myth thus becomes self perpetuating and its magic reality more real than reality itself. A powerful illusion. To be a member one must leave ones mind at the door.

                  A repeating theme is to prepare the child for adulthood by a process of radical transformation, the circumcision is the perfect example. In exchange for becoming an adult a blood sacrifice to the ancestors where the child is effectively forced to leave childhood behind and prepare to carry out the purpose of the tribe, protect and procreate.

                  Its the oldest story in the world , a timeless tale promoted by the world's oldest profession ..identity politics aka religion.

                  So AFD fly higher, your wax is yet to melt.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 15 2006,08:59

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, how do you use historical records that go back at most a few thousand years to "determine" events that happened hundreds of millions to tens of billions of years ago?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very good question.  Answer: you don't.  But the very fact that there ARE NOT any historical records that extend back any farther than 5500 years or so should raise a giant question mark in your mind about the supposed billions-of-years history of Planet Earth.

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Okay, Dave, let's get a little clarification here.

                  When you say "Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire…" are we to take that to mean that you believe that the sun actually is a ball of some sort of substance undergoing an exothermic chemical reaction? I.e., you do not subscribe to the theory that the sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  You are complicating my statement.  I simply am saying that the sun is a ball and that it "burns" as in "is very hot" as in -- if you were to get very close to it, you would fry.  I do subscribe to the "sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion" theory.  This is a pretty funny conversation.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 15 2006,09:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But the very fact that there ARE NOT any historical records that extend back any farther than 5500 years or so should raise a giant question mark in your mind about the supposed billions-of-years history of Planet Earth.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Ice cores going back 400,000 years

                  Cores from oil wells going back 135,000,000 years

                  Fossils going back 3500,000,000 years

                  Cave paintings in France 20,000 years

                  Rock carvings in Australia 50,000 years plus

                  Stone age tools in Africa over 100,000 years

                  Proven beyond doubt.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 15 2006,09:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do subscribe to the "sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion" theory.  This is a pretty funny conversation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Indeed it is. Because the evidence concerning the sun is a whole lot more indirect and contingent on multiple "assumptions" than the evidence concerning the age of the earth. Why would you subscribe to the one for which the evidence is limited to very few observations, and is 93 million miles away, but not the other, where the evidence is literally in front of your face, and can be cross-checked by many different independent methods?



                  And why do you subscribe to standard science's description of what the sun must consist of, but not standard science's description of how old it is?

                  And if you're willing to regard "thermonuclear reaction"  metaphorically as "fire", what's wrong with reading the Genesis account metaphorically, like all sane christians and jews do?\



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You guys would never believe who called me today!

                  Any guesses?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Richard Dawkins. He read your convincing explanations about how everything he knows is wrong, and wants your advice on which fundamentalist sect to sign up with.

                  Seriously - if it's anyone who is familiar with the kind of nonsense you spout here, it can only be a committed creationist. And if it's anyone who we could conceivably guess, it must be a notorious one. Ken Ham? Carl Wieland? I give up.

                  Oh, and your list of "it's obvious that..." items: not only are none of them "obvious", they're not even plausible. Yesterday's exchange was very illuminating. You took a thorough drubbing, and demonstrated that you really can't distinguish between (1) honestly seeking out and weighing evidence, and (2) retrofitting reality to your precious creation myth.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 15 2006,10:55

                  Quote (afdave @  Nov. 13 2006,22:02)
                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, you’ve really got me curious.  I want to know more about the scavengers that ate all those drowned Flood carcasses you told us about.  I can’t find anything about them in my Bible at all.

                  The Bible says the Flood killed every living thing save those on the Ark, so I assume the scavengers were on the Ark too.  Is that right?  What kind of creatures were they Dave?  Vultures?  Hyenas?  Sharks?  T-Rex?

                  How did the scavengers make it from Ararat to the whole rest of the world while the flood waters were still receding, and the land was covered with thousands of feet of soft sediment?

                  How many scavengers were there Dave?  Must have been a pretty high number to clean up the whole planet and not miss a single carcass of a modern animal. How did they multiply from the two on the Ark to such high numbers so quickly?   Not only that, but the scavengers must have eaten the bones of the dead animals too, not just the decaying flesh.  What kind of scavengers do you know that eat the skeletons of Elephants?

                  Another thing – you live in Missouri, right?  That’s a pretty flat state, the highest point of elevation is only 1700 ft.  When the Flood began, where did all the local modern fauna run to in order to escape the water and not get buried in sediment?  Did they run all the way to the Rocky Mountains in Colorado?  Nah, can’t be that because we know that area was covered by 5000’ of soft sediment from which the Grand Canyon was carved – you told us so, right?  Even going to Mt Everest wouldn’t help because the top there is full of fossils which means they were buried by Flood sediment.

                  Help me out here Dave – share some of your scientific knowledge on these post-Flood scavengers and the modern animals they dined on.

                  You were telling the truth about the scavengers, weren't you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,10:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 15 2006,08:59)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, how do you use historical records that go back at most a few thousand years to "determine" events that happened hundreds of millions to tens of billions of years ago?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very good question.  Answer: you don't.  But the very fact that there ARE NOT any historical records that extend back any farther than 5500 years or so should raise a giant question mark in your mind about the supposed billions-of-years history of Planet Earth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, it doesn't raise any questions marks at all for me, because unlike you, I don't believe that literacy was whispered from the mind of Jehova into the space between Adam's ears. I find it a lot more likely that it took four billion years for humans to evolve, and then many more hundreds of thousands of years for humans to achieve the population density necessary to make written language a worthwhile endeavor.

                  On the other hand, the evidence for the great antiquity of the earth and the universe (you haven't even gotten to the evidence for the age of the universe, and I can hardly wait for that laugh-fest) is so utterly conclusive that only a fool could believe otherwise.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Okay, Dave, let's get a little clarification here.

                  When you say "Yes, the sun IS a big burning ball of fire…" are we to take that to mean that you believe that the sun actually is a ball of some sort of substance undergoing an exothermic chemical reaction? I.e., you do not subscribe to the theory that the sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  You are complicating my statement.  I simply am saying that the sun is a ball and that it "burns" as in "is very hot" as in -- if you were to get very close to it, you would fry.  I do subscribe to the "sun is a large sphere of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion" theory.  This is a pretty funny conversation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Actually, Dave, given the things you do believe in, such as Noah's ark, it wouldn't be remotely surprising to find that you believe the sun is a ball of, say, JetA, that's been burning for the past six thousand years. Actually, if the universe were only 6,000 years old, the sun could not be a ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing thermonuclear fusion. Since it is, and you evidently believe it is, you believe two mutually contradictory things at the same time, which is a pretty neat trick.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 15 2006,11:28

                  Sharks?  Piranhas?  Maybe "scavengers" is the wrong word.  How about "dead floating cat chompers."  :-)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,11:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 15 2006,11:28)
                  Sharks?  Piranhas?  Maybe "scavengers" is the wrong word.  How about "dead floating cat chompers."  :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One more, long-overdue, point of clarification, Dave: were your "floodwaters" fresh water, or seawater? The distinction is important, and has significant ramifications for your "hypothesis" (if your "floating cat chompers" are dead, they're not going to be chomping too many floating cats). It's perfectly okay to say, "I don't know," but doing so leaves huge swaths of your "hypothesis" rather underdetermined. Since in either event, huge holes will be punched in the biosphere, it's important for you to nail down the answer to this question so your "hypothesis" has a prayer of making any predictions.

                  So—if it's not too much trouble, do you think you could finally provide your pupils here with an answer to this straightforward question?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 15 2006,14:44

                  Quote (AFDave @ Nov. 15 2006,11:28)

                  Sharks?  Piranhas?  Maybe "scavengers" is the wrong word.  How about "dead floating cat chompers."  :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How about - I'm giving you a chance to explain some of the scientific details of your theory, and all you can do is make evasive jokes.  That doesn't look good to the people you're trying to convince.

                  Now Dave, please tell us the details about the scavengers that ate the dead floating pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Also, you forgot to tell me where the modern creatures in Missouri ran to during the Flood.  I'm sure it was an honest oversight on your part that you'll correct with your next post, right?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 15 2006,14:57

                  Notice Dave just totally whiffed--struck out swinging--on the scavenger question.  A perfectly fair question that arose from his hand-waving attempt ("scavengers") to dodge the perfectly fair question of why none of the remains of the ka-zillions of modern humans and animals and plants and one-celled critters who perished in the flood fossilized (which would, of course, lead to the question of "what the heck were Adam and Eve and all their wicked descendants eating?  Not to mention the question of what made up all of that carbon-bearing pre-Flood biomass, if there weren't ka-zillions of...  Etc.  Etc.  Davey is, of course, in so much endless trouble here that only his tiny mind could avoid wrapping around enough of the picture to realize the kind of trouble he's in...).

                  By the way, dave, I didn't mean to call you a "schoo" on the last page.  Sorry.

                  I meant to call you a "schmoo."

                  (We do try to keep it accurate around here, even if you feel no corresponding obligation.)

                  And somewhere in the world, there are probably ancient Greek-myth apologists busily trying to Cobble together the phony calculations that would make Icarus's wax-and-feathers flight possible... Busily hypothesizing roc feathers and the pre-chemical "Mt. Oly super glue" and pre-pharmaceutical "Mt. Vesuvius ultra 'roids" that would lend some semblance of plausibility to this bunch of competing myths.

                  Hey, dave, the whole thing about dipping Achilles by his heel to make him (almost) invulnerable is written down in an old book, too.  Was that part true history also?

                  And the "thermonuclear sun" thing really is pretty revealing, though davey seems not to have caught on quite yet: let's get this straight, afd, you believe in the H-Bomb, right (light element fusion, thermonuclear-powered sun ...)?

                  But you DON'T believe in the A-Bomb (heavy element  fission, radio-dating of, well, everything that rules out davey's entire Creatoidal mindset...)?

                  Have I got that correct, O Mighty Mo-Ron?

                  And if not, why not?

                  [/B][B][B]
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 15 2006,15:04

                  Quote (Steviepinhead @ Nov. 15 2006,14:57)
                     
                  Notice Dave just totally whiffed--struck out swinging--on the scavenger question.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually he struck out looking - never got the bat off his shoulder - never even made an attempt.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 15 2006,15:29

                  The oceans aren't born salty silly. Gob makes them that way by concentrating the salts through evaporation. Haven't you ever heard of great salt lake in utah? preflood water was fresh. Salt is part of gob's curse! You know like how when lot gave his virgin daughters up to be raped by the mob rather than let them screw the angels, and then gob turned him into SALT for looking back? Or something like that anyway... Hmmm. Anyway, those first KINDS of fish had to evolve all those nifty little gimmicks to learn how to process all that corruption and evil that man unleashed upon the world in the form of SALT!

                  Let's take our vocab words from < here >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Definitions:

                     * Concentration: the amount of stuff dissolved in solution. (Seawater has a higher salt concentration than fresh water).
                     * Diffusion: the dispersal of matter within an environment such that it becomes equally concentrated throughout the environment.
                     * Hypertonic: a solution containing a greater amount of dissolved stuff than a creature or object in the solution.
                     * Hypotonic: a solution containing a lesser amount of dissolved stuff than a creature or object in the solution.
                     * Isotonic: a solution containing an equal amount of dissolved stuff than a creature or object in the solution.
                     * Osmoregulation: the process of regulating the amount of salt and other dissolved substances to control the loss or gain of water from osmosis.
                     * Osmosis: the diffusion of water across a semi-permeable membrane.
                     * Salinity: the relative amount of salt dissolved in water. (Seawater has a higher salinity than freshwater).
                     * Semi-permeable membrane: a membrane that permits the free passage of water but prevents the passage of a dissolved substance like salt.


                  Osmoregulation in various fresh-water and salt-water organisms:

                  Freshwater Snails: Fresh water snails have an outer shell that protects a large part of their surface from the osmotic inflow of water. The kidneys and excretory system provide additional osmoregulation.

                  Marine invertebrates: Marine invertebrates have body fluids that are isotonic to the surrounding environment. Marine invertebrates like lobsters, crabs, and shrimp taste "salty" because their bodies must contain lots of salt to keep their body fluids isotonic to their salt-water homes!

                  Fresh-water fishes: Fresh water fishes maintain body fluid concentrations live in a hypotonic environment and thus obtain water directly from osmotic uptake from their environment. These fish generally have highly developed kidneys and active excretory systems to keep the osmotic uptake of water from getting out of hand.

                  Marine teleosts (most fish): The salty environment draws water from the fish via osmosis. The fish compensate by greatly increasing their water intake. Teleost gills have chloride-secreting cells that help to put ingested salts back into the environment. Teleosts also have highly developed kidneys and excretory systems.

                  Sharks, Skates, and Rays: The main form of osmoregulation in sharks, skates, and rays is a specialized salt excretion gland (such as that found in the spiny dogfish).

                  Lamprey: The lamprey has osmoregulatory mechanisms similar to those of marine teleosts.

                  Sea Turtle: The sea turtle, like other reptiles, has specialized salt glands that excrete salt. The shell also provides a barrier to the loss of water to the hypertonic environment.

                  Marine mammals: Excretory organs are designed to help conserve water. Urine is excreted as a semi fluid paste.

                  Salmon: Salmon have well designed excretory systems that can adjust to their dual fresh-water and salt-water habitats.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And what's wierder about salmon is that they never get as saline as their ocean surroundings even though they live there for quite some time. It's pretty hard on them to come back to fresh water though.

                  /whatever

                  We now return to our regularly scheduled creationist baiting programming...
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2006,15:57

                  Heh, I just looked in on the thread again. My suspicion is that the mystery contact Dave is talking about is "Dr." Don Batten.

                  If I'm correct, this should be fun. This time we get to deal with a major figure in the ICR "lie to the masses" program. I wonder if "Dr." Don has read this thread at all...well, no matter...he's in for some rude awakenings should he debate.

                  Steviepinhead: stop being so funny, your satire made me have to stop eating lunch out of fear of choking with laughter.

                  Just to remind you, Dave: because you have failed miserably and utterly in your attempt to discredit C14 dating, your claims about the flood are false. This means you better revise it to a far earlier date, or eliminate it entirely, as the ID crowd has.

                  I have no issues with belief, Dave, I have a problem with people like you who are willing and eager to pervert science to a religious view that is entirely contrary to what is known.

                  My advice is to stop being a literalist and take up the "Prime Mover" model which cannot even in principle be disproven ( or proven for that matter), and relies entirely on pure and simple faith.

                  Everything else is simply trying to "prove" God in the face of faith, and is beneath contempt.

                  On that note, I'd like you to examine something, Dave. Most sociologists and anthropologists agree that human relations have a great deal to do with the concept of "power"--essentially the ability to get others to think and do what one wants them to.
                  Your entire thread(s) here have been an attempt to assert religiously-based literalism of one religious sect over the entirety of all human endeavors and sources of knowledge.
                  This attempt has consistently failed in regard to science...why? Because it represents not a PERFECT way of knowing...but simply the best mode we have to date. If you can show a better way of gaining knowledge about the universe, show me.
                  Knowledge = information = power and what you tried to do was claim absolute power. You failed, as did the Catholic chuch re Galileo and many other examples. As Zola once said : ""Has science ever retreated? No! It is Religion which has always retreated before her, and will always be forced to retreat."

                  Why would this be true? It is because at heart, Religion is based on FAITH, not anything else. But you would have it based on FACT...which is antithetical to faith. As they like to say: "faith is the 'evidence' of things UNKNOWN"   NOT "knowing" is essential to faith. But you try to pervert it into PROOF of god. Let me end this with a quote from ol' Frank Zappa:

                  " It wasn't  an apple. It was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The subtle message? 'Get smart and I'll fuck you over' sayeth the Lord.   God is the smartest, and he doesn't want any Competition. Is this not an absolutely anti-intellectual religion?"......Frank Zappa

                  You are essentially trying to do just that...and you failed miserably. You better back off, boy. Scientia Potentia Est.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,16:08

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 15 2006,15:29)
                  Osmoregulation in various fresh-water and salt-water organisms:

                  Freshwater Snails: Fresh water snails have an outer shell that protects a large part of their surface from the osmotic inflow of water. The kidneys and excretory system provide additional osmoregulation.

                  Marine invertebrates: Marine invertebrates have body fluids that are isotonic to the surrounding environment. Marine invertebrates like lobsters, crabs, and shrimp taste "salty" because their bodies must contain lots of salt to keep their body fluids isotonic to their salt-water homes!

                  Fresh-water fishes: Fresh water fishes maintain body fluid concentrations live in a hypotonic environment and thus obtain water directly from osmotic uptake from their environment. These fish generally have highly developed kidneys and active excretory systems to keep the osmotic uptake of water from getting out of hand.

                  Marine teleosts (most fish): The salty environment draws water from the fish via osmosis. The fish compensate by greatly increasing their water intake. Teleost gills have chloride-secreting cells that help to put ingested salts back into the environment. Teleosts also have highly developed kidneys and excretory systems.

                  Sharks, Skates, and Rays: The main form of osmoregulation in sharks, skates, and rays is a specialized salt excretion gland (such as that found in the spiny dogfish).

                  Lamprey: The lamprey has osmoregulatory mechanisms similar to those of marine teleosts.

                  Sea Turtle: The sea turtle, like other reptiles, has specialized salt glands that excrete salt. The shell also provides a barrier to the loss of water to the hypertonic environment.

                  Marine mammals: Excretory organs are designed to help conserve water. Urine is excreted as a semi fluid paste.

                  Salmon: Salmon have well designed excretory systems that can adjust to their dual fresh-water and salt-water habitats.

                  And what's wierder about salmon is that they never get as saline as their ocean surroundings even though they live there for quite some time. It's pretty hard on them to come back to fresh water though.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why is it that whenever I ask a question, I always have to wait for someone else to point out the significance of an answer until Dave will attempt to answer it? Is it because most of the time Dave has no idea why I'm even asking the question in the first place, let alone what the answer might actually be?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2006,16:31

                  By the way, eric: it is my considered and knowledgeable opinion that you have a mind capable of gaining any degree you damm well desire. I worked for the entrance dept. at UCLA once upon a time.
                  If that's not important to you, great, but if it ever bothers you, say the word and you'll have recommendations in droves.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,16:39

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 15 2006,16:31)
                  By the way, eric: it is my considered and knowledgeable opinion that you have a mind capable of gaining any degree you damm well desire. I worked for the entrance dept. at UCLA once upon a time.
                  If that's not important to you, great, but if it ever bothers you, say the word and you'll have them in droves.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey, thanks for the compliment, DM. I always sorta wanted to be an astronomer. But by the time I got my Ph.D. (I think it's usually a six-year program) I'd be at least 60 years old! And then it would suck trying to tolerate the cold in those observatories.

                  So instead I'll just read a lot about it. Almost as much fun. :-)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 15 2006,16:49

                  Ah, yes, we're never too old to learn cool new stuff.

                  Er...

                  Well, OK, then there's afd, but then there's at least one exception to every rule.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2006,16:56

                  Hah, you're a little bit older than me, eric, but ...he11, I got my last degree at in my late 30's (social science degrees take a bit longer) Go for it. If you can handle calc, they want you -- better yet, you have some grasp of the scope-- which is really important. I can think of two major astronomers I know, including Ed Krupp (Griffith Observatory) who I've known for almost 20 years. Let me know
                  Posted by: Bing on Nov. 15 2006,16:59

                  Who called Dave?  This could be fun.  Oooh, my turn to guess!

                  I'm guessing that "Dr." Dino, Kent Hovind himself, called Dave.  I'm willing to go further and predict that "Dr." Dino offered Dave his own "Ph.D" in Creationist Science from Dino Adventure Land University for only $9999 (in small denomination, unsequential unmarked bills only, mustn't go over $10K and alert the authorities).   In addition "Dr." Dino offered unrestricted performance rights of Kent's schtick while he's away on federal vacation subject to a small royalty.  Said royalty payable in cartons of cigarettes on visiting day.
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Nov. 15 2006,17:13

                  [quote=ericmurphy,Nov. 15 2006,17:39]
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 15 2006,16:31)
                  But by the time I got my Ph.D. (I think it's usually a six-year program) I'd be at least 60 years old! And then it would suck trying to tolerate the cold in those observatories.

                  So instead I'll just read a lot about it. Almost as much fun. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And how old will you be in six years if you didn't go for a Ph.D.??
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 15 2006,17:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who called Dave?  This could be fun.  Oooh, my turn to guess!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm hoping it's "Dr." Don Batten. I'd relish the idea of slaughtering him and having it preserved for posterity.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,17:27

                  Quote (Bing @ Nov. 15 2006,16:59)
                  Who called Dave?  This could be fun.  Oooh, my turn to guess!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It was Wiegand.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,17:39

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 15 2006,16:56)
                  Hah, you're a little bit older than me, eric, but ...he11, I got my last degree at in my late 30's (social science degrees take a bit longer) Go for it. If you can handle calc, they want you -- better yet, you have some grasp of the scope-- which is really important. I can think of two major astronomers I know, including Ed Krupp (Griffith Observatory) who I've known for almost 20 years. Let me know
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I should probably clarify. Before I could do postgrad stuff, I'd have to get my undergraduate degree. Since I probably couldn't draw a stipend for that, I'd have to work full-time and do the night-school thing. Figure six years, minimum, for a baccalaureate degree (in physics, if I could handle the friggin' math, which frankly would surprise me, although I did very well in physics in high school).

                  Then, I could probably do the post-grad stuff on a full-time basis, but again that's six years or possibly a bit more (lots of people take a decade or more to get their Ph.D.). So twelve years or so for the whole deal. By which time I would be pushing 60. Not quite there yet, if I could really do it in twelve years. But I'm not sure I could do it in twelve years.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,17:42

                  Quote (notta_skeptic @ Nov. 15 2006,17:13)
                  And how old will you be in six years if you didn't go for a Ph.D.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Six years from now I'll be almost fifty-one. Probably fewer gray hairs if I don't go for the doctorate. :-)
                  Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 15 2006,17:51

                  I've not kept up on this thread very well, but have surveyed it from time to time.  What struck me recently is that astronomical dating hasn't actually been brought up yet, to my knowledge.  Here is what I wrote on another forum a while ago, which contains a good reference and relevant quotes from that reference:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Don't like radiometric dating?

                  In a way, neither do scientists. While radiometric dating is very good at telling us that the earth is old, science is actually interested in the facts, not in merely shooting down old myths. Radiometric dating is annoyingly off by several percentage points in many cases, even more in others, and new calibrations are being made to address this problem.



                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Quote:
                  The changing age of the Jurassic period is a case in point. in 1987, the period was estimated to have ended 131 million years ago, based on the amount of potassium that had been converted into glauconite. But it was later discovered that argon seeps out of glauconite, making the mineral seem younger than it actually is. The new timescale used potassium-argon dating of basalt to put the end of the Jurassic at 145.5 million years ago.

                  "Most people will tell you that a measurement more than five years old is obsolete," says Gradstein.

                  John Whitfield. "Time lords." pp. 124-125 v. 429 13 May 2004. Nature. p. 125.


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



                  At ages beyond 65 million years or so, improvements in radiometric dating are being made like that above, finding sources of error and fixing them. Additionally, standardization is being improved, which is what the article mentioned above is mainly interested in. Errors should not, of course, be of any comfort to YECs, as improvements are at least as likely to produce older dates, as younger ones.

                  Younger dates than 65 million years are being improved by using astronomical correlations with phenomena occurring on earth. This is what I'm really posting to say, that radiometric dating has been roughly confirmed by, but also bested through, astronomical correlations. That is to say, astronomical correlations are providing a timeline having new precision, which will help to calibrate the methods used in most specific instances, whether the latter is radiometric dating, relative dating, or some less common methods.



                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Quote:
                  The new timescale takes advantage of a growing ability to date rocks using astronomical events, says Felix Gradstein of the University of Oslo, Norway, ICS chairman and nother of the timescale's editors. Using this technique, the past 23 million years--the Neogene period--has been dated to within plus or minus 40,000 years. "This is the single most exciting sceintific development in the new timescale," says Gradstein. "Every geologist should be amazed by this." Ibid.


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



                  I had realized how isotopes in the sedimentary record were confirming, and sometimes besting, radiometric dating, but I had not known that an entire independent time-scale was being worked out using astronomical correlations with the geological record. The article doesn't say what the astronomical correlations are, but I believe that one of the more important correlations is the precessional period of earth's orbit, at least for the past couple hundred thousand years or so, though perhaps on out to 65 million years.

                  So I guess we can take our pick out to 65 million years ago or so (the technique works past 23 million years, it just isn't as accurate), radiometric dating or astronomical dating, if we wish to point out how impossible to believe YECism is. Of course there are many other phenomena impossible to fit into 10,000 years or so, relative dating and the like.

                  I suppose the question now is, how much is Goldstein and his allies really willing to throw out of "education"? Is astrophysics poised for banishment from Adventist education? How about physics itself? Or is higher ed supposed to limp along teaching what is incompatible with YECism while never admitting the consequences of what it teaches?

                  Most of all, will Goldstein, etc., ever really discuss these matters openly and honestly?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/8/4130.html#POST32442 >

                  What prompted me to think about this dating method again was a recent article in Nature, which discusses it somewhat.  This article may be found on pp. 134-135 of the 9 November 2006 issue.  Its title is "Telling the Time", by Rex Dalton.

                  Anyhow, I have decided that I will rarely, if ever, bother to argue these matters with AFDave.  So I thought I'd mention it for others to use, if they wish, to point to the fact that astronomical methods have confirmed radiometric dating, even surpassing its precision out to 23 million years BP.  Also, there are the inconvenient facts of precession cycles appearing within "flood sediments".  

                  Of course this is rather too complicated for a person who doesn't even understand radiometric dating, or the problems of aeolian deposits, animal footprints, intact roots in soils, and dinosaur nests occurring in the "flood sediments".  But it's another issue to confuse him with, or if no one wants to try to guide such a simple-minded person through actual science, it should be interesting to anyone who simply likes geology and the rest of science.  

                  I am guessing from the lack of its mention (at least in what I have surveyed) that many on our side do not know about this independent timeline (as I did not until a couple years or so ago), so they might be interested in learning about it (I've included enough resources to get you started).

                  Glen D
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 15 2006,17:57

                  Quote (k.e @ Nov. 14 2006,23:58)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The scavengers were frogs? Guess it's not easy being green...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You haven't heard of the great green moster?

                  It eats all in its path.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, I think it tends to reject more of the long flies that go in its direction than it allows to disappear into its maw.  But, candidly, I wouldn't expect someone from down under to understand the eating habits of such a beast found in eastern Massachusetts.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 15 2006,18:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am guessing from the lack of its mention (at least in what I have surveyed) that many on our side do not know about this independent timeline (as I did not until a couple years or so ago), so they might be interested in learning about it (I've included enough resources to get you started).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hey! Thanks for that.

                  Indeed, I'd never heard of it. I'll get the Nature article tonight.

                  It's the occasional piece of real information - and I've picked up several - that makes this otherwise farcical thread worth watching.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 15 2006,18:35

                  Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 15 2006,17:51)
                  I've not kept up on this thread very well, but have surveyed it from time to time.  What struck me recently is that astronomical dating hasn't actually been brought up yet, to my knowledge.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  On a slightly related topic (hey, it's got to do with astronomy!;), I can't wait to hear Dave's explanation for the CMB.

                  But more to the point, Glen's post points up something I simply have been unable to get Dave to understand, which is that various disciplines of science tend to reinforce each other. In other words, as here, discoveries in astronomy reinforce and corroborate discoveries made in radiometric dating techniques. Dave seems to be of the opinion that such corroborations are a bad thing, and are evidence of conspiracy between, e.g., astronomers, geologists, and evolutionary biologists.

                  I've asked Dave many times to provide bodies of evidence that do things like converge on a figure of 6,000 years (or whatever figure he thinks is correct) for the age of the earth. He's never been able to do so. Other than counting up the "begats" in the Bible, all he's been able to do is either find dates that are somewhere between three and fifty thousand years, or simply throw up his hands and say that it is impossible to date anything except by reference to scripture.

                  Which, of course, presents a conundrum for Dave which he has never been able to address: if he believes there is no method of determining dates which would allow a corroboration of Biblical events, then how is it possible to corroborate the Bible itself? He ends up using the Bible to authenticate itself, which is, as I've stated before, as tight a circle as you can make circular logic go.
                  Posted by: clamboy on Nov. 15 2006,20:48

                  It hasn't been said for a long time, so in reaction to the past several pages:

                  afdave, you are a very bad man. BUT:
                  afdave, you are also a very very weird man. and that's "weird-oogy," not "weird-cool." AND:
                  afdave, you are a very very very pathetic man. and that's NOT "pathetic-like-a-rain-soaked-kitten," but "pathetic-like-rick-santorum's-kids-in-that-picture-all-over-the-internet-in-other-words-pathetic-gross-not-pathetic
                  -cute."
                  perhaps, instead of "Liar Dave" and such, y'all could just say "afsantorum" for a while? just a suggestion.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 15 2006,21:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,22:18)
                  Mike PSS--    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But the kicker is at the end of his reply.  He states      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know of no objective basis for confidence that a particular model for the preflood biomass, land/water surface ratio, or 14C production rate is "correct," but the development presented in this note seems to provide justification for confidence that models can be developed which are appropriate and also contribute to an understanding of 14C age data that is consistent with the chronological witness of Scripture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Mr. Brown "writes off" his entire essay about 14C and plants it firmly in the realm of conjecture and speculation,  just so it can fit Scripture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike, welcome to Origins research.  Has it taken you this long to realize that it is impossible for origins researchers to objectively know for sure if any model of Origins is correct?  I suppose you find this candid statement suprising coming from your world of deluded (or dishonest) scientists who think they have "proven ToE."  No origins researcher--creationist or naturalist--can say anything other than what Brown says at the end of the day.  All either one can do is propose plausible models to explain their view of origins.  The difference between them is this:  Creationists have a reliable historical record as a starting point for their proposed models.  ToE advocates do not.  All they have is their wild imaginations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  You are SO wrong on so many levels with this feeble attempt to defend R.H.Brown's math.

                  It's not that he uses hand-waving, assumptions and outright fantasy to support his conjectures (and I purposefully didn't dwell on this); it's that he CREATES THE CONCLUSION BEFORE INSERTING THE DATA.

                  R.H.Brown not only assumes invalid assumptions, he purposefully fixes the end point of his math (making the numbers add up to 5000 years) and deriving the factors to make this so.  He then takes these 'derived' factors and tries to come up with explanations on how these factors could occur.

                  This is such obvious backward reasoning that it's hilarious and TOTALLY invalid.  If R.H.Brown had a shred of honesty he would examine actual measured data first to determine his factors, insert these factors into his model to get the conclusion, then compare the conclusion to his hypothesised assumption (5000 year old earth).  If his conclusion didn't work out to his hypothesis the EITHER his hypothesis is incorrect OR his model is incorrect.

                  GET IT?

                  The fact that you REFUSE to see this obfuscation in the math isn't surprising since this paper SPEAKS directly to you.  If I read a paper about ToE that had this type of mathamatical manipulation then I would call foul as quickly.

                  I would like to see you fisk a ToE article as well as I justed fisked R.H.Brown.  Go to Talkorigins and find ONE article, fisk it for errors on this board and we'll see what kind of equivelent results appear.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It appears that over and over again, you guys fail to see the approach that creationist origins researchers take, which is ...

                  1)  Use historical documents to determine events if they are available.  We have an excellent one.  It is called the Book of Genesis.
                  2)  Then they observe the evidence and compare it with the historical record.
                  3)  If the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the historical record, then they might throw out the historical record.
                  4)  However, it does not ... especially in the major points

                  For example ...

                  1)  It is obvious from observing the evidence that a Supremely Intelligent Creator is required to produce the designs in nature--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
                  2)  It is obvious from the evidence that all genomes are deteriorating--this is predicted in the Genesis Record.
                  3)  It is obvious from the evidence that there are strict limits on variation and speciation--this agrees with the Genesis Record.
                  4)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was a global, life-destroying flood--this agrees with the Genesis Record
                  5)  It is obvious from the evidence that there was much greater land surface and far more organic material prior to the Flood and that conditions were much more conducive to long life in humans--this agrees with the Genesis Record.

                  Are you getting the picture?

                  Creation researchers have an extremely reliable historical document in the Book of Genesis--it's verifiable history has been confirmed by archaeology over and over again.

                  Why should they question it in the unverifiable areas?  Especially when they can propose plausible models which agree with the record.

                  This is common sense.

                  This is good, honest origins research.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There is nothing honest about this approach by R.H.Brown in the paper I fisked.  He assumes a conclusion before he discovers the data.  He then derives factors that HAVE to lead to the assumed conclusion.  He then makes assumptions about the derived factors.

                  This is NOT proper investigatory research.  This is pure sales pitch without ANY research applied.

                  Do you see my point?
                  MIke PSS
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 16 2006,06:34

                  On the note that Mike just struck, I'd like you to look at the coral date that Brown cherry-picks ( when he says that the carbon dates are off and therefore should be included in a curve amending C14 and agreeing with his dates: ) Chiu, T-C, R. G. Fairbanks, Li Cao, Richard A. Mortlock, 2006. Analysis of the atmospheric 14C record spanning the past 50,000 years derived from high-precision 230Th/234U/238U and 231Pa/235U and 14C dates on fossil corals. Quaternary Science Reviews, in press. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006Chiu.pdf >
                  Fairbanks, R.G., T-C Chiu, Li Cao, Richard A. Mortlock, Alexey Kaplan, 2006. Rigorous quality control criteria for screening coral samples and radiocarbon calibration data based on 14C, 230Th/234U/238U and 231Pa/235U dated corals. Quaternary Science Reviews, in press. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006Fairbanks.pdf >
                  Chiu, T-C, R.G. Fairbanks, R.A. Mortlock, L. Cao, T.W. Fairbanks, and A.L. Bloom, 2006. Redundant 230Th/234U/238U and 231Pa/235U dating of fossil corals: verification of U-series ages for radiocarbon calibration. Quaternary Science Reviews, in press. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006aChiu.pdf >
                  Chiu, T-C, R.G. Fairbanks, R.A. Mortlock and A.L. Bloom, 2005. Extending the radiocarbon calibration beyond 26000 years before present using fossil corals. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24, 1797-1808. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2005Chiu.pdf >
                  Fairbanks, R.G., R.A. Mortlock, T.-C. Chiu, L. Cao, A. Kaplan, T.P. Guilderson, T.W. Fairbanks and A.L. Bloom, 2005. Marine Radiocarbon Calibration Curve Spanning 10,000 to 50,000 Years B.P. Based on Paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C Dates on Pristine Corals. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24, 1781-1796. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2005Fairbanks+table.pdf >
                  Mortlock, R.A., R.G. Fairbanks, T. Chiu, and J. Rubenstone, 2005. 230Th/234U/238U and 231Pa/235U ages from a single fossil coral fragment by multi-collector magnetic-sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, 69, 3, 649-657.  http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2005Mortlock.pdf
                  Hughen, KA, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Herring, C, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, SW, Ramsey, CB, Reimer, PJ, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, and Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. Marine04 Marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 3, 1059-1086. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2004hughen.pdf >
                  Shackleton, N.J., R.G. Fairbanks, T-C Chiu, and F. Parrenin, 2004. Absolute calibration of the Greenland time scale: implications for Antarctic time scales and for ?14C. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 1513-1522. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2004Shackleton.pdf >
                  Bard, E., M. Arnold, R.G. Fairbanks and B. Hamelin, 1993. 230Th/234U and 14C ages obtained by mass spectrometry on corals. In Stuiver, M., A. Long, and R.S. Kra, eds. Calibration 1993. Radiocarbon, 35, 1, 191-200.
                  Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Herring, C, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, SW, Ramsey, CB, Reimer, PJ, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, and Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 3, 1029-1058. < http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2004Reimer.pdf >
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,07:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is NOT proper investigatory research.  This is pure sales pitch without ANY research applied.

                  Do you see my point?
                  MIke PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah it seems to me the only time AFD has actually read anything vaguely scientific is maybe a National Geographic in a dentist's surgery and then only because he couldn't bring himself to look at the 'sealed section' of Cosmo.

                  He probably skipped anything that didn't look 'true', at least to his twisted version of truth, such as millions of years.

                  He regards 'science' as being on par with pseudo science, since to him, it is all to do with marketing,
                  ....that is to say propaganda.

                  He seems to think that comparing the 2 products(of Human creativity) is like buying a car.

                  He checks the brochures, but the dealer is more important, if the dealer said 'Buy a 2 cylinder Trabant and you will go to heaven' he would do it.

                  He seems to think a reputation for being a god botherer seals the deal.

                  thus:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Pseudoscience listed alphabetically (from Wikipedia)
                  A
                  AIDS reappraisal
                  Mostafa A. Abdelkader
                  Ad hoc
                  Albert Abrams
                  Alexander Donski
                  Amativeness
                  An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races
                  Animal magnetism
                  Anomalous phenomenon
                  Anthropological criminology
                  Anthropometry
                  Anti-racist mathematics
                  Apantomancy
                  Appeal to authority
                  Applied kinesiology
                  Assist (Scientology)
                  Astrology
                  Astrology and numerology
                  Atomidine
                  Aura (paranormal)
                  Aura analysis
                  Aura-Soma
                  B
                  Baraminology
                  Jon-Erik Beckjord
                  John Bedini
                  Michael Behe
                  Betty Edwards
                  Bible code
                  Bible scientific foreknowledge

                  Bifidus digestivum
                  Big Rip
                  Bigfoot
                  Bioecological medicine
                  Biological Anthropology
                  Biological transmutation
                  Biolumanetics
                  Bioresonance therapy
                  Biorhythm
                  Black supremacy
                  Body memory
                  Bottled air
                  Brain Gym
                  Wiley Brooks
                  Brown's gas
                  Thomas Townsend Brown
                  Sylvia Browne
                  The Bélmez Faces
                  C
                  Ricardo Carezani
                  Cargo cult science
                  Robert Todd Carroll
                  Channelling (mediumistic)
                  Characterology
                  Charlatan
                  Charles Musès
                  Chemtrail theory
                  Chi Machine
                  Chi generator
                  Chiromancy
                  C cont.
                  Alex Chiu
                  Chromotherapy
                  Cloudbuster
                  Cold fusion
                  Cold reading
                  Confirmation bias
                  Controversial science
                  Copper Healing
                  Bob Cornuke
                  Crank (person)
                  Created kind
                  Creation biology
                  Creation science

                  Creative Visualization
                  Crystal power
                  Cultural selection theory
                  D
                  Erich von Däniken
                  Dean drive
                  William A. Dembski
                  Dermo-optical perception
                  Edward R. Dewey
                  Diagnostic kinesiology
                  Dianetics
                  Dowsing
                  Drapetomania
                  Duesberg hypothesis
                  Déjà vu
                  E
                  E-meter
                  Earth immune system
                  Earth mysteries
                  Earth radiation
                  Edgar Dean Mitchell
                  John Edward
                  The Biggest Douche in the Universe
                  Effective Microorganisms
                  Electric universe (concept)
                  Electroacupuncture according to Voll
                  Emergy evaluation
                  Emotional Freedom Techniques
                  Masaru Emoto
                  Energy vampire
                  Enneagram
                  Extraterrestrial hypothesis
                  F
                  Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
                  False precision
                  Fingerprints of the Gods
                  Flat Earth Society
                  Flood geology
                  Fortune-telling
                  G
                  Gaga (hypothetical moon)
                  Game nou
                  Gerson therapy
                  Ghost hunting
                  Arthur de Gobineau
                  Grand supercycle
                  Granfalloon
                  Graphology
                  Götaland theory
                  H
                  Hieronymus machine
                  History of pseudoscience
                  Holism in science
                  Hollow Earth
                  Holonomic brain theory
                  Homeopathy
                  House healing
                  H cont.
                  Barbara Marx Hubbard
                  Hulda Regehr Clark
                  Human zoo
                  Hundredth Monkey
                  Hutchison effect
                  John Hutchison
                  Hydrostatic shock
                  Hyperfocus
                  I
                  Indigo children
                  Inedia
                  Infinite Energy
                  Inoue Enryo
                  Instrumental transcommunication
                  Insulin potentiation therapy
                  Intelligent design
                  Interdimensional hypothesis
                  International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry
                  Ionized bracelet
                  Iridology
                  Irreducible complexity
                  J
                  Japanese blood type theory of personality
                  Japhetic theory (linguistics)
                  K
                  John Ernst Worrell Keely
                  Kirlian photography
                  Paul Kurtz
                  L
                  Lachrymology
                  Lamarckism
                  Lateralization of brain function
                  Law of Truly Large Numbers
                  Ley line
                  Gene Matlock
                  List of discredited substances
                  List of magazines of anomalous phenomena
                  List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
                  Lovozero Tundras
                  Lunaception
                  Lunar effect
                  Luo Points
                  Trofim Lysenko
                  Lysenkoism
                  M
                  Oscar Kiss Maerth
                  Magnet therapy
                  Maharishi Vedic Science
                  James McCanney
                  Gillian McKeith
                  Megalithic yard
                  Megapolisomancy
                  Mental literacy
                  Meridian (Chinese medicine)
                  Metamorphic Technique
                  Pseudoscientific metrology
                  Moon Obelisks
                  James Morison (physician)
                  Morphogenetic field
                  Henry M. Morris
                  Ernest Muldashev
                  N
                  National mysticism
                  Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About
                  Nazi archaeology
                  Nensha
                  Neuro-linguistic programming
                  New Age
                  Joseph Newman (inventor)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  is on par with anything above NOT on that list.

                  Strangely on the remote farm I grew up on which had no television but mountains of National Geographic magazines, helped more to pique my interest in the natural world and science  than anything else. And I'm sure helped to produce a world view not limited by the parochial pedophiliacs posing as preachers.

                  My guess is AFD's grass shack deep in the heart of heathen country had nothing enlightening  other than Popular Mechanics and "Instant Gratification"- a weekly review of Church Architecture.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 16 2006,07:11

                  Oh, and eric: I did the community college route and  I worked at night as a chef in a swanky Hollywood joint ( I met Lauren Bacall!!, neener, neener) , although I didn't have to. Such a route is minimally cost-ridden and provides for financial aid, given that you get fairly good grades. Go community college for two years, transfer to a state college for 2,  then a full Uni and you'll have a Master's in 6, for sure and can teach if you take a few courses ( I got a scholarship grant that covered 12 k every year, which is actually fairly common).
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,07:18

                  If you want anything, just whistle...

                  My first daughter was named after her on the strength of that scene.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 16 2006,07:28

                  Quote (k.e @ Nov. 16 2006,07:18)
                  You call that a whistle?

                  My first daughter was named after her on the strength of that scene.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  She was sweet and kind, and I wanted to drop to my knees. I deliberately went out of the kitchen area to "bump into her" and she was just darling.

                  Say, Dave, didja notice they just sequenced a Neander from the Vindija site? < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6777/full/404490a0.html > ( there's new articles to appear in Science and Nature) < http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....G31.DTL >
                  According to the Los Angeles Times report, "The Nature team found evidence that human males may have contributed some of their DNA to the Neanderthal genome. The genes on the Neanderthal's X chromosome include too many mutations found in the human lineage to have occurred through chance"
                  ####, another finding puts a hole in your claims.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,07:37

                  Snap ...I would have done the same .

                  (I checked the actual line and corrected it in last post)

                  ....another senior moment
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 16 2006,08:02

                  Deadman:

                  I posted these in the UD thread a little earlier, but here are the related links for the paper in Science...

                  < Here is the quick blurb >

                  < Here is a .pdf of the full news article. >

                  < Here is the .pdf of the full paper. >

                  Not that AFDave will ever bother, but you might be interested.

                  On a related note, an election update:

                  < With eleven precincts reporting >, AFDave leads DaveScot by a 9-2 margin in the race for King of Falsified Evidence.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,08:11

                  And while I'm at it....... another correction.

                  Earlier I blamed Prometheus for < Icarus' > travails.
                  < From Wikipedia >
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In Greek mythology, 'Prometheus (Ancient Greek, "forethought") is the Titan chiefly honored for stealing fire from the gods in the stalk of a fennel plant and giving it to mortals for their use
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Since AFD  didn't correct me on such an obvious mistake I can conclude he doesn't read anything other than his cult approved brain wash.

                  So here it is AFD reprinted in your honor ....note the highlight.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Prometheus was a son of Iapetus by Clymene (one of the Oceanids). He was a brother of Atlas, Menoetius, and Epimetheus, but he surpassed all in cunning and deceit. He held no awe for the gods, and he ridiculed Zeus, though he fought alongside the gods against the other Titans. Prometheus, in some myths, is credited with the creation of man; in others, this role is assigned to Zeus.[citation needed] When he and his brother Epimetheus set out to make creatures to populate the earth under the orders of Cronos, Prometheus carefully crafted a creature after the shape of the gods: a man. According to the myths, a horrendous headache overcame Zeus and no healer of the realm was able to help the Lord of the Gods. Prometheus came to him and declared that he knew how to heal Zeus, taking a rock from the ground Prometheus proceeded to hit Zeus in the head with it. From out of Zeus' head popped the Goddess Athena, with her emergence Zeus' headache disappeared. Some myths attribute Hephestus to the splitting of the head rather than Prometheus.

                  Prometheus and Epimetheus journeyed to Earth from Olympus, they ventured to the Greek province of Boitia and made clay figures. Athena took the figures and breathed life into them, the figures that Prometheus had created became Man and honored him. The figures that his brother Epimetheus had created became the beasts, which turned and attacked him.

                  Zeus was angered by the brothers' actions, he forbade the pair from teaching Man the ways of civilization, Athena chose to cross Zeus and taught Prometheus so that he might teach Man.

                  For their actions, Zeus demanded a sacrifice from Man to the Gods to show that they were obedient and worshipful. The gods and mortal man had arranged a meeting at Mecone where the matter of division of sacrifice was to be settled. Prometheus slew a large ox, and divided it into two piles. In one pile he put all the meat and most of the fat, skillfully covering it with the ox's grotesque stomach, while in the other pile, he dressed up the bones artfully with shining fat. Prometheus then invited Zeus to choose. Zeus, seeing through the trick, realised that in purposefully getting tricked he would have an excuse to vent his anger on mortal man, and thus chose the pile of bones (many sources say that Zeus did not, in fact, see through this trick). This also gives a mythological explanation of the practice of sacrificing only the bones to the gods, while man gets to keep the meat and fat.

                  Zeus in his wrath denied men the secret of fire. Prometheus felt sorry for his creations, and watched as they shivered in the cold and winter's nights. He decided to give his most loved creation a great gift that was a "good servant and bad master". He took fire from the hearth of the gods by stealth and brought it to men in a hollow wand of fennel, or ferule that served him instead of a staff. Thus mankind was warm. To punish Prometheus for this hubris (and all of mankind in the process), Zeus devised "such evil for them that they shall desire death rather than life, and Prometheus shall see their misery and be powerless to succor them. That shall be his keenest pang among the torments I will heap upon him." Zeus could not just take fire back, because a god or goddess could not take away what the other had given.

                  Zeus was enraged because the giving of fire began an era of enlightenment for Man, and had Prometheus carried to Mount Caucasus, where an eagle by the name of Ethon (offspring of the monsters Typhon and Echidna) would pick at his liver; it would grow back each day and the eagle would eat it again. In some stories, Zeus has Prometheus tortured on the mountain because he knows the name of the person who, according to prophecy, will overthrow the king of the gods. This punishment was to last 30,000 years. About 12 generations later, Heracles (known as Hercules in Roman mythology), passing by on his way to find the apples of the Hesperides as part of the Twelve Labours, freed Prometheus, in a bargain he had agreed with Zeus in exchange for Chiron's immortality, by shooting the eagle with an arrow. Zeus did not mind this time that Prometheus had again evaded his punishment, as the act brought more glory to Heracles, who was Zeus's son. Prometheus was invited to return to Olympus, though he still had to carry with him the rock to which he was chained.


                  To punish man for the offenses of Prometheus, Zeus told Hephaestus (Vulcan) to "mingle together all things loveliest, sweetest, and best, but look that you also mingle therewith the opposites of each." So Hephaestus took gold and dross, wax and flint, pure snow and mud of the highways, honey and gall; he took the bloom of the rose and the toad's venom, the voice of laughing water and the peacocks squall; he took the seas beauty and its treachery, the dog's fidelity and the wind's inconstancy, and the mother bird's heart of love and the cruelty of the tiger. All these, and other contraries past number, he blended cunningly into one substance and this he molded into the shape that Zeus had described to him. She was as beautiful as a goddess and Zeus named her Pandora which meant "all gifted".

                  Zeus breathed upon her image, and it lived. Zeus sent her to wed Prometheus' brother, Epimetheus, and although Prometheus had warned his brother never to accept gifts from the Olympians, Epimetheus ("hind-thought", as opposed to "fore-thought") was love-stricken, and he and Pandora wed. The Gods adorned the couple with many wedding gifts, and Zeus presented them with a beautifully wrought box. When Pandora opened the box, all suffering and despair was unleashed upon mankind. Zeus had had his revenge.

                  As the introducer of fire and inventor of crafts, Prometheus was seen as the patron of human civilization. Uncertain sources claim he was worshipped in ancient Rome as well along with other gods.

                  He was the father of Deucalion with Pronoia who is often confused as Clymene because the both of them are often called by the same other name, Asia.


                  [edit] Comparative perspectives
                  In mythography, Prometheus may be classed among the trickster gods, such as Loki in Norse mythology. Like Prometheus, Loki is a giant rather than a god, is associated with fire, and is punished by being chained to a rock, and tormented by an animal. Yet Loki is malevolent, while Prometheus is a benefactor to humanity. In addition, Prometheus is very intelligent and acts with forethought, unlike the rash Loki. The similarities between the two characters may be coincidental. The motif is believed, by some, to have been borrowed from the Nart sagas of the Caucasian peoples, but the analogies with Loki seem to reveal an older Indo-European source.

                  The Prometheus myth bears striking similarities to the Adamic myth of the fall of man. The Promethean fire and the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge can be considered semiotic synonyms; there are clear links between Pandora and Eve. In fact the euphemistic name for Satan's former angelic form, Lucifer — actually, a Latin name for the planet Venus — literally means "light bearer," which seems to hint at the image of Prometheus carrying the divine fire down to man. Of course, Satan was not called Lucifer until St. Jerome translated the Hebrew phrase heilel ben-schahar in the Latin Vulgate, many centuries after the account of the Fall of Man was written, making a Prometheus-Lucifer/Satan connection rather unlikely.

                  Such a reading seems to identify Yahweh as Zeus and the serpent/Satan as the Prometheus figure. This reading is problematic for Judeo-Christian readers, since it seems to suggest that Yahweh is jealous, vengeful and keen to restrict humankind, while presenting Satan as a Prometheus-like champion of humanity. Satanism uses Prometheus as a symbolic aspect of Satan. (see the article Satanism) However, there is no actual evidence of actual borrowing between these two cultures. Old Testament scholarship and that of the contemporary cultures (Hittitology, Assyriology, and Egyptology) show that the beginning of Genesis is modeled more in-line with Ancient Near Eastern myth, so if there is any borrowing, it would be more likely that the Greeks borrowed from an Ancient Near Eastern culture.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 16 2006,10:46

                  Mike PSS...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  You are SO wrong on so many levels with this feeble attempt to defend R.H.Brown's math.

                  It's not that he uses hand-waving, assumptions and outright fantasy to support his conjectures (and I purposefully didn't dwell on this); it's that he CREATES THE CONCLUSION BEFORE INSERTING THE DATA.

                  R.H.Brown not only assumes invalid assumptions, he purposefully fixes the end point of his math (making the numbers add up to 5000 years) and deriving the factors to make this so.  He then takes these 'derived' factors and tries to come up with explanations on how these factors could occur.

                  This is such obvious backward reasoning that it's hilarious and TOTALLY invalid.  If R.H.Brown had a shred of honesty he would examine actual measured data first to determine his factors, insert these factors into his model to get the conclusion, then compare the conclusion to his hypothesised assumption (5000 year old earth).  If his conclusion didn't work out to his hypothesis the EITHER his hypothesis is incorrect OR his model is incorrect.

                  GET IT?

                  The fact that you REFUSE to see this obfuscation in the math isn't surprising since this paper SPEAKS directly to you.  If I read a paper about ToE that had this type of mathamatical manipulation then I would call foul as quickly.

                  I would like to see you fisk a ToE article as well as I justed fisked R.H.Brown.  Go to Talkorigins and find ONE article, fisk it for errors on this board and we'll see what kind of equivelent results appear.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This post by Mike and recent posts like it are very revealing about the Darwinist (committed naturalist) mindset.

                  It is quite obvious that Mike (and I suppose most others here) are operating under the mistaken assumption that Origins Research involves  Repeatable, Measurable Scientific measurements.  

                  BIG MISTAKE.

                  No one can go back in time and recreate the conditions of the past.  So the best we can do when doing field work (digging up fossils, measuring isotopes in rocks, etc.) is measure and analyze these things accurately.  After we have done this, we can then propose models for ...

                  1)  HOW it happened, and
                  2)  WHY it happened the way it did

                  Now I have made it clear that Creationists place a high value on historical records (as does any historian worth his salt) and I think I am seeing that the key difference between yourselves and creationists lies in this one simple fact.

                  ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.  Thus, they have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models.

                  Creationists have a high regard for this historical record of the Bible and use the various accounts as starting points for their Origins Models.


                  This explains a lot.

                  The real problem is that ToE advocates call their weird art "science."  But it is not.  It is actually a religious philosophy.  Worse, it is a religious philosophy completely devoid of any factual basis.  IOW, we have no evidence that higher life forms develop from lower life forms, we have no evidence that the earth is X billion years old.  We have only unwarranted assumptions, then a whole plethora of "calibrated" measurements to support the myth.

                  Pity.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 16 2006,10:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,10:46)
                  ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.  Thus, they have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, that and biology.  And physics.  And chemistry.  And writings of other civilizations through the flood period.  And genetics.  And geology.  Y'know.  Science.

                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,10:46)
                  Creationists have a high regard for this historical record of the Bible and use the various accounts as starting points for their Origins Models.

                  This explains a lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Indeed it does.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,11:10

                  A tiny rip in the canvas of AFD's Cosmos is letting in light.

                  AFD is having a fleeting Truman moment.

                  He has just walked by a door that appeared to be an elevator but actually opened onto a movie set.

                  Fix that projector AFD



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I have made it clear that Creationists place a LOW value on ACTUAL EVIDENCE (as does any PSEUDOSCIENTIST worth his salt) and I think I am seeing that the key difference between yourselves and creationists lies in this one simple fact.

                  ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  **AFD gets a tick, his reality would evaporate if he accepted that, fear and danger awaits AFD so .... **

                  Back to his projection:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Thus, Creationists  have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models IF THEY GIVE UP THEIR MYTH.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Creationists have a high regard for this historical record of the Bible and use the various accounts as starting points for their Origins Models.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Bwhahahahahahahahaha

                  Origins Models ....lego land Eden


                  Let Truman's Trauma continue


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This explains a lot.

                  The real problem is that Creationist advocates call their weird art "science."  But it is not.  It is actually a religious philosophy.  Worse, it is a religious philosophy completely devoid of any factual basis.  IOW, we have no evidence that higher life forms develop from lower life forms, we have no evidence that the earth is X THOuSAND years old.  We have only unwarranted assumptions, then a whole plethora of "calibrated" measurements to support the myth.

                  Pity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 16 2006,11:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [AFDave:] ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.  Thus, they have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sane people accept as reality the historical parts of the Bible that are independently verified by external factors, i.e. archaeology, C14 dating, etc.  Sane people accept as allegory the parts of the Bible that are independently verified by external factors (chemistry, physics, biology, paleontology, genetics, etc.) to be physically impossible, such a word covering flood, 6000 year old universe, Tower of Babel, etc.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [AFDave:] Creationists have a high regard for this historical record of the Bible and use the various accounts as starting points for their Origins Models.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wingnut fundy Christians expect others to believe that if part of the Bible is historically accurate, then all of the Bible must be literally true.  Kind of like saying since London is a real place, then Sherlock Holmes must have been a real person.

                  Hey Dave, when are you going to tell us about the scavengers, and where the modern animals in Missouri ran to try and escape the Flood?

                  I though you liked scientific details.  Why can't we get any from you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 16 2006,12:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,10:46)
                  This post by Mike and recent posts like it are very revealing about the Darwinist (committed naturalist) mindset.

                  It is quite obvious that Mike (and I suppose most others here) are operating under the mistaken assumption that Origins Research involves  Repeatable, Measurable Scientific measurements.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, nothing we're talking about here has anything to do with "origins research." Abiogenesis has simply not been a discussion topic here. You are the only one talking about "origins research," so where you got the idea anyone else is talking about it is anyone's guess.

                  On the other hand, everything else we've been talking about, e.g., genetics, the geological column, radiometric dating techniques, information theory, cladistics, etc., absolutely involves measurable, repeatable scientific experiments. You just disagree with the results of those experiments, but have never been able to give a coherent explanation of your objections, other than to slap up a lot of AiG pseudoscience in an attempt to "refute" those results that conflict with your worldview.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BIG MISTAKE.

                  No one can go back in time and recreate the conditions of the past.  So the best we can do when doing field work (digging up fossils, measuring isotopes in rocks, etc.) is measure and analyze these things accurately.  After we have done this, we can then propose models for ...

                  1)  HOW it happened, and
                  2)  WHY it happened the way it did
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And how are these things not informed by measurable, repeatable experiments, Dave? You don't think that radiometric dating techniques have been refined over the years by reference to measurable, repeatable experiments?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I have made it clear that Creationists place a high value on historical records (as does any historian worth his salt) and I think I am seeing that the key difference between yourselves and creationists lies in this one simple fact.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, historical records cover an insignificant portion of the history of the universe, millionths of one percent. Historical records are utterly worthless for anything that occurred more than a few thousand years ago, which excludes 99.99999% of the history of the universe. And since you refuse to admit the necessity of confirming written records by reference to external reality, you have absolutely no method whatsoever for determining the veracity of written records. You have no method, even in principle, for separating out fact from fiction. Therefore, your reference to written records to figure out what happened in the past is utterly worthless.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [b]ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.  Thus, they have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, actually that have one thing that Creationists don't even use: it's called "observations of reality," Dave. If various hypotheses developed to explain observation are contradicted by observation, those hypotheses are either revised or discarded. But not creationists. No matter how thoroughly the biblical account has been contradicted by observation (and it has been thoroughly and conclusively contradicted by observation), creationists such as yourself cling to it like a life preserver.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Creationists have a high regard for this historical record of the Bible and use the various accounts as starting points for their Origins Models.</b>

                  This explains a lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This "high regard" is utterly unsupportable by reference to external reality, Dave. Your biblical myth has been contradicted again and again by simple, basic observations a child could make, and has been completely ruled out of contention by its own utter impossibility. Not implausibility, Dave; impossibility. Your own W. H. Morris concedes in The Genesis Flood that the Noachian flood is impossible without multiple miracles.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The real problem is that ToE advocates call their weird art "science."  But it is not.  It is actually a religious philosophy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Then why is it that the ToE itself evolves over time to conform with the current state of knowledge, but your young-earth creationism hasn't changed in 4,000 years? No amount of conflict with reality will ever change your creationism, Dave, but minor facets of the ToE change all the time, as the theory becomes increasingly accurate. So by what possible definition of the term is the ToE a "religion"?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Worse, it is a religious philosophy completely devoid of any factual basis.  IOW, we have no evidence that higher life forms develop from lower life forms, we have no evidence that the earth is X billion years old.  We have only unwarranted assumptions, then a whole plethora of "calibrated" measurements to support the myth.

                  Pity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, you've run out of steam. You arguments have been so comprehensively demolished, over and over again, it's like your head has been knocked clean off your body. You haven't managed to make any headway whatsoever with your "hypothesis" because virtually every element has been utterly ruled out of contention on the very simple grounds of its impossibility.

                  There may be a god out there somewhere, Dave, and it's certainly possible we live in a universe created by such a being. But your "flood," your 6,000 year old universe, your "genetically rich" Adam and Eve, your "biblical inerrancy"; those things are all impossible without multiple, ongoing miracles.

                  Oh, and by the way, which is it: fresh "floodwaters," or salty "floodwaters"? As far as I can tell, there are no other options.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 16 2006,12:40

                  Ah, how I love this latest argument. So much that I'll restate it for Dave:

                  "We start from a historical record of talking snakes, magic fruit, boats stuffed full of animals, waters covering the entire globe, burning bushes, the dead rising, angels, demons and one big ol' sky pixie behind it all. All you guys gots is your wild imagination!"

                  Jesus wept, Dave.
                  Posted by: bwee on Nov. 16 2006,13:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, 14C dates and calendar age determinations were not obtained from the same materials in the Cariaco Basin cores. Because its calendar age chronology is based on correlation of color changes in the sediment with Greenland ice core oxygen isotope record age model and assigned tie points to the Cariaco Basin record, inaccuracies in the correlation, age model, and number of calendar years between tie points will automatically induce a ‘‘trend’’ in the D14C record between tie points. Therefore, uncertainties in the assignment of ice core chronology tie points may generate artificial D14C changes that distort the true  ‘amplitude’’ and ‘‘shape’’ of the D14C record. We believe the Cariaco D14C record may have exhibited such short-term D14C trends between each set of tie points that require geochemical and geophysical explanations different from the smoother coral D14C record described below. Fossil corals provide an alternative archive for extending both the 14C calibration (Bard et al., 1990; Cutler et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al., 2005) and atmospheric D14C record because both 14C and 230Th/234U/238U ages can be obtained independently from a coral sample with high precision and high accuracy. In this study, we discuss the features and implications of our D14C record spanning the past 50,000 years by dating corals from Kiritimati, Barbados, Araki and Santo Islands via 230Th/234U/238U, 231Pa/235U and 14C methods. The original  measurements and dates have been reported in Mortlock et al. (2005), Chiu et al. (2005), Fairbanks et al. (2005) and Chiu et al. (2006) (Supplementary Appendix A). Our coral-derived D14C record is broadly consistent with the Cariaco Basin D14C record, except for the section older than 40,000 years BP, and with published modeled D14C based on carbon cycle models using the global 14C production estimates (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004). However, there remain possibly significant short-term departures between the records. In this study, we compare the coral D14C record with the very detailed and widely referenced ariaco D14C record (Hughen et al., 2004). Although it is presumed that paleointensity dominates atmospheric 14C production on longer time scales, model results generally do not reproduce the amplitude of D14C observed in various published records without dramatically changing the global carbon budgets and distributions (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004). One explanation for this discrepancy is that the combined uncertainties in the radiocarbon and/or calendar age dating of these archives produce large uncertainties in D14C, especially beyond 20,000 years BP.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  From your first article DM, bolding mine.
                  "Because its calendar age chronology is based on correlation of color changes in the sediment with Greenland ice core oxygen isotope record age model and assigned tie points to the Cariaco Basin record" means they couldn't be "sure" of their original dates so they went to another set of highly suspect data and "correllated" it. And then they go on to "correlate" the dates to other crazy dates, all to make innaccurate data have the appearance of being checked when in fact all they did was spend several hundred hours making a maze to trap would be creationists attempting to catch them at their deception! And they still point out "However, there remain possibly significant short-term departures between the records." The nerve. Just force us all to read mind-numbing prose, written by boring people on boring pills, and include the one little tidbit that "there are still significant errors in our new data".
                  In other words, they're pulling it out of thin air. They are making the data fit their foregone conclusions!!! Explain that little tidbit away now. Can you? Evidence my dingaling. No one has any evidence. We're all just jumping around saying "my God is better!". Only, of course, Christ is the one true god and all of you know it deep down. You know that he is welcoming you but you have deafened your ears to his divine music.

                  Sheesh, What will you all try next? I've got an idea, why don't you count the rings around uranus and see how old the solar system is.

                  That puts all you hand-waving scientists in a bad way.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 16 2006,13:09

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 16 2006,12:57)
                  Wingnut fundy Christians expect others to believe that if part of the Bible is historically accurate, then all of the Bible must be literally true.  Kind of like saying since London is a real place, then Sherlock Holmes must have been a real person.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The Grimm fairy tales took place in Germany...
                  Germany really exists...
                  Holy Crap! Those stories must all be true!
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2006,13:21

                  < >

                  you see that davey? That's

                  a) incontrovertible proof nuclear theory is sound
                  b) Your worldview disappearing - it's obvious we're getting down to the core now :). Core sample anybody?? :) :)

                  Are you really down to
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is actually a religious philosophy.  Worse, it is a religious philosophy completely devoid of any factual basis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  davey?
                  < This is you davey - both of them >
                  < >
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 16 2006,14:28

                  It appears that afdave is in full-scale retreat. No data to counter the avalanche of data-based challenges to his "hypothesis"; no examples of creationist contributions to science in the past 100 years; no nothin'... except this revealing reworking of what "creationist science" is all about:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...It is quite obvious that Mike (and I suppose most others here) are operating under the mistaken assumption that Origins Research [which, I take it, is afdave's new name for "creationist science"]involves  Repeatable, Measurable Scientific measurements.  

                  BIG MISTAKE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  to which I can only add: "no sh!t, sherlock!" However, if you want to pretend that you're talking about "science" - and unless I'm mistaken, that's the claim you've been making all along - you don't get to redefine what science is. You can't have science without "repeatable, measurable scientific measurements".

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No one can go back in time and recreate the conditions of the past.  So the best we can do when doing field work (digging up fossils, measuring isotopes in rocks, etc.) is measure and analyze these things accurately.  After we have done this, we can then propose models for ...

                  1)  HOW it happened, and
                  2)  WHY it happened the way it did
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It seems to me you've left out the one activity that accounts for most of creation science [creationist] "origins research": coming up with bizarre explanations for why all "non-biblical" research is wrong. Case in point: your most recent (and highly entertaining, I might add) argument for why 14C dating is all wrong.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I have made it clear that Creationists place a high value on historical records
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Have you? Where have you mentioned any historical records, other than your bible? If you have mentioned them at all, I predict (postdict?) it will turn out it's only to cherry-pick the isolated case here and there that can be construed as being consistent with the only "historical record" you have any interest in.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think I am seeing that the key difference between yourselves and creationists lies in this one simple fact.

                  ToE advocates discount the historical record of the Bible and call it a myth.  Thus, they have only their wild imaginations as starting points for their Origins Models.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Huh? If we think this one document is a less-than-reliable guide to physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, and, yes, history, that leaves nothing except imagination to go on? ("Wild" imagination, at that! )

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The real problem is that ToE advocates call their weird art "science."  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right. Because it involves, you know,  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Repeatable, Measurable Scientific measurements
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But you call your, um, "discipline" scientific because it dispenses with such frivolities? I sense the end is near, where you have to confess this has all been a running joke.

                  But as long as you appear to be intent on changing the subject, we're all dying to find out. Who was the "mystery caller"?  Wait - one more guess, first. Was it George Bush, urging you to run for Congress in '08?
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 16 2006,14:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,11:46)
                  We have only unwarranted assumptions, then a whole plethora of "calibrated" measurements to support the myth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And, of course, Dave isn't interested in matching that pathetic level of detail.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 16 2006,15:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But as long as you appear to be intent on changing the subject, we're all dying to find out. Who was the "mystery caller"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No... wait! It was Jerry Falwell, offering you a scholarship at his "university" to pursue your graduate studies in molecular biology.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 16 2006,15:52

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 16 2006,16:03)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But as long as you appear to be intent on changing the subject, we're all dying to find out. Who was the "mystery caller"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No... wait! It was Jerry Falwell, offering you a scholarship at his "university" to pursue your graduate studies in molecular biology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Falwell was probably offering him a professorship.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Nov. 16 2006,16:14

                  So AFDave, How did it go with the guys from AIG? You've been quiet about the meeting you arranged, and your posts afterwards have taken an odd turn.  Was the meeting a bit underwhelming?
                   Are things really so bad on the AIG "sciencey" front that their articles openly admit to starting with the bible and fudgeing their data to fit?   :(
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 16 2006,17:07

                  The meeting at AIG went very well.  The strategy is working very well.  Very soon I predict it will be quite unfashionable to be a Darwinist.  5 years maybe?

                  So is everyone still scratching their heads about Carbon 14?  It seems that everyone got very wrapped around the axles about this issue, so let me simplify it yet again.

                  Are you reading carefully?

                  1)  There was far more organic material in the pre-Flood world.  I cited the Brookhaven National Symposium on Biology



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Influence of Biosphere Carbon Inventory on C-14 Ages
                     The most significant line of reasoning concerning possible mechanisms for a compression of the C-14 age scale is based on estimates of the amounts of non-radioactive carbon in which C-14 has been distributed. C-14 can be compared with red coloring used to make white cake into pink cake. The larger the amount of cake batter into which a given amount of coloring is placed, the less pink the cake will be. It has already been pointed out that the ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the contemporary reference atmosphere is 1/(848 billion). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution this ratio has progressively reduced as a result of burning fossil fuels (Wilson 1978; Nozaki et al. 1978). The combustion of fossil fuel introduces into the atmosphere CO2 that does not contain C-14 and restores to the biosphere carbon from a more luxuriant period in the past.
                     Estimates that have been made of the world carbon inventory are in general agreement (Borchert 1951; Rubey 1951; Revelle and Suess 1957; Bolin 1970; Fairhall and Young 1970; Reiners 1973; Woodwell et al. 1978; and Hall 1979). The estimate that developed out of the 24th Brookhaven Symposium in Biology in 1972 (Reiners 1973) is utilized in Table 1. The estimate for the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory given in Table 1 is taken from William Rubey (1951). The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms. According to the data given by Reiners, the total carbon inventory in the present biosphere is less than one five-hundredth of the total "fossil" carbon inventory. On the basis of the estimate given by Rubey, the ratio of total carbon inventory in the present biosphere to the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory is 1/176.

                  [see the link for the table]

                     Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood, one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere. If the same world inventory of C-14 as is now maintained were distributed in this preflood biosphere the level of C-14 activity would have been about 1/500 the contemporary reference level. Since 500 = 2^(8.97) approximately nine C-14 half-lives or 51,000 years of the radiocarbon time scale can be accounted for in this way.
                     Even if one assumes that no sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood and that all present "fossil" organic carbon was buried by the flood, the reduction in the active biosphere carbon inventory resulting from flood burials is 176-fold, according to Table 1. On this basis the apparent C-14 age of plant and animal material at the time of the flood would be 42,730 (7.46 X 5730), (176=2^7.46) assuming that the world C-14 inventory at that time was the same as has been characteristic of contemporary times. Since the chronological data in the Bible places the flood approximately 5000 years ago, at the present time this material would have a C-14 age in the order of 48,000. The remaining difference between 48,000 and "infinite" (50,000 - 55,000 in practice) C-14 age can be accounted for by assuming that some sedimentary carbonates were formed during and following the flood. One only has to postulate that about 1/6 of the sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood to account for a 45,000 reduction totally on the basis of carbonate precipitation and organism burial (2).
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  2) Thus, Carbon 14 dates which do not account for this carbon which was removed by the Flood are way off.

                  What part of this don't you understand?

                  Oh ... and when you get through with this topic, please address the "Deteriorating Genome" problem posed by Dr. John "Went-Insane" Sanford ... (good one, Russell, very scientific ... automatically assume someone is insane if they disagree with you)

                  Have a good night!
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Nov. 16 2006,18:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood, one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That, Dave.  
                  That's the bit they pulled out of their ass.
                  Why are you repeating failed arguments?  We Just fisked this rubbish 2 pages ago.
                  Oh, that's right.
                  This is all you have.
                  Sorry it's rubbish.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 16 2006,18:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,17:07)
                  The meeting at AIG went very well.  The strategy is working very well.  Very soon I predict it will be quite unfashionable to be a Darwinist.  5 years maybe?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Creationists have been predicting the demise of the Theory of Evolution as long as there's been a Theory of Evolution. They've been wrong every single time, and the theory was much weaker a hundred years ago than it is now. I predict that the probability that the Theory of Evolution (assuming that's what you mean by "Darwinism") will be "unfashionable" five years from now is ~0.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So is everyone still scratching their heads about Carbon 14?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the only one confused about radiocarbon dating here is you.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   It seems that everyone got very wrapped around the axles about this issue, so let me simplify it yet again.

                  Are you reading carefully?

                  <snip>

                  2) Thus, Carbon 14 dates which do not account for this carbon which was removed by the Flood are way off.

                  What part of this don't you understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Let me give you the part of this that you don't understand:

                  The only "carbon" that has any influence whatsoever on radiocarbon dating is carbon in the atmosphere. I.e., CO2, and trace amounts of other gases. No other reservoir of carbon has any effect on radiocarbon dating.

                  So unless you think that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the preflood atmosphere was much higher than it is today (an impossibility), this whole diatribe about "100X carbon" is utterly without merit.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 16 2006,18:41

                  Dave, is it just impossible for you to type two consecutive sentences without lying?

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Liar Dave: There was far more organic material in the pre-Flood world.  I cited the Brookhaven National Symposium on Biology
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No Dave.  You’ve been corrected on this enough times that you're now just flat out lying.   The Brookhaven National Symposium data is only an estimate of the world’s total carbon reserves.  It says nothing about "pre-flood organic material", or how/when the carbon got there at all.

                  Then you lay this turd from the Grisda article

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood, one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, there is not one single shred of evidence presented for this presumption, or what they postulate. It's something they just pulled out of their ass to make their resulting bogus answer fit their preconceived idea.

                  In high school we called it called Finagle’s Constant – any number which when added to your answer gives the right answer.  In your case it’s a number subtracted from the real value to get your total BS answer.

                  Their worthless logic is like saying "My Holy Book says that we are being watched by giant space mice. Presuming the moon is made of cheese, we can postulate that the giant space mice ate crater shaped holes in its surface.  Since we see crater shaped holes, then the giant space mice must be real".

                  Give it up Dave – you got smoked badly on this one, and are only making it worse by continuing on with your lies.

                  Now when are you going to discuss the post-flood scavengers, and where the animals in Missouri ran to?
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 16 2006,19:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,18:07)
                  The meeting at AIG went very well.  The strategy is working very well.  Very soon I predict it will be quite unfashionable to be a Darwinist.  5 years maybe?

                  So is everyone still scratching their heads about Carbon 14?  It seems that everyone got very wrapped around the axles about this issue, so let me simplify it yet again.

                  Are you reading carefully?

                  1)  There was far more organic material in the pre-Flood world.  I cited the Brookhaven National Symposium on Biology

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Influence of Biosphere Carbon Inventory on C-14 Ages
                     The most significant line of reasoning concerning possible mechanisms for a compression of the C-14 age scale is based on estimates of the amounts of non-radioactive carbon in which C-14 has been distributed. C-14 can be compared with red coloring used to make white cake into pink cake. The larger the amount of cake batter into which a given amount of coloring is placed, the less pink the cake will be. It has already been pointed out that the ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the contemporary reference atmosphere is 1/(848 billion). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution this ratio has progressively reduced as a result of burning fossil fuels (Wilson 1978; Nozaki et al. 1978). The combustion of fossil fuel introduces into the atmosphere CO2 that does not contain C-14 and restores to the biosphere carbon from a more luxuriant period in the past.
                     Estimates that have been made of the world carbon inventory are in general agreement (Borchert 1951; Rubey 1951; Revelle and Suess 1957; Bolin 1970; Fairhall and Young 1970; Reiners 1973; Woodwell et al. 1978; and Hall 1979). The estimate that developed out of the 24th Brookhaven Symposium in Biology in 1972 (Reiners 1973) is utilized in Table 1. The estimate for the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory given in Table 1 is taken from William Rubey (1951). The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms. According to the data given by Reiners, the total carbon inventory in the present biosphere is less than one five-hundredth of the total "fossil" carbon inventory. On the basis of the estimate given by Rubey, the ratio of total carbon inventory in the present biosphere to the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory is 1/176.

                  [see the link for the table]

                     Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood, one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere. If the same world inventory of C-14 as is now maintained were distributed in this preflood biosphere the level of C-14 activity would have been about 1/500 the contemporary reference level. Since 500 = 2^(8.97) approximately nine C-14 half-lives or 51,000 years of the radiocarbon time scale can be accounted for in this way.
                     Even if one assumes that no sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood and that all present "fossil" organic carbon was buried by the flood, the reduction in the active biosphere carbon inventory resulting from flood burials is 176-fold, according to Table 1. On this basis the apparent C-14 age of plant and animal material at the time of the flood would be 42,730 (7.46 X 5730), (176=2^7.46) assuming that the world C-14 inventory at that time was the same as has been characteristic of contemporary times. Since the chronological data in the Bible places the flood approximately 5000 years ago, at the present time this material would have a C-14 age in the order of 48,000. The remaining difference between 48,000 and "infinite" (50,000 - 55,000 in practice) C-14 age can be accounted for by assuming that some sedimentary carbonates were formed during and following the flood. One only has to postulate that about 1/6 of the sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood to account for a 45,000 reduction totally on the basis of carbonate precipitation and organism burial (2).
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I didn't take a single hard science class in college, and even I can tell this is crap.  "Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood"?  This is speculative garbage.  It is quite clear to me that the creationists are the ones making the unfounded assumptions - not the scientists.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 16 2006,19:24

                  Dave, dave, dave.  

                  You are SUCH a schmoo!

                  If you weren't such a liar at one and the same time, you might make a truly adorable brainless little Sunday funnies blob-critter.

                  Unfortunately for you, though, I think there's a morals test involved in gaining admission to the Sunday funnies.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 16 2006,21:23

                  Ok ... I'm moving too fast ... let's try again very slowly ... one point at a time ...

                  Point #1 - There was a Global Flood which buried massive quantities of organic material.  (This has already been shown in many ways on this thread.  I realize that you disagree, but that is your problem.  There is probably more evidence for the Flood than for moon landings ... I believe in both BTW)

                  Point #2 - The Brookhaven Symposium gave two sets of organic material figures:  Current and Fossil (i.e. buried by the Flood) ... Aftershave is mistaken.

                  Point #3 - We have no reason to believe that TOTAL C14 was significantly different prior to the Flood, therefore the C14 RATIO was much smaller.  Hopefully eveyone gets this ... you are scientists, right?  OK, in case you don't, remember that C14 is formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  It is only a function of atmospheric carbon and cosmic rays.  It is NOT a function of total carbon in plants, animals, etc.  IOW, there are only so many "marbles" (C14) to go around among all the organic material (marble players).  Since there were so many more players, the concentration was much smaller.

                  Point #4 - What are some approximate figures?  176X the present amount of organic material if you exclude the sedimentary carbonates.  (Again from the Brookhaven Symposium--a famous non-YEC source)

                  Point #5 - If we use 176X, then conventional Carbon 14 dates are horrendously wrong ... see calculations below ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Influence of Biosphere Carbon Inventory on C-14 Ages
                    The most significant line of reasoning concerning possible mechanisms for a compression of the C-14 age scale is based on estimates of the amounts of non-radioactive carbon in which C-14 has been distributed. C-14 can be compared with red coloring used to make white cake into pink cake. The larger the amount of cake batter into which a given amount of coloring is placed, the less pink the cake will be. It has already been pointed out that the ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the contemporary reference atmosphere is 1/(848 billion). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution this ratio has progressively reduced as a result of burning fossil fuels (Wilson 1978; Nozaki et al. 1978). The combustion of fossil fuel introduces into the atmosphere CO2 that does not contain C-14 and restores to the biosphere carbon from a more luxuriant period in the past.
                    Estimates that have been made of the world carbon inventory are in general agreement (Borchert 1951; Rubey 1951; Revelle and Suess 1957; Bolin 1970; Fairhall and Young 1970; Reiners 1973; Woodwell et al. 1978; and Hall 1979). The estimate that developed out of the 24th Brookhaven Symposium in Biology in 1972 (Reiners 1973) is utilized in Table 1. The estimate for the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory given in Table 1 is taken from William Rubey (1951). The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms. According to the data given by Reiners, the total carbon inventory in the present biosphere is less than one five-hundredth of the total "fossil" carbon inventory. On the basis of the estimate given by Rubey, the ratio of total carbon inventory in the present biosphere to the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory is 1/176.

                  [see the link for the table]

                  [snip paragraph about 500X]

                    Even if one assumes that no sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood and that all present "fossil" organic carbon was buried by the flood, the reduction in the active biosphere carbon inventory resulting from flood burials is 176-fold, according to Table 1. On this basis the apparent C-14 age of plant and animal material at the time of the flood would be 42,730 (7.46 X 5730), (176=2^7.46) assuming that the world C-14 inventory at that time was the same as has been characteristic of contemporary times. Since the chronological data in the Bible places the flood approximately 5000 years ago, at the present time this material would have a C-14 age in the order of 48,000. The remaining difference between 48,000 and "infinite" (50,000 - 55,000 in practice) C-14 age can be accounted for by assuming that some sedimentary carbonates were formed during and following the flood. One only has to postulate that about 1/6 of the sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood to account for a 45,000 reduction totally on the basis of carbonate precipitation and organism burial (2).
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  C'mon guys ... this is really not that difficult.

                  Now why don't you just pretend for a minute that you agree that there was a Global Flood.  Do you understand the line of reasoning?  (I know you don't buy the Flood, but if you did, would you follow the logic?)
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 16 2006,21:43

                  Glen,
                  Re "I've not kept up on this thread very well, "

                  Which could be taken as a sign of intelligence. ;)

                  ------

                  Occam's,

                  Re "and where the animals in Missouri ran to?"

                  Wouldn't matter - the pre-Flood critters all died out anyway, and the area was later repopulated by diversified versions of the boatloaded survivors. So, what Dave actually needs to do is go find lots of places with discontinuities between fossilized species and currently living species.

                  Henry
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 16 2006,21:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now why don't you just pretend for a minute that you agree that there was a Global Flood.  Do you understand the line of reasoning?  (I know you don't buy the Flood, but if you did, would you follow the logic?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You pretend you're a fire engine and I'll make a siren sound.

                  Childrens stuff AFD. Stop drooling on you're keyboard.

                  When are you going to grow up?
                  Posted by: TangoJuliett on Nov. 16 2006,22:11

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,17:07)
                  The meeting at AIG went very well.  The strategy is working very well.  Very soon I predict it will be quite unfashionable to be a Darwinist.  5 years maybe?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You've got the wrong f-word there, babble boy! Evolution has nothing to do with fashion and everything to do with that dirty little four letter f-word that so far you've run from every time... every friggin' time!

                  So....

                  Give me a Foxtrot...
                  Give me a Alpha...
                  Give me a Charlie...
                  Give me a Tango...

                  What's that spell?
                  What's that spell?
                  Ring the bell!!!
                  What's that spell?

                  What's wrong Davey?!?!?  Are you just another scaredy-cat like that big pussy sky daddy you try to lord over everyone?  Fantasy, davey, fantasy.  And just when are you going to start pushing your sexual fantasies on everyone?!?!?!?  Hey! One good fantasy deserves another right?

                  Here's your personalized kiddie fantasy refrain... courtesy of the cheeky gopher sage in my back yard...

                  If I die before I wake, at least in heaven I'll be great...
                  Cuz right now on earth I can't do shit without the FACTs phucking with it!


                  Run! Davey! Run!  They're after you and they are not going away!
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 16 2006,22:12

                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @  Nov. 16 2006,21:23 )
                  Ok ... I'm moving too fast ... let's try again very slowly ... one point at a time ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Since Dave Hawkins insists on repeating the same old, tired lies, I will correct them for the lurkers

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Point #1 - There was a Global Flood which buried massive quantities of organic material.  (This has already been shown in many ways on this thread.  I realize that you disagree, but that is your problem.  There is probably more evidence for the Flood than for moon landings ... I believe in both BTW)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lie#1 from Dave Hawkins.  There was no global flood 4500 years ago.  Much evidence has been shown that refutes the Flood claim, and Dave Hawkins can provide NONE in support.  Dave Hawkins is so full of sh*t that he can’t answer the most basic questions about his claims, i.e.

                  How long does it take limestone to form?
                  What scavengers ate the modern animal carcasses from the flood?
                  Where did the water from the Flood run off to?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Point #2 - The Brookhaven Symposium gave two sets of organic material figures:  Current and Fossil (i.e. buried by the Flood) ... Aftershave is mistaken.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lie#2 from Dave Hawkins.    The Brookhaven figures are for TOTAL carbon, they don’t say WHEN or HOW the carbon was deposited.  Fossil DOES NOT EQUAL buried in the mythical ‘Flood’.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Point #3 - We have no reason to believe that TOTAL C14 was significantly different prior to the Flood, therefore the C14 RATIO was much smaller.  Hopefully eveyone gets this ... you are scientists, right?  OK, in case you don't, remember that C14 is formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  It is only a function of atmospheric carbon and cosmic rays.  It is NOT a function of total carbon in plants, animals, etc.  IOW, there are only so many "marbles" (C14) to go around among all the organic material (marble players).  Since there were so many more players, the concentration was much smaller.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lie#3 from Dave Hawkins.    There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for a massive amount of C12 carbon in the atmosphere 4500 years ago.  There is AMPLE physical evidence from MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES that the C14/C12 ratio has only fluctuated less than 20% MAXIMUM over the last 50,000 years.  There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of any 100x ‘spike’ in the C14/c12 ratio.  This evidence has been presented here many times, yet Dave Hawkins the Liar ignores it and refuses to acknowledge it.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Point #4 - What are some approximate figures?  176X the present amount of organic material if you exclude the sedimentary carbonates.  (Again from the Brookhaven Symposium--a famous non-YEC source)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lie#4 from Dave Hawkins. The total carbon reserves in coal/petroleum deposits today DO NOT represent the amount of living organic material present 6000 years ago, they represent the accumulation of organic matter over the last 3+ billion years.  Dave Hawkins knows this, yet he continues to lie about it.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Point #5 - If we use 176X, then conventional Carbon 14 dates are horrendously wrong ... see calculations below ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lie #5  Dave Hawkins lies about the available data in order to draw totally erroneous conclusions about his preconceived YEC ideas.

                  There you have it folks -  Dave Hawkins:  Liar for Jesus, scientific nincompoop, swindler of church funds, abuser of childrens’ trust.  Makes you want to be a Christian just like him, doesn’t it?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 16 2006,22:18

                  AFDAVE.  STOP USING THIS DISCREDITED ARTICLE.  YOU HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER ONE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.  DON'T USE THIS ONE, IT MATHEMATICALLY STINKS.  
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,22:23)
                  Ok ... I'm moving too fast ... let's try again very slowly ... one point at a time ...

                  Point #1 - There was a Global Flood which buried massive quantities of organic material.  (This has already been shown in many ways on this thread.  I realize that you disagree, but that is your problem.  There is probably more evidence for the Flood than for moon landings ... I believe in both BTW)

                  Point #2 - The Brookhaven Symposium gave two sets of organic material figures:  Current and Fossil (i.e. buried by the Flood) ... Aftershave is mistaken.

                  Point #3 - We have no reason to believe that TOTAL C14 was significantly different prior to the Flood, therefore the C14 RATIO was much smaller.  Hopefully eveyone gets this ... you are scientists, right?  OK, in case you don't, remember that C14 is formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  It is only a function of atmospheric carbon and cosmic rays.  It is NOT a function of total carbon in plants, animals, etc.  IOW, there are only so many "marbles" (C14) to go around among all the organic material (marble players).  Since there were so many more players, the concentration was much smaller.

                  Point #4 - What are some approximate figures?  176X the present amount of organic material if you exclude the sedimentary carbonates.  (Again from the Brookhaven Symposium--a famous non-YEC source)

                  Point #5 - If we use 176X, then conventional Carbon 14 dates are horrendously wrong ... see calculations below ...

                  {snip discredited article}

                  C'mon guys ... this is really not that difficult.

                  Now why don't you just pretend for a minute that you agree that there was a Global Flood.  Do you understand the line of reasoning?  (I know you don't buy the Flood, but if you did, would you follow the logic?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  I could go back and respond to every past post today, but I think this one sums it up.

                  I DISCREDITED THIS ARTICLE ALREADY.  THE AUTHOR ADMITS HE MADE UP THE NUMBERS.  HE DIDN'T DO RESEARCH OR MATH, JUST SOME SIMPLE FACTOR FITTING.  THERE IS NO RESEARCH HERE.

                  That means your points number 2, 4 and 5 no longer are valid because they are based upon data from this article.  You MAYBE can keep point 3, but your magic hat dance will have to be spectacular to prove this one.

                  BELIEVING IN A FLOOD OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER.  HIS MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.

                  You tried to weasel out of this with a very revealing (revealing to others about your mindset in this matter) diatribe about Origins Research.

                  You said NOTHING about how R.H.Brown handled the math.  Go back and read the 'Reaction' section of the GRISDA article, come back here and admit that R.H.Brown made up his factors to fit his admitted foregone conclusion.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 16 2006,22:42

                  R.H.BROWN WANTS US TO INVEST IN HIS NEW WIDGET PLANT.  ANY TAKERS?

                  Dave,
                  I was talking with R.H.Brown the other day and he has a new investment for me.  He wants me to invest $50,000 dollars in his new widget plant.  He gaurantees me a 30% return on my investment over 5 years.

                  I read the prospectus and all the proper entries were there.  Cost of capital (check), widget manufacturing rate (check), cost of building (check), raw material cost (check), labor cost (check), estimated sales figures of widgets (check), estimated price of widgets (check).

                  I was excited, but being a smart investor I wanted to cross-check a couple figures that R.H.Brown was quoting.  So I checked on three things,  cost of capital, widget price, and manufacturing rate.

                  The cost of capital was easy, I phoned the bank and they said that money could be borrowed at 9.5% and R.H.Brown quoted 9.0%.  Maybe he knows someone.

                  The widget price was $22 wholesale price to the distributor with a retail cost of $36.  Most stores start at $39.99 with periodic sales at $35 or lower.  I looked up the prices for a whatsit, which the widget will compete with, and found out the whatsit was selling for $31.99 retail with some sales as low as $26.  This relates to a wholesale price of $15.  Uh-Oh!.  Looks like R.H.Brown inflated the sale price by almost 50%, NOT GOOD.

                  The manufacturing rate of the facility was listed as 400,000 widgets per year.  This rate turns out to be the maximum production rate of the machines the plant is installing if they ran day and night for a year.  But the facility will only run two shifts M-F so R.H.Brown inflated the manufacturing rate by 50%.

                  Turns out that the labor cost quoted would have paid the workers a $3.50/hr wage rate also.

                  I talked to R.H.Brown about these discrepencies in his widget prospectus.  He hummed and hawed for a second then said;
                  "Well, If you weren't promised at least a 30% return on your money you would not have invested with me.  I had to make the details fit so they added up to a 30% return."

                  Needless to say I kept my money away from R.H.Brown.

                  However,
                  I gave him your name Dave.  I also said that Dave Hawkins wouldn't question those pesky detail numbers or how they were derived.  Dave Hawkins would only notice the 30% return and accept that the details were accurate and derived properly.

                  If I run across any more investment opportunities Dave, I'll be sure to let you know.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,01:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,21:23)
                  Ok ... I'm moving too fast ... let's try again very slowly ... one point at a time ...

                  Point #1 - There was a Global Flood which buried massive quantities of organic material.  (This has already been shown in many ways on this thread.  I realize that you disagree, but that is your problem.  There is probably more evidence for the Flood than for moon landings ... I believe in both BTW)

                  Point #2 - The Brookhaven Symposium gave two sets of organic material figures:  Current and Fossil (i.e. buried by the Flood) ... Aftershave is mistaken.

                  Point #3 - We have no reason to believe that TOTAL C14 was significantly different prior to the Flood, therefore the C14 RATIO was much smaller.  Hopefully eveyone gets this ... you are scientists, right?  OK, in case you don't, remember that C14 is formed in the atmosphere from Nitrogen.  It is only a function of atmospheric carbon and cosmic rays.  It is NOT a function of total carbon in plants, animals, etc.  IOW, there are only so many "marbles" (C14) to go around among all the organic material (marble players).  Since there were so many more players, the concentration was much smaller.

                  Point #4 - What are some approximate figures?  176X the present amount of organic material if you exclude the sedimentary carbonates.  (Again from the Brookhaven Symposium--a famous non-YEC source)

                  Point #5 - If we use 176X, then conventional Carbon 14 dates are horrendously wrong ... see calculations below ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, no matter how slowly you say it, you'll still be wrong. So let me try this once again, and see if I can make it penetrate your thick, brainless skull:

                  THE ONLY CARBON THAT MATTERS FOR RADIOCARBON DATING IS THE CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

                  Is that clear? Is there any ambiguity anywhere in that simple statement? Can you not comprehend those fourteen words?

                  Yes? No?

                  So your hand-flapping out how much carbon on the planet, regardless of whether it was all buried at once during your mythical flood, or whether it was sequestered over billions of years, IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO RADIOCARBON DATING.

                  Unless you think everyone who lived before Noah was breathing an atmosphere of 5% CO2 (and suffering the effects of a runaway greenhouse effect), your entire argument wrt radiocarbon dating IS DEAD. BURIED. KAPUT. INOPERATIVE. WRONG, WRONG WRONG.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 17 2006,02:33

                  ericmurphy

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Unless you think everyone who lived before Noah was breathing an atmosphere of 5% CO2 (and suffering the effects of a runaway greenhouse effect), your entire argument wrt radiocarbon dating IS DEAD. BURIED. KAPUT. INOPERATIVE. WRONG, WRONG WRONG.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, I think that is exactly what he means. Er... Dave? That would make the ice core thing super simple.

                  Question: Was c14 in the atmosphere much higher pre-flood?

                  If yes, we will find it in various core samples. Right?

                  If no, C14 dating passes your test and you lose. Right?

                  If fundies had their heads any farther in their asses, you'd look like one of 'em.

                  Does your penis go limp when it discovers that you are its date?

                  I've never run across someone as dumb as you. I've met a few fundies but they were smart enough to duck and cover when it comes to science. You just walk right in, looking for a place to piss on and everyone points you over to the ladies room. You're like one of those trick fundies they've trained to dress and talk like a human...

                  (A fundy's a fundy don't look so grumpy
                  and no one can talk to a fundy ('cept sunday)
                  Unless the fundy's the jumpy, lumpy Dickless AFDave)

                  You're balancing the one goalpost on your nose like a trained seal. The other one has a few too many yards between, if ya know what I mean.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,08:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...Dr. John "Went-Insane" Sanford ... (good one, Russell, very scientific ... automatically assume someone is insane if they disagree with you)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What in the world leads you to believe that I assume everyone who disagrees with me is insane?! This is highly reminiscent of your remark yesterday, wherein you bloviated that anyone who rejects your precious bible as the last word on history has nothing left but "wild imagination" to guide him.

                  Very illogical davy.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,08:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE ONLY CARBON THAT MATTERS FOR RADIOCARBON DATING IS THE CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, Eric the carbon that matters is TOTAL BIOSPHERE CARBON INVENTORY.  Let me walk you through this.  I think the problem is that you have the Evolutionary Paradigm so firmly ensconced in your mind that you cannot see certain things that otherwise would be plain as day.  So forget Evolution for a moment.  Imagine that you believe that God created the earth and created all living things in six literal 24-hour days.  I know it's a stretch, but go with me here.  Use the powers of your imagination.  In this case, there would be ZERO C14 initially.  Why?  Because it takes time for C14 to be generated in the atmosphere.  Remember, it's caused by cosmic radiation hitting Nitrogen.  So at t=0, there is ZERO C14, but then it gradually begins to form.  Now remember also, the biosphere is 176X more plentiful than it is now -- this is fairly measurable --I know you think it got there gradually, but you believe this IN SPITE OF the contrary evidence, not because of the evidence.  Now also at t=0, animals are going to start inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2, plants do both but are a net consumer of CO2 < http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/94/5/647 >, and of course micro-organisms can consume oxygen (aerobic) or not (anaerobic) (some consume C02).  Without getting into all the details of biosphere balance, I think you can see that, beginning at time t=0 (Creation), living organisms are going to begin "trading" carbon with each other and with their environment through various means.  Examples might be grass which receives carbon from the atmosphere, then gives it up to the cow that eats it.  Or how about that anaerobic bacteria in our gut that goes to work on those refried beans.  Those little guys consume CO2 (instead of oxygen as an electron acceptor) and produce methane.  We won't talk about what happens to the methane since we're in polite company (er ... no we're not but we still won't).  These are just two examples, but they illustrate the point.  Beginning with creation, the biosphere began "trading" carbon throughout the whole inventory.  Since carbon compounds do not "care" if they use C12 or C14, I hope you can see that C14 would gradually get mixed throughout the biosphere.  You are correct that it gets introduced to biosphere as CO2 in the atmosphere, but then it is dispersed throughout the biosphere in many ways.

                  Wikipedia has a good article on the Carbon Cycle ...
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle >

                  Diagram of the carbon cycle. The black numbers indicate how much carbon is stored in various reservoirs, in billions of tons ("GtC" stands for GigaTons of Carbon). The blue numbers indicate how much carbon moves between reservoirs each year. The sediments, as defined in this diagram, do not include the ~70 million GtC of carbonate rock and kerogen

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carbon cycle
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged between the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of the Earth (other astronomical objects may have similar carbon cycles, but nothing is yet known about them).

                  The cycle is usually thought of as four major reservoirs of carbon interconnected by pathways of exchange. The reservoirs are the atmosphere, the terrestrial biosphere (which usually includes freshwater systems and non-living organic material, such as soil carbon), the oceans (which includes dissolved inorganic carbon and living and non-living marine biota), and the sediments (which includes fossil fuels). The annual movements of carbon, the carbon exchanges between reservoirs, occur because of various chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes. The ocean contains the largest active pool of carbon near the surface of the Earth, but the deep ocean part of this pool does not rapidly exchange with the atmosphere.

                  The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere - biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide.

                  Carbon exists in the Earth's atmosphere primarily as the gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Although it is a very small part of the atmosphere overall (approximately 0.04% on a molar basis, though rising), it plays an important role in supporting life. Other gases containing carbon in the atmosphere are methane and chlorofluorocarbons (the latter is entirely artificial). These are all greenhouse gases whose concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing in recent decades, contributing to global warming.

                  The quantity of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, is around 810 gigatonnes.

                  Carbon is taken from the atmosphere in several ways:
                     * When the sun is shining, plants perform photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates, releasing oxygen in the process. This process is most prolific in relatively new forests where tree growth is still rapid.
                     * At the surface of the oceans towards the poles, seawater becomes cooler and CO2 is more soluble. This is coupled to the ocean's thermohaline circulation which transports dense surface water into the ocean's interior (see the entry on the solubility).
                     * In upper ocean areas of high productivity, organisms form tissue containing reduced carbon, and some also form carbonate shells, tests, or other hard body parts. These are, respectively, oxidized (soft-tissue pump) and redissolved (carbonate pump) at lower average levels of the ocean than those at which they formed, resulting in a downward flow of carbon (see entry on biological pump).
                     * The weathering of silicate rock. Unlike the previous two processes, this does not move the carbon into a reservoir from which it can readily return to the atmosphere. The weathering of carbonate rocks has no net effect on atmospheric CO2, because the bicarbonate ions produced are carried to the ocean, where they are used to make marine carbonates with the reverse reaction.

                  Carbon can be released back into the atmosphere in many different ways,
                     * Through the respiration performed by plants and animals. This is an exothermic reaction and it involves the breaking down of glucose (or other organic molecules) into carbon dioxide and water.
                     * Through the decay of animal and plant matter. Fungi and bacteria break down the carbon compounds in dead animals and plants and convert the carbon to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present, or methane if not.
                     * Through combustion of organic material which oxidizes the carbon it contains, producing carbon dioxide (as well as other things, like smoke). Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum products, and natural gas releases carbon that has been stored in the geosphere for millions of years. This is a major reason for rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
                     * Production of cement. A component, lime, is produced by heating limestone, which produces a substantial amount of carbon dioxide.
                     * At the surface of the oceans where the water becomes warmer, dissolved carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere
                     * Volcanic eruptions and metamorphism release gases into the atmosphere. These gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The carbon dioxide released is roughly equal to the amount removed by silicate weathering; so the two processes, which are the chemical reverse of each other, sum to roughly zero, and do not affect the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide on time scales of less than about 100,000 yr.

                  Carbon in the biosphere
                  Around 1900 gigatonnes of carbon are present in the biosphere. Carbon is an essential part of life on the Earth. It plays an important role in the structure, biochemistry, and nutrition of all living cells. And life plays an important role in the carbon cycle:
                     * Autotrophs are organisms that produce their own organic compounds using carbon dioxide from the air or water in which they live. To do this they require an external source of energy. Almost all autotrophs use solar radiation to provide this, and their production process is called photosynthesis. A small number of autotrophs exploit chemical energy sources, chemosynthesis. The most important autotrophs for the carbon cycle are trees in forests on land and phytoplankton in the Earth's oceans. Photosynthesis follows the reaction 6CO2 + 6H2O &#8594; C6H12O6 + 6O2
                     * Carbon is transferred within the biosphere as heterotrophs feed on other organisms or their parts (e.g., fruits). This includes the uptake of dead organic material (detritus) by fungi and bacteria for fermentation or decay.
                     * Most carbon leaves the biosphere through respiration. When oxygen is present, aerobic respiration occurs, which releases carbon dioxide into the surrounding air or water, folowing the reaction C6H12O6 + 6O2 &#8594; 6CO2 + 6H2O. Otherwise, anaerobic respiration occurs and releases methane into the surrounding environment, which eventually makes its way into the atmosphere or hydrosphere (e.g., as marsh gas or flatulence).
                     * Burning of biomass (e.g. forest fires, wood used for heating) can also transfer substantial amounts of carbon to the atmosphere
                     * Carbon may also leave the biosphere when dead organic matter (such as peat) becomes incorporated in the geosphere. Animal shells of calcium carbonate, in particular, may eventually become limestone through the process of sedimentation.
                     * Much remains to be learned about the cycling of carbon in the deep ocean. For example, a recent discovery is that larvacean mucus houses (commonly known as "sinkers") are created in such large numbers that they can deliver as much carbon to the deep ocean as has been previously detected by sediment traps [1]. Because of their size and composition, these houses are rarely collected in such traps, so most biogeochemical analyses have erroneously ignored them.

                  Carbon storage in the biosphere is influenced by a number of processes on different time-scales: while Net primary productivity follows a diurnal and seasonal cycle, carbon can be stored up to several hundreds of years in trees and up to thousands of years in soils. Changes in those long term carbon pools (e.g. through de- or afforestation or through temperature-related changes in soil respiration) will thus directly affect global warming.

                  Carbon in the Oceans
                  The seas contain around 36000 gigatonnes of carbon, mostly in the form of bicarbonate ion. Inorganic carbon, that is carbon compounds with no carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds, is important in its reactions within water. This carbon exchange becomes important in controlling pH in the ocean and can also vary as a source or sink for carbon. Carbon is readily exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean. In regions of oceanic upwelling, carbon is released to the atmosphere. Conversely, regions of downwelling transfer carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere to the ocean. When CO2 enters the ocean, carbonic acid is formed:

                         CO2 + H2O &#8652; H2CO3

                  This reaction has a forward and reverse rate, that is it achieves a chemical equilibrium. Another reaction important in controlling oceanic pH levels is the release of hydrogen ions and bicarbonate. This reaction controls large changes in pH:

                         H2CO3 &#8652; H+ + HCO3&#8722;

                  Carbon cycle modelling
                  Models of the carbon cycle can be incorporated into global climate models, so that the interactive response of the oceans and biosphere on future CO2 levels can be modelled. There are considerable uncertainties in this, both in the physical and biogeochemical submodels (especially the latter). Such models typically show that there is a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. For example, Zeng et al. (GRL, 2004 [2]) find that in their model, including a coupled carbon cycle increases atmospheric CO2 by about 90 ppmv at 2100 (over that predicted in models with non-interactive carbon cycles), leading to an extra 0.6°C of warming (which, in turn, may lead to even greater atmospheric CO2).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Seeing the many ways in which carbon can be exchanged with the atmosphere (and thus that C14 can be dispersed throughout the biosphere), I hope you can now see how naive it is to just ASSUME that the C14/C12 ratio has been relatively constant (yes, I know they admit a ~20%? variation) throughout earth history.

                  This is what Long Agers do ...

                  And this is why their dates greater than 6000BP are bogus.

                  It also explains why there are no historical records older than about 5500BP, i.e., There weren't any humans around to record the historical records.

                  Sure, guys.  Modern humans appeared on the scene 200,000 YA, but didn't start writing until 5500 YA ... pretty likely!!

                  And you say I am unscientific.

                  ******************************************
                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You've got the wrong f-word there, babble boy! Evolution has nothing to do with fashion and everything to do with that dirty little four letter f-word that so far you've run from every time... every friggin' time!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I know ... 'facts' like a dinosaur can become a bird, a bacteria can become a fish, etc. Yes,  yes yes.  Oh, and don't forget the 'fact' that all genomes are improving - NOT.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How long does it take limestone to form?
                  What scavengers ate the modern animal carcasses from the flood?
                  Where did the water from the Flood run off to?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not very long under the right conditions. Varied and many. To the newly deepened ocean basins.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is AMPLE physical evidence from MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES that the C14/C12 ratio has only fluctuated less than 20% MAXIMUM over the last 50,000 years.  There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of any 100x ‘spike’ in the C14/c12 ratio.  This evidence has been presented here many times, yet Dave Hawkins the Liar ignores it and refuses to acknowledge it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, this is wrong because it is based on the same old tired (and flawed) assumption of relatively constant ratios throughout earth history.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Lie#4 from Dave Hawkins. The total carbon reserves in coal/petroleum deposits today DO NOT represent the amount of living organic material present 6000 years ago, they represent the accumulation of organic matter over the last 3+ billion years.  Dave Hawkins knows this, yet he continues to lie about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You have a strange definition of lying.  This is not lying.  I simply interpret the evidence in a different (more sensible in my opinion) way than you do.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I DISCREDITED THIS ARTICLE ALREADY.  THE AUTHOR ADMITS HE MADE UP THE NUMBERS.  HE DIDN'T DO RESEARCH OR MATH, JUST SOME SIMPLE FACTOR FITTING.  THERE IS NO RESEARCH HERE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What a hoot.  He didn't make up any numbers and you didn't discredit his math.  You TRIED to discredit his methodology of using the historical record of Genesis, then postulating scenarios.  This is what YOU as a ToE advocate SHOULD be doing as well, but you cannot because there is no history book available during your imaginary period of earth history.  So what are you left with?  Your wild imagination.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BELIEVING IN A FLOOD OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER.  HIS MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, his math is fine.  You just don't like his methodology.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was talking with R.H.Brown the other day and he has a new investment for me.  He wants me to invest $50,000 dollars in his new widget plant.  He gaurantees me a 30% return on my investment over 5 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now you are falling into the "Totally Irrelevant Analogy" routine of Steve Story.

                  **************************************

                  Now can we please go back to genetics?  This is getting really boring to me.  Why don't you just admit defeat by calling me a long nasty string of names and giving up ... you know, like our resident linguist, Arden Chatfield, finally did with the Portuguese debate?  He was thoroughly refuted so many times and got so frustrated that he just called me a dirty lying scumbag (or something like that) and ran away, never to be heard from again.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,09:13

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What in the world leads you to believe that I assume everyone who disagrees with me is insane?!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... how about the following ...

                  Russell [on Dr. Sanford]...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not particularly impressed by once-bright people who cease to be bright. I fully expect my brain to stop working altogether one day. If I - and anyone who has to put up with me - am/is lucky, I won't be breathing, talking or writing after that. Regrettably, that's not always the case.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  IOW, you are implying that his brain has stopped working.  "Insane" is not much different from this, Russell.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... (Note: once-productive scientists who have, at some point after their last scientific contribution, lost their wits and become YECs, ...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But hey, I'm agreeable ... have it your way ... I'll revise my comment ...

                  MY ORIGINAL

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...Dr. John "Went-Insane" Sanford ... (good one, Russell, very scientific ... automatically assume someone is insane if they disagree with you)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  REVISED ... Dr. John "Lost his wits" Sanford ... (good one, Russell, very scientific ... automatically assume someone has "lost their wits" if they disagree with your worldview, i.e. are a YEC)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,09:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,09:14)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I DISCREDITED THIS ARTICLE ALREADY.  THE AUTHOR ADMITS HE MADE UP THE NUMBERS.  HE DIDN'T DO RESEARCH OR MATH, JUST SOME SIMPLE FACTOR FITTING.  THERE IS NO RESEARCH HERE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What a hoot.  He didn't make up any numbers and you didn't discredit his math.  You TRIED to discredit his methodology of using the historical record of Genesis, then postulating scenarios.  This is what YOU as a ToE advocate SHOULD be doing as well, but you cannot because there is no history book available during your imaginary period of earth history.  So what are you left with?  Your wild imagination.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BELIEVING IN A FLOOD OR NOT DOESN'T MATTER.  HIS MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS IS FLAWED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, his math is fine.  You just don't like his methodology.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was talking with R.H.Brown the other day and he has a new investment for me.  He wants me to invest $50,000 dollars in his new widget plant.  He gaurantees me a 30% return on my investment over 5 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now you are falling into the "Totally Irrelevant Analogy" routine of Steve Story.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Pathetic Dave, really pathetic.

                  I showed clearly < (permalink to my post) > that R.H.Brown MADE UP THE FACTORS IN HIS MATH.  He set the factor for atmospheric carbon (20x) based on some specious claim that the pre-diluvian atmosphere had 1.0% CO2 concentration (no measurements, no evidence, not even a quote from the Bible no less).  He then derived, through a simple balance equation from Grade 5 math, what the ground biosphere number HAD TO BE SO THAT THE NUMBERS ADDED UP TO A 5500 YBP DATE.

                  Let's let R.H.Brown speak for himself.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  **1**Assuming that flood sediments were formed about 5000 real time years ago, and that at their initial formation these sediments had a 14C/12C ratio no greater than the minimum detectable by current conventional gas or scintillation counting techniques, requires that 45,000-50,000 years of 14C age be accounted for on some basis other than that given by a simplistic uniform conditions model, as discussed in ORIGINS 6:30-44. This range of 14C age represents 7.85-8.73 half-lives for 14C. The reduction in 14C/12C ratio over this half-life range is in the range 231-425 (27.85 -28.73). **2**For the task at hand one can postulate that before the flood the 14C production rate in the atmosphere was less in this ratio, the upper biosphere carbon inventory (active carbon exchange reservoir in the upper biosphere) was greater in this ratio, or any appropriate combination of intermediate factors for lower 14C production and greater inventory. **3**In the following discussion the "upper limit" factor 425 will be used, recognizing that the true situation might be approximately twice as easy (231 factor) to accommodate.
                    **4**We can speculate that the CO2 concentration in the preflood atmosphere was near 1%, approximately 20 times its contemporary value, since plants generally exhibit more vigorous growth as CO2 levels are increased up to this level, and the atmosphere becomes toxic at higher levels. It may be assumed that the carbon concentration in the water components of the upper biosphere, being in contact with the atmosphere, would be identified with a similar increase. **5**Accordingly the factor F by which living and dead organic material must be increased to secure a total upper biosphere carbon inventory increase by a factor of 425 is given by

                  0.372 × 20 + 0.628 × F = 425,

                  from which F = 665.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Found here; < (http://www.grisda.org/origins/07006.htm#Brown) >
                  Commenting on R.H.Brown original writings here; < (http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm) >

                  I've numbered the bolded entries to outline the whole hypothesis.
                  **1** He ASSUMES a 5000 year result for all measured 14C dates that show 45,000 to 50,000 years in the reported results.  This is R.H.Browns ONLY reference to actual data (the fact that reported dates from 14C testing exist).  He clearly indicates that he has to ACCOUNT for these dates in some other method.  However, he has already FIXED the result at 5000 years.

                  **2**  He POSTULATES that the pre-flood 14C production rate was less or there was a greater "upper biosphere carbon inventory" (or a combination).  However, his postulate has NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

                  **3**  He's conservative with his numbers and chooses a worst case scenario.  However, this number is chosen ONLY to make the existing 14C data fit his preconcieved conclusion of a 5000 year old date.

                  **4**  He SPECULATES that CO2 levels were at 1.0% before the flood.  He is only looking for a maximum number here.  NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.

                  **5**  He does some simple algebra and CONCLUDES  that the land biosphere carbon content must be 665x the present concentration.  However, this number is a simple derivation from factors that he has NO DATA, NO REFERENCE, NO BIBLE VERSE, JUST HIS OWN IMAGINATION.
                  **********************

                  Tell me again where R.H.Brown DIDN'T make his numbers up?

                  Take back your statement.  You've just been served.

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  Dave, You crowed on about how you made money in the past.  You of all people should have realised that my analogy is spot on to this discussion.  Have some reading comprehension classes soon.  Refuting your simple statements is too easy at present.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,09:52

                  Mike---  Of course he postulates some scenarios and proposes some numbers to reconcile the pre-Flood conditions with the historical record.

                  But as I keep telling you over and over again, this is ALL WE CAN DO from our vantage point.  You cannot go out into the field and measure C14 and come away and say "See this bone is 20,000 years old."  

                  You simply cannot do this.

                  You have to ASSUME certain things.  Now in your case you ASSUME relatively constant C14 levels throughout earth history.

                  THIS IS A BAD ASSUMPTION.

                  In Dr. Brown's case, he ASSUMES NON-constant C14 throughout earth history.

                  THIS IS A GOOD ASSUMPTION -- I.E. MORE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE, NAMELY THAT THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD.

                  Now the math that your talking about is Dr. Brown going a step further -- not only does he have better STARTING ASSUMPTIONS than you, but also he is attempting to REFINE THE ASSUMPTIONS.

                  And he is honest ... he admits that this is a guess, but it is helpful nonetheless because it allows us to evaluate if his model is even plausible ...

                  WHICH IT IS.

                  *******************************

                  Face it, Mike ... you've been fisked, served and refuted.

                  Now are you going to get mad and stomp your feet like Arden?

                  Or politely admit defeat and move on?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,10:07

                  a suggestion, davy. If you're interested in being a successful salesman for Jebus, sarcasm and condescension in explaining, for instance, carbon dating to people who actually do this kind of thing in their professional work ill becomes you.

                  Now...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell [on Dr. Sanford]...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  I'm not particularly impressed by once-bright people who cease to be bright. I fully expect my brain to stop working altogether one day. If I - and anyone who has to put up with me - am/is lucky, I won't be breathing, talking or writing after that. Regrettably, that's not always the case.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  IOW, you are implying that his brain has stopped working.  "Insane" is not much different from this, Russell.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So far, so good. In fact, I do think Sanford has lost his mind. But not because I disagree with him.

                  The challenge still stands. Show me one scientific contribution by a YECer in the past 100 years in a field that has anything remotely to do with biology . Just one.

                  And this proviso still stands, too:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Note: once-productive scientists who have, at some point after their last scientific contribution, lost their wits and become YECs, ...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Much in the same way that I would reject the proposition that Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and Albert Einstein prove that dead scientists can do groundbreaking work.
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 17 2006,10:13

                  Dave, the creationists like you are the ones making the massive, unsupported assumptions.  Let me make this as simple as possible:

                  Creationists assume everything in the Bible is literally accurate.
                  Scientists do not.

                  Now, can you tell which of these groups is making the greater assumption?  Actually, I'll bet you can't.  But it's blazingly obvious to everyone else.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,10:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,10:52)
                  Mike---  Of course he postulates some scenarios and proposes some numbers to reconcile the pre-Flood conditions with the historical record.

                  But as I keep telling you over and over again, this is ALL WE CAN DO from our vantage point.  You cannot go out into the field and measure C14 and come away and say "See this bone is 20,000 years old."  

                  You simply cannot do this.

                  You have to ASSUME certain things.  Now in your case you ASSUME relatively constant C14 levels throughout earth history.

                  THIS IS A BAD ASSUMPTION.

                  In Dr. Brown's case, he ASSUMES NON-constant C14 throughout earth history.

                  THIS IS A GOOD ASSUMPTION -- I.E. MORE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE, NAMELY THAT THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD.

                  Now the math that your talking about is Dr. Brown going a step further -- not only does he have better STARTING ASSUMPTIONS than you, but also he is attempting to REFINE THE ASSUMPTIONS.

                  And he is honest ... he admits that this is a guess, but it is helpful nonetheless because it allows us to evaluate if his model is even plausible ...

                  WHICH IT IS.

                  *******************************

                  Face it, Mike ... you've been fisked, served and refuted.

                  Now are you going to get mad and stomp your feet like Arden?

                  Or politely admit defeat and move on?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  You can see the evidence in front of your face but refuse to admit it exists.

                  Present C14 dating DOESN'T ASSUME CONSTANT C14.  The practitioners of this method CROSS-REFERENCE OTHER, INDEPENDENT METHODS TO VERIFY THE INTEGRITY OF THE C14 RESULTS.  The reported C14 number is now based on TWO data points, the measured ratio AND the independent method measure (whichever one of the 41 methods deadman and ericmurphy have referenced).  AND, the practitioners of C14 then JUSTIFY their choice of independent reference so that anyone viewing the result can independently confirm or question the method.

                  WHERE IN R.H.BROWN'S WRITINGS IS THERE AN INDEPENDENT, CORRELATED NUMBER PRESENTED.  THE ONLY HISTORIC NUMBER HE PRESENTS IS THE 5000 YEAR NUMBER.  I DON'T SEE ANYTHING MENTIONING THE 20X CO2 CONCENTRATION OTHER THAN SOME WILD IMAGINATION MUSINGS.

                  THAT IS MY POINT.  R.H.BROWN MAKES UP THE NUMBERS FOR PRE-FLOOD CO2 CONCENTRATION WITHOUT AN INDEPENDENT REFERENCE (EVEN THE BIBLE).

                  CAPICHE?  (STOMP, STOMP, STOMP)
                  ****************************
                  You've been drawn, quartered and fed to the buzzards.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,10:50

                  Dave,
                  Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

                  Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,11:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,08:14)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE ONLY CARBON THAT MATTERS FOR RADIOCARBON DATING IS THE CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, Eric the carbon that matters is TOTAL BIOSPHERE CARBON INVENTORY.  Let me walk you through this.  I think the problem is that you have the Evolutionary Paradigm so firmly ensconced in your mind that you cannot see certain things that otherwise would be plain as day.  So forget Evolution for a moment.  Imagine that you believe that God created the earth and created all living things in six literal 24-hour days.  I know it's a stretch, but go with me here.  Use the powers of your imagination.  In this case, there would be ZERO C14 initially.  Why?  Because it takes time for C14 to be generated in the atmosphere.  Remember, it's caused by cosmic radiation hitting Nitrogen.  So at t=0, there is ZERO C14, but then it gradually begins to form.  Now remember also, the biosphere is 176X more plentiful than it is now -- this is fairly measurable --I know you think it got there gradually, but you believe this IN SPITE OF the contrary evidence, not because of the evidence.  Now also at t=0, animals are going to start inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2, plants do both but are a net consumer of CO2 < http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/94/5/647 >, and of course micro-organisms can consume oxygen (aerobic) or not (anaerobic) (some consume C02).  Without getting into all the details of biosphere balance, I think you can see that, beginning at time t=0 (Creation), living organisms are going to begin "trading" carbon with each other and with their environment through various means.  Examples might be grass which receives carbon from the atmosphere, then gives it up to the cow that eats it.  Or how about that anaerobic bacteria in our gut that goes to work on those refried beans.  Those little guys consume CO2 (instead of oxygen as an electron acceptor) and produce methane.  We won't talk about what happens to the methane since we're in polite company (er ... no we're not but we still won't).  These are just two examples, but they illustrate the point.  Beginning with creation, the biosphere began "trading" carbon throughout the whole inventory.  Since carbon compounds do not "care" if they use C12 or C14, I hope you can see that C14 would gradually get mixed throughout the biosphere.  You are correct that it gets introduced to biosphere as CO2 in the atmosphere, but then it is dispersed throughout the biosphere in many ways.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, organisms (largely plants and photosynthetic bacteria) do not incorporate carbon into their structure from any source other than the atmosphere. A tree does not incorporate carbon from other plants, nor does it incorporate carbon from sequestered carbon sources, e.g. calcium carbonate deposits or coal. The only carbon that gets "traded" among organisms is carbon that originated in the atmosphere.

                  This has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory, Dave. It has to do with straightforward biology.

                  It's very simple. A particular tree begins incorporating carbon, derived from CO2 in the atmosphere, into its structure. A certain, known proportion of that CO2 is made of C14, not C12. As long as the tree is alive, the proportion of C14 in its structure is in equilibrium with the C14 in the atmosphere. After the tree dies, it stops incorporating C14 into its structure. As the C14 decays, the ratio of C14/C12 decreases. This has absolutely nothing to do with the total amount of carbon on the planet. Nothing whatsoever. The only thing that would greatly decrease the starting ratio of C14/C12 would be if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were greatly increased, and we already know that is an impossibility.

                  And again, you're assuming what you're attempting to prove. You're assuming the earth is 6,000 years old in order to prove the earth is 6,000 years old.

                  Therefore, the sum total of carbon available simply does not matter. If you can show how a blade of grass incorporates carbon into its structure from coal or crude oil, or from another blade of grass further up the meadow, then your argument will get you somewhere.

                  But what you steadfastly refuse to deal with is that radiocarbon dating has been extensively cross-checked and calibrated against 41 other other completely independent dating methods. Your "hypothesis" needs to account for what would be an extraordinarily improbable coincidence if radiocarbon dating were inaccurate. You're never going to be able to do this, Dave, because it's impossible. Just like your "hypothesis."
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,11:24

                  Russell..  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The challenge still stands. Show me one scientific contribution by a YECer in the past 100 years in a field that has anything remotely to do with biology . Just one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Boy are you naive!  There are many, many YECers that have made scientific contributions in the past 100 years.  Have you never heard of Dr. Raymond Jones and the Leucaena story?  Or how about Dr. Ian Macreadie, one of CSIRO's top researchers, whose long held belief in the Biblical creation account helped him make the prediction that viruses are genetic garbage--the result of mutation and environmental damage.  Or how about Dr. David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear?  Or how about Dr. Richard Porter, a top expert on the human spine, who said that evolutionary theory is unproductive for research and said "For example, the curve in the lumbar spine toward the front--the lordosis--was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position.  So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. "  Of course this is now known to be nonsense.  Or how about Dr. Don Batten whose contributions I highlighted already for you? (search the thread)

                  Russell, I could go on and on.  This is yet another example of your incorrect assumptions about reality.

                  As for my use of sarcasm and harshness occasionally to make a point, let me point out my mentor's (Jesus) words to you when He was dealing with Pharisees, another group of self-congratulating blind guides, similar to today's Darwinian activists such as yourself.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Matthew 23: 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
                  24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
                  25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.
                  26 "Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
                  27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, this describes you (not just you--you collectively--you and your cohorts here at ATBC) perfectly.  You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!  You mislead the public and our schoolchildren.  You lie to them and tell them that Genesis is a fairy tale.  Then you act all smug and righteous.

                  Improvius ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Creationists assume everything in the Bible is literally accurate.  Scientists do not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong.  They OBSERVE that the Bible is literally accurate.  First they read it.  Then they observe the EVIDENCE from science, extra-biblical history and archaeology.  Then they CONCLUDE that it is accurate.  You've got it turned around backwards.

                  No Mike--  This is what Brown does ...  you are wrong.  He is basically saying that ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)  Conventional C14 dating requires roughly constant C14 and C12 levels throughout earth history -- this is a horribly mistaken assumption -- not just a minor problem that needs a little calibration -- it's gigantically mistaken
                  2)  There is quite clear evidence that carbon inventories were much higher prior to the flood -- 100X modern levels is a conservative estimate < http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.pdf >
                  3)  Thus the C14/C12 ratio would have been much smaller pre-Flood.  
                  4)  If one does the calculations with reasonable assumptions, one finds that 30,000 and 40,000 year old dates shrink to within the 6000 year Biblical timeframe. Calculations shown here.
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.pdf >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  **********************************

                  Mike ... silly statements like this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

                  Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... will not help your already-damaged credibility.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,11:24

                  I see that davy has now changed his argument.

                  Heretofore, it was a [presumed] massive discontinuity in pre- and post- "Flood" carbon in the biosphere. But that didn't help with how this carbon equilibrated with living things without generating toxic CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

                  The new, improved explanation is that 14C concentrations had not yet reached equilibrium, what with the universe being only one or two thousand years old. (Note that this new explanation is independent of, and renders irrelevant, the first one, involving sudden changes in total carbon in the biosphere. Which  is irrelevant - since only atmospheric CO2 gets incorporated into living things. Why davy is still trying to defend it, I don't know. Just stubbornness, I guess.)

                  But it doesn't help, because the new, improved, explanation does not account for the discontinuity that Brown imposes on his model in order to make his curves flatten out at the target date (the "Flood" date). The "new, improved" explanation has no way to accommodate the necessary discontinuity.

                  But don't despair! Just as the whole "extra carbon" argument was just pulled out of someone's butt to try (unsuccessfully, it turns out) to accommodate the necessary biblical time frame, you can go to the same source and extract a sudden orders-of-magnitude increase in the amount of cosmic radiation coincident with "the Flood" - that's remained pretty much steadily high ever since.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,11:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
                  Mike ... silly statements like this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

                  Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... will not help your already-damaged credibility.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So......
                  You don't have a reference?
                  Is that what I hear you saying?

                  And please post a reference where my credibility was damaged?

                  Please (see, I said the magic word).

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,11:39

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Heretofore, it was a [presumed] massive discontinuity in pre- and post- "Flood" carbon in the biosphere. But that didn't help with how this carbon equilibrated with living things without generating toxic CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have not changed my argument.  What in the world are you talking about?  Did you not read ANY of my long post this morning?  What part of that post did you not understand?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,11:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Boy are you naive!  There are many, many YECers that have made scientific contributions in the past 100 years.  Have you never heard of Dr. Raymond Jones and the Leucaena story?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope. Can't say as I have. Was this, in fact a significant contribution to science that actually depended on a creationist premise?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Or how about Dr. Ian Macreadie, one of CSIRO's top researchers, whose long held belief in the Biblical creation account helped him make the prediction that viruses are genetic garbage--the result of mutation and environmental damage.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope. And that's embarrassing, because I'm a virologist! So point me to where this "prediction" has actually been vindicated, or led to any significant scientific contribution.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Or how about Dr. David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll forgive myself for not knowing this one, since - sorry - I don't regard developments in plastic surgery as significant scientific contributions.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or how about Dr. Richard Porter, a top expert on the human spine, who said that evolutionary theory is unproductive for research and said "For example, the curve in the lumbar spine toward the front--the lordosis--was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man having recently adopted an upright position.  So, some researchers blamed back pain on this, saying the spine had not yet evolved satisfactorily. "  Of course this is now known to be nonsense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, where is the scientific contribution here? I fail to see how expressing skepticism - whether that skepticism is justified or not - constitutes a "contribution" to the field.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or how about Dr. Don Batten whose contributions I highlighted already for you? (search the thread)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK. I'll search the thread. And I'll make two predictions about what I'll find: (1) no significant contribution, i.e. nothing that will ever find its way into a textbook as a notable scientific advance and (2) whatever practical or technical contributions he may claim do not owe anything to creationist theory, or to rejecting evolution.

                  Oh, and

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have not changed my argument.  What in the world are you talking about?  Did you not read ANY of my long post this morning?  What part of that post did you not understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The part where you explained how anything other than atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with the carbon in carbon dating.
                  Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 17 2006,11:49

                  Quote (Seven Popes @ Nov. 16 2006,18:08)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood,one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That, Dave.  
                  That's the bit they pulled out of their ass.
                  Why are you repeating failed arguments?  We Just fisked this rubbish 2 pages ago.
                  Oh, that's right.
                  This is all you have.
                  Sorry it's rubbish.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave has presented an excellent argument - for not believing that the flood was the major source of fossil fuel!

                  AFDaves argument is argumentum ad absurdum, he just lacks the wit to recognize the absurdity.  There is NO way the biosphere could support 500 times more life than it does now (the absurdity).  Hence, the premise is flasified (that the carbon came from a biosphere buried in a flood).  :p
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 17 2006,11:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
                  Improvius ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Creationists assume everything in the Bible is literally accurate.  Scientists do not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong.  They OBSERVE that the Bible is literally accurate.  First they read it.  Then they observe the EVIDENCE from science, extra-biblical history and archaeology.  Then they CONCLUDE that it is accurate.  You've got it turned around backwards.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I've been observing this "debate" from an objective, outside perspective.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm not a scientist, and I'm not a creationist.

                  So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.  You are the one who has this exactly backwards.  You are the one making the ridiculous assumptions.  When pressed for evidence, you throw out even more assumptions.

                  I'm not seeing any bias against religion here.  I'm seeing bias against ignorance and deceit.  Congratulations, Dave, you have done a great job in convincing me that your position is utterly ridiculous.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,11:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
                  No Mike--  This is what Brown does ...  you are wrong.  He is basically saying that ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)  Conventional C14 dating requires roughly constant C14 and C12 levels throughout earth history -- this is a horribly mistaken assumption -- not just a minor problem that needs a little calibration -- it's gigantically mistaken
                  2)  There is quite clear evidence that carbon inventories were much higher prior to the flood -- 100X modern levels is a conservative estimate < http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm >
                  3)  Thus the C14/C12 ratio would have been much smaller pre-Flood.  
                  4)  If one does the calculations with reasonable assumptions, one finds that 30,000 and 40,000 year old dates shrink to within the 6000 year Biblical timeframe. Calculations shown here.
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/17056.htm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ummmm.....
                  Dave, your reference in point 2 is titled;
                  CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
                  Paul Giem, M.A., M.D.
                  Loma Linda, California
                  < (here's the web reference, not the pdf) >

                  Interesting that he cites Brown's 1979 paper and I have DEBUNKED Brown's conclusions.

                  So..... I have now DEBUNKED this fine doctor's work also.

                  Why don't you give him a call and come up with a new reason to assume carbon content, because Brown's reason is ALL WASHED UP.

                  Also, since Brown's < calculations > are also based on his 1979 paper, THESE CALCULATIONS ARE ALSO DEBUNKED.

                  I like the sound of that word.  Say it about 10 times over and it has a rythym.

                  DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED.

                  (p.s.  I changed your references in your quote to the .htm web page instead of the .pdf)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,11:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,11:39)
                  Russell...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Heretofore, it was a [presumed] massive discontinuity in pre- and post- "Flood" carbon in the biosphere. But that didn't help with how this carbon equilibrated with living things without generating toxic CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have not changed my argument.  What in the world are you talking about?  Did you not read ANY of my long post this morning?  What part of that post did you not understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Russell's assuming you've changed your argument because your previous argument didn't work. Your whole argument, that the sum total of carbon on the planet (which you think all accumulated in 1,500 years, despite the overwhelming evidence that it has existed on earth for over four billion years) somehow dilutes the amount of C14 incorporated into living tissues, is just as dead and buried as all those fossil hydrocarbons. Now you're saying that the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere started at zero 6,000 years ago, when the universe was poofed into existence, gradually increased to some higher but unspecified level at the time of the "flood," then suddenly decreased due to some unspecified mechanism after the flood.

                  Need I say that this argument is just as wrong, broken, and unsupported by evidence as every other argument you've made here, Dave?

                  Scientists don't "ignore" the evidence for a young earth and a Noachian "flood." There is no evidence for either one to be ignored in the first place.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2006,12:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,11:39)
                  What part of that post did you not understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, I just keep wondering how your argument is substantively different from < this one >:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This seems to be your version of the scientific method:
                  1) Make a wild-assed unsupportable assertion.
                  2) Superficially review the available data on the subject.
                  3) Reject everything found in Step 2.
                  4) Make shit up, and provide links to others who've done so.
                  5) Declare VICTORY
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2006,12:15

                  And another thing...

                  I assume that a linear foot is not equal to 12 inches. I know you don't believe that, but bear with me. Try to use your imagination.  I assume that a foot is equal to one meter.  This means that I am nearly 20 feet tall. Understand? There were giants in the earth in those days, you know. This explains it. Don't we have to make assumptions sometimes?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,12:26

                  Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2006,13:03)
                  Well, I just keep wondering how your argument is substantively different from < this one >:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heretic,
                  You must repent and reject the FSM.  Here's the evidence.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  what’ll really nip yer noodle is when you research the archeological records, using the rules of admissable evidence, only to find that FSM is really the the evil anti-pasta!

                  the One True Creator is Croxetti the < ONE TRUE PASTA > and His Holy Spirit-n-cheese-filled son Ravioli. you can see the imprint of The Creator on every croxetti and the shape of the Father in the Son, ravioli.

                  FSM is a fraud. he is the evil anti-pasta. awake, repent, and turn from your noodly ways while there is yet time.

                  if you do not believe in the One True Croxetti Ravioli and His Holy Prophet, Chef Boyardi, you are all infidels and shall be slaughtered for sauce on the great day of divino pranzo!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And.....  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  repent, ye pastafarians! the final supper is near!
                  it the strategy of He who fills me with Unassailable Fair and Balanced Pastafarian Truth!

                  i am a devout Pastafarian like anyone else, but as it’s been noted, every True Religion includes SMITINGS … something FSM has never expoused … also, no True Religion is true unless there are Warring Factions … something else that FSM has dodged until now.

                  the CRS (Croxetti, Raviolli, Secret Sauce Filling {or just Sauce, for short}) is the True Pastafarian religion. CRS is to FSM as Islam is to Christianity. we believe most of the things FSM believes, only we have a little bit more Truth. however, we improve on all of those by melding together trinitarianism, onanism, and strict monotheism into one yummy bite-sized, microwaveable package.

                  FSM just can’t beat the CRS for price, value, convenience, flavor, and truthiness!

                  don’t be a mushy-minded pastafarian! examine the overwhelming anectodal evidence! decide for yourself!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  we will all be gulped down and eaten by death and the grave. many of us, without so much as a good chewing. others, after many many decades of backbreaking work and daily chewing by every parent and boss on the planet.

                  so clearly, the final supper is near. but the question is, whose plate are you on?

                  we are the only True Pastafarians of the CRS. you have not heard of us, perhaps, because we have not sold out to the cold, crass, commercialism of the False Pastafarian FSM sect. we are the true descendants and inheritors of All Doughy Deity; yes, we have omnipotent diversionary power of ADD on our side!

                  to believers, CRS is shorthand for CURES, because CRS is for U and E, for Everyone.

                  to infidels, CRS is shorthand for CURSE, because it is the curse of the fallacious flimsy FSM.

                  for the magnanimous, these small matters matter in matters of material magnitude.

                  remember, the truer the Truth the harder it is to pronounce. true truth is never quite as rhyming and slick as those diabolical FSM noodly counterfeits! In the name of Croxetti, Ravioli, and Sauce, amen!

                  Smiting! Warring Factions! The Pastafarian End Times are near! Whose plate are you on?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,12:28

                  Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2006,12:03)
                  5) Declare VICTORY
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is the part Dave is best at.

                  He still thinks he won the Portuguese debate, despite the fact that he's the only one here out of dozens of posters and lurkers who thinks he won it, and despite the fact that "Portuguese moment" has entered the local vernacular as a term describing a moment when someone makes an absolutely absurd and utterly unsupportable assertion, which is then immediately torn to shreds and rendered to gibbets in a matter of seconds by essentially everyone else on the thread.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,12:42

                  Russell..  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nope. Can't say as I have. Was this, in fact a significant contribution to science that actually depended on a creationist premise?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You didn't say anything about creationist premises.  Now that I have shown you several examples of what you asked for here ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The challenge still stands. Show me one scientific contribution by a YECer in the past 100 years in a field that has anything remotely to do with biology . Just one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... now you want "creationist premises" also, huh?  Classy!  Well it so happens that at least TWO of the examples I gave you DO depend on a creationist premise ... Dr. Ian Macreadie and virology, and Dr. Porter and his work with the human spine.  Also, Dr. Porter's quote shows the harmful effect on fruitful research that ToE presuppostions have.  Some of the others may also ... it will be fun to investigate this more fully.  Thanks for the question.

                  You need to disabuse yourself of the nonsensical notion that somehow evolutionary thinking produces fruitful research.  Please give me an example.  And don't try to use   micro-evolutionary theory.   This is common ground already between Evos and Creos.

                  The fact remains that explanations of Origins--ToE or creationist--are necessarily BOTH philosophical in nature.  We cannot prove what really happened because it is not repeatable science.  We were not there to observe it.  So you need to understand that most scientific contributions have NOTHING TO DO WITH either the Creationist or the ToE explanation of Origins.  Most scientific contributions come from good observation of phenomena and repeatable, testable science.

                  Jim Wynne and Tracy--  Try to engage my points directly instead of blowing your mouths off.  You'll sound a lot more intelligent.

                  Improvius ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I've heard you and several of your cohorts here say this kind of thing often, yet you cannot seem to come up with anything coherent that shows specifically HOW and WHY I'm full of crap.

                  The devil is in the details, Improv.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,12:44

                  Oh Dave,
                  Another DEBUNKING for you.  The good doctor I indicated above.
                  CARBON-14 CONTENT OF FOSSIL CARBON
                  Paul Giem, M.A., M.D.
                  Loma Linda, California
                  < http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm >
                  At the end of his essay he says...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  FURTHER STUDY CAN PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE AGE OF LIFE ON EARTH

                     The data we have at present, although they are most easily interpreted as against a long age for life on Earth, cannot prove a short age. Even more data cannot prove either a short or a long age. First, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about any data, present or future. Proof is elusive in science. It will always remain possible that the available data may be interpreted another way, or is inaccurate. For someone who doubts a short age for life on Earth on other empirical grounds, those doubts may outweigh the positive evidence noted above, or even outweigh further experimental evidences, although at some point the accumulated evidence regarding this phenomenon should outweigh other evidence if it is sufficiently corroborated.
                     Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters. The entire exercise of science then degenerates into an attempt to find evidence to support one's philosophical position, and science ceases to be a search for truth. Then the above data are not allowed to teach anything, and are simply utilized for the sake of argument, or else discounted in an attempt to prevent their use by someone with an opposing view.
                     For anyone who is seriously considering both a long age and a short age of life on Earth, the above data support the latter and argue against the former. Additional experiments may further support a short age, or change that picture. In either case further experiments can become important, as they help one make an important choice in one's worldview.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So tell me Dave.  Point to the SPECIFIC conclusions reached in this paper that support your contention of a short age of the earth.  You can't use the paper to PROVE a short age of the earth as the author indicates.

                  Please quote and reference these SPECIFIC conclusions from the paper.  Don't just hold the paper up and say "See, this PROVES it."  The good doctor himself says that the paper needs additional evidence to even support his position in the paper.
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 17 2006,12:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,13:42)
                  Improvius ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I've heard you and several of your cohorts here say this kind of thing often, yet you cannot seem to come up with anything coherent that shows specifically HOW and WHY I'm full of crap.

                  The devil is in the details, Improv.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I've got 292 pages and counting full of coherent evidence of your crap.  Whether or not you can recognize it is irrelevant.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,12:55

                  OK Dave. I've gone back and found Dr. Batten's stellar scientific contributions. You c&p'd:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. Batten’s research in floral induction of lychee and mango resulted in a complete overturning of previously accepted thought, which had been a big impediment to scientific progress in the field as well as a cause for economic loss caused by erratic flowering due to inappropriate management of these crops
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think you've pretty much proved my point.

                  How likely do you suppose it is that you, I, or anyone you know would ever have heard of this "breakthrough" if it were not advertised by AiG?

                  How likely do you suppose it is that you would have heard of any of the "creationist scientists" you dredged up, if AiG had not advertised them?

                  Get the point?

                  Now, let's try this exercise. There is no shortage of scientific breakthroughs in the past 100 years. Can you find a single one worthy of a mention in a c textbook, or a course you, I, or anyone you know has ever taken (Sunday school doesn't count), or even a (non-AiG) news article for which a creationist was responsible? Would you ever have heard of any on your list if your having heard of them depended on their scientific contributions, rather than their being advertised by AiG?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to disabuse yourself of the nonsensical notion that somehow evolutionary thinking produces fruitful research.  Please give me an example.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ever heard of Watson and Crick?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,13:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)
                  The fact remains that explanations of Origins--ToE or creationist--are necessarily BOTH philosophical in nature.  We cannot prove what really happened because it is not repeatable science.  We were not there to observe it.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's true, Dave, that scientists (not "evolutionists," not "Darwinists", but scientists in general) cannot prove the universe is exactly 13.7 billion years old.

                  However, those self-same scientists can, in fact, prove that a 6,000-year-old universe is an impossibility without appeal to multiple, ongoing miracles.

                  The mere existence of the Andromeda galaxy, all by itself, proves the impossibility of a 6,000 year old universe. You needn't have been present at the formation of the galaxy to know that.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you need to understand that most scientific contributions have NOTHING TO DO WITH either the Creationist or the ToE explanation of Origins.  Most scientific contributions come from good observation of phenomena and repeatable, testable science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And those observations almost without exception rule out the possibility of a universe only 6,000 years old. Not just the Theory of Evolution, Dave. Virtually every scientific theory, from quantum physics to chemistry to geology to astronomy to general relativity, provide evidence that the universe cannot possibly be only 6,000 years old.

                  Remember, Dave: we're not here to defend the Theory of Evolution. You're here to defend your UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis." Or have you forgotten about your "hypothesis"?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,13:06

                  Oh so you're wanting me to point you to some Nobel Prize winner or something?

                  Not likely.

                  Have you never heard of Dr. Raymond Damadian?

                  Invented the MRI but the Nobel prize for the MRI went to two other guys.  Why would that be I wonder?

                  Surely wouldn't have anything to do with Damadian being an open creationist, now, would it?

                  Michael Ruse said "I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs." (M.Ruse, "The Nobel Prize in Medicine -- was There a Religious Factor in This Year's (Non) Selection?"  Metanexus Online Journal, March 16, 2004.)
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2006,13:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)
                  Please give me an example.  And don't try to use   micro-evolutionary theory.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 17 2006,13:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,14:06)
                  Invented the MRI but the Nobel prize for the MRI went to two other guys.  Why would that be I wonder?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,13:17

                  Russell...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to disabuse yourself of the nonsensical notion that somehow evolutionary thinking produces fruitful research.  Please give me an example.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ever heard of Watson and Crick?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  Remember, I was the one that shared with YOU Crick's definition of biological information.  How did ToE (which at that time was essentially RM+NS, which is now dead according to Allen MacNeill) help them?

                  Link for Allen MacNeill comment below ...

                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014 >

                  *****************************************

                  Russell--  I have such fun refuting you!!  Thanks for the privilege!!
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 17 2006,13:27

                  I never understand why comics, given all the complaining about the shrinking size in the newspaper, are published on the web in the same tiny, hardly readable size.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,13:29

                  Improv...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??  How do you explain that Ruse (and atheist and no friend of creationists) says that in the eyes of the Nobel committee, "It is bad enough that such people [creationists] exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach."??  How do you explain that Lauterbur's own notes indicate that he was inspired by Damadian's work in his landmark 1971 paper in Science?

                  This just illustrates starkly how close minded you are to the truth, Improvius.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,13:32

                  Are you going to deal with Andromeda sometime this decade, Dave? And don't say it's not on-topic. It is directly on-topic. All of your claims depend on the earth being ~6,000 years old. The existence of Andromeda is enough to kill that assumption, and therefore kill your entire "hypothesis."

                  So deal with it.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,13:37



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell--  I have such fun refuting you!!  Thanks for the privilege!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  HA! What have you ever "refuted"?
                  Do you think you've come up with a single scientific advance worthy of the name for which a creationist can claim credit? I don't. Do you think that you, I, or anyone you know would ever have heard of any of your "breakthroughs" - except through AiG? I don't.

                  Watson and Crick were looking for a molecular structure that would could encode information and be compatible with heritability of mutation. Do you contend that ToE was not central in guiding their thinking?
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2006,13:37

                  Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 17 2006,13:27)
                  I never understand why comics, given all the complaining about the shrinking size in the newspaper, are published on the web in the same tiny, hardly readable size.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That was my fault I should have provided a link: < Jesus & Mo >
                  Posted by: tfordon on Nov. 17 2006,13:41

                  So, if I understand your position Dave, everything that was buried by the flood should have roughly the same C14/C12 ratio.  Additionally, that ratio should be extremely low.  Would it be fair to say that all pre-flood organic material should look older than 50,000?

                  If the above is true, and you have no problem with C14 dating for post flood events, how could carbon-dating ever yield dates between 10,000 and 40,000 years?
                  Posted by: Trogdor on Nov. 17 2006,13:58

                  >Decloak<

                  Another lurker here. I've read this thread since the beginning-first, tremendous kudos to all the regulars here who spend so much time refuting the utter, utter *GARBAGE* that AFDave spews.

                  AFDave: You are an arrogant, narcissistic poser. Your arguments (such that they are) all boil down to: "Well it *must* be true, because *I* think it is". It's been very, very obvious all through this very long thread that the only opinion that matters to you is your own. Which brings me to the question: Why are you here?

                  Everyone can see that you are *not* here to learn, or be persuaded about the evidence for the correctness of the TOE. Are you looking for converts? Do you get brownie points for manufacturing a hostile situation and then taking one on the chin for Xtians? If you represent what the Xtian god wants for behaviour in his followers then I, for one, want NO part of him.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,14:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do you think you've come up with a single scientific advance worthy of the name for which a creationist can claim credit?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually, Damadian might be the "exception that proves the rule". (I worked at SUNY-Brooklyn, where he had done that work). And there may, in fact, be a case to be made that prejudice inspired by his creationist notoriety prevented wider recognition of his work; it certainly didn't help.

                  But the fact remains: that work has nothing to do with evolution, micro- or macro-, and is all about physics.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2006,14:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,13:29)
                  Improv...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??  How do you explain that Ruse (and atheist and no friend of creationists) says that in the eyes of the Nobel committee, "It is bad enough that such people [creationists] exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach."??  How do you explain that Lauterbur's own notes indicate that he was inspired by Damadian's work in his landmark 1971 paper in Science?

                  This just illustrates starkly how close minded you are to the truth, Improvius.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're simply re-phrasing this
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp >

                  but there you go.

                  It's a hard old world out there. If I went to a job interview and talked about FSM and his noodly appendeges, quite rightly they'd think I was a loon. Same applies to people who think the world is 6000 years old - not supported by evidence and not only that but it's an idea that only has relevance if you are a xinthian.
                  As much as you'd like to think this is persecution, it's not, it's simply chaff/wheat seperation in action.
                  Your "goddit" meme is dying out. If it was not, then you'd have no need to be here would you? Refining your "arguments" (wrong word for what you spout, but...)so no doubt so you can "refute" any questions those 10 year olds ask you in your "class of bullshit".

                  Hey, I invented a new type of Laser, but the holocaust also didnt happen. What's that, dont want to hear about my laser? Why not? Aw....
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,14:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,13:29)
                  Improv...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, how did Dr. Damadian's creationist beliefs inform his research into developing the MRI? There are creationist scientists out there (and, strangely, large numbers of engineers, for some reason) who do creditable work in their field, but that field is never biology, and obviously never evolutionary biology. What Russell, and Improv, and others, are looking for are scientists whose work is of at least national repute, who do work in areas that impinge directly on biology (not medicine, not electrical engineering, not biochemistry, not materials science, but biology) whose work is directly informed by creationist thought, and whose work could not have been done if they were not creationists.

                  Think you can handle that assignment? Because one can certainly invent a transistor and be a creationist at the same time. One cannot do credible work in paleontology and be a creationist.
                  Posted by: improvius on Nov. 17 2006,14:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,14:29)
                  Improv...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??  How do you explain that Ruse (and atheist and no friend of creationists) says that in the eyes of the Nobel committee, "It is bad enough that such people [creationists] exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach."??  How do you explain that Lauterbur's own notes indicate that he was inspired by Damadian's work in his landmark 1971 paper in Science?

                  This just illustrates starkly how close minded you are to the truth, Improvius.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, it just means I'm not as quick to judge as you are.  I don't have my mind made up yet.  As far as I can tell, the work done by the 2 men who won the award was, in fact, superior to Damadian's.

                  Certainly, it was possible that he was excluded for his beliefs.  But, from what I can tell from reading the wikipedia information, it also seems possible that he was excluded for other reasons.

                  But please, feel free to bring more evidence.

                  Also, describing Michael Ruse as "no friend of creationists" may be somewhat inaccurate...
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,14:51

                  AFDAVE NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT REFERENCE TO CORROBERATE R.H.BROWN'S ASSERTION THAT THERE WAS 1.0% CO2 CONCENTRATION IN THE PRE-DILUVIAN ATMOSPHERE!!!
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 17 2006,12:32)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
                  Mike ... silly statements like this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Give me a reference, even a Bible reference, for the CO2 concentration number.

                  Post it here.  I know your so good at C&P.  Nothing complicated, just a statement justifying the choice of 1.0% CO2 concentration in the pre-diluvian atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... will not help your already-damaged credibility.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So......
                  You don't have a reference?
                  Is that what I hear you saying?

                  And please post a reference where my credibility was damaged?

                  Please (see, I said the magic word).

                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Still waiting for that reference Dave.

                  You have anything for me today?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 17 2006,14:55

                  Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 17 2006,14:37)
                  Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 17 2006,13:27)
                  I never understand why comics, given all the complaining about the shrinking size in the newspaper, are published on the web in the same tiny, hardly readable size.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That was my fault I should have provided a link: < Jesus & Mo >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The link you provided was much better. Mostly I was thinking generally about several comics I read daily, like Doonesbury. I use a browser plug-in to magnify them so I can read them. It's a very stupid situation. The worst I've seen, though is how Slate posts Jeff Danziger cartoons. Low-resolution scans of thin-lined text which makes for an illegible image.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 17 2006,16:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Investigating Past Climate and the Environment Through Ice Cores
                  Records from a variety of sources (e.g., instrumental records, historical documents, deep-sea and continental sediments, tree rings, and ice cores) provide the basic boundary conditions (e.g., sea surface temperature, precipitation and atmospheric circulation patterns) necessary for robust environmental reconstructions. However, ice core records provide the most direct, detailed, and complete measure of past climate change;

                  …Ice core records provide detailed descriptions of climate change that are extremely valuable for comparison with modern observations. Further, they document not only a wide range of environmental parameters that are both measures of and responses to climate change (e.g., atmospheric chemistry and circulation, temperature, precipitation) but also many of the causes of climate change (e.g., solar variability, volcanic activity, greenhouse gases). Because of their high resolution (sub-annual), long time span (several glacial cycles) and precise dating (annual), they also provide a framework for interpreting other records of past climate.

                  … GISP2, along with its European companion project GRIP (Greenland Ice Core Program), developed the longest (110,000 years ) high resolution paleoenvironmental record available from the northern hemisphere. Based on the comparison of electrical conductivity and oxygen isotope series between the two cores (Grootes et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993), at least the upper 90% of these cores display extremely similar, if not absolutely equivalent records. The current best estimate of the age at this depth (~2800 meters) is ~110,000 years, based on a combination of multi-parameter annual layer counting (Alley et al., 1993; Meese et al., 1994a, 1997) and measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios (&#61540;18O) of atmospheric O2 calibrated with the Vostok ice core (Bender et al., 1994). Maximum error estimates in the dating are quite remarkable: 1% for the last 3,500 years, 2% to 40,000 years , 10% to 57,000 years and 20% at 110,000 years (Alley et al., 1993; Sowers, et al, 1993; Meese et al., 1994a, 1994b, 1997). Agreement between the GISP2 and GRIP ice cores (separated by 30 km or ~10 ice thicknesses) over the record period of the last ~110,000 years provides strong support for the climatic origin of even the minor features of these records and implies that investigations of subtle environmental signals can be rigorously pursued.

                  … dust profile measured by laser-light scattering has revealed that the dust concentration in the core is modulated by an 11-year period back to 100,000 years before present. These modulations are believed to be a result of solar energy flux changes associated with the 11-year solar cycle which affects the aridity of dust source regions. The effect is very strong, particularly during the Wisconsinan, where fivefold changes in dust concentration occur over a single 11-year cycle (Ram et al., 1997; Figure 4).

                  …Changes in the flux of ice-rafted detritus, &#61540;18O of foraminifera shells, and the abundance of climate-sensitive foraminifera, as recorded in deep sea sediments, indicate that … The larger of these Heinrich events has a characteristic recurrence in the marine record of 5000-10,000 years. The Dansgaard/Oeschger rapid climate change events, which were first identified in ice cores, are also observed in marine record (Bond et al., 1993; Bond and Lotti, 1995; Cortijo et al., 1995).

                  …Abrupt changes in atmospheric circulation patterns and precipitation regime are recorded over eastern Asia in a thick sequence of wind-deposited loess from central China (Porter and An, 1995). Records of alpine glacier fluctuations, mountain snowlines and paleo-vegetation in the Andes reveal climate fluctuations that are similar to events in the Greenland ice cores (Lowell et al., 1995).

                  …New advances in paleoclimate reconstruction also come from the tropics. For example, a 30,000-year-long paleotemperature record from lowland Brazil suggests a cooling of as much as 5oC (Stute et al., 1995), which contrast with earlier estimates from marine cores which limit cooling to < 3oC (CLIMAP Members, 1981). Further, an ice core from the Andes suggests reduced water vapor content during the Younger Dryas (Thompson et al., 1995). These new findings have stimulated examination of other tropical paleoclimate records and renewed investigations into climate forcing related to the hydrological cycle that is tied to changes in the tropics.

                  …Also, &#61540;18O in the GISP2 core is coherent with both the ice-core 10Be time-series and with the tree-ring record of atmospheric 14C (Stuiver et al, 1995; Figure 11). Remarkably, the series are coherent not only in phase but also in amplitude, providing what is probably the best evidence to date for the elusive sun-climate relationship, a subject of debate for more than a century.

                  …The detection of the solar cycle in dust concentrations and geochemical data may not only provide information about the sun-climate relationship, but can be used to improve ice core chronologies. It is possible to detect the 11-year cycle in 10Be at some low-accumulation-rate sites where annual stratigraphy is not preserved (Steig et al., 1998). Measurement of the "11-year" layer thickness can be used as an independent check on flow-model estimates of layer thickness and to estimate past accumulation rates, or to provide a direct, layer-counted chronology.

                  …Findings from the GISP2 ice core suggest that the Toba eruption (largest eruption of the last 500,000 years, occurring about 71,000 years ago) may have been a driving force leading to several centuries of cold climatic conditions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < VolcanicEvents - BiomassBurning >

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Lake Suigetsu is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan. A 75-m long continuous core was taken from the center of the lake. The sediments are characterized by dark-coloured clay with white layers due to spring season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin, sub-millimeter scale laminations or "varves". Based on observation of varve thickness change, we expect that the annually laminated sediment records the palaeoenvironmental changes during the past 100 ka.

                  This sequence of annually laminated sediments not only forms a unique continuous palaeoenvironmental record after the last interglacial but also permits us to reconstruct a complete C-14 calibration extending back to at least 45 ka BP, and probably even more by means of combined isotope enrichment and AMS C-14. We have performed AMS C-14 measurements on more than 250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments from lake Suigetsu.
                  Minimum age of the earth = 45,000 years based on this data.

                  Note that the climatological information from the varves matches that from dendrochronology for the period of overlap. Note further that this is beyond (and thus confirms) the dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago.

                  Now we have a problem for some people, because we now have confirmed the existence of people back before the supposed biblical beginning of the world according to the "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) model, and we have hardly begun to get into the Hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth.

                  Finally, note that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm#varve >
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 17 2006,16:23

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Portuguese moment" has entered the local vernacular as a term describing a moment when someone makes an absolutely absurd and utterly unsupportable assertion,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  Have to agree.  Happens a lot around here as it did that fateful day long ago for Rilke's Granddaughter (bless her soul).

                  Mike PSS [quoting Dr. Giem, thinking he is refuting me] ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  FURTHER STUDY CAN PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE AGE OF LIFE ON EARTH

                    The data we have at present, although they are most easily interpreted as against a long age for life on Earth, cannot prove a short age. Even more data cannot prove either a short or a long age. First, there are legitimate questions that can be raised about any data, present or future. Proof is elusive in science. It will always remain possible that the available data may be interpreted another way, or is inaccurate. For someone who doubts a short age for life on Earth on other empirical grounds, those doubts may outweigh the positive evidence noted above, or even outweigh further experimental evidences, although at some point the accumulated evidence regarding this phenomenon should outweigh other evidence if it is sufficiently corroborated.
                    Second (and less legitimately), if a short (or a long) age for life on Earth is philosophically ruled out, no amount of evidence matters. The entire exercise of science then degenerates into an attempt to find evidence to support one's philosophical position, and science ceases to be a search for truth. Then the above data are not allowed to teach anything, and are simply utilized for the sake of argument, or else discounted in an attempt to prevent their use by someone with an opposing view.
                    For anyone who is seriously considering both a long age and a short age of life on Earth, the above data support the latter and argue against the former. Additional experiments may further support a short age, or change that picture. In either case further experiments can become important, as they help one make an important choice in one's worldview.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How you think this refutes anything I have said, I will never know.  I repost this because here is a good example of an honest, credible researcher who has done good work, but admits that he is not infallible.  Some of you should follow his example.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watson and Crick were looking for a molecular structure that would could encode information and be compatible with heritability of mutation. Do you contend that ToE was not central in guiding their thinking?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Heritability of mutation?  Most people I know want to AVOID inheriting mutations.  You would too if you understood that mutations are BAD and can in no way serve as the engine for macroevolution.  Please explain how in the world ToE was central in guiding their thinking?  I understand they are hard core Evos--that's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking how in the world ToE helped them discover the structure of DNA?

                  tfordon...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I understand your position Dave, everything that was buried by the flood should have roughly the same C14/C12 ratio.  Additionally, that ratio should be extremely low.  Would it be fair to say that all pre-flood organic material should look older than 50,000?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ah, finally ... someone who is thinking ... it gets quite boring listening to the goofy insults and bad logic.  I would guess in general that it is low, yes.  I have noted here before that coal and diamonds--which supposedly is millions of years old, consistently has measurable (albeit low) C14 --in the range of 0.1 - 0.5 pMC.  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If the above is true, and you have no problem with C14 dating for post flood events, how could carbon-dating ever yield dates between 10,000 and 40,000 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It cannot.  The only reason anyone should even try would be if we had historical records back that far, or we knew for certain that conditions have been uniform throughout earth history, neither of which, of course, is the case.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But the fact remains: that work [Damadian's MRI work] has nothing to do with evolution, micro- or macro-, and is all about physics.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You asked for creationist scientists who have contributed to science in something remotely related to biology.  If you don't think that building a machine to detect the difference between healthy and cancerous tissue is remotely related to biology, then you need more help than I think you do.
                  Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 17 2006,16:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)

                  Jim Wynne and Tracy--  Try to engage my points directly instead of blowing your mouths off.  You'll sound a lot more intelligent.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  FYI noting that the earth cannot support 500 (or 176 to choose another number from the YEC nonsense) more times the life than it does is not "blowing my mouth off".  It is a simple fact.  It is up to you to demonstrate why this is even remotely feasible in order to use the "fact" that the fossil carbon was buried all at once in Ye Floode.

                  A: You can't. Please try, though - we need more entertainment and self-contradiction.

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)

                  Improvius ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I've heard you and several of your cohorts here say this kind of thing often, yet you cannot seem to come up with anything coherent that shows specifically HOW and WHY I'm full of crap.

                  The devil is in the details, Improv.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Metaphysician, heal thyself!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 17 2006,17:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,17:23)
                  How you think this refutes anything I have said, I will never know.  I repost this because here is a good example of an honest, credible researcher who has done good work, but admits that he is not infallible.  Some of you should follow his example.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You still won't admit anything will you?  Here's a quick C14 comparison between someone publishing in Radiocarbon magazine and R.H.Brown.

                  A site of an old campfire is found.  The geologic layer of the new site is correlated to another campfire/waste pit site 10 miles away that has been investigated 15 years before with published results.

                  R.H.Brown AND the Radiocarbon researcher would sample the charcoal and test for the C14/C12 ratio.  Everyone agrees on the ratio so far.  This is where science and R.H.Brown part company.

                  The Radiocarbon researcher investigates the findings at the older site first which were C14 tested AND cross-correlated with painted clay shards that have an independent historical tracking (built up over the last 145 years for this region)with an age result at 8,500±380 YBP .  The clay shard style was estimated to fit a date range from 8,800 to 7,900 YBP because of a certain edge fluting found on the shards.  The paint on the clay shards was examined (gas chromatograph) and found to contain a dye mix from a verified site 50 miles away (researched 20 years ago).  The dye site was active from 8,700 to 8,400 YBP.  So the Radiocarbon researcher has a geologic column link to another site, and independent dating methods that verified the older sites age.

                  When the Radiocarbon researcher looks at the new site C14 result he finds a first age of 8,750±400 YBP.  He then corrects the result for this regions atmospheric correction for this time range (published and available) and comes up with an initial corrected age of 8,600±300 YBP.  He then samples the geologic column at, above and below the new site AND grabs samples from the same representative layers at the older site too.  He does a chemical constituent test and finds that the strata above the old and new site shows elevated Si readings while the strata below the old and new site show elevated Ca levels.  The results are consistent so he uses another correlation factor for the date result that relates to the pottery shards at the old site.  This adjusts the date downward to 8,550±280 YBP.  He concludes that this campsite was used by travellers infrequently but linked to the older site.  He publishes his results.

                  Meanwhile, R.H.Brown takes the C14 result and plugs the ratio into his derived formulae that you have been flashing at us.  R.H.Brown gets an age of 3,750 YBP.  All is well in his world with this "adjusted" date.  R.H.Brown then points to the Radiocarbon published results and says "Your Wrong."

                  WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?  R.H.BROWN OR THE RADIOCARBON RESEARCHER?
                  **************************
                  You see Dave,
                  I refuted Brown because he doesn't correlate or cross-check or independently verify ANYTHING.  He throws numbers around and tries to make them stick.

                  The only reason R.H.Brown and others say they can't "PROVE" anything is because they never look at all the available evidence.  Their worldview is skewed so that they have to actually IGNORE whole swaths of published findings.

                  R.H.BROWN AND HIS WHOLE BUNCH OF PRE-DILUVIAN CARBON HAS BEEN REFUTED.

                  Dave, You can try and prove me wrong by posting one, ONE, JUST ONE independent reference that supports Mr. Brown's assertion that the pre-diluvian atmosphere contained 1.0% CO2.  Until you do this, your attempts to prove unassisted human flight with your handwaving is duly noted.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,17:19

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,16:23)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Portuguese moment" has entered the local vernacular as a term describing a moment when someone makes an absolutely absurd and utterly unsupportable assertion,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  Have to agree.  Happens a lot around here as it did that fateful day long ago for Rilke's Granddaughter (bless her soul).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, get a clue. You had your "Portuguese moment," not Rilke. You've also had your "Chimp moment," your "zircon moment," your "amoeba moment," your "Churchill moment," your "carbon moment," your "Grand Staircase moment," and others too numerous to mention.

                  I wonder if you seriously believe you won your "Portuguese" argument, or if you know you lost, but just can't admit it to anyone else. I suppose I'll never know.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If the above is true, and you have no problem with C14 dating for post flood events, how could carbon-dating ever yield dates between 10,000 and 40,000 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It cannot.  The only reason anyone should even try would be if we had historical records back that far, or we knew for certain that conditions have been uniform throughout earth history, neither of which, of course, is the case.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I cannot fathom your obsession with historical records. You have essentially admitted that you have no way of knowing which parts of the Bible are factually correct and which are not. You have no way of distinguishing between a factually-accurate historical account and a work of fiction that incorporates historical data into its narrative. Your claim that the Bible is the only conceivable method of determining history is flawed on numerous grounds. First, you have no way of knowing if the Bible is accurate without reference to external observation. Second, your belief that because some portions of the Bible can be authenticated as historically accurate, all of it must be accurate, is utterly illogical. Third, if you think the Bible authenticates observation, rather than the other way around, why do you even look at anything other than the Bible? It's already clear to everyone who's read this thread that you ignore any evidence (and that's a lotta evidence to ignore) that contradicts the Bible, and then claim there is no such evidence. Not an entirely convincing argument.

                  And you still haven't grasped the fact that there is no assumption about the constancy of, e.g., C14 ratios. The historical levels of C14 in the atmosphere are observations, not assumptions.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But the fact remains: that work [Damadian's MRI work] has nothing to do with evolution, micro- or macro-, and is all about physics.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You asked for creationist scientists who have contributed to science in something remotely related to biology.  If you don't think that building a machine to detect the difference between healthy and cancerous tissue is remotely related to biology, then you need more help than I think you do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you think that creationism has anything to do with the design of MRI machines, you need even more help that you think I think you do.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 17 2006,17:38

                  How odd AFD preaches.

                  And Hoists himself on ANOTHER petard.

                  His projection is in vivid wide screen Technicolor.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
                  Yes, this describes you (not just you--you collectively--you and your cohorts here at ATBC) perfectly.  You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel !!  You mislead the public and our schoolchildren.  You lie to them and tell them that Genesis is a fairy tale.  Then you act all smug and righteous.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  TA Daaa!

                  What an act AFD ...take a bow.
                  The crying clown on the empty stage, not a comedy a tragedy.
                  .
                  .
                  .
                  And like ALL his useless preaching on his non existent Flood we have an other pile of doggy doos.

                  He quotes a moral from his book that suggests those whose internal beliefs do not match their external beliefs are immoral. Or one who says one thing but actually thinks another is ungodly.

                  What Jesus is ACTUALLY saying is those who concern themselves with consumerism and material things in preference to honesty, truth and justice by keeping up appearances for the sake of appearances only, are immoral.

                  A typical rant, what else would you expect?

                  It looks like AFD is making a virtue out of lying and hypocrisy.

                  To keep up appearances of believing in THE UNBELIEVABLE or THE BIG LIE, first one must make the outside story match the internal story.

                  ***In AFD's mind this means making reality a lie.

                  AFD has enough reasoning ability to know that if the bible is not true, then god cannot be a true idea.

                  AFD's internal story:- "the bible, must be true real history and therefore there is a god"; the external world aka reality can then only be "the exact result of biblical history OTHERWISE NOTHING IS REAL."

                  AFD produce your evidence for a MASSIVE SPIKE of CO2 in the pre 5000 year atmosphere.

                  IF TRUE, you will find that CO2 spike in those Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years.

                  (sound of crickets chirping)

                  What you can't?

                  I thought so.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 17 2006,18:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Heritability of mutation?  Most people I know want to AVOID inheriting mutations.  You would too if you understood that mutations are BAD and can in no way serve as the engine for macroevolution.  Please explain how in the world ToE was central in guiding their thinking?  I understand they are hard core Evos--that's not what I'm asking.  I'm asking how in the world ToE helped them discover the structure of DNA?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If you've ever heard them speak about it, or if you were familiar with the field, you wouldn't need to ask such a dumb question. It's the ToE - and your distinction between "macro- and micro-" is meaningless to any practicing biologist - that led them to look for a structure that could (1) encode genetic information and (2) serve as template for its own replication. There is 0% chance a creationist would have been guided by that pair of constraints.

                  W/R/T Damadian: you're right. I didn't think you could come up with any significant development remotely related to biology that could be credited to a creationist. But Damadian definitely qualifies; I'll grant you that.

                  But you haven't refuted anything I've said. (If you think you have, kindly quote the statement you think you've refuted.)

                  You certainly have failed to provide any evidence for your contention that the creationist worldview is more conducive to productive science.

                  I doubt that you would even have heard of Damadian -let alone your "B-team"-  if it weren't for AiG trying to demonstrate the "exception that proves the rule" - i.e. that for any randomly chosen scientific advance worthy of notice, there's about a >99% chance the scientist responsible is not a creationist.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 17 2006,18:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,16:23)
                  Heritability of mutation?  Most people I know want to AVOID inheriting mutations.  You would too if you understood that mutations are BAD and can in no way serve as the engine for macroevolution.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is an utterly evidence-free assertion. You have never provided any evidence for the assertion, let alone demonstrated, that all mutations are harmful ("most" != "all"—are we clear on the distinction, Dave?). In fact, lest you've forgotten (and clearly you have), you've already admitted that the Milano APO-I mutation is, in fact, a beneficial mutation, and all you could add was the lame comment that there might be some conditions under which the mutation could, conceivably, at some point, become disadvantageous, along with some additional nonsense that it in some way resulted from a "loss of information."

                  While it's true that people would in general wish to avoid "bad" mutations, it is far from true that all mutations are "bad." For one thing, many, many mutations are entirely neutral. Can you think of a reason why anyone would be concerned about inheriting a neutral mutation?

                  I swear you think everyone here has no memory, Dave. I doubt anyone who engaged you on the Milano mutation issue has forgotten that you did, in fact, admit that the mutation was beneficial.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 17 2006,21:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  k.e.
                  And Hoists himself on ANOTHER petard.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  BTW in Shakespeare's day a petard was a form of crane for lifting things. It could also be translated into modern English as cock. (and handsaw was his spelling of harnser, a heron.)
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 17 2006,21:59

                  Re "Most people I know want to AVOID inheriting mutations."

                  And here I thought most people had a few coding-gene mutations and a few hundred non-coding DNA mutations, on average. Hmm.

                  Henry
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 17 2006,22:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW in Shakespeare's day a petard was a form of crane for lifting things. It could also be translated into modern English as cock. (and handsaw was his spelling of harnser, a heron.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I only recently discovered this meaning for < Petard > up until then I always thought it was a pike  and 'Hoist on one's own petard was to have ones severed head placed on a pike for public display'  as one of my High School teachers claimed.

                  Shakespearean punnery and word play is extremely clever and if a petard or a similar sounding word did mean a crane then even better. Thats why I liked my sig. the last line has 2 meanings.

                  Lifted by ones own crane has the image of someone winding the cranes windlass while roped to the the cranes lifting hook.

                  However, I am unable to find a refernce to that. Perhaps it might be in the OED? (NOT the one without the crane)
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 18 2006,00:34

                  I've always heard that expression refer to a petard as a small bomb, like a satchel charge, that was used to blow holes in defensive walls or gates.  It was employed by having the combat engineer run up to the gate, hand place the device, then light the fuse and run like he11.  If the fuse was too long, defenders could and would just run over and snuff it out.  To prevent this, the engineer would make the fuse as short as possible.  If the fuse was too short, KABOOM! while the poor guy was still standing there - hoist with his own petard i.e. blown skyward by his own weapon.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2006,06:52

                  i always thought it meant "by the braces". I guess my religious school prefered it that way :)

                  davey, explain < this >

                  9 Billion-Year-Old ‘Dark Energy’ Reported. NY Times.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The new results are based on observations of 23 supernovas that are more than eight billion years in the past, before dark energy came to dominate the cosmos.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  and this
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Instead, to their surprise, the two teams, one led by Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, and the other by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories in Australia, found that the universe was speeding up instead of slowing down.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  is the best one. You know why? They didnt expect that result, but accepted it as what their results were saying. They "expressed surprise". They did not "cover their eyes and ears and mouths and turn the pages of their bible faster and faster eventully deciding to burn the heretic". They got a result they were not expecting and dealt with it. It's called science. No "historical records" needed, except what was written in the sky 8 billion or so years ago that's there for all to see - no "translation" needed by "preists" that require "donations" so they can cover the ceilings with gold plate (ever been to the Vatican? The wallpaper alone would feed the poor!;). Always got their hands out, the bible thumpers.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 18 2006,08:54

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 18 2006,00:34)
                  I've always heard that expression refer to a petard as a small bomb, like a satchel charge, that was used to blow holes in defensive walls or gates.  It was employed by having the combat engineer run up to the gate, hand place the device, then light the fuse and run like he11.  If the fuse was too long, defenders could and would just run over and snuff it out.  To prevent this, the engineer would make the fuse as short as possible.  If the fuse was too short, KABOOM! while the poor guy was still standing there - hoist with his own petard i.e. blown skyward by his own weapon.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is the correct etymology of the phrase. Have a look < here >. The link is to the World Wide Words site authored by lexicographer and author Michael Quinion, and I've found it to be an eminently reliable source on English etymology.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 18 2006,14:42

                  *edit** links changed to be public links!
                  < Google notebook #1 I made of TaaardDave's "Portuguese Moment. >

                  < 2nd Notebook >

                  < Thread I made for Dave to respond >

                  For those who might have missed it the first time.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 18 2006,14:53

                  Hmmm. I just noticed, do the notebooks work for you curious readers or do you need to create a google account?

                  **edit**
                  I think I figured it out.
                  Do they work for people now?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 18 2006,16:42



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do they work for people now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Works for me!
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 18 2006,17:05

                  And here I always assumed a petard was another word for pecker...

                  I like my version better.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 18 2006,18:14

                  Oldman...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your "godidit" meme is dying out. If it was not, then you'd have no need to be here would you? Refining your "arguments" (wrong word for what you spout, but...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dying out, huh?



                  Perhaps you meant to say "Darwinism" is dying out?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 18 2006,18:39

                  ...Sigh.  Not just a schmoo, but a schmoron, a schmaroon!

                  Davey, no one was talking about the "financial performance" (thieving from the ignorant) of your particular little batch of nutters.

                  It's the dog meme on the whole that's in retreat, ever since the Renaissance.

                  Arf, arf.  :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2006,20:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 18 2006,18:14)
                  Oldman...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your "godidit" meme is dying out. If it was not, then you'd have no need to be here would you? Refining your "arguments" (wrong word for what you spout, but...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dying out, huh?

                  Perhaps you meant to say "Darwinism" is dying out?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where did you get the idea that finances have anything to do with the strength of a scientific theory, Dave? That young-earth creationism has a strong following among non-scientists (virtually all of whom are fundamentalist Christians, almost by definition) is nothing to be proud of. When your young-earth Creationist pals start getting papers published in Cell, Nature, Science, Scientific American, etc., you'll have something to brag about. In the meantime, the amount of money AiG has managed to pry out of fundamentalist Christian yahoos leaves me a bit unimpressed.
                  Posted by: Bing on Nov. 18 2006,20:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 18 2006,18:14)
                  Oldman...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your "godidit" meme is dying out. If it was not, then you'd have no need to be here would you? Refining your "arguments" (wrong word for what you spout, but...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dying out, huh?



                  Perhaps you meant to say "Darwinism" is dying out?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So what you're saying is that good ol' Ken has never read Matthew 21:12-13?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

                  13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Den of thieves, eh?  Must be, running a $14M a year business that masquerades as a church.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 18 2006,20:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Answers In Genesis is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), an organization that reviews the financial integrity of non-profit evangelical ministries...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Too bad they're not members of an organization that reviews their intellectual and scientific integrity.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 18 2006,20:54

                  A church?  You think AIG is a church?   No.  They are an organization who is making huge progress at eradicating pseudo-science from the world through grassroots education ...

                  Pseudo-science ... as in Darwinism ...
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 18 2006,21:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Too bad they're not members of an organization that reviews their intellectual and scientific integrity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You mean ... too bad they don't run their stuff by the Evolution Police at Science or Nature?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 18 2006,21:33

                  Correction:
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 18 2006,20:54)
                  A church?  You think AIG is a church?   No.  They are an organization who is making huge minimal progress at eradicating promoting pseudo-science from in the world U.S. through grassroots education ...

                  Pseudo-science ... as in Darwinism young-earth creationism ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 18 2006,22:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You mean ... too bad they don't run their stuff by the Evolution Police at Science or Nature?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. I mean they not only don't run their stuff by any knowledgeable critic, they leave garbage up for years at a time that is so egregiously wrong that any attentive high school biology student would know it's garbage.

                  AND, they collect millions of bucks from suckers they count on not to know the difference between science and garbage.

                  THAT's what I mean.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 19 2006,02:12

                  Wow davetard2 AiG is making gazillions from donations and it is not a church?

                  Well they are so sucessful google will be buying the 'flud based bible business' for billions right?

                  Quick tell the IRS to revoke its church status.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2006,05:43

                  Ok, riddle me this:

                  Can you name some people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old but are not religious? If the "evidence" is so strong for a 6000 year old earth you would have expected it to also have convinced non-christians also.
                  Can you name some self confessed athiests that also believe in a young earth? Or is the belief ALWAYS tied to religion (i.e only religion can blind you sufficiently to be able to accept a young earth)? Would that not tell you something very specific about your belief davey?

                  I suspect I already know the answer, and your expected silence on it will be answer enougth.

                  edit: oh, and why didnt you address the point of my earlier post, which was that 8 billion year old stars are being examined. Where is the flaw in their methodology? Was it pointing their scopes into the sky in the 1st place? Are you contending that these stars are also 6000 years old? why does your liar god make them appear so old? Why?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 19 2006,05:53

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No. I mean they not only don't run their stuff by any knowledgeable critic, they leave garbage up for years at a time that is so egregiously wrong that any attentive high school biology student would know it's garbage.

                  AND, they collect millions of bucks from suckers they count on not to know the difference between science and garbage.

                  THAT's what I mean.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This may come as a shock to you, but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.  And guess what?  Science isn't planning on removing them - EVER.

                  And let me tell you something about those "suckers."  They may not know all the fancy science language that you know, but they have the common sense to come in out of the rain, and they have the common sense to know when their kids are being sold a bill of goods with the Darwinian Myth.

                  The only reason that a false theory like Darwinism is surviving for so long is because the "Emperor" wearing the "new clothes" is still in the palace surrounded by his drones ... but the moment the Emperor goes out in public, the truth will be known ...

                  How long do you think it will take for the public to become informed with $3M a year (and growing) in anti-Evolution materials going out the door at AiG?  100,000 people a year attending teaching events?  AiG materials being translated into 70 languages?  300,000 people a year coming to the museum?

                  Maybe this is why Richard Dawkins is going on a rampage ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Godless Dawkins challenges schools
                  Steven Swinford
                  RICHARD DAWKINS, the Oxford University professor and campaigning atheist, is planning to take his fight against God into the classroom by flooding schools with anti-religious literature.[hmmm ... I wonder where he got  THAT idea!]

                  He is setting up a charity that will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs attacking the “educational scandal” of theories such as creationism while promoting rational and scientific thought.

                  The foundation will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of “missionaries” and church-based charities.

                  His plans are sparking criticism from academics, religious leaders and fellow scientists. The Church of England described them as “disturbing”, while others complained that Dawkins’s foundation bore the “whiff of a campaigning organisation” rather than a charity.

                  John Hall, dean of Westminster and the Church of England’s chief education officer, said: “I would be very disturbed if this project was going to be widely supported because it’s not based on reasoned argument.”

                  Dawkins, Oxford’s professor of the public understanding of science, is the author of various bestsellers extolling evolution, such as The Selfish Gene. His latest book, The God Delusion, is a sustained polemic against religious faith.

                  He established his foundation in both Britain and America earlier this year and is now applying for charitable status. It was founded in response to what he calls the “organised ignorance” that is promoting creationism, the belief that the Old Testament account of the origins of man is true. Another challenge comes in the form of “intelligent design”, the suggestion that life is the result of a guiding force rather than pure evolutionary natural selection.

                  “The enlightenment is under threat,” Dawkins said. “So is reason. So is truth. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organised ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.”[The sky is falling down!  God ... er ... the Force help us!  Can you imagine how awful it would be to live in a world where the most prominent scientist on the planet is a creationist??!!  Uh ... yes, Richard, I can ... we've done that before ... remember Newton? ... things worked out OK with him being a creationist, didn't they now?  The sky is not falling, Richard.  Calm down, Richard.]

                  Creationism is less widespread in Britain than in the US, but there is a growing movement lobbying to have it introduced as part of the national curriculum.[Yippee!  Go, Sir Peter, go!]

                  The Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Sir Peter Vardy, the Christian car dealer, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs. A spokesman for the foundation denied the claims. However, Steve Layfield, head of science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, is a director of Truth in Science, a Christian group campaigning to have “intelligent design” in science lessons.

                  Truth in Science has sent DVDs and educational materials to thousands of secondary schools to encourage them to debate intelligent design. Andy McIntosh, director at the organisation and professor of thermodynamics at Leeds University, said: “We are not flat-earthers. We’re just trying to encourage good scientific discussion.”

                  Dawkins, however, describes the theory as a “bronze-age myth” [He's so deluded that he doesn't even realize there's no such thing as a "bronze age."]and plans to send his own material to schools to counter the “subversion of science”.

                  He also plans to campaign against children being labelled with the religion of their parents. “It is immoral to brand children with religion,” he said. “This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everyone to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard that is a Marxist child.”

                  But Hall said: “The European convention on human rights is clear that parents have the right to bring up children within the faith they hold.”

                  Dawkins is also critical of donating money to religion-based charities, warning that pledges for disaster victims should not end up in the hands of “missionaries”. His foundation will maintain a database of charities free of “church contamination”.

                  Christian Aid, however, believes Dawkins is “tarring a lot of excellent charities with the same brush”. Dominic Nutt, a spokesman, said: “Many charities give aid only on the basis of need.”

                  Dawkins’s approach has also offended fellow scientists. Steven Rose, emeritus professor of biology at the Open University, said: “I worry that Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is — assumptions that he and I of course share.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   GO, Richard, go.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 19 2006,05:56

                  Oops ... forgot the link on the Dawkins article ...

                  < http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460338,00.html >
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2006,06:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 19 2006,05:56)
                  Oops ... forgot the link on the Dawkins article ...

                  < http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460338,00.html >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  so what is it you think will happen when AIG win? What different course will science take?

                  It seems to me that you already know all the answers, so what, would you just cancel all historical, archelogical, and universe history research? Once you get to teach Noah and his ark in science class what then? What are you trying to achieve? Is it simply more converts to your pathethic religion? Once you have them then what happens to science?

                  So, once you are teaching religion as science, whats your next step? Ban books? Burn the dis-belivers? Overturn the seperation of church and state? Ban abortion? Ban questioning religious authority? Punish affairs by stoning the women to death?

                  What exactly do you think you'll "win" by this course of action? Are you unhappy with the fruits of the scientific revolution? Do you want to go back to pre-enlightenment days when people thought that everything in the world around them was because of their relationship with dog? Throw another virgin in the volcano perhaps? Is that what you are after? Total worldwide ignorance?

                  What is it that you want davey? "stop teaching the lies of darwinism to the kids"? Is that all, or is there more to it then that? You want the truth to come out, what would the world look like? What difference to your average scientist would it make? I get the feeling it'd be like living under Nazi germany before too long - another good christian there (and dont for a   second tell us that he was an athiest, unless you want another portuguese moment rammed down your gullet).

                  Inquiring minds want to know. If you were running the world, what's different?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2006,06:14

                  afdave
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This may come as a shock to you, but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.  And guess what?  Science isn't planning on removing them - EVER.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is your basic mis-understanding. If you read each magazine in order of publication LATER ARTICLES WOULD SUPERCEDE THE OLDER ONES. I.E new information would refine and correct previous understandings. This is the basic difference between YOU and US. We allow new information to overturn and update previously held views. Your information is static and unchangable and was set 2000+ years ago.

                  CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE YET? CAN YOU SEE WHY YOU WILL FAIL?

                  As a matter of fact, this weeks "new scientist" magazine has half the magazine devoted to reprinting articles from the 1950's and up. So we can see, depending on the subject, how wrong we were (nuclear power a panacea for all) and how right we were (global warming). So you see, those "MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG" were the best attempt at the time to understand the issue. Of course, many if not most turned out to be wrong, but that's called science. Over time, your understanding increases and you develop better theorys. Unlike your lot, who stopped developing the moment you went to church to be indoctrinated.  Why search for answers about time=0 when you know FOR A FACT that goddit all along.

                  I get the impression from you that it would have been better had we not even tried. Then we'd all be sitting round herding sheep, and i'm sure you (your preists) would like that because there's nothing easier to control then a ignorant populace scared of divine retribution (usually for breaking "rules" that the preisthood has devised to protect their "power").

                  edit: You've also shown your inability to understand what an "archive" is for.  oh dear.

                  edit edit: oh, who goes to an "archive" to find out current information? Would you not expect it to be outdated? sheesh. And if we compare science's "archive" to AIG's current site, can there be a reasonable comparison? One is labeled an archive, one is what AIG are pushing as "truth" right now. Are you really so desperate to defend AIG that you'll compare outdated information in a archive to their current site? Your desperation is showing.
                  And, did they correct that false AIG article btw? Did they aplogise for misleading readers the past X years? I've seen plenty of "corrections" in new scientist magazing. Does that mean they are more honest then AIG? hmmm. If so, that would mean that these no doubt athiest scientists are more honest then the AIG lot despite not having a moral code handed down to them by gawd. And yet AIG's been directly commanded by gawd to be honest, and they are not following that commandment? Odd, dont you think, the religious dishonest man will not own up to his mistakes yet the amoral scientist prints "corrections" when required. Personally, i'm not surprised.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2006,06:55

                  sorry for the mutiple posts but



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  does this help or hinder you hypothesis davey?

                  < Lizard Evolution >
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 19 2006,08:13

                  dave, dave, dave...

                  I'm not at all worried about AiG converting science to their point of view. By all means... pour all your money into the effort.

                  I'll start to be concerned when I see the first YEC paper appear in a serious journal.

                  Meanwhile, I'm encouraged that when people actually bother to learn the details of what's going on in this "epic confrontation", creationists lose BIG time. I remind you of last year's Dover trial, and last week's < election >. Got any actual results to show for your millions of bucks?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Science isn't planning on removing them - EVER.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. To simply remove a published article, with no explanation, pretend it never was published... that's not the style of a legitimate journal. That would be more like, I don't know, North Korea*, or AiG.

                  What they do is publish corrections if the authors recognize significant mistakes in the data or text, retractions if the authors admit to serious error or outright fraud, or - most commonly - followup research, where models are refined or rejected based on new data.

                  But by all means - pull up an example of a Science article that was as wrong as, say, the chromosome fusion paper - or any other AiG piece you acknowledge to be wrong, and let's compare.

                  *I don't know if North Korean journalism standards are actually as bad as AiG's. To be perfectly honest, I'm only guessing, based on my perception that they are at least as bad as the Soviets.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2006,09:02

                  seems like Orwell's 1984 is daveys ideal world. Where you can reach back in time and expunge contradictory data like it never existed.

                  What do you suppose


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  means davey?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 19 2006,09:16



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What do you suppose
                  "If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
                  means davey?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, given davy's penchant for literalism, he might think it means Newton stumbled across a race of enormous humans, say 10 or 20 meters -quite possibly related to the historical Goliath. He was able to persuade them to let him stand on their shoulders, and as result, the perimeter of the horizon increased accordingly.

                  It's just common sense!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 19 2006,10:27

                  Interesting that Dave thinks "Darwinism" (which evidently includes quantum physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and cosmology as well as evolutionary biology) is "pseudoscience" even after it's been demonstrated to him, in no uncertain terms, that there are dozens of simple, straightforward questions about the world that his young-earth creationism can't answer. Obviously, since it's the middle of the month I'm not going to post those questions again, but I will post links to the multiple posts I needed just to list them all:

                  < Problems with biblical inerrancy >

                  < Problems with a young earth >

                  < Problems with Noah's ark and with genetic information >

                  < Problems with "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis" >

                  < More problems with the "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis >

                  < Problems with attempts to refute radiometric dating techniques >

                  Oh, Dave claims he's answered these questions. (Of course, he also thinks he "won" his "Portuguese" debate.) But I've repeatedly invited him to post permalinks to posts where he's answered them. What do you suppose Dave did with those requests? If you suppose he ignored them, you get a gold star!

                  But no gold stars for you, Dave.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 19 2006,13:49

                  Quote (AFDave @ Nov. 17 2006,08:14)
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OA: How long does it take limestone to form?
                  What scavengers ate the modern animal carcasses from the flood?
                  Where did the water from the Flood run off to?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not very long under the right conditions. Varied and many. To the newly deepened ocean basins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  See Dave, that’s exactly why so many people think you’re a dishonest clown.  You continually make the stupidest claims, but when it comes to backing them up you can’t provide the even the simplest of scientific details.  People here know you can’t think for yourself Dave, which is why we ask questions that AIG doesn’t address.  If you can’t C&P a stock Creto lie somewhere, you’re lost.  I get a big chuckle imagining you desperately searching the AIG and ICR archives for “post-Flood scavengers” or “limestone formation”.   Every question you ignore is a win for ToE Dave, and you know that. :D

                  Same goes for your ill-advised “challenge” a few weeks ago.  When I and others accepted your challenge and provided topics AIG doesn’t address (like Hubble data on the age of the universe), you lied about what you said and reneged on your word.  Everyone saw it Dave, and it’s still there as a testament to your dishonest mindset.

                  The above cases are perfect examples, as is your latest yuck-fest on C14 dating.  You continue to lie about the data from the Brookhaven Symposium.  You continue to lie and say science assumes the C14/C12 ratio has always been constant.  You’ve been presented with multiple C14/C12 calibration graphs from multiple independent methods, and dozens of people have asked and watched you evade the simple question – Why does not a single one of the cal graphs show a 100X carbon spike 4500 years ago?

                  Do you really think you’re convincing anyone with your arguments?  Why does every last reader to delurk think you’re full of sh*t too? :p

                  Now you are begging to go back to ‘genetics’ and ‘information’, but you were getting your ass kicked there also.  The whole reason you switched the discussion topic to C14 was to escape the drubbing you were getting over ‘information’, remember?

                  You can run but you can’t hide Dave.  Your ignorance is going to be exposed no matter what Creationist lies you choose to tell.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 19 2006,14:34

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 19 2006,08:13)
                  I'll start to be concerned when I see the first YEC paper appear in a serious journal.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What?

                  Jack Chick ain't serious enough for ya? ? ?

                  YEC will never submit to your pathetic level of peer review.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 19 2006,19:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That disagrees with what I recall from reading Darwin's book. In one chapter he suspected that evolution might occur sporadically rather than continuously, and much of it could be in isolated small populations rather than across large populations.

                  Henry
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 20 2006,01:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 19 2006,05:53)
                  This may come as a shock to you, but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A single article at AiG that has errors?

                  Oooh Davey.

                  Show me a page at AiG that ISN'T filled with egregious errors, like the one you posted about mutant degenerate baboon dogs, the breed is so degenerate that THE MALE DOGS DIE BEFORE REACHING MATURITY

                  HOW DO BREEDERS KEEP THIS BREED OF DOG ALIVE DAVEY?

                  Come on Davey, I hate to keep fish slapping you with this but you have to admit it's pretty darn stupid!

                  You show the same ability to grasp reality as Shirley Phelps-Roper.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 20 2006,01:58

                  Double post removed.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 20 2006,08:30

                  afdave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Right now" was 24 hours ago.
                  Still waiting.
                  This would be a most informative exercise. I want to see:
                  (1) "how wrong"  the most egregiously wrong Science article was, compared with the Wieland article in question,
                  (2) how whatever Science article you choose ignored  information that was widely available before it was published that showed it was wrong, (3) how you know, even now, that the Science article even was wrong. Did it involve the kind of self-correction processes we've been telling you about (but that are strikingly absent in creationist sources)? Or did it require the Truth-Squads of AiG or ICR - "investigative reporters" such as yourself - to unearth the incriminating truth?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,10:59

                  Oldman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  so what is it you think will happen when AIG win? What different course will science take?

                  It seems to me that you already know all the answers, so what, would you just cancel all historical, archelogical, and universe history research? Once you get to teach Noah and his ark in science class what then? What are you trying to achieve? Is it simply more converts to your pathethic religion? Once you have them then what happens to science?

                  So, once you are teaching religion as science, whats your next step? Ban books? Burn the dis-belivers? Overturn the seperation of church and state? Ban abortion? Ban questioning religious authority? Punish affairs by stoning the women to death?

                  What exactly do you think you'll "win" by this course of action? Are you unhappy with the fruits of the scientific revolution? Do you want to go back to pre-enlightenment days when people thought that everything in the world around them was because of their relationship with dog? Throw another virgin in the volcano perhaps? Is that what you are after? Total worldwide ignorance?

                  What is it that you want davey? "stop teaching the lies of darwinism to the kids"? Is that all, or is there more to it then that? You want the truth to come out, what would the world look like? What difference to your average scientist would it make? I get the feeling it'd be like living under Nazi germany before too long - another good christian there (and dont for a   second tell us that he was an athiest, unless you want another portuguese moment rammed down your gullet).

                  Inquiring minds want to know. If you were running the world, what's different?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I always think it is funny to hear the wild speculation about how awful it will be if "the fundies take over."  First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  You will note that American government (designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.

                  As for science, the scientific revolution was brought into the world mostly by YECs, then it was coopted by Darwinists, and the YECs got booted.  So now the situation is that Darwinism is king, not because it is true, but because it is fashionable among those with influence, and the current "rulers" of the world of science, i.e. the science publishers, university leadership, etc. like to pretend that it is the ToE worldview that got us here.  Of course, this is nonsense ... we got where we are at by hard working YECs and non-YECs alike.  Most great scientific inventions have very little to do with one's worldview.  They have much more to do with reapeatable, empirical science, which has nothing to say about Origins.

                  As for what we would teach in schools if "we won" ... we would teach Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design (and any other views that might become fairly prominent).  We might say something like "Most scientists today believe in ToE but there are many problems with the theory blah blah blah ... many scientists reject ToE in favor of Intelligent Design of some sort ... Biblical Creationism was once the predominant view of the scientific establishment and in the last 30 years has experienced a revival among many scientists blah blah blah."

                  No ... we wouldn't stone women for adultery or squelch scientific research or any of the other wild things you speculate about.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,11:09

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 20 2006,08:30)
                  afdave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Right now" was 24 hours ago.
                  Still waiting.
                  This would be a most informative exercise. I want to see:
                  (1) "how wrong"  the most egregiously wrong Science article was, compared with the Wieland article in question,
                  (2) how whatever Science article you choose ignored  information that was widely available before it was published that showed it was wrong, (3) how you know, even now, that the Science article even was wrong. Did it involve the kind of self-correction processes we've been telling you about (but that are strikingly absent in creationist sources)? Or did it require the Truth-Squads of AiG or ICR - "investigative reporters" such as yourself - to unearth the incriminating truth?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Come on, Dave. This shouldn't even be hard. All you have to do is list all the Science articles that either assume or provide evidence that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That would be virtually every single article about astronomy, most geology articles, every single article on cosmology, most anthropology or archaeology articles, almost every single article on paleontology, and most certainly every single article on evolutionary biology.

                  You should be able to come up with tens of thousands of articles, right?
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 20 2006,11:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,10:59)
                  ... First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The perfectly freudian spelling aside, no, it wasn't. Most specifically it was a group of people who were a product of education and the enlightenment. Not fundies. Do you want to debate this? On your blog you offered to debate me on this topic. I bought your book and tried to start but you backed down for some reason. I don't know why but I am getting the most intense feeling of deja vu.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. Wrong. Care to debate this?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You will note that American government <begin bs string>(designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) </bs string>allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Even goat marrying, homosexual rastafarians?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave, I would soooooo love to have a debate style exchange with you on this topic. What would it take?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for science, the scientific revolution was brought into the world mostly by YECs, then it was coopted by Darwinists, and the YECs got booted.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The sheer stupidity... Question: who were the Darwinists before Darwin?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now the situation is that Darwinism is king, not because it is true, but because it is fashionable among those with influence, and the current "rulers" of the world of science, i.e. the science publishers, university leadership, etc. like to pretend that it is the ToE worldview that got us here.  Of course, this is nonsense ... we got where we are at by hard working YECs and non-YECs alike.  Most great scientific inventions have very little to do with one's worldview.  They have much more to do with reapeatable, empirical science, which has nothing to say about Origins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Origins? What, praytell, are you referring to? Evolution /= abiogenisis.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for what we would teach in schools if "we won" ... we would teach Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design (and any other views that might become fairly prominent).  We might say something like "Most scientists today believe in ToE but there are many problems with the theory blah blah blah ... many scientists reject ToE in favor of Intelligent Design of some sort ... Biblical Creationism was once the predominant view of the scientific establishment and in the last 30 years has experienced a revival among many scientists blah blah blah."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Would you teach my personal creation myth too?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No ... we wouldn't stone women for adultery or squelch scientific research or any of the other wild things you speculate about.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right... Because the fundies have the good record about that. Did you see Monty Python's "The Holy Grail"? There is a reference to the weight of a duck that might be instructive to you.

                  Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal democracy, individual freedoms and the like.
                  You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.

                  Pleeeeeaaaaase... :(  ???  :O  :(
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 20 2006,12:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,10:59)
                  No ... we wouldn't stone women for adultery or squelch scientific research or any of the other wild things you speculate about.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  riiight..



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  so, that must be one of the bits you think is allegory right? It's just I thought if it was in your book YOU BELIEVED IT 100% for sure.

                  The rest, meh, BWE's got it covered. One other thing, however, for history classes would you teach the philisophy of the KKK and the holocaust deniers? Where do you draw the line on things to teach that are contradicted by evidence?

                  The thing I dont get about fundies is how they pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe and which parts to ignore. Is there some sort of fundie council out there deciding that in the modern world it'd be not good to promote death as punishment for adultry. Not good PR or something?

                  so, davey, why dont you want to punish adultry with stoning, it clearly says to do so in your book?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,12:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,10:59)
                  As for science, the scientific revolution was brought into the world mostly by YECs, then it was coopted by Darwinists, and the YECs got booted.  So now the situation is that Darwinism is king, not because it is true, but because it is fashionable among those with influence, and the current "rulers" of the world of science, i.e. the science publishers, university leadership, etc. like to pretend that it is the ToE worldview that got us here.  Of course, this is nonsense ... we got where we are at by hard working YECs and non-YECs alike.  Most great scientific inventions have very little to do with one's worldview.  They have much more to do with reapeatable, empirical science, which has nothing to say about Origins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, these kinds of statements really demonstrate how much of a clown you are when it comes to science. Let me ask you this: before the latter half of the 19th century, was there any sort of debate in Western science as to whether the world was 6,000 years old, or billions of years old? Of course not, because other than from biblical sources, the science simply wasn't sufficiently developed to even come up with an estimate of how old the earth is.

                  In other words: before the latter half of the nineteenth century, there were nothing but YEC scientists. Now there are no YEC scientists (at least, none who are not fundamentalist Christians with an avowed ideological axe to grind). Why is that? Young-earth creationists have contributed nothing to the body of scientific knowledge in the last 150 years using their young-earth creationism to guide their research. In other words, they've contributed to science despite, not because of, their young-earth creationism.

                  Starting in the early twentieth century, the tools necessary to develop an estimate of the earth's age became available. And since then, all the available data has slowly but surely converged on one date: 4.55 by.

                  Your YEC buddies cannot get any evidence to converge on any particular date. All they can try to do is find reasons to throw away any data that indicates an age older than 6,000 years (or 10,000 years, or 50,000 years). Then we have you, who makes the utterly brain-dead claim that it is impossible to assign any date to the age of the universe or the earth except by reference to historical records which even you admit are flawed. You also have essentially admitted that you have no idea how to tell which parts of the Bible are accurate and which aren't, since you assume that if any part of it is accurate, all of it must be accurate.

                  A further totally brain-dead assumption is that human literacy must, for completely unknown reasons, be contemporaneous with the creation of the universe. You've never been able to support this contention with anything other than your own personal incredulity that humans could ever have been illiterate, despite the fact that illiterate human societies have survived at least into the 20th Century.

                  And I'll let Deadman beat you up over that claim, Dave.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,12:44

                  Allegory?  No.  It is not an allegory that God told the Israelites to stone people for various crimes.  But it does not follow then, that because God told the Israelites to stone people for various crimes, that we, in the USA should ALSO stone people for crimes.  Do I think that adultery is not punished severely enough in the USA?  Yes, I do actually.  I think way too many American men are fooling around on their wives and not taking responsibility for the children they father (either with their wives or with their "playmates").  I think our society would be much better off if men were incentivized to be true to their marriage vows and divorce was not so easy.  There are far too many young kids who are cheated out of having a mom or dad around just because the parents are selfish.  How should we stiffen the penalties?   I don't know, but I'd like to put it on the table for debate.

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now there are no YEC scientists (at least, none who are not fundamentalist Christians with an avowed ideological axe to grind). Why is that? Young-earth creationists have contributed nothing to the body of scientific knowledge in the last 150 years using their young-earth creationism to guide their research. In other words, they've contributed to science despite, not because of, their young-earth creationism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  Their are a growing number of good YEC scientists.  Let's not keep having this silly debate.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,12:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,12:44)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now there are no YEC scientists (at least, none who are not fundamentalist Christians with an avowed ideological axe to grind). Why is that? Young-earth creationists have contributed nothing to the body of scientific knowledge in the last 150 years using their young-earth creationism to guide their research. In other words, they've contributed to science despite, not because of, their young-earth creationism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  Their are a growing number of good YEC scientists.  Let's not keep having this silly debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not a debate, Dave. For it to be a debate, you'd actually have to have an argument. I challenge you to name a single YEC scientist who has contributed to the body of scientific knowledge, which contribution is accepted by the scientific community at large (and not just AiG and ICR), which is informed by his YEC beliefs, and which could not have happened without those beliefs (designing an MRI is not dependent in any way on a belief that the universe is 6,000 years old).

                  You can't do that, can you, Dave?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,12:50

                  BWE...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal democracy, individual freedoms and the like. You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Go for it.  But not on yours or my blog.  Let's do it right here.  Title as follows "AF Dave vs. BWE on Christian America", subtitle "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?"
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,12:53

                  BWE ... You might want to ask Wesley first ... he doesn't like me having multiple threads going with my name in them ...
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 20 2006,12:58

                  Dave, please respond to my post. I am challenging you to stick to your word. You did agree to debate me on the founders and have not responded to me about the topic since. You have, however, made sweeping statements that rely on your premise for validity and I don't think your premise is sound. (Actually, I think they don't rely on your premise for validity. I think they are strawmen. But I still think your premise is built on a foundation of confusion and  you could use a little edification on the topic. I believe debating me would edify you some.:) )

                  I'm not sure why you don't respond to me. Is it because I am too trivial? too intimidating? too nice? not nice enough? too obviously superior? too obviously inferior?


                  OldMan... What does "meh" mean? lot's of folks use it and, to me, it looks different person by person.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,13:11

                  You guys have built up so much goodwill by sticking to evolution/creationism for so many posts, I wouldn't care if you went off topic for a long time. But if it's about AFDave's beliefs, go ahead and keep it on this thread please.

                  If I write a 'why I'm not a christian' essay, which I'm thinking about doing, I'll be posting it on the Bathroom Wall, where nearly everything is appropriate.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,13:24

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 19 2006,09:13)
                  To be perfectly honest, I'm only guessing, based on my perception that they are at least as bad as the Soviets.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not that this contradicts anything you said, but just to add: The Soviets, though deeply flawed, were millions of times better at science than the creationists. Go to a decent university library and look at the rows and rows of Russian physics journals. They produced more basic research in a week, than every creationist has since Michael Behe was in diapers. They probably didn't so much when Stalin was alive, though, because like AFDave, he had an absurd model of the world which science was required to fit.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 20 2006,13:45

                  stevestory  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If I write a 'why I'm not a christian' essay, which I'm thinking about doing, I'll be posting it on the Bathroom Wall, where nearly everything is appropriate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Will you be covering ground not covered by < Bertrand Russell >?

                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How should we stiffen the penalties [for adultery]?   I don't know, but I'd like to put it on the table for debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave is looking to put new debates on the table, without ever making good on his offer to show us a Science article that competes with AiG for wrongness? Without ever telling us how those 41 methods for cross-checking 14C dating manage to converge on the same dates? Without answering any of about a thousand accumulated questions that have been posed already?

                  And speaking of unfinished business, are we never to find out who last week's Mystery Caller was?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,13:48

                  Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Nov. 20 2006,02:45)
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 19 2006,05:53)
                  This may come as a shock to you, but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A single article at AiG that has errors?

                  Oooh Davey.

                  Show me a page at AiG that ISN'T filled with egregious errors, like the one you posted about mutant degenerate baboon dogs, the breed is so degenerate that THE MALE DOGS DIE BEFORE REACHING MATURITY

                  HOW DO BREEDERS KEEP THIS BREED OF DOG ALIVE DAVEY?

                  Come on Davey, I hate to keep fish slapping you with this but you have to admit it's pretty darn stupid!

                  You show the same ability to grasp reality as Shirley Phelps-Roper.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I seldom read this thread. There are several threads I generally avoid, like anything to do with Paley. I let people alert me to intemperate behavior on those threads by email. But I drop in here occasionally. When I read the post above, first I've heard of this, I couldn't believe my eyes. What the #### is a Baboon Dog, and how could AiG fall for such an idiotic claim? I mean, more than the ones they already fall for. So I googled Baboon Dog and boom, there was the AiG article.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Short spine

                  In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I searched numerous dog sites and the other google links and I can't find a single link to any such breed.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,13:58

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 20 2006,14:45)
                  stevestory    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If I write a 'why I'm not a christian' essay, which I'm thinking about doing, I'll be posting it on the Bathroom Wall, where nearly everything is appropriate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Will you be covering ground not covered by < Bertrand Russell >?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Since I've never read the book, I don't know. I rejected religion more or less the moment I met it, for a scattered set of reasons which I still find compelling.

                  I have read very little about atheism. A little Ingersol, a little Hitchens, a little Sagan, a few issues of Freethought, and half of the book 2000 Years of Disbelief. I don't have much interest in reading any more, either, in the same way that I wouldn't care to read a book explaining why Santa Claus doesn't exist. I'm not even sure I care to set down the reasons I have, but considering that according to the poll the vast majority of people here are atheists, someone might like it.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 20 2006,14:00

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 20 2006,11:26)
                  Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal democracy, individual freedoms and the like.
                  You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.

                  Pleeeeeaaaaase... :(  ???  :O  :(
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not yet, BWE.  I am finishing up a biography of Thomas Paine and have The Federalist Papers, John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" and "America's Constitution" by Akhil Amar lined up to tackle. I should be done in a few months and perhaps the discussion of genetics will be wrapping up around that time.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Nov. 20 2006,14:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,12:44)
                  Allegory?  No.  It is not an allegory that God told the Israelites to stone people for various crimes.  But it does not follow then, that because God told the Israelites to stone people for various crimes, that we, in the USA should ALSO stone people for crimes.  Do I think that adultery is not punished severely enough in the USA?  Yes, I do actually.  I think way too many American men are fooling around on their wives and not taking responsibility for the children they father (either with their wives or with their "playmates").  I think our society would be much better off if men were incentivized to be true to their marriage vows and divorce was not so easy.  There are far too many young kids who are cheated out of having a mom or dad around just because the parents are selfish.  How should we stiffen the penalties?   I don't know, but I'd like to put it on the table for debate.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  from < http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A recent study by the  Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:
                  bullet 11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
                  bullet 25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
                  bullet Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

                  George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

                     "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

                  According to the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas TX newspaper, the national study "raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, [and] even brought on a little holy anger." This caused  George Barna to write a letter to his supporters, saying that he is standing by his data, even though it is upsetting. He said that "We rarely find substantial differences" between the moral behavior of Christians and non-Christians. Barna Project Director Meg Flammang said: "We would love to be able to report that Christians are living very distinct lives and impacting the community, but ... in the area of divorce rates they continue to be the same." Both statements seem to be projecting the belief that conservative Christians, liberal Christians have the same divorce rate. This disagrees with their own data.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heck, forget divorce.  I would be happy if evangelical leaders would taper off their meth use and stop putting topspin on rent-boys
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 20 2006,14:49

                  I'm still waiting for the answer (or, hah! "explanation") of why Dave believes in light-element fusion (H-bomb, processes within Sol), but apparently does not believe in heavy-element fission (A-bomb, radioisotope dating techniques).

                  Given Davey's goofy theory about Poruguese--and given his conviction that the Spanish must have interbred with various South American native groups, futzing up the allelle determinations--I'm waiting to hear how all South American Indian languages are intermediates between--c'mon, Dave, help us out here--Incan and Spanish?

                  And what about Mexican, Dave?  Is that a mix of Aztec and Spanish?

                  And what about Arizonian, Davey?  Is that a mix of Navajo and Spanish?

                  And what about Southron English, Dave?  Is that a mixture of English and, uh, Senegalese?

                  Anyway, Davey, getting back to the fission/fusion thingey...since I don't really think holding my breath would be healthful, should I start the timer?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 20 2006,14:56

                  Daaamn... Baboon dogs? I missed volumes of entertainment.
                  Did that have anything to do with Dave's "ape-breeding" claims? Has he come up with anything to top that, I wonder?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 20 2006,15:46

                  stevestory:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not even sure I care to set down the reasons I have, but considering that according to the poll the vast majority of people here are atheists, someone might like it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Funny you should bring this up; I was just thinking this morning how a sort of dictionary of undefined/undefinable/meaningless terms, key to - let's just say - some religions, would help frame any discussion of this topic. Here's a short and incomplete list:

                  God  
                  There seems to be a general consensus on what God is not (visible, physical, finite...) but what does that leave?  If you want to define "God" as "whatever brought the universe into being", then I guess we can all be theists. But I think most theists subscribe to a notion of a conscious entity, with a "will" - i.e. preferences as to how things should work out, some way of effecting that will; an entity that attends to, and can respond in some way to "prayers"; and with whom individual humans can have a "personal relationship", which brings me to...

                  Personal Relationship with God
                  Again, there's wide agreement on what it's not. (Tossing back a few cold ones together at the local tavern, having The Big Guy on your phone's speed-dial, exchanging Christmas cards...) But what's left? Whatever it is, is there a significant difference between that, and, say, "meditation"?

                  Prayer
                  Again, is there a difference between that, and say, "meditation"? Does prayer require language? I.e. does it involve speaking, either aloud or mentally? Clearly it must at least sometimes include language, since you have "prayers" read out in church; "The Lord's Prayer", etc. Does it necessarily involve formulating a wish? Making a request? Does the nature of the wish/request make a difference? ("Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz...")

                  Praising God
                  What can that possibly mean? Assuming we've already defined "God" as the ultimate, be-all, end-all, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc. entity, what can it mean to "praise" this entity? What can it mean to not praise it?

                  Soul
                  What- if any- is the difference between, or relationship between, one's "soul" and one's mind or one's personality? "Mind" and "personality" are both, pretty clearly, neurological manifestations, or at least inextricably connected with neurological function. Is there any reason to postulate some entity or essence that has something to do with behavior, but is completely separable from neurological function? Something that is, in fact, not bound by the laws of physics?

                  Afterlife
                  Probably a little hard to get much of a handle on without first defining "soul". But once we've ruled out, as I assume we do, all physical activities - metabolizing, thinking, observing, feeling, hanging out with old friends... - what does it mean to "live after death"?

                  Jesus lives!
                  In what sense? Again, I assume we can rule out "metabolizes", or that his body physically exists somewhere. Is there a sense in which Jesus was supposed to have lived for a while after he was crucified, and during which his followers got to see him and chat with him, but that he quit doing shortly thereafter?

                  Son of a god
                  Zeus had lots of sons - and daughters, for that matter. It's fairly clear what was meant by, say, Heracles being the son of Zeus; to be blunt, it involved sex. But Jesus? He was apparently male, so he must have had a Y-chromosome, right? Was that Y-chromosome "poofed" into existence, a la Michael Behe's irreducible complexities?

                  Well, I could go on and on. (And I invite anyone who wants to add to the list. Maybe we can do stevestory's essay as kind of a group project). But the point is, if christianity is something that can be communicated with words, then the words have to be defined, and the definitions have to make sense. I suppose  the afdaves of the world would say that, if one were a christian, all these puzzles would not be puzzling. I'm afraid, though, that's not because they would all be explained, but because signing up for their brand of christianity means abandoning the questions.

                  In short, I'm prejudiced against, and suspicious of, anti-intellectualism.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 20 2006,21:27

                  Looks like < this Harper's article* > might be a good source for the contemplated discussion:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Through a Glass Darkly: What the Christian Right Sees When It Looks At American History." That is, what homeschooling kids and students at Patrick Henry College are learning about the past and the future they derive from that peculiar history lesson.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *December 2006 issue. Not available quite yet, so far as I can tell.

                  You can read the Harper's article by veteran christian-right watcher Jeff Sharlet, or get it straight from the horse's, um, mouth by reading afdave's posts.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,22:00

                  Steviepinhead picked a good moniker ... he thinks I don't believe in A-bombs :-)

                  Steve Story ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What the #### is a Baboon Dog, and how could AiG fall for such an idiotic claim?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Maybe it's somewhat related to a Boondoggle, which I think is a synonym for Darwinism.  I admit I have no idea what a Baboon Dog is, but it makes for some entertaining mental images ... maybe I'll bounce this one off the question answerers at AiG and see what they say.  It's also interesting to me though, how you have such tunnel vision that you see nothing in that article but a goofy dog name that doesn't come up when you Google it.  You seem to miss the point that dogs (and humans and all other critters) are degenerate mutants, headed for extinction, not higher evolution.  Mutations are BAAAD, my friend ... they are not your hoped for "Engine of ToE."

                  Or did you miss my entire series of posts on quotes from prominent geneticists showing this to be true?

                  Faid ... welcome back!  I've been missing your daily dose of Greek baloney!
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 20 2006,22:14

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave is looking to put new debates on the table, without ever making good on his offer to show us a Science article that competes with AiG for wrongness? Without ever telling us how those 41 methods for cross-checking 14C dating manage to converge on the same dates?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, you mean it's not obvious?  You want me to go document all the blunders such a Haeckel's embryos and "primitive race" ideas, the Piltdown hoax, the mistaken "fossils show gradual evolution" idea, or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" ... I could go on and on, but why?  You're going to keep believing in the ToE god no matter what I say, are you not?  As for C14, I already discredited it and at least one of the supposed cross checking tools--dendrochronology--what else is there?  One at a time please.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,22:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,22:00)
                  Steviepinhead picked a good moniker ... he thinks I don't believe in A-bombs :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, you don't seem to believe that radiometric dating works; why would you believe that nuclear fission works? It's the same process.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   You seem to miss the point that dogs (and humans and all other critters) are degenerate mutants, headed for extinction, not higher evolution.  Mutations are BAAAD, my friend ... they are not your hoped for "Engine of ToE."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Despite the fact that you've already admitted that some mutations are beneficial, Dave? Or did you forget that?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,22:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,22:14)
                  Russell...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave is looking to put new debates on the table, without ever making good on his offer to show us a Science article that competes with AiG for wrongness? Without ever telling us how those 41 methods for cross-checking 14C dating manage to converge on the same dates?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, you mean it's not obvious?  You want me to go document all the blunders such a Haeckel's embryos and "primitive race" ideas, the Piltdown hoax, the mistaken "fossils show gradual evolution" idea, or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" ... I could go on and on, but why?  You're going to keep believing in the ToE god no matter what I say, are you not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, Dave demonstrates his total, abject misunderstanding of how science works. How many of these "blunders" (the ones that are actually wrong in the first place, that is) are still accepted by the scientific community, Dave? Do scientists still defend Piltdown Man? Give me a freaking break. When old science is supplanted by new science, the old science becomes of historical interest only.

                  Meanwhile, idiot creationists continue to believe in a 6,000 year old universe, an impossible flood, and ultra-mega-uber-macroevolution far beyond anything proposed by the ToE, no matter how heavily the evidence weighs against them.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   As for C14, I already discredited it and at least one of the supposed cross checking tools--dendrochronology--what else is there?  One at a time please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, are you under the misapprehension that just saying something makes it true? Because everyone here witnessed your pathetic, floundering attempts to "refute" radiocarbon dating, and witnessed your "arguments" getting pounded into the dirt with a sledgehammer. You think you've "discredited" dendrochronology? You've never even discussed dendrochronology, other than to say you didn't know much about it and then posted a quote that was dispensed with in a sentence or two. As to the other 40 calibration curves, < here you go. >
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 20 2006,23:13

                  Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 20 2006,23:17

                  Hey Liar Dave!

                  You all rested and ready to entertain us with your latest batch of bone headed ignorance and pulled-out-of-your-ass Creationist 'facts'?

                  In what topic would you like to be made a fool of next Davie?  You've been royally reamed in radiocarbon dating, and information theory.  You tried arguing genetics, and age of the Earth geology but got you pummeled there too.  We could go back to the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone if you like.  Or how about astronomy - data from the Hubble and the COBE mission.  Or maybe the Tower of Babel - there are lots of cunning linguists here who could refute your lies there without breaking a sweat.  Or scavengers Dave - let's talk about post-flood scavengers :p

                  Maybe you could just give us more examples of how your common sense and intuition is better than scientific research.  The spew factor on that pegged the meter :D :D :D  Throw in some YEC data from telescopes, microscopes, and calculators and you'll have us helpless on the floor! :p

                  What's it gonna be Dave?  The folks you are convincing entertaining with your 'Creator God Hypothesis' are waiting!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 20 2006,23:38

                  Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 20 2006,23:13)
                  Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, it was perpetrated to discredit evolutionary theory by attempting to demonstrate that scientists see only what they expect to see. There would be absolutely no point in using fraud to support a theory you think is correct. Think about it a moment. One does not perpetrate a hoax to "prop up" anything.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 20 2006,23:58

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 20 2006,16:46)
                  . (And I invite anyone who wants to add to the list. Maybe we can do stevestory's essay as kind of a group project).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That might make a good project on the bathroom wall. 'course, the result might be one of those big books of atheism that I have no interest in reading. My own reasons are fairly simple and terse, and if I write the essay it'd probably be about 500-1000 words. It's not a big philisophical analysis, I don't think the question deserves the kind of serious study that a question in economics or physics deserves. it's more like "well, here's 6 things I find prima facie wrong, so to #### with it". If I do write it, I'll post it over on the Bathroom Wall.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 21 2006,00:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,22:00)
                  Steve Story ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What the #### is a Baboon Dog, and how could AiG fall for such an idiotic claim?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Maybe it's somewhat related to a Boondoggle, which I think is a synonym for Darwinism.  I admit I have no idea what a Baboon Dog is, but it makes for some entertaining mental images ... maybe I'll bounce this one off the question answerers at AiG and see what they say.  It's also interesting to me though, how you have such tunnel vision that you see nothing in that article but a goofy dog name that doesn't come up when you Google it.  You seem to miss the point that dogs (and humans and all other critters) are degenerate mutants, headed for extinction, not higher evolution.  Mutations are BAAAD, my friend ... they are not your hoped for "Engine of ToE."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davey ignores the real question and then changes the subject and accuses others of having tunnel vision.

                  Once again Davey, HOW DO THEY KEEP THIS BREED ALIVE IF THE MALES DIE BEFORE REACHING MATURITY?

                  Do you honestly need to contact the "boys" at AiG to see what they say? Where's your own common sense that you claim to prize so highly?

                  The point here isn't about degenerate mutants Davey, it's about how you buy the AiG "evidence" hook line and stinker, no matter how goofy it is.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 21 2006,00:32

                  Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 20 2006,21:13)
                  Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not only in retrospect; the fraud was uncovered because Piltdown didn't fit with all the other data, and thus required further examination.  The purpose of the fraud wasn't to prove evolution, it was to prove that humans evolved in England.  National pride sort of thing.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 21 2006,00:45

                  Skeptic wrote:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Piltdown was not old science. It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack. Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full. It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Er, not quite. While the U.K anthropologists were quite enamored of Piltdown, you didn't find many other European scientists or Americans accepting it so blithely. This sort of proprietary nationalism has been a problem in Anthro for some time.
                  L. Sprague DeCamp gives a good overview of Piltdown in his book  "The Great Monkey Trial," because Piltdown was brought up in the Scopes Trial of the 1920's. There were many Anthropologists that looked at Neanderthals, H. erectus and Raymond Dart's Australopith "Taung Baby" and wouldn't accept Piltdown at all, but the fact is that because so few people were allowed to examine the actual materials, it **tended** to be reported without excessive questioning.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
                  It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
                  This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:
                  It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity...
                  In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying :
                  "I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And :


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  G.S. Miller... wrote in 1915, “Deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together.” It is believed that if Miller had been working with the actual Piltdown skull instead of a cast, he could have unearthed the hoax before it was given overwhelming prominence. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It certainly wasn't enough to cause even a hairline fracture in the Anglo-American alliance, but the controversy taking place in paleontology assumed the dimensions of a fight between English Nature and American Science. Nature had backup from the British Museum of Natural History. But Science could look over its shoulder and see a comforting platoon of skeptics inducted from the Smithsonian Institution, the American Museum of Natural History, and Yale University.
                  A research scientist at the Smithsonian Institution undertook the most exhaustive and destructive analysis of the creature. Its result could have been the decisive dissociation of cranium and jaw and the evaporation of Piltdown Man -- Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., in his "Jaw of the Piltdown Man," published in November 1915 (American Journal of Physical Anthropology) , did not try to unravel the Piltdown knot. He cut it. Having borrowed casts of the Piltdown fossils from Ales Hrdlicka, Miller proceeded to compare the mandible with those of 22 chimpanzees, 23 gorillas, and 75 orangutans, a populous apiary. He began the process of dissolving Piltdown Man as a unified being by expressing his disappointment that the condyle was missing:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  http://140.232.1.5/~piltdown/map_report_finds/ancientpiltdown.html
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  MacCurdy wrote "Nature has set many a trap for the scientist; but here at Piltdown she outdid herself in the concatenation of pitfalls left behind" (MacCurdy, 1916): parts of a human skull, apelike lower jaw and canine, flints of pre-Chellean type, some Pliocene fossils, some Pleistocene.
                  Like Miller, MacCurdy discounted proximity:
                  "Association can never be made to take the place of articulation; and so far as Piltdown is concerned, nothing short of the actual articulation of the mandible with the skull should have sufficed to outweigh the lack of harmony existing between these parts."
                  He classified the **cranium **as Homo dawsoni, a member not of a new genus but merely of a new species; and the jaw and canine as part of a fossil chimp.
                  For "The American Anthropologist," Gregory wrote a "Note on the Molar Teeth of the Piltdown Mandible" (1916). Paying his respects to Miller, he argued in favor of a "generic identity" between the Piltdown jaw and teeth and those of a chimpanzee. Gregory listed MacCurdy and W. D. Matthew as American skeptics. Gregory, Matthew, and C. R. Eastman co-authored a short article, "Recent Progress in Vertebrate Paleontology."
                  Matthew here called Miller's argument "irrefutable." "It is hardly to be expected, however," they warned, "that this conclusion will be readily accepted by the European writers."
                  Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History, was also a skeptic, but later traveled to England to view some skull pieces and molars and proclaimed it genuine...however, Osborn was also inept enough to later (1922) interpret a single tooth found in Nebraska as that of a new anthropoid, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii
                  ... In a review of Keith's The Antiquity of Man (1915), the American anthropologist William Wright complimented Keith for his willingness to sacrifice theory to facts, but declined to compliment Piltdown Man for anything. To the other incongruities, Wright added one between molars that are human and a canine that is simian.

                  Miller's argument seduced an English authority into the camp of the skeptics-P. Chalmers Mitchell, who rejected the new hypothesized ape but approved of Miller's confirming "the doubt already stated by many investigators" about compatibility of jaw and cranium.
                  In continental Europe, Piltdown Man was tolerated in the professional literature without great enthusiasm. Professor MacCurdy, in his 1924 [47] review (in Human Origins) of continental reception, generalized: "Objections soon came from France and Italy."
                  V. Giuffrida-Ruggeri wrote in his 1918 L'Uomo Attuale una Specie Collettiva that Piltdown Man was a doubtful specimen. It took some virtuosity to connect a human cranium with a monkeylike jaw, "nonche il canino""-not to mention the canine.... The most thorough of the Italian works was Nello Puccioni's Appunti in torno alframmento manibolare fossile di Piltdown (Sussex) (1913). Puccioni was discontented with Woodward's reconstruction of the jaw because it was neither simian nor Neanderthal. Too crude to harmonize with the relatively fine features of the cranium-"né carne ni pesce, " neither fish nor fowl, it remained questionable whether it could enter the family of the Hominidae. He cites Lankester and Waterston in support of his opinion that the jaw and the cranium belonged to two distinct individuals. A Spanish work, Hugo Obermeier's El hombre fosil, also questioned the feasibility of imposing harmony.

                  In the scientific community, from 1917 to mid-century some investigators continued the approach that Miller had taken in performing an autopsy upon the remains. More important, however, were fossil hominid finds that showed Eoanthropus to be not an anomaly, but a mistake.
                  Ales Hrdlick, curator of the U.S. Museum of Natural History said in his "The Skeletal Remains of Man" (1930) : "The specimen is not heavy in weight nor massive in structure; it is marked in fact by relatively moderate build, strikingly at odds with both the first and second Piltdown skulls which in all their parts are decidedly thick. There is no perceptible correspondence between the jaw and the skulls..

                  The German Frans Weidenreich, who discovered H. erectus in China wrote in 1937 that the jaw resembled an orangutan, and In 1946's "Apes, Giants, and Man, " Weidenreich wrote, "All that has been known of early man since the discovery of the Piltdown fossils proves that man cannot have had an ancestor with a lower jaw of a completely simian character." (recall that Piltdown wasn't FULLY exposed as a fraud until 1953)

                  I stole most of the above from : < http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdo....r4.html > , but I do like to collect old science books from the 1920's to the 1840's, and I'm satisfied with the recounting there.

                  The 2nd World War put a halt to the debate and you find VERY few references "fully accepting " Piltdown in American textbooks up to the time of it being exposed as a fraud.

                  I could go on, but I hope you get some idea of the controversy surrounding "Eoanthropus dawsonii," which was little different from the same controversy surrounding Neanderthals in the 1800's, Eugene Dubois' "Java man," Raymond Dart's Taung Baby (Australopithecus africanus) and Weidenreich's own "Peking man" as well as the Leakey family material, etc.
                  The only ones that didn't hold up (Piltdown and "Nebraska man" ) are pointed to as "being fully accepted" while it is well known that all the others (neanders, erectus, australopiths,) engendered the same amount of controversy or more...yet they stood the test of time. Curious how popular culture shifts things around.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 21 2006,02:08

                  While we know Piltdown Man was a hoax, assigning a reason for why it happened would imply we knew who perpetrated the hoax.

                  Now we NEED to know who started this Baboon Dog bullsh!tt and why it's lasted so long!

                  Who the #### is L. Johannesen and how much did he get paid to punk AiG?!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 21 2006,03:37

                  I was wondering what the #### this baboon dog thing was , too...and now I know, sadly enough. < http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/dog.asp >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Short spine                                  
                  In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Like Crabby asked: How the H#ll does the breed continue if the male dog dies "before maturity?" The only citation I found on this was on Google , an article that said "The Afghan Hound is mentioned in writings as far back as 4000 B.C., and its name can be translated as "baboon" or "monkey-faced hound." Despite the unflattering name, he was a favorite of royalty."

                  Now, I KNOW I've seen adult male afghans, so that ain't it. So WHAT THE HE*L is this guy Johannesen talking about in AiG?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,06:49

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you don't seem to believe that radiometric dating works; why would you believe that nuclear fission works? It's the same process.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, it's not.  In fission bombs we are forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms.  In RM dating, particles are being ejected from the nucleus naturally.  All of which discussion of course obfuscates the point: RM Dating is full of unwarranted assumptions which makes it untrustworthy.   STARTING ASSUMPTIONS are the problem, my friend.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You seem to miss the point that dogs (and humans and all other critters) are degenerate mutants, headed for extinction, not higher evolution.  Mutations are BAAAD, my friend ... they are not your hoped for "Engine of ToE."

                  Despite the fact that you've already admitted that some mutations are beneficial, Dave? Or did you forget that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  More obfuscation.  How many times should I repeat? ... I agree there are a few "beneficial" mutations out of the many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of deleterious ones ... and they are akin to that broken heater switch (stuck on High and Hot) on your car in Antartica we talked about.  In that unusual environment, it happens to be a benefit, but are you telling me that this is the "mechanism of Evolution"??  I hope you are not that naive, but I fear that you are.

                  WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MUTATIONS ARE "BENEFICIAL" ??  

                  Best we can tell from Kimura .. ZERO?  NEARLY ZERO?  

                  (Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNSA 76:3440-3444.  Quoted in Sanford, J.C. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.)

                  The picture on the LEFT is what ToE needs to even be considered as a workable theory.

                  The picture on the RIGHT is close to what we ACTUALLY HAVE.



                  ... We are all headed for EXTINCTION, friends ... MUTATIONAL MELTDOWN ...

                  Just like the Bible describes ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not a fun message ... but true, nonetheless.  God created us perfect, but cursed us because of sin.  Then He provided a remedy for sin ... Jesus Christ.  It's an old, familiar story.

                  And it provides the ONLY solution to mankind's dilemma.

                  ***********************************

                  Skeptic...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I mentioned Piltdown because it is an example of scientists jumping on board with something they wanted to believe in (for whatever reason).  This conversation was started by Russell who was saying "See, Carl Wieland said something stupid because he wanted to use the idea to justify his position ... we REAL scientists never do that sort of thing."  To which I just shake my head and laugh :-)

                  **************************************************

                  Last but not least, the "Baboon Dog" questions (What is one? How does the breed continue?) were submitted to AIG ... I expect an answer around Christmas or so.
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 21 2006,07:18

                  Thanks Deadman, excellent coverage of the topic although I sincerely hope it didn't keep you up too late.

                  Dave, if you want to examine the differences between real scientists read the latest issue of Time featuring the debate between Dawkins and Collins.  In it you see a huge separation between scientists.  That is, of course, if you still consider Dawkins a scientist.  Either way you'll see that blanket statements like Russell used are way too general.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,07:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This conversation was started by Russell who was saying "See, Carl Wieland said something stupid because he wanted to use the idea to justify his position ... we REAL scientists never do that sort of thing."  To which I just shake my head and laugh :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wow! Revisionist history of just two days ago! Well, I continue to maintain that the distinction between "dishonesty" and "self-delusion" is a meaningless one.

                  No, what actually transpired was you said:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That "right now" was, now, two days ago, and counting. You were going to take us to specific articles, no? In a specific journal: Science Magazine, no? And we were going to examine a specific case - the most egregiously wrong, or shoddily handled case you could come up with. And we were going to examine:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) "how wrong"  the most egregiously wrong Science article was, compared with the Wieland article in question,
                  (2) how whatever Science article you choose ignored  information that was widely available before it was published that showed it was wrong, and
                  (3) how you know, even now, that the Science article even was wrong. Did it involve the kind of self-correction processes we've been telling you about (but that are strikingly absent in creationist sources)? Or did it require the Truth-Squads of AiG or ICR - "investigative reporters" such as yourself - to unearth the incriminating truth?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What's the matter, dave? You seem not to be holding up your end of the bargain.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,07:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Either way you'll see that blanket statements like Russell used are way too general.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and what "blanket statement" might you be referring to? Are you taking davy's word for what I said? If so, you sure are credulous for someone who styles himself "Skeptic"

                  Will your retraction and apology be forthcoming?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,08:20

                  Dave, we know that most mutations are harmful or neutral, thus most substitutions (fixed mutations) are neutral. The modern theory considered that way before creationists made that claim.
                  Do you really believe you are teaching us anything? Have you heard about "positive selection"?

                  Try googling the terms, you may learn something.
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 21 2006,08:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MUTATIONS ARE "BENEFICIAL" ??  

                  Best we can tell from Kimura .. ZERO?  NEARLY ZERO?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one is sure, but the picture from the current research on microorganisms is 'more than we thought'. Additionally this problem of near-neutrality only manifests itself in organisms with very small population sizes, and even then there is much evidence that positive selection has taken place, such as in humans.

                  Also, the idea of near neutrality is becoming an important component of the modern theory of evolution, see < here >.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 21 2006,08:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,22:00)
                  Faid ... welcome back!  I've been missing your daily dose of Greek baloney!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's good to be back! I hope I didn't miss much of the daily entertainment you provide. Let's see... You say that, while I was gone, you totally discredited carbon dating, RM dating in general, dendro, the fossil record, and gawd knows what else. Weeeell, since, as usual, you are too lazy to provide links to the actual posts where you accomplished such an incredible task (you know, the way we use to point you to where we smacked you around in the past?) I guess I'll have to check myself... In the meantime, tell me: Any progress on your actual 'scientific' theory?
                  Did you explain how them continents rushed like speedboats to their current positions, and without boiling poor Noah in all the water?
                  Where all the water came from, and where it went?
                  How all those fossils got miraculously lined up the way they are in that catastrophic event (the greatest of all times), when even a minor flood will mix everything up? Was it a divine jest, since all other methods (mobility, hydro sorting) would fail miserably and pathetically?
                  How entire forests got uprooted in the Flud, and got deposited erect, and with their roots spread out in growing position?
                  How other trees grew on top of them, in the middle of a devastating FLUD, 12 times at least?
                  And what about your famous "selective ape-breeding during early history" argument? Still waiting for that. Or did you back away from that one?
                  Or, if the Flud thing is a bit sensitive for you, how about explaining how your ancestors could be 10 feet tall, and live to be 900 years old? Use science, please.

                  Good luck.

                  Oh, btw: The Greek word for baloney is "pariza", as any baloney expert like you (and Woodmorappe, your baloney mentor- you even use the same 'slang' phrases!;) should know.
                  Try to keep away from it, though; it does to your figure what your opinions do to your credibility, and what your "arguments" do to your honor.  :)
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 21 2006,09:10

                  Quote (Fundy Moron Dave @ Nov. 21 2006,06:49)

                  WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MUTATIONS ARE "BENEFICIAL" ??  

                  Best we can tell from Kimura .. ZERO?  NEARLY ZERO?  

                  (Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNSA 76:3440-3444.  Quoted in Sanford, J.C. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.)

                  The picture on the LEFT is what ToE needs to even be considered as a workable theory.

                  The picture on the RIGHT is close to what we ACTUALLY HAVE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Once again, the ignorance factory that is Dave Hawkins desperately searches the creation literature for another dog turd he can try to claim as "real science" that refutes ToE.

                  He finds one in a made up bell shaped curve of mutational effects that he claims ToE HAS TO HAVE in order to work.  Of course, the scientific community has known this is not true for over 50 years.

                  Nearly zero does not equal zero, you moron.  Have you ever played slot machines in Los Vegas Dave?  The house always has a small (<1% in most cases) but greater than zero advantage.  Who do you think ends up with most of the money in the long run?

                  Here is one of many real world examples that show how beneficial mutations with even a teeny selection advantage get fixed in a population

                  < Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations >
                  Marianne Imhof and Christian Schlötterer
                  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 January 30; 98(3): 1113–1117.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ABSTRACT:
                  The central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive processes in natural populations is well established. Thus, there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Their low frequency, however, has made this class of mutations almost inaccessible for systematic studies. In the absence of experimental data, the distribution of the fitness effects of beneficial mutations was assumed to resemble that of deleterious mutations. For an experimental proof of this assumption, we used a novel marker system to trace adaptive events in an evolving Escherichia coli culture and to determine the selective advantage of those beneficial mutations. Ten parallel cultures were propagated for about 1,000 generations by serial transfer, and 66 adaptive events were identified. From this data set, we estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 4 × 10[sup]-9[/sup] per cell and generation. Consistent with an exponential distribution of the fitness effects, we observed a large fraction of advantageous mutations with a small effect and only few with large effect. The mean selection coefficient of advantageous mutations in our experiment was 0.02.

                  Advantageous mutations lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer (1–4). Unfortunately, these beneficial mutations are rare (5–7) and thus difficult to study. Rapidly dividing organisms, such as yeast and bacteria, offer the advantage that beneficial mutations could potentially be monitored in the laboratory. In a growing population many new mutations are introduced, with a large fraction of deleterious mutations (8–10). Depending on the population size, most of the deleterious mutations are purged from the population. Advantageous mutations, however, will spread and increase the overall fitness of the population. To identify the carriers of favorable mutations, an informative genetic marker is required that discriminates between clonal lineages. Until now, no such marker system was available for Escherichia coli or yeast. In this report, we used microsatellites, a highly informative marker, to identify adaptive events in an evolving E. coli culture, to calculate the Malthusian fitness parameter of the beneficial mutations, and to visualize clonal interference among different advantageous mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  See that selection coefficient of advantageous mutations of 0.02 Davie?  Is that greated than zero?  Did the mutations get fixed in the population or not?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,09:28

                  Russell ... get real, man.  I said I COULD take you to many erroneous articles in old issues of Science.  However, there is no need to because many of the big blunders are well known and need no documentation.  I'm not going to waste my time.  As for your "blanket statement," of course this is not what you said exactly, but it summarized your position quite well, did it not?

                  Skeptic--  Yes, I know about Collins and Dawkins -- both good scientists I am sure when they stick to science.  I don't agree with either of their positions on Origins, of course, as I am a very convinced YEC.

                  Jeannot...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, we know that most mutations are harmful or neutral, thus most substitutions (fixed mutations) are neutral. The modern theory considered that way before creationists made that claim.
                  Do you really believe you are teaching us anything? Have you heard about "positive selection"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No I don't think I'm teaching you anything ... I just enjoy shining a spotlight on the complete impossibility of ToE from the standpoint of deteriorating genomes.  In spite of your education in the subject of genetics, this problem seems to have escaped you.

                  *********************************

                  OA ... maybe the bacteria will still be around in 5000 years to study these topics, because from the statements I have posted, I don't think WE will be.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,09:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  See that selection coefficient of advantageous mutations of 0.02 Davie?  Is that greated than zero?  Did the mutations get fixed in the population or not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have not studied deleterious mutations in bacteria, although if I did, I would probably find that bacterial genomes are deteriorating also.  All the information I posted from Sanford's book related to higher organisms, and more specifically, mankind.  As you should have noted by now, my main focus is on mankind.  Did he evolve or was he created?  I am not nearly so interested in bacteria.  Do you have any information which refutes my statements that the human genome is deteriorating?  What mechanism can you propose that can stop the deterioration?  What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,10:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... get real, man.  I said I COULD take you to many erroneous articles in old issues of Science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, what you actually said was:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And I say you can't.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, there is no need to because many of the big blunders are well known and need no documentation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, I think they do. Please, dave - don't let science off so lightly. Let's take a close look. .    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   I'm not going to waste my time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, I say you can't.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for your "blanket statement," of course this is not what you said exactly, but it summarized your position quite well, did it not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Here's your "paraphrase" of what I said"    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "See, Carl Wieland said something stupid because he wanted to use the idea to justify his position ... we REAL scientists never do that sort of thing."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. That does not summarize my position, at all.
                  (See, this is another example of "dishonesty" vs. "delusion".  Which is it? Does it matter?)
                  Here. Let me spell out my point, yet again.  I'm trying to illustrate the difference between the process of scientific dialog, in a scientific journal, and the garbage that AiG spews. I'm trying to get you to focus on the issue of responsibility. AiG prints this propaganda that any attentive high-school student should know is wrong at the time it's published. They leave it up, un-modified, un-annotated, un-responded to, for years. Finally, when it becomes so inescapably embarrassing that their own flunkies are taking flak for it, what do they do? They quietly make it disappear; no correction, no retraction, no comment. Very North Korean*.

                  Did I say "we REAL scientists never say anything stupid"? Hardly. But if it's published in a scientific journal, "we REAL scientists" take responsibility for it. If it's mistaken, it's responded to. There's a dialog. The process is self-correcting. It may take time, and it's not perfect. But the contrast between real science and the garbage that goes on at AiG is unmistakable.

                  Which you would have to acknowledge, if you bothered to hold up your end of the bargain and    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and have a look at it, as I suggested, to see    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) "how wrong"  the most egregiously wrong Science article was, compared with the Wieland article in question,
                  (2) how whatever Science article you choose ignored  information that was widely available before it was published that showed it was wrong, and
                  (3) how you know, even now, that the Science article even was wrong. Did it involve the kind of self-correction processes we've been telling you about (but that are strikingly absent in creationist sources)? Or did it require the Truth-Squads of AiG or ICR - "investigative reporters" such as yourself - to unearth the incriminating truth?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But, no! You're not going to "waste your time".
                  How about not wasting our time?

                  *again, I should qualify this as an assumption based on second-hand information. It's quite possible I'm libelling the North Korean press by comparing them with AiG, in which case I apologize.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 21 2006,10:31



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's quite possible I'm libelling the North Korean press by comparing them with AiG, in which case I apologize.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Nup, you are spot on Russell, the North Korean press are the propaganda arm for a personality cult led total dictatorship which controls it's followers by creating a social realism based purely on mind control.

                  They keep their followers in the dark and use fear and spin to keep them under their control.

                  No fact is too inconvienient to be totally denied.  

                  Just like AiG.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,10:31

                  Faid...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, btw: The Greek word for baloney is "pariza", as any baloney expert like you (and Woodmorappe, your baloney mentor- you even use the same 'slang' phrases!;) should know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'M the baloney expert but YOU know the word in two languages?  Hmmmm...
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 21 2006,10:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,10:31)
                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, btw: The Greek word for baloney is "pariza", as any baloney expert like you (and Woodmorappe, your baloney mentor- you even use the same 'slang' phrases!;) should know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'M the baloney expert but YOU know the word in two languages?  Hmmmm...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, it's a bit like your Portuguese argument:
                  My expertise in baloney is purely linguistic, while you have historical evidence (your history in this thread) to prove you're a baloney expert...  :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2006,10:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,06:49)
                  Eric ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you don't seem to believe that radiometric dating works; why would you believe that nuclear fission works? It's the same process.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, it's not.  In fission bombs we are forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms.  In RM dating, particles are being ejected from the nucleus naturally.  All of which discussion of course obfuscates the point: RM Dating is full of unwarranted assumptions which makes it untrustworthy.   STARTING ASSUMPTIONS are the problem, my friend.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, it's not. What, do you think they pry the nuclei apart with a chisel? The only thing a fission bomb does is compress the U-235 together so the neutrons that are "naturally" ejected from the nucleus have a much higher probability of striking another nucleus and splitting it, initiating a chain reaction. It's got nothing to do with "forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms."

                  Your point, that RM dating is full of unwarranted assumptions, is itself unwarranted. They're not "assumptions," Dave; they're observations backed up by quantum theory. You're the one doing the assuming here.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Despite the fact that you've already admitted that some mutations are beneficial, Dave? Or did you forget that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  More obfuscation.  How many times should I repeat? ... I agree there are a few "beneficial" mutations out of the many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of deleterious ones ... and they are akin to that broken heater switch (stuck on High and Hot) on your car in Antartica we talked about.  In that unusual environment, it happens to be a benefit, but are you telling me that this is the "mechanism of Evolution"??  I hope you are not that naive, but I fear that you are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, every practicing biologist out there is well aware that the vast majority (99% or more, most likely) of mutations are either neutral or deleterious. So what? What's your point, exactly?

                  The only reason you think this is a problem is because you think it all had to happen in 6,000 years, which makes it much more of a problem for your young-earth creationism, because you need beneficial mutations at a rate far higher than contemplated by any legitimate theory, a problem you refuse to acknowledge.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT PERCENTAGE OF MUTATIONS ARE "BENEFICIAL" ??  

                  Best we can tell from Kimura .. ZERO?  NEARLY ZERO?  

                  (Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNSA 76:3440-3444.  Quoted in Sanford, J.C. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.)

                  The picture on the LEFT is what ToE needs to even be considered as a workable theory.

                  The picture on the RIGHT is close to what we ACTUALLY HAVE.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Garbage, Dave. What makes you think that half of all mutations need to be beneficial? Are you insane? Or just stupid? Claims like this are the claims of a clown.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... We are all headed for EXTINCTION, friends ... MUTATIONAL MELTDOWN ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Duh! Dave, 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. So? What's your point exactly? Do you have any evidence that biodiversity in the 19th century was any lower than it was a hundred million years ago? No? Didn't think so.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Skeptic...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I mentioned Piltdown because it is an example of scientists jumping on board with something they wanted to believe in (for whatever reason).  This conversation was started by Russell who was saying "See, Carl Wieland said something stupid because he wanted to use the idea to justify his position ... we REAL scientists never do that sort of thing."  To which I just shake my head and laugh :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except you've blown a hole in your own argument, as usual. What paleoanthropologist puts any stock whatsoever in Piltdown Man today, Dave? Let's compare that to young-earth creationists, who still believe the universe is 6,000 years old in the face of entire libraries of evidence to the contrary!
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 21 2006,11:01

                  And we're all still waiting for the udpates clarifying the current status of Tyre.  Despite the prophecy, continuously inhabited from before Ezekiel even unto today.  And tomorrow and beyond.  Rather a bigger error than the Piltdown fraud...
                  Science fixes errors.
                  Religion commits to errors and refuses to budge.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,11:05

                  I'm trying to stay focused on davy's claims about erroneous Science articles, and I sort of assumed someone else would follow this up, but lest it slip into the black hole of creationist nonsense too dense to let light escape...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have not studied deleterious mutations in bacteria, although if I did, I would probably find that bacterial genomes are deteriorating also.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, dave probably would find that. That's what AiG tells him to find. But the thousands of scientists who actually do study bacteria ("bacteriologists") would have to differ.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   All the information I posted from Sanford's book related to higher organisms, and more specifically, mankind.  As you should have noted by now, my main focus is on mankind.  Did he evolve or was he created?  I am not nearly so interested in bacteria.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wait a minute. I thought the really basic rules were the same for bacteria and apes. Whether you're talking about the laws of thermodynamics, or the "fact" that deteriorating genomes are universal-wide and were inflicted (for some reason) on all biology because of an unfortunate menu choice in the Garden of Eden.

                  OK. Here's the part that I really want to see followed up:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... What mechanism can you propose that can stop the deterioration?  What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now, first of all, I have to suspect this is a trick question. Because I'm pretty sure I've seen davy use, albeit sneeringly, the formula: "RM+NS". You do know what the NS stands for, davy? Is there some reason why that's not the obvious answer to your question?

                  But seriously, dave. I'm curious. What are your sources of information  for what evolutionary science is really all about? Have you read Darwin? Have you read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Ridley... any of the excellent modern explainers of evolution? Or does all your information come filtered through the Pyongyang of science?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,11:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What mechanism can you propose that can stop the deterioration?  What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sexual reproduction, maybe?
                  It's been proposed by Muller decades ago, and refined by Kondrashov in the 80's.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,12:33

                  YES, YES ... MULLER AND KONDRASHOV ... JUDGING BY THESE QUOTES, THEY ARE MORE MY FRIENDS THAN YOURS :-)

                  MULLER's FEAR
                  Muller, H.J. 1950.  Our load of mutations.  Amer. J Human Genetics 2:111-176.
                  "...it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1 ... if, to make matters worse, U [deleterious mutations per person per generation] should be anything like as high as 0.5 ..., our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements." pp. 149-150.

                  KONDRASHOV'S QUESTION
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a time bomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."

                  KONDRASHOV'S NUMBERS
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 2002. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.  Human Mutation 21:12-27.
                  "...the total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100 ... at least 10% of these are deleterious ... analysis of human variability suggests that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles ..."  

                  Sanford says in his book that "Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me, by way of personal communication, that 100 was just a lower estimate, and that 300 is his upper estimate.  He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious.  This means that from his perspective "U" (deleterious mutations per person per generation) would be 30-90.  This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible."

                  WE'RE HEADED FOR EXTINCTION, FRIENDS ...

                  Russell...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But seriously, dave. I'm curious. What are your sources of information  for what evolutionary science is really all about? Have you read Darwin? Have you read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Ridley... any of the excellent modern explainers of evolution?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  All, except Ridley.

                  Russell...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, first of all, I have to suspect this is a trick question. Because I'm pretty sure I've seen davy use, albeit sneeringly, the formula: "RM+NS". You do know what the NS stands for, davy? Is there some reason why that's not the obvious answer to your question?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I know the traditional answer--Random Mutation + Natural Selection, but it is inadequate as Sanford has shown.  A recently famous Cornell professor--Allen MacNeill--has also now declared that "the Modern Synthesis is dead." (See his comment below at UD) ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm

                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

                  This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centenial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

                  However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714 >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's right ... ToE just died, but let's pretend it didn't and come up with some more goofy ideas for how it might work!

                  I think it's funny that he compares us YECS and IDers to people who "hailed the death of the horseless carriage and the return to normal equine transportation."

                  Big difference, Dr. MacNeill.  The "horseless carriages" worked.  The Modern Synthesis did not.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 21 2006,12:46

                  i'm sorry, but did you actully read the comment you C+P from Allen MacNeill? Go back and read it again.

                  And I want to see these "science" articles that are wrong.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lets see them! Or is this another bluff?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,12:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,12:33)
                  YES, YES ... MULLER AND KONDRASHOV ... JUDGING BY THESE QUOTES, THEY ARE MORE MY FRIENDS THAN YOURS :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I doubt it.

                  Mutation rates and sexual reproduction are/were their fields of research. (Well, Kondrashov is interested in theoretical evolutionnary biology in general.)

                  The most famous paper produced by Kondrashov (it was in Nature) is a landmark in evolutionary biology. It explains the existence of sexual reproduction as a mean to purge deleterious mutations. It relies on high mutation rates.
                  Muller had a similar hypothesis (Muller's ratchet) but it involve longer timescales.

                  Now, it seems quite normal that these scientists want to prove their point by measuring high mutations rate. Does it prove they are creationists? Only a clown like yourself would think so.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One wonders.  ???
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,12:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The "horseless carriages" worked.  The Modern Synthesis did not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I guess that depends a lot on what you're asking it to do. I've seen multiple definitions of "the modern synthesis", and I'm not sure what particular definition is being buried here. But in my world, what "the modern synthesis" means is a combination of Darwin's theory of descent with modification with Mendelian genetics and the more recently developed understanding of molecular genetics. I'm not aware of any fatal problems with that synthesis.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But seriously, dave. I'm curious. What are your sources of information  for what evolutionary science is really all about? Have you read Darwin? Have you read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Ridley... any of the excellent modern explainers of evolution?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes.  All, except Ridley.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Really! You read all these guys, and WE had to explain to you, here at AtBC, what an "allele" is, and why you only have two per organism. Now I'm beginning to wonder what your definition of "read" is.

                  But davy may have more worrisome issues to deal with. It seems that, while he's busy crowing about the "death of ToE" (as creationists have been doing for 150 years, yawn) < his whole world is crumbling! > Check it out:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html, quoting the Australian splinter group of AiG:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Worldwide libel distribution

                  The same AiG email defaming our ministry has also been sent out by an Australian creationist running his own ministry, who had split with Ken Ham in 1986 (this man had been excommunicated by an Australian church, a still unresolved issue-see www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/mackay for Ken Ham's own words about the seriousness of these actions against our ministry and an individual at that time). So this defamation has been sent to a substantial worldwide email mailing list, which would include overlap with many of our own supporters. This AiG email was clearly sent to that 'distribution source' by AiG; the covering comments state that 'Ken Ham advises', and refer to AiG's permission for the recipient to spread it still further.

                  (The aim appears to be to encourage as many people as possible to lose confidence in our ministry, and of course AiG will have a commercial 'bonus' in that the more that are encouraged to 'enquire', the more email addresses they will have, making it easier to further undermine CMI ministry in this country.)

                  We deeply regret that AiG/Ken Ham have seen fit to engage in this most serious escalation. Even in the face of this defamation, our overwhelming preference would have been to have had AiG respond to our urgent letter, to continue talks in openness and light as the Scriptures enjoin us to do rather than for us to have to publically stand against the libel.

                  In the absence of any evidence of remorse or willingness to undo this most recent and grave public attempt to damage us, we solemnly, before the Lord, believe we now have no choice but to protect the public reputation of the ministry organisation that has been entrusted to us, in as dignified and God-honoring a way as we can.

                  So we have chosen in the first instance to provide, within this email, a website link (below) to the full text of our formal 15 November response to AiG, which should substantially clarify CMI's position.

                  Of course, we do not know who all the many folk to whom AiG's defamatory comments have been emailed are, or how many times it has multiplied on the internet. So we are sending this email you are reading to the following:

                  1) To any who actually enquire of us.

                  2) To our corporation's members (an outer layer of protection which holds the directors accountable), our staff and our volunteer workers/speakers, local reps, etc.

                  3) To the management of our four national affiliates (CMI offices in Canada, NZ, US and South Africa, as well as affiliates in the UK) for providing to their staff, so that they will be able to answer these allegations as they inevitably spread. Sadly, some mud always sticks, especially when it comes from a 'big name'.

                  4) To those we know of who are involved in creation outreach of any sort, since we are aware that at least some of these have been targeted with this AiG email and previous ones.

                  5) To any (including those within AiG itself) that we have reason to believe have been contacted by AiG with similar intent and have likely received similarly misleading statements and views.

                  The link

                  Our letter of response to AiG is reproduced at this link on our site, www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2006,13:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,12:33)
                  WE'RE HEADED FOR EXTINCTION, FRIENDS ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Do you think this is news to scientists, Dave? Most species last a lot less than a million years, and we've already been here for almost 200,000 years. Why do you think this helps your "hypothesis"?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But seriously, dave. I'm curious. What are your sources of information  for what evolutionary science is really all about? Have you read Darwin? Have you read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Ridley... any of the excellent modern explainers of evolution?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  All, except Ridley.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really? You've read "On the Origin of Species"? "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History "? "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"? "Unweaving the Rainbow"? "Hens' Teeth and Horses' Toes"? Do you realize how utterly ludicrous that makes you sound, Dave? If you've actually read these guys, and still have as many profound misconceptions about evolutionary theory as you do, you must have a very strange definition of "reading." To say you've read these guys and actually comprehended what they've said is certainly a lie. It's beyond a lie; it's an impossibility.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, first of all, I have to suspect this is a trick question. Because I'm pretty sure I've seen davy use, albeit sneeringly, the formula: "RM+NS". You do know what the NS stands for, davy? Is there some reason why that's not the obvious answer to your question?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I know the traditional answer--Random Mutation + Natural Selection, but it is inadequate as Sanford has shown.  A recently famous Cornell professor--Allen MacNeill--has also now declared that "the Modern Synthesis is dead."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First of all, Sanford has shown no such thing, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. Second, NS is hardly the only mechanism driving evolution, which has also been pointed out to you numerous times.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

                  This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centenial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

                  However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714 >
                  [note: my emph. different from Dave's]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's right ... ToE just died, but let's pretend it didn't and come up with some more goofy ideas for how it might work!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, did you even read your own quote? Did you have the slightest comprehension of what the guy is saying? Do you not realize it completely demolishes your point? No? How is that even possible?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,13:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What mechanism can you propose that can REVERSE the deterioration and set our species on a path of genome improvement, instead of deterioration?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In that very paper you quote-mined, Kondrashov tells us:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He also says

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the N-e of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G < s < 1/4N(e)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Our genome is 3.10^9 bp. Considering that most of it isn't translated, the size of our genome which may be subject to selection is probably shorter than a billion bp. What is our population size, Davey?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,13:35

                  AFD ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's right ... ToE just died, but let's pretend it didn't and come up with some more goofy ideas for how it might work!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Such as ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Jeannot said]...including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sure ... or maybe the Tooth Fairy or Alladin's Lamp or Bippety, boppity, boo ...
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,13:37



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you've actually read these guys, and still have as many profound misconceptions about evolutionary theory as you do, you must have a very strange definition of "reading."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Tell us explicitly dave. When you say you've "read" these authors, you do mean at least one entire book by each, right? You don't mean that you've just read scattered "excerpts", courtesy of AiG, do you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2006,13:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,13:35)
                  Such as ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Jeannot said]...including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sure ... or maybe the Tooth Fairy or Alladin's Lamp or Bippety, boppity, boo ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course, Dave has absolutely no idea what these terms mean. So what does he do? The same thing he does all the time: he resorts to personal incredulity.

                  And in the meantime, Dave: why are we even discussing the Theory of Evolution? Have you forgotten once again what the title of this thread is? Look up there right at the top of the page: it says AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis. Are you going to discuss your "hypothesis," or are you going to continue in your pathetic and ineffective attempts to discredit one of the most solidly-supported (you know, by actual evidence?) theories in all of science?

                  And before you answer that, remember, we're not discussing the theory of evolution here. We're discussing your pathetic, unworkable excuse for a "hypothesis."

                  I'd ask SteveStory to delete any of your posts that don't actually discuss your "hypothesis," but that would make this a very short thread.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,13:54

                  Davey. this is beyond moronic, even for you:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In fission bombs we are forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're spitting up dirt from the antipodes of where the barrel is situated.
                  What a complete no-nothing, ugh!
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,14:01

                  Yeah Eric, the last argument he provided in favour of a young Earth is that plants in a bigger biosphere fix more C12. (?!?)

                  When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

                  Of course he can't.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,14:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

                  Of course he can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why, what a remarkable coincidence! That's exactly what happened when he said he could show us Science articles that could compete with AiG for poor standards of accuracy and honesty.

                  It's almost like there's, I don't know... a pattern here.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 21 2006,14:12

                  Speaking of 'hey, there seems to be a pattern here', check out the latest on the slime-masters of AIG.
                  Not just dishonest, but thieves.
                  I know, big surprise, but I thought some of you might find this latest revelation about the character of the company anti-factDave keeps at least moderately amusing.
                  How about it Dave, why do you associate with these criminals?
                  < http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html >

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 21 2006,14:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Look up there right at the top of the page: it says AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis. Are you going to discuss your "hypothesis," or are you going to continue in your pathetic and ineffective attempts
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course he's not going to do that, we all know this.

                  After getting slapped around on (1) Isochron and whole-rock radiometric dating, (2) Information theory and AIMilano and (3) Radiocarbon dating, The Creationist Fool is left with little else but to try to play more childish games while avoiding any real analysis of his "hypothesis that is better than any other."

                  He can't come up with any means of showing how his hypothesis could even in theory be falsified, he can't even come up with a means by which his "flood date" can be falsified...he just tosses out "calculations" which utilize well-worn creationist weaseling like "if we presume" and "could be , would be, should be, maybe, might, if we assume" and has no backing for it at all, and he knows it.

                  So, he can't show radiometric dating wrong, and he can't show how his "hypothesis" can stand scrutiny -- let alone be falsified -- this thread is essentially at its end. Dave's ship is sunk and like vermin, his little claws are just scrabbling for an exit.

                  To be honest, for a long time, I 've only been looking in on this thread once in a while, and then only to see if Dave's pointed concave, eggshell-thin empty skull needs more crushing.

                  I'm quite content that no rational human -- or even a semi-rational creationist --can read through the length of AFDave's thread and conclude that this child in a man's body supported his hypothesis.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 21 2006,14:32

                  Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 21 2006,14:01)
                  Yeah Eric, the last argument he provided in favour of a young Earth is that plants in a bigger biosphere fix more C12. (?!?)

                  When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

                  Of course he can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I'm still, six months later, waiting for Dave to account for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. Or the sun, for that matter.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 21 2006,14:48

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 21 2006,14:32)
                   
                  Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 21 2006,14:01)
                  Yeah Eric, the last argument he provided in favour of a young Earth is that plants in a bigger biosphere fix more C12. (?!?)

                  When he realised he had nothing to back that up, he changed the topic, but I d'like him to provide the equations behind his claim.

                  Of course he can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I'm still, six months later, waiting for Dave to account for the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. Or the sun, for that matter.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, he could just claim that "God created light". Then He could have placed rays of lights wherever he liked.
                  Or maybe the speed of light was different in the past. Or whatever.
                  This does sound silly, but that's the kind of arguments Dave uses. Nothing particularly funny to expect.

                  But I really want him to adress my point about basalts of the oceanic crust. Because he would have to provide a ridiculous and funny story like "time goes faster near the shores".
                  Come on Davey, you can do it!  :)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,14:58

                  Hold the presses!  Wait just one dad-burned minute!
                  However microcephalic he may be, us pinheads resemble this remark:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  only to see if Dave's pointed, eggshell-like empty skull needs more crushing.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please get the subspecies correct: whatever else he may be, Davey Dumb-Dumbs is not a member of the pinhead clade!
                  Arrgghh...   :angry:
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,15:07

                  I would speculate--which is all you can do when it comes to attempting to analyze Dave's alleged "mental processes"--that Dave Marbles In His Head "visualizes" nuclear fission as something kind of like playing marbles.  You take your shooter marble and plink it into the pile of marbles in the circle, like making the break shot in a game of Eight-Ball pool.  If you just physically smack the target marbles/pool balls hard enough, you can "force" the initiation of a nuclear chain reaction.

                  Now, this is kinda-sorta the way that an accelerator works--you can smack the target particle hard enough with the "cue" particle to get it to break down into its constituents.

                  But it's not the way that an A-bomb works, as has been explained above.  Nor is it even the way that a "controlled" nuclear reaction works.

                  Ever notice, Davey, that not too many accelerators, uh, have exploded?

                  Crikey, this mutt is off the charts, and not in a good direction.

                  No wonder he's so concerned about deleterious mutations.  He certainly seems to have inherited more than his share...
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 21 2006,15:13

                  Sorry, Stevie P...I corrected the post and apologize for this latest affront to your venerable clan.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 21 2006,15:28

                  Oh my goodness.

                  Dave, what do you think? Is Weiland still bound for heaven, or does the Lake of Eternal Fire await him too, like the rest of us?



                  Haha, the best remark was made on PZ's blog by "Rather not say":

                  It's corporate speciation through geographical isolation!




                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D


                  Follow the money, dave.
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 21 2006,17:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,09:28)
                  Skeptic--  Yes, I know about Collins and Dawkins -- both good scientists I am sure when they stick to science.  I don't agree with either of their positions on Origins, of course, as I am a very convinced YEC.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, is there any theological justification for this adherance  to YEC?  You do know that no where in Genesis is the age of the Earth mentioned?  The 6000 year age came much later from an Irish priest and makes assumptions that are not supported by the Bible much less modern science.  Is there any particular reason why this is so important to you because  you can disagree with darwinian evolution on other grounds.  I just ask because it seems like much time is wasted following this reasoning...
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,17:21

                  Ah! "Skeptic"! You're back. Perhaps you can clear up this confusion from this morning:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ["Skeptic":] Either way you'll see that blanket statements like Russell used are way too general.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] and what "blanket statement" might you be referring to? Are you taking davy's word for what I said? If so, you sure are credulous for someone who styles himself "Skeptic"

                  Will your retraction and apology be forthcoming?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 21 2006,19:07

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 21 2006,14:50)
                  I'd ask SteveStory to delete any of your posts that don't actually discuss your "hypothesis," but that would make this a very short thread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeah, I considered this with him and Paley, but it would destroy them both and we'd lose 90% of the energy of the board. Dave's MO seems to be, let you tell him some evidence, misunderstand it and issue some responses ranging from the imaginary ("I bet there was a whole buncha other data they suppressed which proves my point") to the completely impossible ("All mutations are bad"), and repeat. His hypothesis never gets any more detailed or interesting than the hand-waving of Answers in Genesis. It can't get any more detailed. Because as a coherent whole, it doesn't fit the data in any close way.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,19:45

                  Not to mention, that Dave doesn't really "know" anything that he hasn't read here, on AIG, or in his Fat Book.

                  And most of what he sees here, he fails to internalize.

                  Oh, excuse me, I almost forgot davey's vaunted, koff koff, "common sense."

                  Worth every penny he paid for it.
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 21 2006,19:54

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 21 2006,17:21)
                  Ah! "Skeptic"! You're back. Perhaps you can clear up this confusion from this morning:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ["Skeptic":] Either way you'll see that blanket statements like Russell used are way too general.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] and what "blanket statement" might you be referring to? Are you taking davy's word for what I said? If so, you sure are credulous for someone who styles himself "Skeptic"

                  Will your retraction and apology be forthcoming?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, Russell.  I did try to respond this morning and I encountered server issues but I was going to retract that comment if it was indeed a misquote of yours.  I'll trust you to make that determination.  I do not have the time to go back and read all the posts on this thread.  I read the most current ones and that can get me in trouble but I have to accept that sometimes because you guys just move way too fast for me.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 21 2006,20:15

                  Skeptic:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  you guys just move way too fast for me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Heh!  Just think how davey feels!  His head is spinning so hard between posts that he's probably popping anti-nausea pills like a landlubber on a cruise boat.

                  No wonder most of what he says, he spews.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 21 2006,20:16

                  Yes, well. Retraction/apology accepted.

                  The important point to bear in mind is that if afdave says it, you should be, well skeptical.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 21 2006,21:21

                  Well AFD you have had plenty of time to produce your evidence ......ANY EVIDENCE for your Flud.

                  Where is the evidence for an atmospheric CO2 spike around 5000 years ago?

                  I hope you read the link to the AiG shenanigans on this site < http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html. >

                  What do you think?

                  Sound familiar?

                  Anything like your church?..... where the pigs at the top get to roll around in that trough of money?

                  What did you say when the sheep questioned it AFD?

                  Well if you need any help just quotemine this from AiG's disgruntled Australian estranged parent Creation Ministries International regarding the corporate takeover.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This sorry development will bring shame on the Name of our Lord and Saviour, and give cause for the enemies of God to gloat. Would you please consider committing these matters, which also have the potential do damage to creation ministry in general (even more than has already occurred), to prayer.

                  Yours very sincerely in Christ,

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  **snicker**gloat***
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 21 2006,21:39

                  STEVIEPINHEAD LEARNS ABOUT FISSION BOMBS
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey. this is beyond moronic, even for you:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In fission bombs we are forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're spitting up dirt from the antipodes of where the barrel is situated.
                  What a complete no-nothing, ugh!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Oh really?

                  There are two basic types of nuclear weapons. The first are weapons which produce their explosive energy through nuclear fission reactions alone. These are known colloquially as atomic bombs, A-bombs, or fission bombs. In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of subcritical material into another, or by compressing a subcritical mass with chemical explosives, at which point neutrons are injected and the reaction begins. A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is ensuring that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys itself. The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range between the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards to around 500,000 tons (500 kilotons) of TNT.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon >

                  Again I say, your moniker is quite appropriate.

                  ******************************************

                  Skeptic...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, is there any theological justification for this adherance  to YEC?  You do know that no where in Genesis is the age of the Earth mentioned?  The 6000 year age came much later from an Irish priest and makes assumptions that are not supported by the Bible much less modern science.  Is there any particular reason why this is so important to you because  you can disagree with darwinian evolution on other grounds.  I just ask because it seems like much time is wasted following this reasoning...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Truth is important to me.  If a 6000 year history is the most likely to be the truth, then that is what my position will be ... I don't care how many scholars want to pretend otherwise.  There is nothing to justify the idea of Deep Time except the need for ToE advocates to make their theory work (doesn't help anyway ... NO amount of time is enough for RM+NS to build "you" from "goo."  History does not extend beyond 6000 YBP, C14 dating beyond 6000 YBP is based upon faulty assumptions, and RM Dating is as well.  It is ludicrous to say that modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, but only began keeping written records 194,000 years later.  I'm not sure about a theological problem with Deep Time per se, but it would be contradictory for death to have occurred prior to the Fall and Curse, since the Bible teaches that death came about as a result of sin.  Also, the Hebrew language is quite clear that God created all things in six literal, 24 hour days.

                  ****************************************

                  So Russell--  Now that we are seeing that the modern synthesis (RM+NS) is dead according to Allen MacNeill, what is YOUR new mechanism for how you evolved from an ape-like ancestor into a ... er ... Darwinist.

                  Can you explain "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection" and tell me why they save ToE in the face of overwhelming deleterious mutations in higher organisms?

                  Sanford can.  Can you?

                  ****************************

                  Meanwhile ... I have an idea to save the human race from extinction.  Let's talk to Planned Parenthood and get them to encourage women to have 40 kids each!
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NACHMAN AND CROWELL'S PARADOX
                  M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.  Genetics 156:297-304.
                  "The human diploid genome ... about 175 new mutations per generation.  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction ... for U=3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain population size.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow!  How are we gonna finance college for all those kids??!!
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 21 2006,22:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  C14 dating beyond 6000 YBP is based upon faulty assumptions
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Fine .....produce your 5000 year old CO2 spike.
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 21 2006,22:32

                  The age of the Earth is independant of evolutionary theory so to imply a conspiracy in which one is put forth to support the other may be in error.  To also deny this same of interdependance does not indicate a search for Truth.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, the Hebrew language is quite clear that God created all things in six literal, 24 hour days.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't believe this is true.  I've read many different translations of Genesis and none of them are explicit in the six literal days; which is not to say that this would be beyond the power of a Creator, but Genesis is not that detailed.  In fact, there are hints in the Hebrew that man existed originally in a lower form and only became human when God breathed spirit into them.  There are actually much more detailed Hebrew writings than those found in the christian Bible concerning Adam and Eve and early humanity.  I think to look too deeply into one text at the expense of all we know or think we know misinterprets the purpose of the Bible.  It is not a science text; it does not contain the totality of human knowledge.  The Bible addresses what it means to be human not what humans are, if you get my meaning.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 21 2006,22:49

                  Jesus Haploid Christ, dave, I had forgotten how dense you can be.
                  You keep flaunting around that quote from Allen MacNeill, which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY does not say what you claim it does, and joyfully 'argue' away, without feeling obliged to explain how it supports your claims to the slightest.
                  Oh well, same old same old... Got anything new? As in, perhaps, an answer to all those questions you were asked?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 21 2006,23:04

                  Whack-a-mole Liar Dave, in his never ending desperate search for some way to discredit ToE, reverts back to the dishonest quote mine tactic
                   
                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 21 2006,21:39)

                  Meanwhile ... I have an idea to save the human race from extinction.  Let's talk to Planned Parenthood and get them to encourage women to have 40 kids each!
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NACHMAN AND CROWELL'S PARADOX
                  M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.  Genetics 156:297-304.
                  "The human diploid genome ... about 175 new mutations per generation.  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction ... for U=3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain population size.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wow!  How are we gonna finance college for all those kids??!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave is citing this paper

                  < Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans >
                  Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella
                  Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000,

                  Dave cites part of the conclusion, but he somehow 'forgets' to cite the part that explains why there is no 'paradox'

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 ; WALLACE 1981 ; CROW 1993 ; KONDRASHOV 1995 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (KIMURA and MORUYAMA 1966 ). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (WALLACE 1991 ) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Gee Liar Dave, why did you omit that last part?  ;)
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 21 2006,23:47

                  Liar Dave's latest "any port in a storm"  desperate flail seems to be the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Born-Again YEC John C. Sanford.

                  here's what < wikipedia > has to say about him

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  John C. Sanford

                  John C. Sanford (born in1950) is an American applied horticultural geneticist.

                  Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He then went to the University of Wisconsin where he received a MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 on plant breeding and genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor at Cornell University, and then from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University.

                  Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 25 patents. At Cornell Sanford and Theodore Klein developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun"[1][2]. He is also the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, but continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

                  Formerly an atheist, in the mid-1980s Sanford and his present wife Helen went through a marital crisis, which strongly led him to becoming a born again Christian and a young earth creationist. More recently, he has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)[3] in which he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved. However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

                  An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God." He also stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5[,000] and 100,000" years.[4] An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate alleged evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."[5] Intelligent design proponent William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the alleged scientific status of intelligent design [6] and has endorsed Sanford's book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[7]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Seems like another poor slob who went 'round the bend' due to personal issues, became a 'born-again' YEC, and is now (like Liar Dave) trying unsuccessfully to deal with the resulting massive cognitive dissonance.  If Dumbski is touting this book, you know it's gotta be crap.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 22 2006,00:38

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 20 2006,12:50)
                  BWE...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal democracy, individual freedoms and the like. You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Go for it.  But not on yours or my blog.  Let's do it right here.  Title as follows "AF Dave vs. BWE on Christian America", subtitle "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dost mine eyes decieve me? My head still hurts from the bump I got when I fell out of my chair.


                  Dave:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America... and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  

                  You will note that American government (designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.

                  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ME:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh Dave. Please, please, please, please let me start a new thread or do it on my blog to debate the idea of fundies in history, starting America (tied or untied), coming up with the idea of liberal

                  democracy, individual freedoms and the like. You already said you would do it. Now all I am asking is that you keep your word.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DAVE:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Go for it.  But not on yours or my blog.  Let's do it right here.  Title as follows "AF Dave vs. BWE on Christian America", subtitle "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  .....................................
                  Ok, first some vague definitions: Feel free to ammend this list.

                  1. Fundies=believe in a literal interpretation of the Christian bible including genesis (and revelations...)

                  2. Founders= People who designed, debated and wrote the constitution, declaration of independence, articles of confederation, +Thomas Paine of course... Extra weight given to the more important ones.

                  3. The idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  = the notion of liberal democracy as described by Locke, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, maybe Adam Smith, etc. We can be a little loosy goosy and I'll concede most of your nominations.

                  4. All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.= Those who meet criteria for definitions A and C must be primarily the same group. (Don't worry, I won't hold you to this one.)
                  ...................................................



                  It sounds like you are making a broader claim than just the Founding Fathers. You are also claiming that the roots of liberal democracy are fundy. I would like to limit it to just the founding fathers for brevity but, like evolution shutting the door on original sin, the enlightenment is a critical underpinning of the founding of America and probably needs to be included.

                  If I start, I will begin with a conceptual bit to try to establish that the enlightenment sharpened the separation of ways of knowing into objective, subjective and contemplative. This separation of modes is something that allowed enlightenment thinkers to see the individual objectively for essentially the first time. This change began the process of removing superstition (Including genesis mythology) from science and philosophy. The enlightenment writers, philosophers, artists and etc whose ideas eventually let to the idea of liberal democracy were, in fact, creating the shrinking landscape for the Literal Genesis interpretation to create what we now call the "God of the Gaps" In essense, they were the exact opposite of "fundy" as defined above. They were actually busy killing off the worldview that helped the fundies escape ridicule for so long.

                  Then I will begin a point by point of Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, and Franklin. With each, I will show the relationship of their writings to the enlightenment ideas of the separation of spiritual knowledge from empirical knowledge and aknowledgement of the rights of the individual. Then I will find citations from each (and I will attempt to provide the context for the quotes :) ) which demonstrate that they were quite specifically not fundy. Whenever possible I will provide quotes that suggest their opinions of fundies.


                  This is all off the top of my head, so if you want to refine the debate, feel free. Also, If you want to go first and refine your claims, go ahead.

                  And Steve, Can we use the thread I made for portuguese? < link >
                  Posted by: bfish on Nov. 22 2006,01:08

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,12:33)
                  Russell...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But seriously, dave. I'm curious. What are your sources of information  for what evolutionary science is really all about? Have you read Darwin? Have you read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Ridley... any of the excellent modern explainers of evolution?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  All, except Ridley.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  -

                  Apes don't read philosophy.

                  Yes, they do, Otto.
                  They just don't understand it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,02:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 21 2006,21:39)
                  STEVIEPINHEAD LEARNS ABOUT FISSION BOMBS
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey. this is beyond moronic, even for you:
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In fission bombs we are forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are not just scraping the bottom of the barrel, you're spitting up dirt from the antipodes of where the barrel is situated.
                  What a complete no-nothing, ugh!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Oh really?

                  There are two basic types of nuclear weapons. The first are weapons which produce their explosive energy through nuclear fission reactions alone. These are known colloquially as atomic bombs, A-bombs, or fission bombs. In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of subcritical material into another, or by compressing a subcritical mass with chemical explosives, at which point neutrons are injected and the reaction begins. A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs is ensuring that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the weapon destroys itself. The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range between the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards to around 500,000 tons (500 kilotons) of TNT.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And how does this equate to "forcibly initiating the splitting of atoms," Dave? As usual, your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,03:29

                  Oh and, Dave, why did you edit out ONE WORD (the word AND) in your previous quote, as it appears in Occam's post?

                  the actual passage:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your editing of it:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now that was a strange thing to do, wasn't it? It makes no sense... Unless someone wanted to make it look like that was the final conclusion of the argument? Unless someone was a goddamn liar?

                  (Don't worry Dave, I'm not saying that's you. You were simply naive enough to repost that quote, exactly the way your mentors posted it. It's THEM that are most likely the goddamn liars.)
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,05:16

                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You keep flaunting around that quote from Allen MacNeill, which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY does not say what you claim it does, and joyfully 'argue' away, without feeling obliged to explain how it supports your claims to the slightest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh really?  OK.  Let's hear YOUR summary of what he said then.  I think he said basically, "The Modern Synthesis (RM+NS) is dead.  Vive la New Synthesis!" ... i.e. Punq Eq, Hopeful Monster, Synergistic Epistasis, Truncation Selection, Alladin's Lamp, and Bippety Boppity Boo.

                  Got any other ideas?

                  OA ... [Wikipedia] ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What??!!  Your kidding, right??!  NOT published in peer-reviewed journals!!  Say it ain't so!!  Let me guess ... uh ... he's a YEC.  Ding! Ding! Ding!  I win the money!  

                  EXHIBIT 1: STANDARD EVO EXPLANATION FOR ANY SCIENTISTS WHO JUMPS SHIP FROM HMS DARWIN
                  OA...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Seems like another poor slob who went 'round the bend' due to personal issues, became a 'born-again' YEC, and is now (like Liar Dave) trying unsuccessfully to deal with the resulting massive cognitive dissonance.  If Dumbski is touting this book, you know it's gotta be crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  OA ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (KONDRASHOV 1995 ; CROW 1997 ; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 ). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  I agree that's the new standard explanation.  Old news, OA.  And I quoted all those guys already also.  They all have this new "magic wand" -- Synergistic Epistasis and Truncation Selection -- only problem is, they don't work.  And I will explain to you why next.  That's why I asked Russell this question ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So Russell--  Now that we are seeing that the modern synthesis (RM+NS) is dead according to Allen MacNeill, what is YOUR new mechanism for how you evolved from an ape-like ancestor into a ... er ... Darwinist.

                  Can you explain "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection" and tell me why they save ToE in the face of overwhelming deleterious mutations in higher organisms?

                  Sanford can.  Can you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  BWE ....

                  1. Fundies:  In this context, people who believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, i.e. We should follow the commands of Jesus, we should obey the 10 commandments, there really is a God who created heaven and earth and all living creatures and He will judge the world someday.

                  2. Founders:  People who helped set the direction for American government.  Begins with people like William Bradford and the Pilgrims all the way up to the constitutional writers, early presidents, early justices, etc.

                  3. Representative Government -- the idea that everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.

                  4. All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religious rulership.

                  **************************************

                  STRANGE THINGS ERIC BELIEVES
                  1)  White noise has more information than a Winston Churchill speech
                  2)  Fission bombs are not exploded by a forcible initiation of atom splitting
                  3)  My uncle is a monkey

                  CHECK.

                  (Just kidding about the last one ... he didn't really say that exactly ... but close! )
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,05:28

                  OA...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Liar Dave's latest "any port in a storm"  desperate flail seems to be the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Born-Again YEC John C. Sanford.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  SEEMS to be?  Was there any doubt?  Did you not read my post WAY back on Nov 2?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CORNELL GENETICIST REFUTES THE PRIMARY AXIOM

                  Dr. John Sanford has been a Cornell University professor for more than 25 years in the area of plant breeding and plant genetics.  He has published over 70 scientific publications, and was granted over 25 patents.  His most significant scientific contributions involved three inventions -- the biolistic ("gene gun") process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization.  Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators.  John also started two successfull businesses deriving from his research -- Biolistics, Inc. and Sanford Scientific, Inc.

                  Dr. Sanford is now a YEC and has the following to say in the prologue of his new book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome... Quote  
                  Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable.  I began to question the Primary Axiom [the belief that man is the product of RM + NS].  I did this with great fear and trepidation.  By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia.  Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.  Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche.  ... Several years of personal struggle resulted in a new understanding, and a very strong conviction that the Primary Axiom was most definitely wrong. ... What should I do?  It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level -- having catastrophic impact on countless human lives.  Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false.  So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud:  the Emperor has no clothes!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  *********************************

                  Note to Faid ...

                  This sentence ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ...has no perceptible difference in meaning from this sentence ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  My guess would be a secretary copying thing.  But go ahead and see a YEC Demon behind every bush if it makes you feel better.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 22 2006,06:43

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,00:38)
                  Then I will begin a point by point of Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, and Franklin. With each, I will show the relationship of their writings to the enlightenment ideas of the separation of spiritual knowledge from empirical knowledge and aknowledgement of the rights of the individual. Then I will find citations from each (and I will attempt to provide the context for the quotes :) ) which demonstrate that they were quite specifically not fundy. Whenever possible I will provide quotes that suggest their opinions of fundies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  BWE, don't forget James Madison. I would absolutely love to see Dave try to explain "Memorial and Remonstrance."
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 22 2006,06:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,05:16)
                  2. Founders:  People who helped set the direction for American government.  Begins with people like William Bradford and the Pilgrims all the way up to the constitutional writers, early presidents, early justices, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you are trying to move the goalposts before the game even started.  Going back to William Bradford is really quite irrelevant since the Constitution that came out of the 1787 convention was a specific repudiation of everything that came before it, not just the Articles of Confederation.  It was intended to supercede all that.

                  Besides, if you bring up Bradford, someone will have to bring up Roger Williams.  And I know you don't want to go there, now do you?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  3)  My uncle is a monkey
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  EDIT: You know, there was an interesting article in last months Smithsonian magazine about bonobos.  If you can get past the parts about their rather randy behavior, it seems to imply that they can develop the ability to communicate relatively complex concepts.  Maybe you should be more accepting of that side of your family.  ;)
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,07:26

                  QUOTES FROM DR. J.C. SANFORD IN GENETIC ENTROPY AND THE MYSTERY OF THE GENOME

                  (I think I moved too fast before ... let's slow down and walk through this ... let's also make sure everyone understands "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection.")

                  NOTE:  When I quote famous geneticists that support my position, I am not claiming that they have become YECs.  I am only showing how they unwittingly support the YEC position.

                  MULLER's FEAR
                  Muller, H.J. 1950.  Our load of mutations.  Amer. J Human Genetics 2:111-176.
                  "...it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1 ... if, to make matters worse, U [deleterious mutations per person per generation] should be anything like as high as 0.5 ..., our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements." pp. 149-150.

                  NEEL'S REALIZATION
                  J.V. Neel et al. 1986.  The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides.  PNAS 83:389-393.
                  "...gamete rates for point mutations ... on the order of 30 per generation ... The implications of mutations of this magnitude for population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound.  The first response of many population geneticists is to suggest that most of these occur in "silent" DNA and are of no real biological significance.  Unfortunately for that line of reasoning ... the amount of silent DNA is steadily shrinking.  The question of how our species accomodates such mutation rates is central to evolutionary thought."

                  KONDRASHOV'S QUESTION
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  (Snip invocation of the "magic wand" of "synergistic epistasis")

                  KONDRASHOV'S NUMBERS
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 2002. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.  Human Mutation 21:12-27.
                  "...the total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100 ... at least 10% of these are deleterious ... analysis of human variability suggests that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles ..."  

                  Sanford says in his book that "Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me, by way of personal communication, that 100 was just a lower estimate, and that 300 is his upper estimate.  He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious.  This means that from his perspective "U" (deleterious mutations per person per generation) would be 30-90.  This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible."
                  (Snip invocation of the "magic wand" of "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection")

                  NACHMAN AND CROWELL'S PARADOX
                  M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.  Genetics 156:297-304.
                  "The human diploid genome ... about 175 new mutations per generation.  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction ... for U=3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain population size.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher."
                  (Snip invocation of the "magic wand" of "synergistic epistasis" )

                  WALKER/KEIGHTLEY'S DEGENERATION
                  A. Eyre-Walker and P. Keightley.  1999.  High genomic deleterious mutation rates in Hominids. Nature 397:344-347.
                  "...deleterious mutations rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive ...."

                  CROW'S CONCERNS
                  J.F. Crow. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386.
                  "It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don't we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime." [Hmmm ... he's saying we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors? ... how then did we evolve into what we are now?]

                  "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. "
                  (Snip author's rejection of "truncation selection" as not viable ... proposes "quasi-truncation selection instead.")

                  And 50 years ago Crow was saying this ...
                  James Crow - "Genetic effects of radiation" - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists vol. 14:19-20 (Jan 1958)
                  "Even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutations would usually be detrimental.  For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized reasonably smoothly functioning living body.  A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it -- just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is no likely to improve the picture."

                  WHAT IS TRUNCATION SELECTION?  QUASI? SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS?
                  TRUNCATION SELECTION
                  Crow (1997) has a good explanation of Truncation Selection (which he says is totally unrealistic) here
                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 >
                  Instead he proposes "Quasi" Truncation Selection.  Crow's theory has been modeled using computer simulations by both YEC's (ReMine) and non-YECs (Schoen et al, 1998) and the bottom line is that the mutations still accumulate disastrously and the species goes extinct in 300 generations.  And this, only if we can actually select effectively.  If all the mutations are nearly neutral, then they are unselectable, and Crow's model breaks down completely.

                  Remember also that estimates for the number of mutations per generation in humans has been steadily rising ... Kondrashov's recent numbers IN PRINT (2002) are 100 per individual per generation (10% of which he says are deleterious, but I say ALL are at least mildly deleterious).  Privately, he says the numbers may be as high as 300 with 30% being deleterious.  Will the number keep rising?  Yes, because we are finding out that "junk DNA" isn't junk after all. (R. J. Taft and J. S. Mattick. 2003. Increasing biological complexity is positively correlated with the relative genome-wide expansion of non-protein-coding DNA sequences.  Genome Biology 5(1):P1.)  Ooops!!   Also, near-neutral are unselectable.  So how are you going to detect which ones to select?  Big problem, guys!!

                  SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS
                  This term sounds really grand, but I'll give you three guesses as to what it means ...

                  OK.  Give up?  I'll tell you then.

                  It literally means "Interactive interaction."

                  Profound, huh?

                  Sanford explains ... "To the extent we can attribute any meaning to the term synergistic epistasis, it means that mutations interact such that several mutations cause more damage collectively than would be predicted by their individual effects.  At least one paper provides experimental evidence that the concept is not valid (Elena and Lenski, 1997).  But even if it were valid, it makes the genetic situation worse, not better.  We have always known that genic units interact, and we know that such epistasis is a huge impediment to effective selection.  This fact is normally conveniently ignored by most geneticists because selection scenarios become hopelessly complex and unworkable unless such interactions are conveniently set aside."  (p. 110)

                  ***********************************

                  Carlson ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you are trying to move the goalposts before the game even started.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. I am asserting where my goalposts are and have always been.  One cannot have a meaningful discussion about the "Founders of America" without going back all the way to the Pilgrims.

                  PS:  Happy Thanksgiving!  I'm headed to Oklahoma for a few days of Thanksgiving to God for our great country.  I'm going to read to my kids about William Bradford and the Pilgrims and Squanto and Samoset and the First Thanksgiving feast.  How about you?

                  Here's a good link for some Thanksgiving Day proclamations by past presidents.
                  < http://pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm >
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 22 2006,07:40

                  BWE, I was going to point this out to you last night but I was too tired.  Any discussion of the United States as a Christian nation invovles Bradford and the reasons the puritans came over as well as the role of religion in their success.  Ultimately, this question always cirlces back to "How can you accept the fundamental rights without a higher authority (God) to grant those rights"?  I believe from this point there is no resolution between the two sides.  Either you believe in God and "we are endowed by our Creator" or you don't and take a humanist view to the granting of equal rights.  There's no middle ground between these two world views and discussions with undoubtably degenerate from the onset.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 22 2006,07:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm headed to Oklahoma for a few days of Thanksgiving to God for our great country.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well you can thank Pres. Lincoln for the Holiday he gave you to take peoples minds off your Civil War in 1863.

                  Can you pray that Allah won't blow something up there? Since the Oklahoma bombers seem to have been tied up with some fundamentalist sect which claimed to aligned to your god.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 22 2006,07:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So Russell--  Now that we are seeing that the modern synthesis (RM+NS) is dead according to Allen MacNeill, what is YOUR new mechanism for how you evolved from an ape-like ancestor into a ... er ... Darwinist.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Let's review, davy. What's MacNeill's definition of "the modern synthesis"? Is it:

                  the modern synthesis = RM+NS?

                  I don't think so. I think it's rather more complicated than that. As I pointed out yesterday, many different people seem to have different definitions of that term. I told you what mine is. It is definitely not dead. Frankly, I'm not sure what MacNeill's definition is. If I want to find out, I will read MacNeill, in context, not some quote-miner's agenda-driven excerpt.

                  Which brings me back to the question that was put to you about three times yesterday, but that you never "got around to":

                  (1) What books (i.e. entire books, not AiG excerpts) have you read by evolutionary biologists? (2) Assuming that there is a non-zero answer to part (1), how did you manage to get from the beginning to the end without ever figuring out what "allele" means?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,08:09

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If I want to find out, I will read MacNeill, in context, not some quote-miner's agenda-driven excerpt.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No quote mine.  I gave the whole quote and the link for the context.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which brings me back to the question that was put to you about three times yesterday, but that you never "got around to":

                  (1) What books (i.e. entire books, not AiG excerpts) have you read by evolutionary biologists? (2) Assuming that there is a non-zero answer to part (1), how did you manage to get from the beginning to the end without ever figuring out what "allele" means?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have read MANY authors in part.  I have truly read enough to give them a chance to make their case ... which they did not.  I have not read ANY evolutionist's book in its entirety.  I have read excerpts at the library and at Barnes & Noble.  The only one I actually wasted my money on was Dawkins - Blind Watchmaker.  The ones I have read portions of become so boring after the first couple of chapters that I generally give up.  I truly think that they are based upon such demonstrably false premises, that they are not worth reading, except possibly for some quote value to support the creationist position.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 22 2006,08:09

                  [quote=afdave,Nov. 22 2006,07:26][/quote]


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you are trying to move the goalposts before the game even started.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. I am asserting where my goalposts are and have always been.  One cannot have a meaningful discussion about the "Founders of America" without going back all the way to the Pilgrims.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, that puts you (and David Barton) on the outside looking in, since the Constitution replaced everything that preceded it.  But, don't forget Roger Williams.  He was the original Barry Lynn.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PS:  Happy Thanksgiving!  I'm headed to Oklahoma for a few days of Thanksgiving to God for our great country.  I'm going to read to my kids about William Bradford and the Pilgrims and Squanto and Samoset and the First Thanksgiving feast.  How about you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I intend to finish a biography of Thomas Paine and to start reading The Federalist Papers.  I also intend to spend some time working an APHA mare of mine that isn't breaking at the poll.

                  I am assuming that you are probably dropping down I-35.  If you want to give your kids some exposure to science that won't impinge on your creationism, you might want to take a diversion at Wichita and hop over to Hutchinson to see the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.  It is an absolutely fantastic facility that shows the parallel development of the American and Soviet space programs.  In some respects, I think it is superior to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (which it is affiliated with).
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,08:40

                  Dave, you didn't even DO a summary of what Mc Neill said. You just yelled "SEE WHAT HE SAID? DEAD! DEAD I TELL YOU!" and refused to listen to any explanations- as usual. But to your extreme discomfort, others have already explained to you what McNeill says (as your post clearly shows). Now, you can disagree with McNeill's opinion (and feel free to prove him wrong-hah!;), but snipping a phrase of his argument, to construct a strawman to fight, is dishonest at best, as I'm sure your pastor would tell you.

                  As for that quote, well, forgive me if, when I see a creationist editing ONE WORD ("AND") out of a scientist's article, I tend to look for ways that distorted its meaning- and I already showed you how. And, speaking of seeing demons everywhere, how did that story go again, about Evo Commissars dominating every single field of sience, suppressing all data and studies that might question Darwin the Great?
                  That's not just a log in your eye, Dave; that's the sternboard of Noah's ark.  :D

                  PS. What's all this about white noice and speeches? You do realize that, at least according to Shannon's theory, a message that consists of white noice will have maximum information content, right? Or is it about something else?

                  PPS. Oh and, it's not "interactive interaction", or anything nearly as silly, dave. A good approximate translation for synergistic epistasis would be something like "cooperative moderation". Trust me, I'm Greek.  ;)
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 22 2006,09:25

                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have not read ANY evolutionist's book in its entirety.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, thanks for your honesty, on this occasion, anyway.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No quote mine.  I gave the whole quote and the link for the context.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But I notice you didn't answer my question: what does MacNeill mean by "modern synthesis"?
                  Does he equate, as you seem to, "modern synthesis" = "RM+NS" = "ToE"?
                  Is he talking about a strictly "adaptationist" view?
                  What?

                  I know. Getting to a meaningful understanding of these terms is so boring...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The ones I have read portions of become so boring after the first couple of chapters that I generally give up.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...but I'm afraid it takes a little perseverance, and a little more openness to ideas than you seem to be able to muster.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,09:37

                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PPS. Oh and, it's not "interactive interaction", or anything nearly as silly, dave. A good approximate translation for synergistic epistasis would be something like "cooperative moderation". Trust me, I'm Greek.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Epistasis and genetic interaction refer to the same phenomenon; however, epistasis is widely used in population genetics and refers especially to the statistical properties of the phenomenon."
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis >

                  Download the whole thread and you will find my extensive fisking of Drew Headley and Eric's erroneous ideas about Shannon information.  They have fallen victim to some common misconceptions about Shannon Information explained by Dr. Tom Schneider at NIH found here.
                  < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >

                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am assuming that you are probably dropping down I-35.  If you want to give your kids some exposure to science that won't impinge on your creationism, you might want to take a diversion at Wichita and hop over to Hutchinson to see the Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center.  It is an absolutely fantastic facility that shows the parallel development of the American and Soviet space programs.  In some respects, I think it is superior to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum (which it is affiliated with).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No time today, but I've heard it's great!

                  Russell.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I notice you didn't answer my question: what does MacNeill mean by "modern synthesis"?
                  Does he equate, as you seem to, "modern synthesis" = "RM+NS" = "ToE"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It appears he equates the Modern Synthesis=RM+NS, from reading his statements at the UD link provided.  Of course he still believes in ToE (by faith) but he does not propose a new mechanism that I know of.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 22 2006,09:41

                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 22 2006,05:28 )
                   
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OA: Liar Dave's latest "any port in a storm"  desperate flail seems to be the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Born-Again YEC John C. Sanford.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  SEEMS to be?  Was there any doubt?  Did you not read my post WAY back on Nov 2?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK, it's a certainty that your latest desperate flail is that book.

                  See Dave, we know how you operate.  You're a moron drowning in an ocean of scientific data that you can't refute and can't explain.  You desperately cling to any piece of Creationist trash that floats by in order to keep your head above the water for one more day: Anti-science articles by AIG that have been refuted a thousand times, dishonestly quote mined passages, cites from 50 year old papers, claims from other YEC wingnuts made in popular press books that haven't come within 10 miles of a proper scientific peer review.

                  Your latest ‘Mae West’ is Sanford, who is just one more YEC to publish his personal incredulity and try to pass it off as fact.  We’ll put him right next to Behe on the ‘man with science background goes born-again, tries desperately to scientifically justify his choice’ shelf.   The scientific community isn’t impressed by such pop culture works written to tell ignorant morons like you only what you want to hear Dave.

                  Now, when are you going to address any of the other dozen topics (like the NO evidence of a 100X carbon spike in the C14 cal data) that you keep cowardly avoiding?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,09:43

                  Honest Dave quotes:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. "
                  (Snip author's rejection of "truncation selection" as not viable ... proposes "quasi-truncation selection instead.")
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, dave, you didn't snip that part then, since Crow had (quite convincingly) argued for it before this part you quote... But now wait a minute:
                  You DID snip something else after that, something you forgot to mention:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. <snip>But this is a problem with a long time scale; the characteristic time is some 50-100 generations, which cautions us against advocating any precipitate action. We can take time to learn more.</snip>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Naughty, naughty dave... :D

                  And Crow continues:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Meanwhile, we have more immediate problems: global warming, loss of habitat, water depletion, food shortages, war, terrorism, and especially increase of the world population. If we don't somehow reduce the global birth rate to a sustainable level commensurate with economic viability, we won't have the luxury of worrying about the mutation problem.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  <AFDaveRant> ARE YOU KIDDING? WHO CARES ABOUT WARS AND FAMINE? THE SKY IS FALLING! OUR GENOME IS DETERIORATING! WE ARE BECOMING EXTINCT FOR OUR SINS! SOON WE SHALL BE NO MORE, FOLKS... </AFDaveRant>

                  ...Starting in a couple thousand years.

                  Got anything else, Chicken Little?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,09:49

                  Oh and dave, if you want to call it "cooperative interaction" that's fine with me, although epistasis specifically refers to the modification or adjustment of a function. Your "translation" is still way off (and silly).

                  About white noice etc: I will read about this- something tells me I'm in for a laugh! (Unless you are not referring to Shannon's theory at all, in which case I pass).

                  <edit: dave, are you sure you know what < fisking > means?>


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 22 2006,10:05

                  More flawed arguments from our pet YEC AFDave

                  Dave cuts & pasts various words from Kondrashov (an others) in circle and make new sentences:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  (Snip invocation of the "magic wand" of "synergistic epistasis")
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  <skip other quotes>

                  Translation:
                  "Someone has shown that we accumulate slightly deleterious mutation and I will use it as an argument for my CGH"
                  "The processes that can counterbalance that and explain how lineages has survived for 3 billion years are BS"
                  "Why? Because we don't need them, since life was created only 6000 years ago"
                  "Therefore life must have been created 6000 years ago; otherwise we’d be all dead"
                  (Condensed version:  “the Bible is right because it is”)

                  Anticipating Dave’s reasoning:
                  «Bible says that Noah lived hundreds of years"
                  "Thus, life expectancy has decreased ever since, because of deleterious mutations"
                  "Hence, processes that can counterbalance that are BS"
                  "Therefore the Bible is right"
                  (Condensed version : the Bible is right because it is).
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,10:26

                  Same old, same old.

                  Hey Dave, I don't have the stamina to look through the entire thread now (maybe if somone had a link?), but I did read Schneider's page and he seems to have it right. I know something about this because a friend of mine worked with Shannon's math for a while. He had explained it to me and it seemed weird at first, but he convinced me (not that I had the expertise to dispute him).
                  Now, my question is: Did Eric say that white noise in general actually contains information, or did he say that a message consisting of white noise has, according to Shannon's theory, more information than a speech?
                  If he said the first, he was wrong; if he said the latter, he was right. Weird, but true.  :)
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 22 2006,11:30

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,11:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,05:16)
                  Faid...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You keep flaunting around that quote from Allen MacNeill, which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY does not say what you claim it does, and joyfully 'argue' away, without feeling obliged to explain how it supports your claims to the slightest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh really?  OK.  Let's hear YOUR summary of what he said then.  I think he said basically, "The Modern Synthesis (RM+NS) is dead.  Vive la New Synthesis!" ... i.e. Punq Eq, Hopeful Monster, Synergistic Epistasis, Truncation Selection, Alladin's Lamp, and Bippety Boppity Boo.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, it is simply inconceivable that anyone who claims to have read the authors you claim to have read, and actually read them for comprehension, could possibly be under the misapprehension that the "Modern Synthesis" means "RM + NS." Charles Darwin proposed RM+NS (using "natural variation" to mean "random mutation") in 1859.

                  It's amazing that someone like you would even attempt to criticize a theory that you know virtually nothing about.

                  In any event, the fact that you seem to believe tha MacNeill quote supports the notion that the theory of evolution is somehow dead or dying demonstrates the depth and intractability of your delusional thinking.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 22 2006,11:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, it is simply inconceivable that anyone who claims to have read the authors you claim to have read, and actually read them for comprehension, could possibly be under the misapprehension that the
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well he did say he gets bored with them after a few pages, of course what he really means is that he just doesn't understand them after a few pages. He likes fantasy, bible study is more up his alley.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,11:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,08:09)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which brings me back to the question that was put to you about three times yesterday, but that you never "got around to":

                  (1) What books (i.e. entire books, not AiG excerpts) have you read by evolutionary biologists? (2) Assuming that there is a non-zero answer to part (1), how did you manage to get from the beginning to the end without ever figuring out what "allele" means?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have read MANY authors in part.  I have truly read enough to give them a chance to make their case ... which they did not.  I have not read ANY evolutionist's book in its entirety.  I have read excerpts at the library and at Barnes & Noble.  The only one I actually wasted my money on was Dawkins - Blind Watchmaker.  The ones I have read portions of become so boring after the first couple of chapters that I generally give up.  I truly think that they are based upon such demonstrably false premises, that they are not worth reading, except possibly for some quote value to support the creationist position.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Dave, if you've read someone like Dawkins and Gould and came away with no understanding of terms like "alleles" and the "Modern Synthesis," then you have not "truly read enough to give them a chance to make their case." You skimmed their work, until they "become so boring after the first couple of chapters that I generally give up."

                  In other words, you didn't even begin to understand what the frig they were talking about, and bailed as soon as you got to the hard parts, or the parts that generated sufficient cognitive dissonance to make smoke come out of your ears.

                  When you say things like "I truly think that they are based upon such demonstrably false premises, that they are not worth reading, except possibly for some quote value to support the creationist position," you do realize you are essentially pleading guilty to charges of quote-mining, don't you? Do you realize how staggeringly intellectually-dishonest these statements make you look?

                  But what all this means, Dave, is that any opinion you have about evolutionary biology is rendered utterly worthless by your admission, right here, that you haven't read any of these authors enough to even understand their arguments, stopped reading as soon as you got to the hard parts, and didn't even glean the most basic, elementary concepts of evolutionary biology.

                  No wonder you sound like such an idiot when you try to discuss evolution.

                  And besides, Dave, why are we even discussing evolution? Are you ever going to start trying to support your own "hypothesis"? Or have you given up in the face of overwhelming evidence that your "hypothesis" is crap?
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 22 2006,11:58

                  1. Fundies:  In this context, people who believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, i.e. We should follow the commands of Jesus, we should obey the 10 commandments, there really is a God who created heaven and earth and all living creatures and He will judge the world someday.
                  EDIT** And who believe in a literal translation of genesis and revelations

                  2. Founders:  People who helped set the direction for American government.  Begins with people like William Bradford and the Pilgrims all the way up to the constitutional writers, early presidents, early justices, etc.
                  **EDIT** If we include justices, any and all references and quotes need to come from written opinions in cases.
                  i.e. if we want to talk John Marshall, we need to relate it to founding the country by showing the founding relevance of the case like Marbury v. Madison and take our quotes from that written opinion. If the opinion is a dissent, we need to show how that dissent was cited in a relevant later case that substantially solidified the liberal democracy that became America. And, other than Marbury, I might not let you use it. Fortunately, I kept my con law textbooks from college so I have a pretty good summary on hand. Granted, they are well over 30 years old but I don't suppose we will be using Brown v. Board or Aguillard or whatever in a discussion of founders anyway, so that's probably a moot point.


                  3. Representative Government -- the idea that everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.
                  EDIT**The above definition makes no sense to me outside the concept of liberal democracy as described by Locke, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau, maybe Adam Smith, etc. Anyone you want to include whose writings describe this idea of lliberal democracy approximately is probably going to be ok with me. Like I said, we can be a little loosy goosy and I'll concede most of your nominations. But the "Everyone is truly free" quote is far far too vague and our founders established no such place so I'd be pretty sceptical about including it.
                  2 things:
                  *Who do you want to include?
                  *What are some examples of the idea you are talking about?


                  4. All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religious rulership.
                  ***************************************

                  We definitely need a working definition of addressing this claim:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Since the American Constitution is a product of the enlightenment, I would assume you are talking about liberal democracy. If that is the case, we would specifically be talking about enlightenment philosophers, artists and writers. The "everyone" bit throws me. As a goal or ideal, I dunno, that seems pretty much to have started with the rhetoric that began the iraq war.
                  The ideas of representative government that led to the constitution are pretty specific to enlightenment thinkers, particulary Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Hume. You would need to show relevance I think to go outside enlightenment material but, as I said earlier, I'll concede almost anyone you want to throw in. I'd just ask that you demonstrate some relevance to the making of the Constitution.

                  Like I said, It sounds like you are making a broader claim than just the Founding Fathers. You are also claiming that the roots of liberal democracy are fundy...the enlightenment is a critical underpinning of the founding of America and probably needs to be included. If you can show relevance, I'll accept it.


                  Dave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  
                  You will note that American government (designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.
                  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Would you like me to start or would you like to start? And, just to be clear because I offered to take either side of the debate, I am claiming that you are wrong. Is this correct?

                  carlsonjok: Sorry, I will be using Madison extensively. It was an oversight
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,12:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,09:37)
                  Download the whole thread and you will find my extensive fisking of Drew Headley and Eric's erroneous ideas about Shannon information.  They have fallen victim to some common misconceptions about Shannon Information explained by Dr. Tom Schneider at NIH found here.
                  < http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Faid, I encourage you to read the entire portion of this thread relating to Dave's erroneous claims about "information," if you have not done so, and witness yet another "Portuguese moment" for Dave. Once again, he makes a completely wrong claim, it gets pounded to dust by half a dozen posters, and then he claims "victory" once again. It's pretty entertaining! He somehow thinks Schneider supports his position even after Schneider himself specifically repudiated Dave's claims.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,12:09

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 22 2006,10:26)
                  Now, my question is: Did Eric say that white noise in general actually contains information, or did he say that a message consisting of white noise has, according to Shannon's theory, more information than a speech?
                  If he said the first, he was wrong; if he said the latter, he was right. Weird, but true.  :)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here was my actual question to Dave: "Which contains more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or a digital recording of broadband white noise of the same length." I didn't specify Shannon information in my question, but since Dave appeared to be using the term "information" in that context, there should not have been any confusion, nor did Dave change his position when I later specifically stated that I was talking about Shannon information.

                  I think I can rely on Dave to misquote my question, so I thought I'd post it first to cut him off at the pass.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 22 2006,12:39

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,11:58)
                  carlsonjok: Sorry, I will be using Madison extensively. It was an oversight
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No problem.  And all I can say in response is that I had completely forgot about John Marshall.  

                  Brilliant!
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,12:42

                  Well, Eric, in that case, you were absolutely right; And, from what I've read, Schneider would agree with you. And I wonder why dave would disagree, since he provided the link...

                  I guess I'll have to check the thread and examine what took place carefully.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 22 2006,13:05

                  I asked afdave to justify his conclusion that "the modern synthesis" = "RM+NS", which is the whole basis for his most recent round of triumphalism:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I notice you didn't answer my question: what does MacNeill mean by "modern synthesis"?
                  Does he equate, as you seem to, "modern synthesis" = "RM+NS" = "ToE"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Here's his response:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It appears he equates the Modern Synthesis=RM+NS, from reading his statements at the UD link provided.  Of course he still believes in ToE (by faith) but he does not propose a new mechanism that I know of.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This illustrates a number of fundamental problems with DaveThink.

                  First of all, the < "UD link provided" > is a comment on a blog (a thoroughly discredited blog at that, but that's another story). Afdave (who - after telling us that he has read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr... admits that, well, no, he hasn't actually read their books, just excerpts, such as those helpfully provided by AiG) thinks he can get a comprehensive definition of the term from a comment on a blog. What we have here is some combination of willful ignorance and the attention span of a 4-year-old.

                  But let's take a look at the link in question. What definition of "the modern synthesis" is offered there? None. Whatever MacNeill means by "modern synthesis" involves population genetics, which is rather more involved than "RM+NS", wouldn't you say? But, as I said, you're going to have to look into a more thorough (and, yes, sorry, probably boring) explanation for a definition.

                  Now, here's another beef I have with DaveThink. I asked him to justify a specific, key assumption behind a whole series of his time-wasting, quote-mining abuses of Allen MacNeill. Rather than responding to my request, afdave says  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It appears he equates the Modern Synthesis=RM+NS, from reading his statements at the UD link provided.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I went back over several pages of this silly thread to find the link in question, only to find that there is absolutely no justification in it for  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  he equates the Modern Synthesis=RM+NS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So what is afdave doing here? Is he intentionally trying to give the impression that he's already dealt with all these "details" if only we were paying enough attention, hoping that no one will take the trouble to call his bluff? Or is it just another case of self-delusion? And is there really a clearcut difference between the two?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course he still believes in ToE (by faith)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, based on (mis)reading a comment on a blog, davy feels he can dismiss Dr. MacNeill's understanding of his life's work as "faith". Is that obnoxious, or what?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but he does not propose a new mechanism that I know of.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And if he does, you can be sure you'd learn about it from reading comments on "Uncommonly Deceptive".
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,13:17

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 22 2006,10:26)
                  Now, my question is: Did Eric say that white noise in general actually contains information, or did he say that a message consisting of white noise has, according to Shannon's theory, more information than a speech?
                  If he said the first, he was wrong; if he said the latter, he was right. Weird, but true.  :)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's some links that might help you find out how horribly wrong Dave was in this argument, Faid:

                  < My question to Dave >

                  < Dave's initial response >

                  < My response to Dave's wrong claims about information >

                  < Dave's hopelessly wrong attempts to refute me >

                  < My fruitless attempts to get Dave to understand why he's wrong >

                  < Drew Headley weighs in >

                  < Further floundering on Dave's part, as he fails to understand >

                  < A further attempt to pound some sense into Dave's noggin >

                  < Steviepinhead gets some laughs at Dave's expense >

                  < Drew's further dissection of Dave's broken argument >

                  < Dave's further attempts to salvage the wreckage that's the remains of his argument >

                  < Further evisceration of Dave's argument >

                  < Additional, fruitless attempts to educate Dave in information theory >

                  < Drew states, for the record, that Dave is wrong >

                  < Further evidence of Dave's cluelessness >

                  < Russell weighs in, showing Dave (once again) why he's wrong >

                  < Drew's further attempts to explain to Dave why he is wrong >

                  < Dave's head sinks beneath the waves >

                  < Drew demonstrates truly admirable patience with Dave >

                  < My repeated warnings to Dave go unheeded >

                  < Dave demonstrates, once again, his inability to distinguish "information" from "meaning" >

                  < I ask Dave once again to actually address my argument, to no avail >

                  < Dave fails, once again, to even try, but claims he's already done so >

                  < I make one more attempt to get Dave to address my argument >

                  < Once again, Dave fails to do so >

                  < One more "Portuguese moment" for Dave >

                  < Drew once more points out the obvious >

                  < Which Dave once more fails to apprehend >

                  < Drew delivers the coup de grace >

                  There are other posts on the topic, but this should give you a flavor as to whether Dave "won" any sort of argument on information theory.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 22 2006,13:43

                  Eric ... Twisting and distorting won't help ... Anyone who wants the truth can download the thread ... I still don't think you have a good definition of biological information (which is what you accused me of not having when you started your blunder) ... Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism ... Evos are at the end of the rat maze ... BWE ... Monday :-)
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 22 2006,13:46

                  Carlsonjok,
                  His idea about justices sort of threw me a little. They came AFTER the constitution and are not founders. Marbury is important because it established judicial review but I don't see how others really fit in. Who the justices were personally doesn't much work for me either. Their beliefs, unless directly related to why they interpreted law a certain way, didn't affect the foundation of America. In the interest of giving Dave the widest possible space between goalposts I agreed with the caveat, but the limitations need to be there. Otherwise we just get into a list for each side and who has the longer list. That argument gets us nowhere. Like, 50% of us think there is heaven so there must be one. No evidence. The claim is that fundies gave us our system. I need to see relevance to that claim.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 22 2006,13:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,13:43)
                  Eric ... Twisting and distorting won't help ... Anyone who wants the truth can download the thread ... I still don't think you have a good definition of biological information (which is what you accused me of not having when you started your blunder) ... Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism ... Evos are at the end of the rat maze ... BWE ... Monday :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  you are sick in the head. He provides links to your own words, and you call that twisting and distorting? Anyone who wants the truth can follow those permalinks and see how honest you are.

                  davey, can you name for me a SINGLE person who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and who also is not a christian?

                  If the evidence is so overpowering, it'd convince non-believers huh?

                  If not, what does that tell you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,13:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,13:43)
                  Eric ... Twisting and distorting won't help ... Anyone who wants the truth can download the thread ... I still don't think you have a good definition of biological information (which is what you accused me of not having when you started your blunder)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How is posting links to actual posts "twisting and distorting," Dave? That's your job.

                  I know you don't have a good definition of "biological information," because the definitions you have provided are crap. I don't need to provide a definition of "biological information," because it's not my argument. My entire point, which has been demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt, is that you are utterly clueless about what "information" is, whether in a biological or information-theoretical context, and you still haven't mastered the distinction between "information" and "meaning." It's pretty obvious at this point that you never will.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 22 2006,14:02

                  Dave, if you don't understand how nuclear fission works in the first place, you can't possibly concoct an intelligent critique of radio-dating techniques.

                  You apparently continue to believe that the physical force transmitted in the triggering explosion of an A-Bomb is what initiates the fission--a/k/a Dave's "pool-break" model of nuclear physics."

                  In the most simplistic sense, sure, if you don't bring enough fissile material into a small enough area in a quick enough time, you don't get a sustained nuclear reaction.

                  But it's bringing a sufficient amount of naturally-unstable higher-element material together that initiates the reaction.  Other than that, the physical force with which the material is brought together (more like an implosion than an explosion, but let's not strain your neurons any more than necessary...) is irrelevant to the actual splitting of the atoms.

                  They're not split due to the application of a physical force (transfer of kinetic energy, however you prefer to "think" about it)--they split because they're unstable and they have predictable, well-understood half-lives.  Those same predictable, well-understood half-lives are why radio-dating works.

                  That we need to bring enough of an inherently-unstable element into close time-space proximity to initiate a sustained reaction does not change the underlying physics (the objectively-measurable and predictable decay rates of the unstable elements) at all.  That you would claim that human manipulation "explains" why A-Bombs work, but radio-dating doesn't, just leaves me speechless at your own mental instability.

                  Not for the first or last time, I'm sure.

                  It could not be more clear that you are utterly unqualified to discuss any physics-related issue at all.  Thus, you are wholly incapable of understanding--much less meaningfully refuting--scientific dating techniques.  This means, of course, that your entire "hypothesis" fails before you can even drag it to the starting line.

                  Shoot it in the head, Dave; put it out of its misery.

                  Oh, and repeated, pitiful efforts to co-opt my self-chosen monicker to attempt to "make a funny" is, uh, not exactly clever beyond measure...  It only makes it even more apparent that your neurons are not optimally wired, even by comparison with an acknowledged pinhead.*  Stupidity isn't funny, Dave, it's pitiful.

                  Pinhead Motto: it's not the number of neurons you've got, it's how well you use them!
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 22 2006,14:06

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 22 2006,13:46)
                  Carlsonjok,
                  His idea about justices sort of threw me a little. They came AFTER the constitution and are not founders. Marbury is important because it established judicial review but I don't see how others really fit in.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  For the most part, I agree with you. I could be wrong, but I think he is throwing justices in the mix so that he can reference John Jay, a bona fide Founding Father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay is one of the favorites of the "Christian nation" crowd. Jay once said:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Of course, he didn't consider Catholics as Christians and tried to bar them from holding office, thereby illustrating exactly why FF like Jefferson, Madison, et al wanted a complete separation of church and state.

                  He may also have a couple of other Justices up his sleeve.  But we can talk of that some other time.

                  So, if he wants to introduce Jay as the first Chief Justice, it certainly seems fair to introduce Marshall as the most influential.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 22 2006,14:21

                  Hence my caveat, justices must be quoted from a judicial opinion. The opinion must be relevant to the essence of our liberal democracy. Relevance would be the key.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 22 2006,14:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill[sic] doesn't have a mechanism ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  a mechanism for...? Since you seem rather confused about what MacNeill thinks "the modern synthesis" is, you're going to have to state explicitly what you think the problem is that needs a "mechanism", lest we end up going 'round and 'round only to discover (surprise!;) that you have no idea what you're talking about. Explain, in your own words - not mined quotes from scientists whose concerns are obviously quite different from yours - exactly what you think the problem is.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Evos are at the end of the rat maze.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ah, the end of the rat maze. Is that what the creos are calling it now? Did the "imminent Waterloo" allusions get just too embarrassing to repeat after all these years? Or perhaps that formula is just too thoroughly wed to last year's Dover trial.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 22 2006,15:18

                  By the way, this might be more appropriate for the "1491" thread, but I wanted to make sure Davy gets the benefit of it. Davy said:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PS:  Happy Thanksgiving!  I'm headed to Oklahoma for a few days of Thanksgiving to God for our great country.  I'm going to read to my kids about William Bradford and the Pilgrims and Squanto and Samoset and the First Thanksgiving feast.  How about you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In "1491" there's a chapter on this historical encounter. I don't know how old your kids are, Dave, but you might want to share < this resource > with them. (It's by Charles Mann, author of "1491", and descendent of  Billington, of Mayflower fame).

                  I'd be curious to get the feedback of any of our readers more knowledgeable (perhaps I should say EVEN more knowledgeable!;)) than Dave on matters of early American history.

                  A teaser about "Squanto":  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  More than likely Tisquantum was not the name he was given at birth. In that part of the Northeast, tisquantum referred to rage, especially the rage of manitou, the world-suffusing spiritual power at the heart of coastal Indians’ religious beliefs. When Tisquantum approached the Pilgrims and identified himself by that sobriquet, it was as if he had stuck out his hand and said, Hello, I’m the Wrath of God.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 22 2006,15:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,15:53

                  Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 22 2006,15:27)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You have to remember, you're dealing with Dave here. You need to be very explicit. I would say, "There isn't just "a" mechanism, there isn't just one mechanism; there are many, many mechanisms. And if you're going to argue that evolution is impossible, it behooves you to discover what those proposed mechanisms are. There's a lot more to evolutionary theory than just RM+NS; go read those books you claim to have read but really only skimmed the first few chapters of. Then, after you've actually read and understood them, come back and tell us why they're all wrong."
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 22 2006,16:01

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 22 2006,15:53)
                  Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 22 2006,15:27)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You have to remember, you're dealing with Dave here. You need to be very explicit. I would say, "There isn't just "a" mechanism, there isn't just one mechanism; there are many, many mechanisms. And if you're going to argue that evolution is impossible, it behooves you to discover what those proposed mechanisms are. There's a lot more to evolutionary theory than just RM+NS; go read those books you claim to have read but really only skimmed the first few chapters of. Then, after you've actually read and understood them, come back and tell us why they're all wrong."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But Dave has yet to address problems with RM+NS being the mechanism for speciation.
                  Posted by: Drew Headley on Nov. 22 2006,16:08

                  It seems that AFDave is again claiming he won the information theory debate we had. I will just repost my response to this on page 78, the last time he claimed this.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:10)
                  Eric...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So now you're just saying you were "confused," Dave?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No.  I'm saying YOU were confused.  Possibly you still are.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave, if you were not confused then why did I repeatedly need to correct your math and interpretation of Shannon information. Here is an example you never even addressed.
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=37099 >

                  This was in reply to your post asserting that the information content of a whitenoise signal could only exceed that of speech if you increased the transmission rate. You cited Shannon information theory to try and prove this, and you only showed that you misunderstood the theory. People on this board spent at least 10 pages correcting your misinterpretations.

                  Also, I am still getting the feeling that you are confusing information with meaning, this is not the case as Dr. Schneider points out in his primer on information theory:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We won't be dealing with the meaning or implications of
                  the information since nobody knows how to do that mathematically.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  . What other reason do you have for asserting that the Churchill speech has more information than the fact that it has meaning to us? Do you have a metric that would give it more information than whitenoise?

                  We can waste our time going over the same material, or you can actually give me your calculation which shows that speech will exceed whitenoise in information needed to represent it. I did the math to prove my point, why not you do the math to prove yours. Your last post trying to do this showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Shannon's equations, which is addressed in the post linked above.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AFDave never replied to this post.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 22 2006,18:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,13:43)
                  Eric ... Twisting and distorting won't help ... Anyone who wants the truth can download the thread ... I still don't think you have a good definition of biological information (which is what you accused me of not having when you started your blunder) ... Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're unbelievable, dave.

                  You actually accuse Eric of twisting and distortion? What did he do, fudge the links? Forge the posts?
                  Dave, in your posts, you mock and accuse people all over the place, for not having any understanding on SHANNON'S theory. You claim you know better what SHANNON says, and you quote SCHNEIDER as evidence:

                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36205 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36215 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36611 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36698 >

                  And now, you're telling us that the whole issue was that "Eric didn't have a good definition of biological information", and Shannon's theory has nothing to do with it? Then why didn't you say that in the first place, and nothing else?
                  Why didn't you just say "well OK, but that is Shannon's theory, which has nothing to do with my definition of information, which is blah blah", in which case the debate would have shifted to what exactly your definition is (and how you can support it), and go on? Instead, you decided to adopt the opposite stance, saying that we evos have no idea what we're talking about, and Shannon's theory actually supports your claims...

                  And got creamed. Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
                  Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.

                  Dave, this is indeed another Portuguese Moment for you. Not because you made a blooper on a simple subject: On the contrary. The concepts of Shannon's theory are complicated, and it's easy to get confused (I should know).
                  No. This is another PM for you because, like in the "P=S+F<+other factors>" issue, you got carried away by your arrogance and your pride, thinking it was finally time to triumph against your foes... And, stubbornly and provokably, argued about a subject for which you had little to go with, save a misunderstood source and your own unsupported  assumptions.

                  And the more you keep doing this, the more you will end up like now, with your "arguments" reduced to mere handwaving and evading: "I still don't think... You got nothing... Alladin's lamp this... Magic wand that..."

                  Dave, I think your god is trying to introduce you to the concept of humility. Maybe you should pay attention.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Evos are at the end of the rat maze ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes we are dave. OUTSIDE the end, watching you spin around hopelessly.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 22 2006,19:51

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 22 2006,18:35)
                  And got creamed. Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
                  Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, he sure does. In fact, he characterized my question (which has more information, a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech or a digital recording of broadband white noise of the same length?) as—let me go pull the quote—"all-time winner for dumb questions on this thread." He was so certain he was right—that the speech contains more information—that he went through this whole charade of not wanting to mention my name so as to avoid "embarrassing" me.

                  Of course, Dave would be the one embarrassed by now, if he were capable of embarrassment.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 23 2006,01:40

                  Missed this one the first time around:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 22 2006,05:16)
                  STRANGE THINGS ERIC BELIEVES
                  1)  White noise has more information than a Winston Churchill speech
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're the only one here who doesn't believe this. Even your buddy Schneider knows I'm right. In any event, you're misrepresenting what I said. I said, "a digital recording of broadband white noise has more information than a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech of the same length." Several of the words you left out are important, Dave, and leaving them out is evidence of either your dishonesty, your lack of comprehension of the issue, or (more likely) both.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)  Fission bombs are not exploded by a forcible initiation of atom splitting
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, Dave, would you care to elucidate for us the mechanism by which you think the nuclei in a fission bomb are "forcibly" split? Do you think a chemical implosion provides enough energy to overcome the binding energy holding the nuclei together? Or do you think maybe neutrons from the chemical explosive somehow interact with the U-235 or Pu-239 nuclei? Or do you have your head completely wedged up your ass?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3)  My uncle is a monkey
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I would never insult a monkey so, Dave. But I do find it interesting that you think that human beings are completely unrelated to any other organism on the planet, despite the obvious genetic and morphological similarities that allow real scientists to trace out exactly how related humans are, not only to chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, but to dogs, sheep, whales, birds, reptiles, frogs, fish, worms, amoebae, and bacteria. What does your "hypothesis" have to say about these relationships, Dave? Anything? Anything at all? Can you be bothered to answer this absolutely crucial question about your "hypothesis"? Of course not. And you never will.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,09:32

                  Oh man, I missed the chance to participate in many interesting discussions here...
                  The "x100Carbon" debate was hilarious (and educating, as I had the chance to learn some more about C14 dating).
                  Dave, do you realise how silly this "theory" of your mentors sounds like? Here's a completely valid analogy:



                  "Hey guys!"

                  "What, dave?"

                  "Wanna know how Mount Rushmore was REALLY made?"
                  "(sigh)How, dave?"

                  "The JOLLY GREEN GIANT carved it!"

                  "...............dave, no."

                  "Oh yes he did! Want proof? He was 100 times taller than us that's how!"

                  "Dave, hundreds of wor..."

                  "Oh, don't give me that 'hunderds of workers for decades' baloney! Ever saw one of them workers? Can you perhaps show me the exact construction plans, and all the ladders and ropes and junk and stuff they supposedly used?"

                  "Well, dave, if I look f..."

                  "...Didn't think so. No my friends, it's much more plausible to assume that the Jolly Green Giant carved it, with his huge green fists!"

                  "..."

                  "...and maybe a gigantic steel scalpel, but I won't go into your pathetic level of detail!"

                  "(deep breath)Dave, no giant could possibly carve Mount Rushmore, because no giant ever..."

                  "Oh, so you think it's not possible, eh? Well here is some hard data for you! Some calculations of the force generated in a standard isotonic muscle contraction. Also, some adjustments for arm leverage during movement, and finally some calculations for body mass area, and average muscle strength. Do you deny these cold hard evidence?"

                  "Well no, but I don't see wha..."

                  "Silly evos... There, I'll walk you through it. Adjust muscle contraction, arm leverage and total muscle mass for someone 100 times taller than you. See the HUGE amount of force generated? Now compare it with the force required to break rock, here. Any questions?"

                  "..."

                  "Speechless, eh? Yes my friends, not only is it possible that the Jolly Green Giant could carve Mount Rushmore, he probably did it in a single day! Numbers don't lie!"

                  "Dave..."

                  "...Well, maybe in a week, since he had to eat and sleep. Two weeks, if he took long breaks- but all that's just details!"

                  "I think..."

                  "THUS I REFUTE YOUR HUNDREDSOFWORKERISM!"

                  "...you need help." (slowly backs away)




                  Sorry Dave, but your Jolly Green Giant simply never existed.

                  Also! The Milano mutation (about which I knew little, besides some general knowledge from an article) was extremely interesting, and thought-provoking: What happened dave, did BLIND CHANCE IMPROVE THE WORK OF GOD???



                  (Seriously, it makes you think what would happen if, in an alternate universe, creationist "scientists" discovered that mutation.... They'd say "bah, it probably has some disastrous effect we know nothing about- it has to! It's a mutation! What are we, secularist heretics"? And then they'd ditch all data and relevant work, and go on with more fruitful research- like the effect Confessiontherapy has compared to standard Prayertherapy, to the treatment of stage IV Hodgkin's. Makes you thankful you don't live inside dave's daydreams, don't it?  :)  )

                  In short, I have to say that The Greatest Thread Of All Time ™ provided once again a multitude of knowledge in many fields of science. No thanks to dave, of course, but to all those AtBCers who are patient (and optimistic) enough to keep trying to open his eyes to reality. Thanks, people!

                  Not that dave didn't do his part- in the entertainment department, that is. Here's an amazing howler I cannot believe I missed:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... why on earth do you suppose that Adam DID NOT contain hundreds of alleles for some genes?  Where did I ever suggest that he did not?  Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?

                  Remember my approach.  1) Read the historical record 2) Observe nature 3) see if the record is plausible given the known facts of science.

                  Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=35585 >

                  :O

                  And, when a bunch of people explain his AMAZING blooper to him (and many more had already, to no avail), what does he do? Does he say, "oops sorry guys I guess I'm not an expert, silly me, well let's move on"?
                  Nope. He quotes another article from his favorite EB, and says:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I just answered my own question about "Why could Adam not have had multiple alleles for a given gene?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=35593
                  Yes, people, he "ANSWERED HIS OWN QUESTION."

                  Dave, please take some time to see how unbelievably whiny and lame that sounds.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Edmund: Or, as I shall be known from now on: The Black... Vegetable!
                  Baldrick: My Lord, wouldn't something like 'The Black Adder' sound better?
                  Edmund: No, wait. I think I have a better idea... What about... The Black... Adder!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  That's why noone here takes you seriously here, dave. Not because of your views, but because of your immature, silly and childish behavior.
                  (OK, maybe because of your views, too.  :)  )



                  PS. Oh and, dave, I see that, in my absense, you decided to touch the Portuguese thing again, and triumphantly asserted that my accusations of you quotemining the EB article were "absurd".
                  Now, I won't go into what, IMO, this says about you and your cajones, since when I was HERE, and DARED you to address it, you had simply called me a troll and ran away.
                  But maybe you have mustered the courage to do so this time. So, once more, here goes nothing:
                  1. Dave, does that paragraph from EB actually talk about the origins or history of the Portuguese Language?  Does that little phrase you snipped about Lisbon have anything to do with the HISTORY of Portuguese?
                  2. Dave, what does EB ACTUALLY have to say about the origins and history of portuguese, along with all other Romance languages, according to the quote I gave you?


                  Take your best shot, champ. But remember: Once again, I will hold you to your answer. Any distortions, evasive manoeuvres and handwaving will mean instant admission of defeat, and loss of your last shred of respect.
                  Posted by: sickoffalltheidiots on Nov. 23 2006,09:40

                  On this Thanksgiving Day, let us all give thanks that most of humanity is a helluva lot smarter than Dave Hawkins.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 23 2006,10:17

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 23 2006,09:32)
                  Not that dave didn't do his part- in the entertainment department, that is. Here's an amazing howler I cannot believe I missed:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... why on earth do you suppose that Adam DID NOT contain hundreds of alleles for some genes?  Where did I ever suggest that he did not?  Would it not be totally reasonable to assume that he did?

                  Remember my approach.  1) Read the historical record 2) Observe nature 3) see if the record is plausible given the known facts of science.

                  Why is it unreasonable to assume Adam had hundreds of alleles for some genes if he was specially created by God?  This does not seem to be invoking any more miracles than are necessary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=35585 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And this from a guy who claims, with a straight face, to have read the major names in evolutionary biology sufficiently to have allowed them to "make their case."
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,11:58

                  Eric, you mean "read" them, the way he "read" Dawkins? Got to page 8, read that Dawkins was about to show how dave's creationist views are wrong, then immediately laughed and threw the book away?

                  Oh I almost forgot: Happy Thanksgiving to all the Americans! Don't forget to give thanks for Logic and Common Sense still winning the day in your country!
                  (well in the field of science, at least  ;) )
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,12:31

                  Chris Hyland ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Great.  Could you list some please?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 23 2006,13:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,10:31)
                  Chris Hyland ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Great.  Could you list some please?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But Dave, I thought you'd read all about evolutionary biology.  Why would you have to ask, when you can simply recall from memory all that stuff you've learned from the major names?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,13:13

                  Why, dave? Didn't your "Aladdin's Lamp", "Magic Wand" and "Blippety Blippity Boo" seem well-justified and reasonable, when you *snort* read about them, in all those books?

                  "Haha, silly evilutionist- he says he can prove my views faulted! Shows how much he knows... Well, he's obviously such a fool, there's no point in reading any further- but don't let anyone say I didn't try, and we creationists aren't open-minded!"

                  Makes your eyes hurt, doesn't it?

                  But the scary thing is...

                  dave actually thinks that way.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,13:39

                  RM + NS doesn't work.

                  What else IS there?

                  I say there's nothing ...  feel free to prove me wrong.

                  Hopeful monster?  Punc Eq?  Alladin's lamp?

                  I'm all ears ...
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 23 2006,13:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,12:31)
                  Chris Hyland ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Great.  Could you list some please?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Could you list some facts that support your hypothesis?

                  We've been waiting for six months.

                  yawn
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 23 2006,14:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,13:39)
                  RM + NS doesn't work.

                  What else IS there?

                  I say there's nothing ...  feel free to prove me wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, why don't you go back and read the Gould, Myers, Dawkins, etc. that you claim to have already read (well, to have already "skimmed")? You don't remember reading anything other than RM+NS because you didn't read anything else.

                  As I said before, your opinion on evolution is utterly worthless, because you're too ignorant to even have an opinion on it.

                  BTW, if you think you have in any way demonstrated that RM+NS "doesn't work," you're dreaming. If you want to set forth a coherent argument as to why RM+NS cannot possibly work, go right ahead. But so far, you've done no such thing. Your claims that you have ring as hollow as your claims wrt Portuguese, information theory, Tyre, zircons, argon, carbon, beneficial mutations, the phylogenetic tree, dendrochronology, stratigraphy, etc. etc. etc.

                  AND FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, WHY ARE YOU EVEN DISCUSSING EVOLUTION? ARE YOU STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THAT IF EVOLUTION IS WRONG, YOUR RIDICULOUS YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM MUST THEREFORE BE RIGHT? ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET AROUND TO PROVIDING SOME ACTUAL SUPPORT FOR YOUR PATHETIC, WRONG, BROKEN "HYPOTHESIS"?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 23 2006,14:20

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,11:39)
                  RM + NS doesn't work.

                  What else IS there?

                  I say there's nothing ...  feel free to prove me wrong.

                  Hopeful monster?  Punc Eq?  Alladin's lamp?

                  I'm all ears ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're saying that not one of the evolutionary biologists you've read so much of haven't proposed another mechanism of population change than RMnNS?  I'm thinking you haven't been doing much reading at all.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,15:21

                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

                  So what we have is this ...

                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.

                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 23 2006,15:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,15:21)
                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

                  So what we have is this ...

                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.

                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dude, can't you realise how stupid this sounds?

                  "evolutionary biologists use equations of the ToE whose results prove that the ToE is impossible".  :D

                  Give us some more, Davey.  :)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 23 2006,15:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,15:21)
                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

                  So what we have is this ...

                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.

                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, how many times do I have to tell you that 99% of everything that ever lived is now extinct? Everything goes extinct eventually. So what's your point? Do you have any evidence—any evidence whatsoever—that biodiversity was any lower in the 19th century (before human predation really starting impacting it) than it was thousands, or millions, or hundreds of millions, or billions of years ago? No, you don't. Which completely decapitates your argument that RM+NS cannot work. It doesn't even begin to rise to the level of evidence for Intelligent Design.

                  It's not "excellent" support for your CG"H"; it's no support for it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,15:37

                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

                  So what we have is this ...

                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.

                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 23 2006,15:37

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 23 2006,15:33)
                  So what's your point? Do you have any evidence—any evidence whatsoever—that biodiversity was any lower in the 19th century (before human predation really starting impacting it) than it was thousands, or millions, or hundreds of millions, or billions of years ago? No, you don't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, he claims that we went from a few thousands to a few million species in roughly 4500 years, while their genomes were driving them to extinction.
                  :D


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The problem, Dave, is that you don't know much about science.
                  And you can edit your double post BTW (these server downtimes are getting excessively annoying).
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 23 2006,15:38



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You've done nothing of the sort.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design

                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Even if what you presented were proof that ToE is impossible (which it most certainly is not), how does that get us to #2? Are you contending now that any evidence against ToE is evidence for your silly "hypothesis"?

                  I have some good news for you dave. Though I suspect that most folks here have pretty much given up on straightening out your confusion, < this fellow, Laurence Moran, > has taken the trouble to spell things out very clearly. Read this essay. Read it carefully. Read it more than once. If you still have any questions, I will graciously entertain them, if Moran hasn't already explained them.bottom line:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 23 2006,15:47

                  Oh, while you're at it, read this other essay by Moran: < "Why I'm Not a Darwinist" >. You'll like the title, but I strongly urge you to read the essay itself. The whole essay. More than once. Again, let us know if you have any intelligent questions about it.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 23 2006,16:05

                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 23 2006,15:37)


                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What point?  That you lied about reading the works of all those famous scientists?  We figured that out six months ago Dave.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So what we have is this ...

                  I have quoted something like 5 or 6  prominent evolutionary geneticists who basically say that higher genomes are headed for extinction.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No Dave, you have repeated 5 or 6 dishonestly quote mined passages given by your latest Creationist boyfriend Sanford, and ignored the rebuttals.  You're nothing if not consistent - a consistent liar that is.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This does 2 things ...
                  1) Proves ToE is impossible
                  2) Shows that higher genomes HAD to be the   product of Intelligent Design
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  All it proves is that you're still a dishonest egotistical schmuck Dave - more old news.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If this is not excellent support for my CGH, I don't know what is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No Dave, it's not even close to being support for your CGH.  You want support? Then

                  Explain why none of the dozens of independent C14 calibration methods show your 100X carbon spike 4500 years ago.

                  Explain how a 500' deep canyon can be carved in limestone, then buried under 17000' of sediment

                  Explain how two dozen sequentially buried mature forests, each with layers of paleosols between them, came to be in Yellowstone.

                  Explain how the continents raced around at 100+ MPH then stopped without generating enough heat energy to vaporize everything on the planet

                  Explain where the scavengers came from, the ones you say ate all the post-flood carcasses.


                  If you could do that, that would be support Davie, not just another batch of your evasions and lies.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,16:18

                  Dave, time for some lessons in COMMON SENSE.

                  When you quote an authority, you either:
                  1. Accept all that that authority claims, and expect others to refute it
                  2. Accept SOME of what the authority claims, and explain which you do and which you don't, and WHY.

                  With me so far?

                  So, in this case, it is not us who have to prove your ridiculous, entirely unsupported claims wrong- we don't even have to bother.
                  You, on the other hand, since you're quoting McNeil as authority to support your "views" (read: childish fairytales that, in this day and age, can only convince a seriously suppressed and indoctrinated intellect), have to show WHY you agree with his point "A" and WHY you disagree with his point "B". Simple as that.
                  It's YOU who has to prove McNeil WRONG, dave.And with him, Punctuated Equilibrium, Neutral Theory, all the "Alladin's Lamps" and "Magic Wands" that you try to mock because you are too ignorant to even NAME, let alone challenge.
                  So, good luck. Oh and, when you find the time from single-handedly destroying decades of research and studies from hundreds of prominent scientists, please, PLEASE try to answer all the questions about your "theory" that keep piling up, willya?


                  (Seemed much easier when your ego- sorry, your God "commanded" you to come here, didn't it dave?)
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,17:22

                  And dave, what is your definition of a "highter genome" exactly?
                  Also, did you actually read Crow's article? If you did, can you explain to me how, by showing what happens when NS stops working, he "proves" that NS doesn't work? Thanks.
                  (Oh, and, as a side issue: your opinion on that "snippety snip" your mentors did at the end of Crow's argument? 100 GENERATIONS, dave. Or was that you?)
                  And I'm still waiting for an answer to my challenges from my previous posts. Or are you going to run away again, planning to claim victory some other time, when I'm not around? Nothing new there.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,17:53

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Even if what you presented were proof that ToE is impossible (which it most certainly is not), how does that get us to #2?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  To my knowledge, there are only two alternatives ...

                  1) RM+NS, or
                  2) Intelligent Design

                  What else could there possibly be?

                  If (1) is false, where does that leave us, friend?
                  Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 23 2006,17:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What else could there possibly be?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity >

                  Lots of things that you can't think of.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 23 2006,19:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,17:53)
                  To my knowledge, there are only two alternatives ...

                  1) RM+NS, or
                  2) Intelligent Design

                  What else could there possibly be?

                  If (1) is false, where does that leave us, friend?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you think you've totally exhausted the possibilities with just RM+NS (which, by the way, you haven't even begun to show cannot work)? What about genetic drift, Dave? Is that another thing you've already "proven" cannot work? And what about mechanisms no one's ever thought of yet? Has that ever occurred to you? You think you're so blindingly intelligent you've already thought of every single possible mechanism for evolution?

                  Didn't think so.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 23 2006,19:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,17:53)
                  To my knowledge, there are only two alternatives ...

                  1) RM+NS, or
                  2) Intelligent Design

                  What else could there possibly be?

                  If (1) is false, where does that leave us, friend?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  RM+NS..."+ other factors"?


                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 23 2006,19:30

                  Richard Hughes ....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Lots of things that you can't think of.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And apparently, neither can you.
                  Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 23 2006,19:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,19:30)
                  Richard Hughes ....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Lots of things that you can't think of.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And apparently, neither can you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oooh - you squeeze that god of the gaps in there - but be carefull, as the gaps get smaller, so does your god.

                  Proto-hominids UGG and OGG must have thought the same way as you. God did everything back then. ;)
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 23 2006,20:13

                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To my knowledge, there are only two alternatives ...

                  1) RM+NS, or
                  2) Intelligent Design

                  What else could there possibly be?

                  If (1) is false, where does that leave us, friend?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Did you read those Moran essays I recommended?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 23 2006,22:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To my knowledge, there are only two alternatives ...
                  1) RM+NS, or
                  2) Intelligent Design
                  What else could there possibly be?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And this dolt claims to have read Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, et al? BWAHAHAHA. Notice how he states "to [his] knowledge" and fails to note any other means of introducing variation

                  I can think of at least 8 additional means of introducing variation, Dave, right off the bat.

                  This means you are either incapable of reading for comprehension...or a fraud that never read what he claimed to read. I know you're stupid, so I can't fully discount the former, but I'd say the latter is more likely.

                  You haven't shown that mutational variation is invalid. No species lasts forever, so the inevitability of extinction of any species in time is of little consequence. Mutational rates and effects vary, as do mechanisms countering deleterious mutations. Yawn.

                  Religion has been on the retreat from their literalist  claims for a longggg time...and will continue to do so.

                  God of the gaps is a losing game, Dave. It makes your god smaller as science advances and makes your claims look increasingly like failed propaganda -- poisoning both faith and your own religious credibility as a whole. Not that you're smart enough to see the big picture.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 24 2006,00:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't think I have another proposed mechanism other than random mutation of the genetic code coupled with natural selection for generation of variation within a population?

                  Would you like to make a wager?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,01:10

                  Here's another message Dave will ignore, because it totally destroys his argument about "RM + NS" being impossible.

                  • You've already conceded that RM + NS does, in fact, work, with respect to the Apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation. You can whine and complain that you haven't conceded that, but everyone here who's read this thread knows that you have done so. Sure, you complain that if we didn't eat fatty diets, the Milano allele wouldn't be adaptive, but that's like saying the only reason feathers are adaptive is because birds need them to fly. What's important, Dave, is that people with the Milano variant have an evolutionary advantage. End Of Story. You lose on this one. You only need one mutation that confers an adaptive advantage to falsify a claim that there are no such things, in the same way that one valid date over 6,000 years falsifies your YEC.

                  • You've posted a bunch of quote-mined passages which seem to indicate that deleterious mutations are a problem for organisms, but we already have proof that they are not. You have no—zero—evidence that there has been a decline in biodiversity until very recently, and the evidence that such decline is mediated by human activity is conclusive.

                  Therefore, we have proof—not evidence, but proof—that random mutation plus natural selection are sufficient to drive evolution, and that deleterious mutations do not present a problem for multicellular (or any other) life.

                  Once again, Dave, you lose.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 24 2006,01:58

                  Dave posted,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Short spine

                  In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When repeatedly asked HOW DO THEY KEEP THIS BREED ALIVE IF THE MALE DOGS DIE BEFORE REACHING MATURITY? the best answer he can provide is...





















                  He'll contact his AiG handlers and get back to us in a couple months.

                  If he can't answer a question like that with his "iron on iron sharpened common sense" without help from the Overlords@NeoAiG, it should be obvious that this breed of superstitious, willfully ignorant, situational ethics practicing, quote mining, cowardly, goal post moving, yellow bellied, spineless, lickspittle, carpet bagging, hand waving, BOLDED ALL CAPS TYPING, miracle invoking, Phelpsian, rentaboy, homophobic, Haggard disciple, donkey luvin', meth head, Horsleyian, fighter pilot hangin' out in a bar stud wannabe Taxi Driver has not got much going for it.

                  SMACK
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 24 2006,08:30

                  Deadman...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can think of at least 8 additional means of introducing variation, Dave, right off the bat.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Great ... feel free to list ONE ... no one else has been able to, but maybe you are a special type of genius that knows about one ... or more ...

                  DESIGN -- FROM ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES
                  In the mean time, let me give you some more juicy quotes from Sanford ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The puzzle of how to recognize Intelligent Design has been gradually coming together, over a long period of time.  There has always been an intuitive recognition of design in nature, which is thus the logical default perspective.  To the extent that some people wish to reject the obvious, [Deadman, Russell, Eric, et al] design was later explicitly proclaimed through Scriptural Revelation (genesis through Revelation).  Still later, design was argued by essentially all of the "Founding Fathers" of science, including Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Faraday, and Kelvin.  Paley (1802) was the first to put forward the argument of complexity as evidence of design.  This concept has more recently been refined by Behe (1996), into the argument of irreducible complexity.  The complexity argument has been further elaborated into the two related arguments--that of information theory (Gitt, 1997), and specified complexity (Dembski, 1998).  However, I believe there is still at least one more useful diagnostic of design ...[goes on to elaborate]
                  J.C. Sanford (Cornell geneticist), Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 2005, p. 185.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  THERE IS ONLY ONE MECHANISM FOR EVOLUTION
                  ToE advocates say ..."What does it matter if the Primary Axiom is fatally flawed and essentially falsified?  The Primary Axiom is just one of numerous mechanisms of evolution, and so is not crucial to evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary researchers just need some more time, and some more funding, to work out the few "minor kinks" in their various theories."

                  Sanford replies .. er ... Highly successful (both commercially and academically) Cornell geneticist Sanford replies ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is only ONE evolutionary mechanism.  There is no viable alternative mechanism for the "spontaneous generation" of genomes.  It is false to say that mutation/selection is only one of various mechanisms of evolution.  Yes, there are several types of selection, but there is still only one basic evolutionary mechanism (which is mutation/selection).  The demise of the Primary Axiom leaves evolutionary theory without any viable mechanism.  Without any naturalistic mechanism, evolution is not significantly different from any faith-based religion. (Ibid, p. 196)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I find it interesting that those here at ATBC have so far confirmed this.

                  There has been a lot of noise the past couple of days like "everyone knows what an idiot you are" and "Portuguese blah blah" and "Of course there's other mechanisms, Dave ... read Gould or Dawkins or Ridley" and "I can think of 8 different mechanisms, blah blah blah"

                  And yet, none is forthcoming.

                  I don't think anyone here has really stopped to consider how silly you all are going to look when the public is fully informed about the true nature of Darwinism.

                  You are the "emperors" of academia.

                  You are in the process of riding out into the city square.

                  And you have no clothes!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 24 2006,08:53



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Great ... feel free to list ONE ... no one else has been able to, but maybe you are a special type of genius that knows about one ... or more ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:  you claim to have read Gould, Mayr and Dawkins, you should KNOW the answers...but you don't have a clue, thus proving your utter ignorance and/or willingness to lie.

                  You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?

                  Not that I expect you to actually hold to any terms on a bet, given that you're simply a liar.

                  Oh, and on that note--weren't you supposed to get "Dr." Don Batten to ooze his slimy stench on over to support his stupid claims on dendro?

                  Or did he see you get punked on information theory, AIMilano and radiocarbon dating and decide to take a pass?

                  Think of it, stupid...the threads in this forum are mentioned in multiple ID and creationist boards yet not ONE person (other than Paley, who was admittedly trolling) has stepped up to support you. Not ... one. .
                  And now where's "Dr." Don?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,09:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I find it interesting that those here at ATBC have so far confirmed this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah. And I find it really interesting that you still, apparently, have not read those Moran essays.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be sticking your foot so far in your mouth.

                  Watch carefully while those goalposts move before your very eyes

                  See, before it was "ToE ="modern synthesis" = RM + NS"

                  Today it quietly morphed into:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, there are several types of selection, but there is still only one basic evolutionary mechanism (which is mutation/selection).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And since davy had penetrated the veil of Darwinian secrecy sufficiently to reveal that "natural selection" is not considered the be all and end all arbiter of mutation survival, he thinks the whole concept of selection has been debunked. Or at least that no one will notice the subtle difference.

                  Yes, I think it's correct to say that evolution boils down to "mutation/selection", as long as you recognize there are lots of different kinds of mutation (point mutation, insertion, deletion, duplication, frame-shift, transposition, chromosome fusion... ) and lots of kinds of "selection" (natural selection, sexual selection, founder effect and reproductive isolation from any one of several causes).

                  And neither you nor your new hero Sanford have presented anything to cast any doubt on the sufficiency of mutation and selection to account for evolution.

                  Have you?

                  Deadman:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Think of it, stupid...the threads in this forum are mentioned in multiple ID and creationist boards ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ooh ooh ooh! Are we famous yet?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 24 2006,09:42

                  DM...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And neither you nor your new hero Sanford have presented anything to cast any doubt on the sufficiency of mutation and selection to account for evolution.  Have you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Oh, right, Russell ... of course I haven't ... er ... except for that whole slough of prominent geneticists who basically say that the higher genomes are deteriorating, not improving and they ask questions like "Why have we not gone extinct already?"
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 24 2006,09:44

                  Russell: I think the word is "infamous." :p
                  stevestory mentioned a while back that it's hard to convince creationists and ID-ers to come on over and play...but maybe they'd rather be in nice safe spots where they can ban dissent.
                  It's a mystery, wrapped in a riddle lightly battered with enigma, deep fried in conundrum oil -- served on a heaping plate of puzzlement and a side order of labyrinthine dilemma. MMmmm-mmm
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 24 2006,09:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You've tried that ploy before, twit. With predictable results of you being shown wrong. Remember saying the same sorts of stupid things on Fenton Hill errors? How about your dumbass claims on not being able to date the Grand Staircase strata? ####, how about your running from my offer to fly TO your Church to apologize if I could not do what I said I could? You ran from that just as you will now.

                  Nevertheless, I'll bet you on this, Dave. I said that I could name at least 8 other verifiable sources of genetic variation. Loser leaves this forum, never to show your stupid face again (meaning you will abandon posting anything here again, ever).

                  Care to bet?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,09:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, right, Russell ... of course I haven't ... er ... except for that whole slough of prominent geneticists who basically say that the higher genomes are deteriorating, not improving and they ask questions like "Why have we not gone extinct already?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A whole "slough"?

                  I think you'll find - now, I know this is a revolutionary idea, so bear with me - that if you actually read your prominent geneticists instead of swallowing the artfully chosen snippets your new hero is spoon-feeding you, you'll find that none of them is saying that mutation/selection can't account for evolution.

                  You want to go through your whole "slough", one by one?

                  Still haven't read Moran, have you? Any particular reason why not?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,10:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,09:42)
                  DM...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You know, Dave, the funny thing is, I (of all people) mentioned a mechanism for evolution that is entirely separate from natural selection, and you missed it completely. It's been mentioned on this thread half a dozen times by different people, and you missed it completely. What does that say about your ability to read for comprehension, Dave? You don't just skip 90% of books that get too hard to understand; it looks like you skip 90% of posts on your own thread that are too hard to understand. And you ignore all of the posts that present fatal difficulties for your "hypothesis." This is why you constantly miss stuff, and why people are constantly laughing at you.

                  Are you getting embarrassed now, Dave?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The only person providing "Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo" as mechanisms to support their "hypothesis" is you, Dave. "Genetic Richness?" Hundreds of alleles per gene in one individual?

                  Embarrassed yet, Dave?
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 24 2006,10:44

                  Dave if you don't think any new mechanisms have been discovered since the development of the modern synthesis I suggest you check out some of these links.

                  < Epigenetic Inheritance >
                  < Developmental Reprogramming >
                  < Gene Duplication >
                  < Genome Duplication >
                  < Genetic Drift >
                  < Exaptation >
                  < Developmental Plasticity >
                  < Mobile genetic elements >

                  < http://www.febsletters.org/article/PIIS0014579305001675/abstract >
                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/15/8420 >
                  < http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi....e=micro >
                  < http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5649/1401 >

                  You tend to find 'RMNS' is an oversimplified blanket term.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 24 2006,11:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You tend to find 'RMNS' is an oversimplified blanket term.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One of Fundy Dave's many problems is that he's so ignorant he can only conceive of things in oversimplified blanket terms.  While the rest of us live in a complicated analog world, Liar Dave and his ilk can only handle binary.  In his tiny brain, all people are 'straight' or 'evil gay sinners'; God fearing American/Allies or terrorists.  Morons like Dave who are too lazy to educate themselves and who are utterly incapable of honest critical thought play right into the hands of charlatans like AIG.   AIG presents all science as 'good literal Bible interpretation' vs. 'evil atheist interpretation', with no in-between.  Davie likes this, as it relieves him of the difficult burden of actually having to think.  Any stupid, half-baked, downright laughable claim that AIG or ICR makes Davie will cling to for security like a baby on its mother’s teat.

                  See, as a child Dave was lied to by his parents and church leaders, and now he has to propagate the lies to try and save face.  He lies about the scientific data placed right under his nose, he lies about authors he supposedly read, he lies about what real researchers have said, he lies about his motives.  That’s all that Dave’s been doing here for the last six months – lying to us and himself in order to prop up his own ego. Isn't that right Dave?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,11:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Daamn! that was my fall-back position.
                  Oh well.
                  How about an invisible superhero who can magically poof! mud into a verbal adult human; magically produce enough flood-water to cover the planet, then magically make it disappear; magically synthesize de novo a Y-chromosome for Jesus; and generally supply miracles whenever science and reason can't be reconciled with scripture?
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 24 2006,12:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  One of Fundy Dave's many problems is that he's so ignorant he can only conceive of things in oversimplified blanket terms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think a possible problem is that oversimplifications are what are taught in schools by necessity, 'survival of the fittest' is another one. But creationists take this to mean that this is has some effect on the scientific theory. In fact Icons could have been called 'Evolution is simplified when it is taught to children, therefore it is wrong'.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 24 2006,12:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
                  DM...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

                  My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,13:06

                  While this encounter may have more formal trappings as "a bet", I predict it's going to play out exactly like davy's recent boast:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found. (afdave, Nov. 19)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  which sort of detumesced to  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... get real, man.  I said I COULD take you to many erroneous articles in old issues of Science.  However, there is no need to because many of the big blunders are well known and need no documentation.  I'm not going to waste my time. (afdave, Nov. 21)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 24 2006,13:41

                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6175446.stm >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mexican President Vicente Fox has inaugurated a giant telescope that could help scientists uncover clues about the origins of the Universe.

                  The telescope, which resembles a gigantic satellite dish, sits high in the mountains of central Puebla state.

                  It will pick up radio waves that have been travelling through space for some 13 billion years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What is it that you believe they are picking up davey? Bippity boppity boo?

                  Desperation is setting in huh? I say we should have a vote on if davey should be allowed to post anything that does not relate to support for his 'hypothesis'

                  edit: I think he should still be allowed to post whatever he wants, but we should still vote on it :)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,16:00

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 24 2006,13:41)
                  Desperation is setting in huh? I say we should have a vote on if davey should be allowed to post anything that does not relate to support for his 'hypothesis'
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If Dave were restricted to posts that supported his "hypothesis," he wouldn't have anything to post.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,16:40

                  You know, Dave's continual repetition of "There's only one mechanism for evolution" reminds me of someone saying, "There's only one way to get from one place to another, and that's by traversing the space in between."

                  So what, Dave? Variation, and then selection acting on that selection, are pretty straightforward. A child can understand it. It's hard to imagine how it could not work. If you could set aside the stupidity of your biblical literalism for a few seconds, you'd also be scratching your head, wondering what could stop variation and selection from working.

                  Unless and until you can come up with a coherent explanation for how variation and selection cannot, even in principle, lead to new forms, I suggest you find another half-baked idea to latch onto. Actually, on second thought, why don't you exercise some self-discipline for a couple of days and see if you can set forth some evidence for your own "hypothesis" that doesn't amount to some tired old reason why you think evolution can't happen? Especially since we already know it does.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 24 2006,18:28

                  COMMENTS ON CHRIS HYLAND’S LIST OF POSSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS
                  Epigenetic Inheritance
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Epigenetic coding and evolution
                  Epigenetics is reminiscent of earlier theories of the inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarckism or Darwin's speculations on pangenesis). However, unlike earlier theories, epigenetics accepts the overriding importance of both natural selection and of the alteration of the DNA genome by random mutation. For example, once a portion of the foregut is exposed to secretions from cardiogenic mesoderm, its cells become liver cells, and this acquired characteristic is then passed on to subsequent generations of cells. However, the amount of information transmitted epigenetically is limited: it is probably not possible by epigenetic means to create a "half liver, half intestine" cell that breeds true from one cell generation to the next, nor is it necessarily possible to activate or deactivate the expression of any particular gene by epigenetic means. The ability for a cell to take on and maintain a "liver" identity reflects a long history of natural selection to make that an inducible and stable phenotype. Because only some of the physiological responses of the cell to a stimulus will lead to heritable epigenetic changes, the physiological changes seen in daughter cells do not necessarily need to be the same as those seen in the parental cell. Even if adaptive epigenetic changes can be shown to be inherited from one generation of organisms to the next, they must still arise as regulatory mechanisms encoded by the genome and in response to natural selection, and they will likely be transient and eventually reversible unless they can induce specific mutation of the genome.
                  < Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_inheritance >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  IOW … this mechanism cannot make livers or intestines (much less an entire human being) … you need RM + NS for that.

                  Developmental Reprogramming
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A major question then, for evo-devo studies, is: If the morphological novelty we observe at the level of different clades is not always reflected in the genome, where does it come from? Apart from neo-Darwinian mechanisms such as mutation, translocation and duplication of genes, novelty may also arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation. The finding that much biodiversity is not due to differences in genes, but rather to alterations in gene regulation, has introduced an important new element into evolutionary theory.[9] Diverse organisms may have highly conserved developmental genes, but highly divergent regulatory mechanisms for these genes. Changes in gene regulation are "second-order" effects of genes, resulting from the interaction and timing of activity of gene networks, as distinct from the functioning of the individual genes in the network.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvoDevo >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  All we are talking about here is mutation affecting GENE REGULATION instead of genes themselves.  It’s still all driven my mutation and subject to natural selection.  This is not a novel mechanism.  It is simply a different application of RM+NS.

                  Gene Duplication
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function or (b) acquire deleterious mutations and become a pseudogene.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!

                  Genome Duplication
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Polyploidy in humans
                  Polyploidy also occurs in humans, although much less frequently. The polyploid conditions that have been observed in humans are triploidy (69,XXX ) and tetraploidy (92,XXXX). Additional chromosomes encode a large amount of surplus gene product, causing multiple anomalies such as defects of the heart and central nervous system. Most polyploid conceptions are spontaneously aborted, and many are incompatible with long-term survival.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Incompatible with long term survival?  Sorry guys … not very convincing as a mechanism for the evolution of higher genomes.


                  Genetic drift
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Genetic drift is the term used in population genetics to refer to the statistical drift over time of allele frequencies in a finite population due to random sampling effects in the formation of successive generations. In a narrower sense, genetic drift refers to the expected population dynamics of neutral alleles (those defined as having no positive or negative impact on fitness), which are predicted to eventually become fixed at zero or 100% frequency in the absence of other mechanisms affecting allele distributions.

                  Whereas natural selection describes the tendency of beneficial alleles to become more common over time (and detrimental ones less common), genetic drift refers to the fundamental tendency of any allele to vary randomly in frequency over time due to statistical variation alone, so long as it does not comprise all or none of the distribution.

                  Genetic drift may be sexually modeled as a stochastic process that arises from the role of random sampling in the production of offspring. The genes of each new generation are not a simple copy of the genes of the successful members of the previous one, but rather a sampling, which includes some statistical error. Drift is the cumulative effect over time of this sampling error on the allele frequencies in the population.

                  By definition, genetic drift has no preferred direction. A neutral allele may be expected to increase or decrease in any given generation with equal probability. Given sufficiently long time, however, the mathematics of genetic drift (cf. random walk) predict the allele will either die out or be present in 100% of the population, after which time there is no random variation in the associated gene. In this regard, genetic drift tends to sweep gene variants out of a population over time, such that all members of a species would eventually be homozygous for this gene. Genetic drift is opposed in this regard by genetic mutation which introduces novel variants into the population according to its own random processes.

                  Like selection, genetic drift acts on populations, altering the frequency of alleles (gene variations) and the predominance of traits. Drift is observed most strongly in small populations and results in changes that need not be adaptive.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Like natural selection, there is no new information being created here.  We are talking about pre-existing information which drifts throughout a population.  This is not a mechanism for evolution of the higher genomes.

                  Exaptation
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Exaptation
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search
                  An exaptation is a biological adaptation where the biological function currently performed by the adaptation was not the function performed while the adaptation evolved under earlier pressures of natural selection.

                  One problem that had been troubling Darwinian evolution was the question of how complex structures could evolve gradually if their earlier incarnations would not have a survival advantage. As one of Darwin's critics, George Jackson Mivart, pointed out, a bird's wing, for example, would not be of much use at 5% of what is needed for flying. If there were no adaptive value to the earlier structures, it would seem unlikely that the trait would survive long enough to become of use to the organism.

                  Gould and Vrba, using earlier theories on preadaptation, coined the term exaptation to explain how such traits may evolve. Complex physical traits, they hypothesized, evolved from earlier traits that had a different adaptive value. 5% of a wing, especially if covered in air-trapping feathers, could have been a very efficient thermoregulator: a cover to duck under when too cold and to lift up when too warm. Organisms with such an adaptation would thus be fitter than those without, leading to the spread of this trait.

                  The thermoregulator would grow larger over time, and become covered in thinner feathers, as this would be an improvement over smaller, less well covered versions. Eventually, the thermoregulator would have grown so large that some of these animals would begin to glide with it. At this point the structure would have become an entirely new trait. Organisms with wings could glide, greatly improving their mobility. Now gradual evolution could take place on the wing instead of the thermoregulator, and the structure and organisms themselves would become entirely adapted to flying.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Raaaiight!  Very likely.  This is the kind of nonsense I’m talking about when I refer to Alladin’s Lamp and Bippity Boppity Boo.

                  Developmental Plasticity
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Phenotypic plasticity
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                  Norms of reaction for two genotypes. Genotype B shows a strongly bimodal distribution indicating differentiation into distinct phenotypes. Each phenotype is buffered against environmental variation - it is canalised.The ability of an organism with a given genotype to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment is called phenotypic plasticity. Such plasticity in some cases expresses as several highly morphologically distinct results; in other cases, a continuous norm of reaction describes the functional interrelationship of a range of environments to a range of phenotypes.

                  Organisms of fixed genotype may differ in the amount of phenotypic plasticity they display when exposed to the same environmental change. Hence phenotypic plasticity can evolve and be adaptive if fitness is increased by changing phenotype. Immobile organisms such as plants have well developed phenotypic plasticity giving a clue to the adaptive significance of phenotypic plasticity.

                  A highly illustrative example of phenotypic plasticity is found in the social insects, colonies of which depend on the division of their members into distinct castes, such as workers and guards. Individuals in separate castes differ dramatically from one another, both physically and behaviorally. However, the differences are not genetic; they arise during development and depend on the manner of treatment of the eggs by the queen and the workers, who manipulate such factors as embryonic diet and incubation temperature. [b]The genome of each individual contains all the instructions needed to develop into any one of several 'morphs', but only the genes that form part of one developmental program are activated.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Let’s repeat that.  THE GENOME OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CONTAINS ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS NEEDED TO DEVELOP INTO ANY ONE OF SEVERAL ‘MORPHS’, BUT ONLY THE GENES THAT FORM PART OF ONE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM ARE ACTIVATED.

                  Did you hear that?  All the information was already there.  It did not evolve.  This is not a mechanism for HOW this incredible sophistication got there in the first place.  Sorry!  Strike SEVEN.

                  Mobile genetic elements
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Transposon
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search
                  Transposons are sequences of DNA that can move around to different positions within the genome of a single cell, a process called transposition. In the process, they can cause mutations and change the amount of DNA in the genome.</b> Transposons are also called "jumping genes" or "mobile genetic elements". Discovered by Barbara McClintock early in her career, the topic went on to be a Nobel winning work in 1983. There are a variety of mobile genetic elements, and they can be grouped based on their mechanism of transposition. Class I mobile genetic elements, or retrotransposons, move in the genome by being transcribed to RNA and then back to DNA by reverse transcriptase, while class II mobile genetic elements move directly from one position to another within the genome using a transposase to "cut and paste" them within the genome. Transposons are very useful to researchers as a means to alter DNA inside of a living organism. Transposons make up a large fraction of genome sizes which is evident through the C-values of eukaryotic species. As an example about 45% of the human genome is composed of transposons and their defunct remnants.
                  Transposons causing diseases
                  [b]Transposons are mutagens. They can damage the genome of their host cell in different ways:

                  A transposon or a retroposon that inserts itself into a functional gene will most likely disable that gene.
                  After a transposon leaves a gene, the resulting gap will probably not be repaired correctly.
                  Multiple copies of the same sequence, such as Alu sequences can hinder precise chromosomal pairing during mitosis, resulting in unequal crossovers, one of the main reasons for chromosome duplication.
                  Diseases that are often caused by transposons include hemophilia A and B, severe combined immunodeficiency, porphyria, predisposition to cancer, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

                  Additionally, many transposons contain promoters which drive transcription of their own transposase. These promoters can cause aberrant expression of linked genes, causing disease or mutant phenotypes.



                  Evolution of transposons
                  The evolution of transposons and their effect on genome evolution is currently a dynamic field of study.

                  Transposons are found in all major branches of life. They may or may not have originated in the last universal common ancestor, or arisen independently multiple times, or perhaps arisen once and then spread to other kingdoms by horizontal gene transfer. While transposons may confer some benefits on their hosts,[MAY? You mean you don’t know of any benefits, but there might be?  Sounds familiar.] they are generally considered to be selfish DNA parasites that live within the genome of cellular organisms. In this way, they are similar to viruses. Viruses and transposons also share features in their genome structure and biochemical abilities, leading to speculation that they share a common ancestor.[Oh, OK.  So viruses are a good thing now.  Sure!]

                  Since excessive transposon activity can destroy a genome, many organisms seem to have developed mechanisms to reduce transposition to a manageable level. Bacteria may undergo high rates of gene deletion as part of a mechanism to remove transposons and viruses from their genomes while eukaryotic organisms may have developed the RNA interference (RNAi) mechanism as a way of reducing transposon activity. In the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, some genes required for RNAi also reduce transposon activity.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon#Evolution_of_transposons >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Transposons are HARMFUL, not beneficial.  How is this a better mechanism than mutations?

                  ************************************

                  Guys, guys, guys.  Come now.  Let's reason together.

                  RM + NS is dead.

                  None of these are viable alternative mechanisms.

                  The higher genomes are headed for extinction.

                  FAST.

                  The answer?  There is only one.  The Creator Himself is going to have to fix the situation.

                  Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.  He that believes in me though he were dead, yet shall he live.”

                  GENOMIC DETERIORATION IS THE PROBLEM.  

                  JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER.

                  Dr. John Sanford has figured this out.

                  How about you?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,18:39

                  pretty pathetic, davy. Is that the best you can do?

                  Because none of your objections holds water.

                  I could go through and painstakingly show you why,  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, there is no need to because many all of the big blunders are well known and need no documentation.  I'm not going to waste my time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 24 2006,18:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  While this encounter may have more formal trappings as "a bet", I predict it's going to play out exactly like davy's recent boast:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  I can take you to the old Science Magazine archives right now and show you MANY articles just as erroneous as the SINGLE one at AiG we found. (afdave, Nov. 19)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  which sort of detumesced to      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Russell ... get real, man.  I said I COULD take you to many erroneous articles in old issues of Science.  However, there is no need to because many of the big blunders are well known and need no documentation.  I'm not going to waste my time. (afdave, Nov. 21)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Let's not forget Dave's recent 'challenge' to the whole board

                   
                  Quote (Liar Dave Hawkins @ Nov. 06 2006,16:42)

                  Let me issue the mudflingers--those who make wild claims about me lining my pockets with church money, abusing children, liking Kent Hovind, and having some hidden sin like the Rev. Ted--a challenge.

                  As soon as I get done with Mike PSS and HLA-B alleles, pick a single issue related to my CGH, preferably on Points C & D ... biological information would be OK, maybe supposed beneficial mutations ... whatever ... and take me on IN DETAIL as Mike is doing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Which he promptly reneged on and ran from as soon as I and others took him up on it.

                  Dave Hawkins is a pathetic lying coward, which is why everyone thinks of him as



                  Credit to Plognark of IIDB

                  < Creationismsucks >
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 24 2006,19:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  this mechanism cannot make livers or intestines
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not on it's own, but you did ask me what mechanisms Allen McNeil had in mind when he said the modern synthesis had been superseded.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All we are talking about here is mutation affecting GENE REGULATION instead of genes themselves.  It’s still all driven my mutation and subject to natural selection.  This is not a novel mechanism.  It is simply a different application of RM+NS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It wasn't part of the modern synthesis which was the question I was answering.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm sure that's what the scientists who have observed it happening said.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Incompatible with long term survival?  Sorry guys … not very convincing as a mechanism for the evolution of higher genomes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It appears to have happened a lot in our evolution. < http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1197289. >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Like natural selection, there is no new information being created here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again I'm just listing things that weren't in the modern synthesis, although if the last paper I quoted in my last post doesn't give a mechanism for the creation of new information I'm really not sure how information is relevant.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Transposons are HARMFUL, not beneficial.  How is this a better mechanism than mutations?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mostly harmful, look < here >. In any case they really are mutations, just not the result of copying errors.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  RM + NS is dead.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No not really, if you're going to quote Allen all he said was the modern synthesis is dead in the same way that Einsteinian gravity superseded Newtonian gravity.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. John Sanford has figured this out.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  By all accounts he figured out the Jesus thing first which caused him to believe the evolution thing. Not that that's a problem it's just something to note considering he's < wrong > (about the evolution thing not the Jesus thing (science doesn't care about that (although a lot of scientists do))).
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,19:18

                  You know, Dave, reading your comments, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you're mentally retarded. The only thing I can think of is that your ideological blindness only makes you look like you're mentally retarded.

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,18:28)
                  COMMENTS ON CHRIS HYLAND’S LIST OF POSSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS
                  Epigenetic Inheritance. IOW … this mechanism cannot make livers or intestines (much less an entire human being) … you need RM + NS for that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, sure, Dave, if you assume that epigenetic inheritance is the only mechanism working. Already I can tell exactly where you're going to go, and I'm going to tell you exactly why you'll be wrong: with every one of these mechanisms, you're going to assume that they're the only one operative, and never even consider the reality that they all work together to drive evolution.

                  And in the meantime, you think it's a problem that one mechanism, working all by itself (no doubt for 4,500 years) cannot produce a fully-formed human. This is a problem for evolutionary theory how?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Developmental Reprogramming
                   All we are talking about here is mutation affecting GENE REGULATION instead of genes themselves.  It’s still all driven my mutation and subject to natural selection.  This is not a novel mechanism.  It is simply a different application of RM+NS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, this is a problem how, Dave? Variation, and selection working on that variation, gets different forms. You've failed to explain why this cannot happen. Lumping it all under one heading doesn't help your argument at all.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene Duplication. IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And, other than your personal incredulity (which, given what you do believe in, is clearly an utterly worthless guide), what actual problem do you have with this mechanism, Dave? Can you articulate a reason why gene duplication cannot possibly work? Or are you just going to say, "I don't believe it"?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Genome Duplication
                   Incompatible with long term survival?  Sorry guys … not very convincing as a mechanism for the evolution of higher genomes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Incompatible with survival in large, complex organisms, Dave. When was the last time a major clade (e.g. class, order, superorder) evolved, Dave? Any idea? I'll give you a hint: it was more than 4,500 years ago. And again, I'd like you to try to actually give a reason why genome duplication cannot work, and cannot have worked in the past. Are you up to the task? Of course not.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Genetic drift. Like natural selection, there is no new information being created here.  We are talking about pre-existing information which drifts throughout a population.  This is not a mechanism for evolution of the higher genomes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're an idiot. Natural selection is not a source of "new information." Neither is "genetic drift." The source of "new information," as always, are mutations, gene duplications, genome duplications, etc. Would you care to explain how gene duplication is not an increase in information? Not up to the task? Didn't think so.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Exaptation. Raaaiight!  Very likely.  This is the kind of nonsense I’m talking about when I refer to Alladin’s Lamp and Bippity Boppity Boo.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, more personal incredulity, Dave. And coming from a guy who believes in Noah's ark, a global flood that left no evidence, talking serpents, talking burning bushes, secretaries traipsing behind Adam chiseling his thoughts into stone tablets, and tens of thousands of kinds becoming tens of millions of species in less than five millennia, your personal incredulity is laughable.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Developmental Plasticity. Let’s repeat that.  THE GENOME OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CONTAINS ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS NEEDED TO DEVELOP INTO ANY ONE OF SEVERAL ‘MORPHS’, BUT ONLY THE GENES THAT FORM PART OF ONE DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM ARE ACTIVATED.Did you hear that?  All the information was already there.  It did not evolve.  This is not a mechanism for HOW this incredible sophistication got there in the first place.  Sorry!  Strike SEVEN.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Already there from when, Dave? Once again, you're assuming, without a particle of evidence to support your assertion, that such a genotype cannot possibly have evolved. Can you explain the reasoning underlying such an assumption? No? Didn't think so.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mobile genetic elements.      Transposons are HARMFUL, not beneficial.  How is this a better mechanism than mutations?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Jesus fucking Christ Dave. The fact that some transposons can be harmful does not mean that all transposons are harmful. Just like any other mutation, only a tiny, tiny fraction of transposons need be beneficial. Why this simple, basic concept is beyond your mental ability remains a mystery.

                  Every single one of these "arguments," Dave, is yet another argument from personal incredulity. Considering how utterly wrong your personal incredulity has been in the past, why should anyone give it any credence now?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Guys, guys, guys.  Come now.  Let's reason together.

                  RM + NS is dead.

                  None of these are viable alternative mechanisms.

                  The higher genomes are headed for extinction.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you are incapable of reason. Every single one of these mechanisms is an example of "variation." They are all possible mechanisms that fall under the category of variation, mediated by selection, leads to new forms. You haven't even begun to prove, or even provide evidence for, the contention that none of these mechanisms can possibly work. All of them are known to work, and you have zero evidence to the contrary.


                  Your statement that everything alive is headed for extinction is laughable in the extreme. Are you ever going to deal with the slight problem with your argument that 99% of everything that ever lived is now extinct? Are you ever going to deal with the slight problem for your argument that you have no evidence that biodiversity is declining with time?

                  Until you deal with these two problems, your argument is DOA.

                  And besides, what does any of this have to do with your long-gone, long-forgotten, long-dead "hypothesis"?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 24 2006,19:51

                  Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 24 2006,10:24)
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
                  DM...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, stupid...care to take that up?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

                  My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey now, you're not going to welch are you?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 24 2006,20:15

                  Chris--  



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PLoS Biol. 2005 October; 3(10): e344.
                  Published online 2005 September 6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030344.
                  Copyright : © 2005 Public Library of Science. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                  Clear Evidence for Two Rounds of Vertebrate Genome Duplication

                  See "Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate" on page e314.
                  Top  
                  As one of the most important sources of novel gene functions, gene duplications play a major role in evolutionary change. Though a gene copy will generally become inactive after duplication, it can be saved—either by acquiring a new function or dividing aspects of the original gene's function—on its way to becoming ubiquitous, or “fixed,” within the population.

                  The notion of “evolution by gene duplication” was proposed in 1970 by Susumu Ohno, who argued that gene and whole genome duplication provided the raw material for evolutionary innovations such as subcellular compartments, fins, and jaws. Having “extra” copies of genes provides the opportunity for duplicate genes to escape the constraints of purifying selection, and allows the genes to diverge and acquire novel functions. Ohno also proposed that two rounds of whole genome duplication occurred at some point in early vertebrate evolution—a possibility that could explain the relatively large size and complexity of the vertebrate genome.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is pure speculation.  No one has observed genes getting duplicated, escaping purifying selection, and acquiring novel function.  On top of that, this speculative scenario is based on the ASSUMPTION that mutations can somehow be good.  We have been through this before.  I have now given many quotes from geneticists (remember my Kimura charts?) which show that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious.  Also, I have shown you how the supposed beneficial ones are not increases in information.  They are decreases and they happen to be beneficial only in a very narrowly defined sense (remember the broken car heater in Antartica analogy?)

                  I did mention MacNeill because he made a particularly noteworthy statement, but my challenge for you or anyone here is to provide a viable mechanism for ToE to work that is different from RM+NS.  I fail to see how any of the items you listed qualify.  All of them seem to be nothing novel at all.  It appears that Sanford is correct.  There is only ONE MECHANISM:  RM +NS.

                  It truly appears that ToE advocates are now in a more severe crisis than they were when Michael Denton wrote his first book 20 years ago.  With the latest revelations from someone as prominent as Sanford, it seems that only the most ideologically committed could continue to stomach ToE.

                  As for those who ask where my positive support for my CGH is, my answer is this.  The demise of the Primary Axiom as a viable mechanism for ToE is positive proof that a Designer was required.  If genomes ARE deteriorating and CAN ONLY deteriorate ... then it becomes a requirement that Intelligence had to create the genome.

                  I welcome you to explain how this is not so.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 24 2006,20:31

                  Gosh, DimDave ignores two offers of a bet on his "show me" other sources of variation . Color me unsurprised.

                  Yet he has time to type out another slew of fallacious claims, as if he "knows" what he's talking about -- when it's clear he doesn't. It's always obvious when a person is faking his way through an argument; they continuously use fallacies like "no one has ever seen x" or Ken Ham's " were you there?"...both of which constitute multiple fallacies.

                  You already agreed that mutations exist, Stupid...so claiming that any additional sources of variation cannnot constitute different "mechanisms" ( watch him equivocate on that term...another fallacy) is simply moot.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 24 2006,20:31

                  Dave, are we going to finalize the terms of our bet, or are you going to welch?

                  And if it's the latter, at least answer this question: How would you measure whether or not a mutation is beneficial?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 24 2006,20:44

                  Like with the radiocarbon data that Davey got punked on, and turned out like a two-dollar harlot -- he has to be herded into a corner and not allowed to pick and choose from multiple questions while he avoids the most pertinant.
                  I'm happy to sit back let Argy or Russ or any of you Bio folks ream Davey and make him dance in his panties again. He's getting good at it, for a cheap painted 'ho.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 24 2006,20:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,20:15)
                  Chris--  
                  This is pure speculation.  No one has observed genes getting duplicated, escaping purifying selection, and acquiring novel function.  On top of that, this speculative scenario is based on the ASSUMPTION that mutations can somehow be good.  We have been through this before.  I have now given many quotes from geneticists (remember my Kimura charts?) which show that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious.  Also, I have shown you how the supposed beneficial ones are not increases in information.  They are decreases and they happen to be beneficial only in a very narrowly defined sense (remember the broken car heater in Antartica analogy?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I really wish you would stop making the stupid and obvious observation that most mutations are deleterious. So what? Why do you think this is a problem for evolution, Dave? Are you incapable of the simple distinction between "all" and "most"? So it would seem.

                  And explain to me once again how a gene duplication (and there are millions of examples of such duplications, your protestations to the contrary nothwithstanding), which then results in one of the copies mutating into a new function, is not an increase in information? Because if you think you've shown how it isn't, you're wrong.

                  And what's "narrow" about the sense of a mutation conferring a survival advantage? That's the only sense that matters! Your "antarctic heater" analogy is entirely irrelevant. If a mutation confers an advantage, it confers an advantage.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I did mention MacNeill because he made a particularly noteworthy statement, but my challenge for you or anyone here is to provide a viable mechanism for ToE to work that is different from RM+NS.  I fail to see how any of the items you listed qualify.  All of them seem to be nothing novel at all.  It appears that Sanford is correct.  There is only ONE MECHANISM:  RM +NS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, why are you hung up on this idea that it's somehow a problem that "there is only one mechanism" for the theory of evolution? There's only one mechanism for getting from point A to point B, too. Does that mean motion is impossible?

                  Until you can show, in detail, why variation and selection cannot work, this whole line of argument is moribund. It's moribund in the same way that your argument that deep time is impossible because "evolutionists need deep time," the same way your argument that "it's impossible to date anything using radiometric dating techniques because doing so doesn't rely on historical records," and advantageous mutations are impossible because most mutations are deleterious.

                  All of this comes down to arguments from incredulity, Mr. "rank speculation." And if you want to talk about "rank speculation," let's start with your "rank speculations" that Noah and his boatmates and their cargo were "genetically rich," that their genomes were perfect, that there was an ark, that there was a flood, that God created the universe in six days 6,000 years ago…need I go on?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It truly appears that ToE advocates are now in a more severe crisis than they were when Michael Denton wrote his first book 20 years ago.  With the latest revelations from someone as prominent as Sanford, it seems that only the most ideologically committed could continue to stomach ToE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where's the "severe crisis," Dave? No one else sees it, because it doesn't exist. Your pathetic whining that there's only one mechanism for evolution, when that mechanism is as broadly defined as "random mutation and natural selection," isn't even a criticism.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for those who ask where my positive support for my CGH is, my answer is this.  The demise of the Primary Axiom as a viable mechanism for ToE is positive proof that a Designer was required.  If genomes ARE deteriorating and CAN ONLY deteriorate ... then it becomes a requirement that Intelligence had to create the genome.

                  I welcome you to explain how this is not so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First, you haven't even begun to demonstrate the "demise" of RM+NS to anyone other than yourself, and considering how low your standards of proof are for anything that supports your position, that's hardly surprising. But even if RM+NS could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be insufficient, that doesn't even come close to proving the existence of a designer. This is the same mistake Dembski makes with his "explanatory filter." He assumes that if he can eliminate chance, he can make a case for design. First, he can't eliminate chance; improbable things happen all the time. But even if he could eliminate chance, he can't eliminate regularity, and neither can you.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 24 2006,20:56

                  And... he's gone, after sticking around for easily long enough to see my post.

                  Hey, Dave, I thought of a commercial that both you AND your kids could star in:

                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 24 2006,21:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is pure speculation.  No one has observed genes getting duplicated, escaping purifying selection, and acquiring novel function
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think we're witnessing "endgame desperation" here.

                  If genes do get duplicated, what would constitute "observing" it? It doesn't count unless you actually watch the DNA getting duplicated in the microscope, perhaps? And what would "escaping purifying selection", or "acquiring novel function" look like?

                  Just... too dumb for words.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,00:17

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 24 2006,21:24)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is pure speculation.  No one has observed genes getting duplicated, escaping purifying selection, and acquiring novel function
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think we're witnessing "endgame desperation" here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, we've been watching "endgame desperation" from Dave since about the halfway through the first day on this thread.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 25 2006,04:03

                  Davey, whole genome duplications can be obtained in the lab. Never heard of polyploidy, have you?

                  And regarding gene duplications, as I work on aphids, I'd like to post the abstract (and other parts) of an interesting paper about the function and evolution of a duplicated gene in a social aphid species.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Venomous protease of aphid soldier for colony defense
                  Mayako Kutsukake *, Harunobu Shibao *, , Naruo Nikoh , Mizue Morioka , Tomohiro Tamura ¶, Tamotsu Hoshino ¶, Satoru Ohgiya ¶, and Takema Fukatsu *, ||
                  PNAS | August 3, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 31 | 11338-11343

                  In social aphids, morphological, behavioral, and physiological differences between soldiers and normal insects are attributed to differences in gene expression between them, because they are clonal offspring parthenogenetically produced by the same mothers. By using cDNA subtraction, we identified a soldier-specific cysteine protease of the family cathepsin B in a social aphid, Tuberaphis styraci, with a second-instar soldier caste. The cathepsin B gene was specifically expressed in soldiers and first-instar nymphs destined to be soldiers. The cathepsin B protein was preferentially produced in soldiers and showed a protease activity typical of cathepsin B. The cathepsin B mRNA and protein were localized in the midgut of soldiers. For colony defense, soldiers attack enemies with their stylet, which causes paralysis and death of the victims. Notably, after soldiers attacked moth larvae, the cathepsin B protein was detected from the paralyzed larvae. Injection of purified recombinant cathepsin B protein certainly killed the recipient moth larvae. From these results, we concluded that the cathepsin B protein is a major component of the aphid venom produced by soldiers of T. styraci. Soldier-specific expression of the cathepsin B gene was found in other social aphids of the genus Tuberaphis. The soldier-specific cathepsin B gene showed an accelerated molecular evolution probably caused by the action of positive selection, which had been also known from venomous proteins of other animals.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Soldier-Specific and Nonspecific Cathepsin B Genes Expressed in T. styraci. Many proteases including cathepsin B are known to comprise multiple gene families generated through gene duplications (41). It is thought that gene duplications have enabled the exploitation and evolution of novel gene functions, because new gene copy is freed from functional constraints of the original gene copy (42). Therefore, we examined whether cathepsin B genes other than the soldier-specific type exist in T. styraci. By RT-PCR using degenerate primers for cathepsin B proteases, expression of a different cathepsin B gene was identified in T. styraci. The full-length cDNA sequence of the nonspecific cathepsin B gene was determined. The 1,113-bp sequence contained a putative ORF encoding a polypeptide of 340 aa residues, exhibited 58.8%/51.3% (nucleotide/amino acid) sequence similarity to soldier-specific cathepsin B, and was constitutively expressed in both soldiers and nonsoldiers. From closely related social aphids T. coreana, T. taiwana, and T. takenouchii, which also produce second-instar soldiers, the two types of cathepsin B genes were identified by RT-PCR. Molecular phylogenetic analysis revealed that these genes formed two distinct and well defined clades (Fig. 6A). Semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis confirmed that, irrespective of the aphid species, the genes in the soldier-specific clade were expressed in a soldier-specific manner, whereas the genes in the nonspecific clade were expressed constitutively (Fig. 6B). These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste.

                  Accelerated Molecular Evolution in Soldier-Specific Cathepsin B. In venomous animals such as snakes and gastropods, it was found that molecular evolution of their toxic proteins is strikingly accelerated because of positive selection acting on the molecules (43, 44). When exon and intron sequences of the soldier-specific and nonspecific cathepsin B genes were compared between T. styraci and T. coreana, such evolutionary patterns were detected; the KA/KS value obtained from the soldier-specific genes was >1, whereas the value from the nonspecific genes was «1 (Table 1). The accelerated evolution of soldier-specific cathepsin B is probably relevant to its venom function.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How many aphid "kinds" were in the Arch, Davey?  :)
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 25 2006,07:49

                  WOW ... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND!  LET'S REVIEW THE LATEST HIGH POINTS.
                  * We analyzed the RATE Team'Helium in Zircon experiment at Fenton Hill which gave an age for the earth of 6000 years.  Dr. Humphreys thoroughly fisked Dr. Kevin Henke's rebuttal's the most prominent of which was a ludicrous comparison of the pressure effect on diffusion in soft micas to that of hard zircons.  Deadman fell for this one and apparently still thinks it's valid.

                  * We showed that contrary to Deadman's claims, it is NOT possible to radiometrically date the layers of the Grand Staircase.  The best you can do is date volcanic ash and other "datable" minerals which occur in 4 or 5 of the 80 some layers of the Grand Staircase.  And this "dating" is totally unreliable anyway as I showed with the example from Koobi Fora and many other examples.

                  * We examined many other examples of RM dating and found that discordance is the rule, not the exception

                  * We looked at the strange phenomenon of measurable amounts of C14 in coal and diamonds.  This C14 should have been gone long ago if these were as old as Long Agers say they are ... but they are NOT gone ... they are there to haunt the ToE Faithful.

                  * One of my favorites was the Palouse River Canyon.  Geologists laughed at Harlan Bretz for years and years when he said that this canyon was cut RAPIDLY by a Flood.  Then they stopped laughing.  Now everyone knows that it was indeed cut by the Great Missoula Flood.  I wonder when they will stop laughing at Creationists for saying the Grand Canyon was cut in the same way??!!

                  * We pointed out the simple fact that fossils are formed rapidly by catastrophe ... not by slow steady processes.  What do we find all over the earth?  Millions of fossils buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.  Friend, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there was a Global Water Catastrophe at some point in the past.

                  * We showed that much to the chagrin of people like Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association, they are admitting that the fossil record does not show slow, gradual evolution, but rather shows catastrophism and sudden appearance of forms ... just like the Creationists have been saying all along.

                  * We discussed supposed human evolution and pointed out how absurd it is to say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, but didn't begin keeping written records until 194,000 years later.

                  * We also discussed the similarities between humans and the apes and showed why it is much more reasonable to believe that the similarities point to a common designer than to believe that they are the result of common descent.

                  * Moving on the genetics, we learned many things.  I learned what an allele was :-) (yes, I know ... I should have remembered that from high school--I'll take that hit).  And you learned that eye color is not controlled by different alleles of the same gene but rather is controlled by multiple genes.  You also learned that the primary source of variation is not mutations, but rather is the built in variation within the genome.  This quote courtesy of Ayala, no doubt one you didn't run across in school.  

                  * I showed quite rigorously that the genetic bottleneck of Noah's Ark need not have been a problem WRT preserving variability.  All that was required would be a fair amount of heterozygosity in the pairs taken on the ark.  I initially called this "genetic richness."

                  * It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true.  The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes.  And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.   Woodmorappe has excellent information on this.

                  * We showed how C14 dating is based upon the flawed assumption of relatively constant carbon levels throughout earth history.  This is an incorrect assumption as the fossil record clearly shows.

                  * Now we are studying the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" by Cornell geneticist Dr. J. C. Sanford.  He quotes numerous population geneticists who say that the higher genomes are deteriorating, not improving and that this is a problem, namely, that we are headed for extinction ... not some more highly evolved state.

                  * Sanford has shown in his book that the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false.  This leaves ToE advocates without any mechanism at all to drive evolution.

                  * Eight alternative mechanisms were proposed yesterday, but I showed that they are inadequate.  Sanford is right.  There is no other mechanism.

                  THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

                  ***************************************

                  Jeannot-- Your aphid example is just like my bee example.  I already answered your question.  Please reread my post.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If genes do get duplicated, what would constitute "observing" it? It doesn't count unless you actually watch the DNA getting duplicated in the microscope, perhaps? And what would "escaping purifying selection", or "acquiring novel function" look like?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No need to actually watch.  Just give an example of novel function (that's not deleterious).

                  Argy...there is no need for your bet anymore.  Chris Hyland already gave 8 supposed mechanisms to serve as an alternate to the dead Primary Axiom.  But feel free to give some more if you like.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 25 2006,08:31



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WOW ... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND!  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We certainly have. But the most important thing we've learned is that afdave stops reading the moment he senses his quaint worldview is being challenged.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No need to actually watch.  Just give an example of novel function (that's not deleterious).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  *sigh*
                  Haven't we been here before?
                  Nylon digestion.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy...there is no need for your bet anymore.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Another detumescence. I believe I accurately predicted this one yesterday.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 25 2006,09:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy...there is no need for your bet anymore.  Chris Hyland already gave 8 supposed mechanisms to serve as an alternate to the dead Primary Axiom.  But feel free to give some more if you like.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But aren't you looking forward to winning an easy bet against one of those children corrupting, atheist scientist types?  Especially when the alternative is flaunting your welchishness all over the internets.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 25 2006,09:10

                  Hah. What a buffoon. I won't bother to Fisk each of his revisions of fact -- it's not as though people forgot Dave running from the data on Helium diffusion through steel, Pyrex glass and titanite...along with all the other flaws in Henke's claims...but, still, the best part was Dave getting lied to **twice** by ICR.

                  Dave says you can't date the layers of the Grand Canyon, just the minerals in the layers...or the minerals the layers are entirely composed of...but that's not dating the layers. Bwahahaha. That was another great episode, especialy when I used a paper from creationists to show that the ash of the Morrison formation was traceable to a volcanic arc source...which then corresponded to the very ash layers in dates.

                  "We examined many other examples of RM dating and found that discordance is the rule, not the exception." Except that Dave actually ran from that debate, too, once it was shown that the "exceptions" were  HIS "discordant" dates... and he's still running from Mike on this.

                  "We showed how C14 dating is based upon the flawed assumption of relatively constant carbon levels throughout earth history. "
                  Except Dave can't show evidence of any such thing...given that C14 dating specifically takes varying levels into account via multiple methods.
                  What Dave CANNOT show is that there were 150-700 times the amounts of atmospheric carbon needed to support his YEC claim.

                  And on and on...Dave takes things like the Palouse...which was shown not to be anything like the Grand Canyon...and makes it into the Grand Canyon, despite the evidence.

                  Another amusing example: " This leaves ToE advocates without any mechanism at all to drive evolution." Despite mutation existing and Dave admitting it does...so there's variation, but no "mechanism" for variation, despite mutation being a fact that Dave accepts... and no other modes of introducing variation count for Dave because...well, because.

                  Doublethink and Cognitive dissonance all in one package. How impressive.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,10:33

                  WOW... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND! LET'S REVIEW THE LATEST HIGH POINTS

                  • Jon F totally obliterated Dave's claims that the RATE results are any more than an interesting anomaly, and certainly don't rise to the level of any sort of "refutation" of radiometric dating techniques. But Dave fell for the RATE team's deceit and apparently still believes their results are valid.
                  • We showed that contrary to Dave's claims, it is possible to radiometrically date many of the Grand Canyon strata (although it would only be necessary to date a single stratum to more than 6,000 years to demolish Dave's YEC). Dave has consistently lied about Deadman's statements on the issue, to general amusement.
                  • Dave has been able to find around a dozen examples of discordant radiometric dates, out of the millions of radiometric dates ever obtained, and cannot understand that 12 <<<<< 1,000,000. He hasn't even looked at more than 35 different radiometric dating techniques, but thinks he's disproved the entire methodology.
                  • It was explained to Dave over and over again exactly where the C14 in coal seams and diamonds comes from, but since he cannot admit evidence which doesn't support his "hypothesis," he's steadfastly ignored it, in the meantime confusing instrumentation noise with environmental noise—strange behavior for someone who calls himself an electrical engineer.
                  • Dave posted pictures of the Palouse River Canyon, which look nothing like the Grand Canyon, and which are composed of soft volcanic ash, not hard sedimentary and metamorphic rock, and was stunned when everyone told him the two canyons look nothing alike, because they do look nothing alike.
                  • Dave thinks it's more plausible that the trillions of fossils out there were all created, in exactly the order predicted by evolution but nothing like the order predicted by YEC, in a single year, rather than over billions of years. To no one's surprise, Dave has never been able to explain his reasoning here.
                  • We have patiently explained to Dave the thousands of "transitional" fossils in the record, but Dave has stuck his fingers in his ears and yelled, "I can't HEAR you!"
                  • Moving on to genetics, we learned the abysmal ignorance Dave displayed on the subject, such as his inability to learn, even after having it patiently explained to him, what the difference between a "gene" and an "allele" is, and why it's impossible for any single organism to have more than two alleles for any given gene. This was cause for much hilarity. Dave tried to persuade everyone that variation of the genome is the source of variation in the genome, which left everyone scratching their head as to how Dave could be so obtuse.
                  • Dave attempted to show that the bottleneck presented by Noah's ark (after first claiming that reducing all of humanity down to eight individuals somehow did not constitute a genetic bottleneck in the first place) would not present a problem, even after he was asked how 10 HLA-B alleles became 500 alleles in about 200 generations. Of course, Dave was unable to answer this question, and instead went off on a big long tangent because he was unable to distinguish between "presence" and "frequency." This also led to Dave having his head knocked clean off his body in his misunderstanding of information theory.
                  • Dave showed his inability to understand why two new mutated HLA-B alleles per generation, minimum (but more likely 20 new alleles per generation) presents a problem for his YEC. Maybe Dave just isn't that smart.
                  • Dave still thinks, despite being told by essentially everyone, that C14 dating does not assume constant levels of carbon, in fact assumes and measures differing ratios of C14/C12, and that those ratios are observations, not assumptions. Dave's incessant repetition of this totally wrong claim is a classic demonstration of his intellectual dishonesty.
                  • Dave continues to be unable to explain how it is that, if genomes are deteriorating, there's no evidence whatsoever of biodiversity declining over time. He keeps ignoring this problem in the evident hope that it will go away.
                  • Dave continues to claim that variation + selection cannot generate new forms, despite his continued inability to explain why this is so, and in the face of massively overwhelming evidence that variation + selection are, in fact, the origin of species, and this has been known for a century and a half. Try to keep up, Dave.
                  • Dave continues to think that if he says something, that means he's demonstrated it. Frequent readers of this thread know how supportable that belief is, given Dave's failure to demonstrate anything, and his frequent Portuguese moments.

                  And Dave tops off his glorious failures by failing to put his money where his mouth is.

                  Are you proud of yourself, Dave? Is this what you hoped you'd be when you grew up? Is your daddy proud?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 25 2006,15:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your aphid example is just like my bee example.  I already answered your question.  Please reread my post.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where is that? I can't find it.
                  Maybe you can just tell me wether there were any aphids aboard the Arch (yes or no). If yes, how many kinds?

                  Because you know, these aphids feed on specific trees, starve within a couple of days and aren't good swimmers.

                  I think I'm gonna love Dave's "Flood ecology".  :)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,17:13

                  Dave's always claiming he's already dealt with some issue. But then when you ask for a permalink, he's got nothing to say.

                  In the meantime, I'm wondering how long before I get an answer to this little difficulty for Dave's "hypothesis":

                  On the one hand, Dave, you claim that all complex multicellular genomes are falling apart, leading everything to extinction.

                  On the other hand, your "hypothesis" requires an explosive increase in biodiversity, essentially instantaneously (4,500 years is instantaneous on any reasonable timescale), on a scale vastly, astronomically more extreme than anything proposed even for the "Cambrian Explosion."

                  So which is it, Dave? Is biodiversity decreasing because everything's going extinct? Or is it increasing? Or is it doing both at the same time? Maybe genomes were getting lots of beneficial mutations right after the flood, and now they're getting lots of bad mutations? Maybe there was some magic elixir in your "floodwaters" that made for good mutations, and now that the floodwaters have been "poofed" away there are no more good mutations? When did the good mutations stop and the bad mutations start? Maybe it really is possible for some quantity (like biodiversity) to get larger and smaller at the same time?

                  Or maybe your "hypothesis" is just completely broken and unworkable?

                  I'll expect you to deal with this problem Dave, and not just by saying you've already dealt with it, because you haven't. If you cannot come up with an explanation for how biodiversity can simultaneously decrease and increase, perhaps you should just give up on your UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis." What do you think?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 25 2006,18:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AIG News to Note, November 25, 2006
                  A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint

                  Please note that links will take you directly to the source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.

                  1. National Geographic News: < Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans
                  >

                  In an astonishing discovery, scientists have determined that it’s not only variation in genes that makes us different; it’s also repetition of certain genes. “The research also suggests that humans have less DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest living relative, than is widely supposed,” National Geographic News explains.

                  What’s unsurprising, of course, is one geneticist’s suspicion that “we’re just seeing the very early stages of a new way to think about evolution.”

                  3. ScienceDaily: < Origins Of Life: New Approach Helps Expand Study Of Living Fossils
                  >

                  Dr. Miriam Andres is making new progress in the ongoing study of the origin of life—or so says a study published in the journal Geology. Andres is studying stromatolites, a type of “macrofossil” that appear similar to coral reefs. But despite high hopes for finding the secrets to the origin of life in stromatolites, Dr. Andres explains that incorrect assumptions have been made when studying stromatolites in the past, that “direct evidence of microbial activity is lacking;” that “no study to date has documented [the microbial “fingerprinting”] process for modern marine stromatolites;” that Andres’ team observed the exact opposite of what they expected in carbon isotopes; and, finally, that the team “still doesn’t understand how stromatolites calcify.”

                  All we can say is, it’s good to know that the search for how life could have appeared by chance is making such astounding progress.
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/news%2Dto%2Dnote/ >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,18:36

                  Yeah, Dave. It would be much easier if scientists working on figuring out the origins of life just assumed it was "poofed" into existence by God, the way you creationists do. That would certainly answer a lot of questions, wouldn't it?

                  Glad to see you responded to my challenge about how biodiversity can be both increasing and decreasing at the same time. As Deadman says, every question you cannot answer is a win for evolution and a loss for you.

                  Based on the close-to-a-hundred questions just in the monthly list, I think it's safe to say you've already lost.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 25 2006,19:43

                  Changing the subject, are we davy? Don't we have a certain amount of unfinished business to attend to? For one:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave: ]  No need to actually watch.  Just give an example of novel function (that's not deleterious).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell: ]  Nylon digestion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Beyond that, though, I have another bone to pick with davy, who wrote:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WOW ... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND!  LET'S REVIEW THE LATEST HIGH POINTS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  then proceeded to list 16 bullet-points that apparently, in davy's mind, constitute the "latest high points".

                  Now, here's my beef. I proceeded to search the entire current thread, i.e. the last 2 months of this discussion, using terms extracted from this summary. Guess what? These alleged proofs, data, evidence, and arguments are just not there! Search, for instance, for:
                  zircons
                  C14 in diamonds
                  Grand Staircase
                  ...
                  If there are any "high points" involving these terms, they must be from more than 2 months ago.

                  The rest is pretty much standard bluster and "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!" , like this:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sanford has shown in his book that the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sanford has shown what? That random mutation doesn't happen? I don't think so. That natural selection is not important in evolution? I highly doubt it. That "RM + NS" - each narrowly defined - do not account for every detail of the history of life on earth? (Wow. Someone alert the media! )  Does that translate to    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hardly.

                  But all these 16 points are laid out all neat and bullet-pointed, as if, oh yes, these points have all been thoroughly covered, no need to revisit, let's move on... all with nary a link to begin to substantiate any of these baseless claims, or - more to the point - to let the curious reader go back and see how thoroughly davy failed to substantiate them.

                  The point is, it's another variation on that most annoying of creationist behaviors, < "Gish Gallop" >. Duane Gish is famous, of course, for rattling off fake "facts" at a prodigious rate. Since he can easily rattle off 20 "facts" that pose a problem for evolution in the time it would take to debunk any one of them, he's always way "ahead".

                  Davy's variation is distinctive enough it may possibly merit its own name. (afdavbafflegab? ) but basically it's the Gish Gallop.

                  I've always said the difference between conscious dishonesty and self-delusion is not worth parsing. But if I had to place this gambit on a spectrum between the two, it would be much closer to conscious dishonesty.

                  So I'm putting the question directly to davy.

                  What is your purpose in these "summaries"?  Are you actually proposing that any of these bullet-points could possibly be considered settled - in your favor? Do you think you're providing a helpful review? If your purpose was anything like either of these goals, surely you would have provided links, no?

                  Since you don't, I suspect you do it consciously to be annoying. Is that your goal? Does that somehow further your christian goals? Did I miss some passage in the bible where God said "go forth and be annoying"?  Or is it just a weakness, that you can't quite resist?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 25 2006,20:09

                  Heh. Notice this quote according to AIG:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In an astonishing discovery, scientists have determined that it’s not only variation in genes that makes us different; it’s also repetition of certain genes. “The research also suggests that humans have less DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest living relative, than is widely supposed,” National Geographic News explains.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   
                  And now the actual quote from the Nat'l Geographic site:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The findings also suggest "more genetic variation between human genomes and chimpanzee genomes than we had previously appreciated," Lee said.
                  Past studies suggest chimps share around 99 percent of their DNA with humans.
                  "If you add on CNVs, you do see a lot more differences between the two species," Lee added.
                  The researchers say their findings suggest a figure in the region of 96 to 97 percent similarity.
                  It's interesting that AiG chose not to include that last bit, eh?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The 99% figure [for ALL differences] was from a while ago. We've known it was around 97-98% for a while now, depending on which factors are included in the comparison-- insertions, deletions and in the case of the Nature article, "Copy-Number Variants" (CNV's).

                  While it's interesting that if you look at insertions, deletions, etc., you find more "differences" percentage-wise, but that's a reflection of divergence from a common ancestor millions of years ago...big deal. The fact remains that for known coding regions, the shared identical sequences are still at 99%.  For instance: < http://www.genome.gov/15515096 >        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the Chimp Sequencing and Analysis Consortium ...sequencing and assembling the chimp genome was done at the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis. In addition to those centers, the consortium included researchers from institutions elsewhere in the United States, as well as Israel, Italy, Germany and Spain...

                  The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. [However, Dave;] In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

                  To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Let's look at that highlighted bit again:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So...deteriorating? Is this evidence in support of your crumbling genome, Dave?


                  Interesting that AiG didn't quote **that** old news...or this one at National Geographic (linked to the same article AiG cited)      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
                  Scott Norris for National Geographic News March 8, 2006
                  Signs of recent evolution by natural selection are widespread across the human genome, experts say.
                  Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics.
                  "These are very recent events-within the past ten thousand years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose laboratory team conducted the study.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,20:33

                  One of Dave's most irritating tics (and he's got lots of them) is his condescending attitude towards his audience—his propensity to say things like, "Yesterday, class, we looked at [insert extremely well-supported theory or methodology here], and determined that it is [impossible, unfounded, based on flawed assumptions, unbelievable, implausible], as I have demonstrated in detail."

                  Of course, Dave has never done any such thing, which is why he never supplies permalinks to where he thinks he has.

                  It is undoubtedly true that anyone who has posted here (even including me), and most if not all of the lurkers, have a much more comprehensive knowledge and understanding of science in general and evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, physics, logic, etc. in particular than Dave does, and it must be clear by now that no one who reads this thread is in any way falling for Dave's bullshit.

                  Which leaves the question: whom does Dave intend to be impressed by his condescending style towards his "pupils"? Certainly no one who has even the most nodding acquaintance with any branch of science, or even history. Could it be that he's actually pointing his creationist friends here? That's difficult to believe, for two reasons: 1) no one (with the possible exception of Bill Paley, who of course proves the rule) has ever posted anything that could be construed as agreement with any of Dave's "arguments"; and 2) I don't think even Dave really believes he's actually won any of his "arguments." I'm pretty sure even the most dyed-in-the-wool YEC would have to concede that Dave has repeatedly had his ass handed to him here. The mere existence of the hundreds of questions he's never satisfactorily been able to answer about his "hypothesis" would leave his most ardent co-religionists wondering.

                  So Dave: who here do you think you're persuading? Are you even persuading yourself?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 25 2006,21:07

                  Russell: Dave first brought up zircons and helium diffusion on page 35 of his previous part of this thread...He got stomped on by people here , and then some nutcases from the Institute for Creationist "Studies" lied directly to Dave about what was covered in their "work"

                  Heh, looking back over some notes I had left over from that early part of the thread is funny. I lost most of my comments when my computer took a dump a few months ago, but I kept a few like these contradictory doozies, all statements from Dave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "At this point in my study of the whole origins debate, it is too early for me to be able to say with strong assurance that ICR and AIG and DI have well qualified experts in many fields." (contradicts his earlier claims on knowing Creationism trumps Neodarwinian evo & other sciences) p.6

                  "My discussion has nothing to do with religion and I do not consider myself to be religious. " (p.6)
                  "Christianity is an all-or-nothing proposition. Jesus made it quite clear that He is the only Way. If you study the Christian scriptures, you would see that the above suggestion is not an option." (p.9)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 25 2006,22:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell: Dave first brought up zircons and helium diffusion on page 35 of his previous part of this thread...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right... in other words, several months ago. So why would it be among "LATEST HIGH POINTS"?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  He got stomped on by people here , and then some nutcases from the Institute for Creationist "Studies" lied directly to Dave about what was covered in their "work"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Refresh my memory. Who said what, when? Now that I've taken the trouble to download the whole forking thing, it's relatively painless to search for moments of particularly spectacular Dave-demolition.

                  Anyway, I was reminded, in the course of this little walk down memory lane, of the claim about 14C in coal and diamond. The only reference I could find to data was a claim by our favorite god-warrior that it was described in the (oh-so-reliable) "RATE" book.

                  The point is that coal or diamond that was formed more than 50-100,000 years ago should not still contain a detectable 14C/12C ratio, but our creationist friends say that it does. Now, it's not too difficult to imagine that coal might be contaminated with diffusible gaseous or liquid carbon of more recent vintage. It's harder - at least for me - to picture "younger" carbon penetrating a diamond matrix. So I'm wondering:

                  Well, first, of course, I'm wondering if these data even exist outside of the creationist parallel universe. Can I find them in sources that are more, shall we say, scrupulous about transparency, reproducibility, objective peer review?

                  But assuming - as I do for the meantime - that there are levels of 14C in these materials significantly and reproducibly above the near-zero levels you would expect from millions-years-old carbon, were attempts made (by, say, mass spectrometry or some such technique) to distinguish between 14C in relatively volatile/mobile forms - e.g. CO, CO2, hydrocarbons - and 14C in the ancient matrix - i.e. the crystalline structure of diamond or the graphite-like component of coal?

                  Obviously, I don't know. But my predictions*, based on the premise of millions-years-old origins, is that the "crystalline" carbon - diamond or graphite - would be essentially 14C-free; that the 14C content would be present in the mobile, diffusible component; that the 14-C content of relatively impure grades of coal, like lignite, would be higher than less porous grades like anthracite, and that diamond should be the most 14C-free - particularly if care is taken to separate the crystalline component from relatively porous impurities.

                  *"predictions", you see, contrary to sages like DaveScot, apply to what you will find, sometimes about very old events. Predictions, in this pedantic, sciencey sense, are not really restricted to future events, per se, except in the sense that our finding out about them is in the future. Since our resident dave is notoriously loath to actually make any predictions, let me venture to infer for him, that his "hypothesis" predicts that the 14C in these samples will be found in the crystalline carbon matrix.

                  Now. Let's see if the relevant data have been collected.

                  P.S. I'm experimenting with avatars. Bear with me.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 25 2006,22:23

                  Yes, Russell ... I've been at it for more than 300 pages now ... you can download the complete threads if you like.

                  ICR lied?  You must be talking about the admin guy that I thought was scientist at first ... he told me my questions should all be answered if I bought the RATE Book ( he didn't know I already owned it and he didn't know anything about my question) ... once I finally got to Humphreys himself, I got good answers ... boy Deadman ... you are desperate if you need to pull up this one to try to demonstrate a lie from ICR.  Are you feeling that bad about ToE?  Is this the best mud you can come up with?

                  Eric ... the reason I don't supply permalinks is because I don't know of an easy way.  Feel free to enlighten me.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 25 2006,22:39

                  Oh Dave! You're here! Care to address any of my direct questions, raised above?

                  And - if it's not too much trouble - could you supply "real-world"* references to the 14C in diamond and coal data?

                  *i.e. available without going through creationist organizations and publications.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 25 2006,22:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 25 2006,22:23)
                  Eric ... the reason I don't supply permalinks is because I don't know of an easy way.  Feel free to enlighten me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gee, Dave, you click where it says "permalink." How complicated is that?

                  Interesting how utterly obtuse you can be about things you don't want to know about. You can place links to external graphics no problem, but you cannot learn (even after having been instructed at least twice previously) how to click on the link that says "permalink."
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 25 2006,23:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you feeling that bad about ToE?  Is this the best mud you can come up with?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why should I feel bad about the Neodarwinian Synthesis? You haven't done anything to show it's invalid. It's as stupid as your "study " on carbon that has "if we assume" scattered all around fake math.

                  "If we assume that the land area of Earth was double...IF we assume that things grew to be gigantically humungous and IF we assume a 150-fold increase in plants that never gave off the kind of gasses found in any studies and could absorb carbon dioxide  from the ground and not the air" BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are correct that the RATE findings only say coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old with conventional asumptions on C-14 dating, which of course, the RATE Group does not accept.  We will get into this in further detail, but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.  This would significantly affect conventional interpretations of c-14 amounts found in coal, diamonds, fossils and what have you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sheeeeee-it, boy, you're a walking, talking joke. I suggest you use ALL the crap you spew here and hand it to the kids you're trying to brainwash... any single person can take it and rip it to shreds, then they'll grow up and come back to you and call you a liar to your face, which is what you deserve. I'll bet one of your own kids will, for that matter. Given the reaming you've gotten in this thread, it's easy to slap you around.

                  As far as "mud" is concerned...nah, the best stuff is you lying flat-out and plagiarizing and quotemining...

                  and there's also the episode of radiocarbon dating where I made you cry and run away. That was good.

                  Or maybe it's when you claimed to want to "sue me" ( just because I said **I** could smack your ass) ...  and I begged you to do that, call your lawyer and contact me... and you cried then, too.

                  Or maybe it was you talking about going to take samples in the Grand Canyon, hinting at taking me  there to do the actual sampling... then crying again that I might kick you and knife you...which was frankly bizarre on your part... but really indicative of your nasty, underhanded, cowardly character, too.

                  You didn't have any older brothers, did you, Dave? You DO remind me of the little weasel children that happen in families sometimes, though. I hope for your own children's sake that they don't take after you, genetics count, you know...Wait, no, you don't know. ####, you didn't even know what an allele was...or what humans were most closely related to genetically...or what the GULO gene was...or that plants take in carbon from the air in the form of carbon dioxide, not from the ground in the form of coal or oil or tar.

                  All of those things about you are funnier, Dave, and much muddier.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 26 2006,00:19

                  And by the way, Dave, it wasn't just "Humphrey's assistant" that flat-out lied to you..it was Humphreys himself, as I showed you.

                  Humphreys claimed that no one did He ratio studies ( the very sort of studies that would completely show his claims false, more than Jon and I and others did) at the time he looked at the Fenton Hill zircons.

                  But of course people were doing just that, Dave. Thus Humphreys lied to you and I showed you references on just that....however you seem to have amnesia about such things when they involve your dearly-held fantasies.

                  So, Dave, when I say people at ICR lied to you...I meant Humphreys as well, Little Lord Fauntleroy-boy:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  From: Russ Humphreys
                  Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:14 PM
                  To: Dave Hawkins
                  Subject: Re: 3He/4He in Zircons?

                  Hi Mr. Hawkins:

                  No we didn't think to ask the lab to look for 3He in the zircons because it wasn't the usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then (or at least I'd never heard of the practice then).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now, the fact is that 3He/4He ratios were long known to be of EXTREME value in dating minerals and looking for non-uranium/thorium-series sources. LONG before Humphreys did his "study" in which he deliberately skewed the data.

                  Now, even if you say " well, it wasn't done on *ZIRCONS*...uh. really, Dave?

                  How do you explain this: Hurley, PM, 1952. Alpha ionization damage as a cause of low helium ratios. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 33: 174-183. ?

                  Now, even if Humphreys now claims he was "unaware" of this...he WAS aware of it years ago. Henke told him to do the ratio studies years ago. He never did...and never will...why?

                  You got CONNED again, AFDave...this time by Russ Humphreys himself!!!!!!!!!!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2006,01:01

                  An ode to "Air Force" Dave Hawkins

                  (sung to the tune of the < Roger Ramjet > theme song) (that's Yankee Doodle to the under 35 crowd  :) )



                  Verse 1

                  Davie Hawkins and his Fundies
                  Making kids be so dumb
                  He passes lies from AIG
                  Not to teach 'em, but to snow 'em

                  Verse 2

                  When Davie reads a science book
                  His eyes they get all blurry
                  He quits after a page or two
                  The facts they make him worry

                  Verse 3

                  So come and see his Lies4Kids
                  Where young brains get a trashing
                  Oh it’s a form of child abuse
                  The trust that Davie’s smashing

                  Chorus

                  Davie Hawkins he's our boy
                  An ignorant vex-a-tion!
                  For lots of laughs be sure to read
                  His lies about Cre-a-tion!
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 26 2006,02:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 25 2006,07:49)
                  * We pointed out the simple fact that fossils are formed rapidly by catastrophe ... not by slow steady processes.  What do we find all over the earth?  Millions of fossils buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.  Friend, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there was a Global Water Catastrophe at some point in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Oh Davey.

                  It's a crying shame the Archaeopteryx specimens kill your claims about the catastrophic formation of fossils, they also demolish your claims about transitional fossils.

                  I even pointed out to you that you could take a day trip from your home to a site that has produced insect fossils clearly laid down in the most gentle way.

                  You are clearly NOT a rocket scientist much less a scientist of any sort (can you boil water in a paper cup Davey?). You've even claimed you used your EE/Computer Science Degree to further your business plans in hydroponic tomato farming and/or your prepaid phone calling card business. I'd love to see the Veitch diagrams.

                  Now 'splain to me how you breed dogs when the males of the breed DIE BEFORE REACHING MATURITY!

                  I ain't askin' the dolts at AiG. I'm asking YOU.

                  I wouldn't trust you with a puppy.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 26 2006,03:33

                  Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 25 2006,15:18)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your aphid example is just like my bee example.  I already answered your question.  Please reread my post.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where is that? I can't find it.
                  Maybe you can just tell me wether there were any aphids aboard the Arch (yes or no). If yes, how many kinds?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave dodges a question again, yet he claims he has already answered.

                  *Sigh*  :(
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 26 2006,07:12

                  Russell--

                  Yes, there are many references in the literature for the detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds.  I do not have my copy of the RATE Book with me which has the citations ... I will supply you some references Monday.

                  Nylon-eating bacteria
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp >, and ...
                  < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1994/ >

                  Jeannot ... here was my piece on bees ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Phenotypic plasticity
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                  Norms of reaction for two genotypes. Genotype B shows a strongly bimodal distribution indicating differentiation into distinct phenotypes. Each phenotype is buffered against environmental variation - it is canalised.The ability of an organism with a given genotype to change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment is called phenotypic plasticity. Such plasticity in some cases expresses as several highly morphologically distinct results; in other cases, a continuous norm of reaction describes the functional interrelationship of a range of environments to a range of phenotypes.

                  Organisms of fixed genotype may differ in the amount of phenotypic plasticity they display when exposed to the same environmental change. Hence phenotypic plasticity can evolve and be adaptive if fitness is increased by changing phenotype. Immobile organisms such as plants have well developed phenotypic plasticity giving a clue to the adaptive significance of phenotypic plasticity.

                  A highly illustrative example of phenotypic plasticity is found in the social insects, colonies of which depend on the division of their members into distinct castes, such as workers and guards. Individuals in separate castes differ dramatically from one another, both physically and behaviorally. However, the differences are not genetic; they arise during development and depend on the manner of treatment of the eggs by the queen and the workers, who manipulate such factors as embryonic diet and incubation temperature. The genome of each individual contains all the instructions needed to develop into any one of several 'morphs', but only the genes that form part of one developmental program are activated.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

                  Deadman-- I don't recall the name of the lab in California that Humphreys used, but you probably can.  Can you show that those researchers routinely check for 3He?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 26 2006,07:41

                  avoid the questions why dont ya.

                  Whats YOUR opinion on nylon eating bacteria?

                  and you are pointing us towards a website that says

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Would you mind telling me what research AIG is carrying out to "eludicate the details of how nylon eating bacteria came to be?"

                  Amazing they can say "we dont know how the details of how it does it BUT WE KNOW GODDIT". Why is that? Despite their own acceptance of the fact they dont KNOW HOW THE DETAILS, they are perpared to say that GODDIT already. I believe i remember you davey going on about how evilutionists have a pre-concieved idea of the truth, and warp the evidence to fit it. What's the difference in this case?
                  Please do explain it to me. AIG says "we dont know, but goddit" and science says "we dont know, but we're going to find out". How much money is AIG spending finding out davey?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I suspect that any discoverys in disease control will NOT be coming from AIG - nice how they simply latch on to others work, the word for that is parasite.

                  And as good christians, you want to relieve suffering etc right? In that case, with the potential for breakthroughs in disease control just waiting there why dont AIG put some of their millions of $$ towards helping people for once? If you are dying of a infection that AIG's groundbreaking research pays for, you are more likely to join up with your church right (as the alternative is death!;). So what are you waiting for? Nobel prizes await. Scum.

                  your other link contains the classic strawman

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What would be really impressive evidence for goo-to-you evolution would be fish gaining eyesight where there was no previous genetic information for eyesight.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  care to wait around a few years and i'm sure that will happen. How long exactly have you got? Is this what it's all based on then for you creos? How "impressed" you are? It's such a shame that you dont appriciate how "impressed" you should really be, as the blind fish under question evolved, just as the person talking about it did. You dont need eyes to be impressed by the power of evolution, but you do need a brain in the 1st place to appriciate it. Hey, perhaps the feedback loop here is IC? You cant appriciate evolution until you have a brain to do it with, and you cant get a brain unless you believe goddit? Or something anyway, lucidity is not their strongpoint :)

                  and finally you say davey



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  we're at the point now where entire genomes have been sequenced. Presumably there is a library of things that organisms might need "just in case". So, your prediction is that

                  If we sequence the nylon eatings bug genome, we'll find that

                  a) There is another copy of the nylon eating "code" in there (otherwise where did it come from in the 1st place?)

                  b) Next to that, there are instruction sets for digesting every other material that could ever be made, or that gawd could think of at the time

                  c) Then, therefore, we can in a single generation (once we understand the triggers and switches) create bugs that will eat anything at all on demand?


                  To me, all that logically follows from



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  or what davey? You've made some predictions at last, be proud!
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 26 2006,08:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
                  that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, it was?
                  Dude, how do you encode the "information" of two genes in only one? The same way the "genetic richness" of 500 alleles was contained in 10?  :D
                  Think hard, boy. Duplicated genes aren't alleles. They are even less compatible with your *cough* hypothesis.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2006,09:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
                  that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, it was?
                  Dude, how do you encode the "information" of two genes in only one? The same way the "genetic richness" of 500 alleles was contained in 10?  
                  Think hard, boy. Duplicated genes aren't alleles. They are even less compatible with your *cough* hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What's really funny is that Davie already gave us his definition of biological information here

                     
                  Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 26 2006,04:10)
                  I think I like Francis Crick's definition pretty well ...

                  INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO BIOLOGY = PRECISE DETERMINATION OF SEQUENCE

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein” [32, pp. 144, 153].
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  and gives an example

                     
                  Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 26 2006,04:10)
                  In reading an mRNA, if the ribosome encounters any one of 4 equally likely bases, then the uncertainty is 2 bits.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Then a day later says it again

                     
                  Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 27 2006,05:01)


                  Again, the best definition that I can come up with so far for biological information is Crick's ... which is ...

                  Biological Information is Precise Determination of Sequence

                  Now let's have a shot at a definition of Biological Specificity ... try this one on for size ...

                  Biological Specificity is the Sum of All Unique Functions in an Organism
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So by Dave's own definition, we have mechanisms for genetic variability that increase both the size and complexity of the genome, and add unique functionality, which therefore increase biological information.

                  Dave seems to have a form of amnesia.  He posts so much crap he can't keep it straight, then ends up contradicting himself!   :D
                  Posted by: Jay Ray on Nov. 26 2006,09:15

                  Do I understand it right that AFD is in charge of teaching groups of children about (whatever passes for) his version of science?

                  If so,

                  What age ranges are they?
                  Are there any pretensions of secularity in "class"?

                  and most of all...

                  Do they know about this thread?  
                  If not, do we have an obligation to alert them?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 26 2006,10:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
                  Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is one of the strangest claims Dave has made so far. Any major change in any genome in any organism was "already there" before researchers looked, Dave. Do you expect to see gross changes in a genome while researchers watch?

                  This is part and parcel of Dave's absolutely asinine statement that "no one has ever observed macroevolution."

                  Duh.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 26 2006,11:22

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 26 2006,10:53)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 26 2006,07:12)
                  Notice again that there is no evolution happening here ... the information was already there.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is one of the strangest claims Dave has made so far. Any major change in any genome in any organism was "already there" before researchers looked, Dave. Do you expect to see gross changes in a genome while researchers watch?

                  This is part and parcel of Dave's absolutely asinine statement that "no one has ever observed macroevolution."

                  Duh.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's even worse than that.
                  Since Dave heard about phenotypic plasticity, it certainly explains all the diversity seen among thousands of species. And he somehow believes we'll buy this cr*p!
                  His arguments are becoming so absurd it staggers the mind.  :O

                  It's hard to believe isn't it?
                   :D

                  EDIT: I don't know if Dave should be proud of that, but his second thread just reached 100 pages.

                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 26 2006,11:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, there are many references in the literature for the detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds.  I do not have my copy of the RATE Book with me which has the citations ... I will supply you some references Monday.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Looking forward to it!
                  Now, have you checked out these references? Any of them? Or are you just trusting that, if your RATE authors gave a citation, it must deal effectively with the issue at hand?

                  Because it turns out that's not always the case. Here. Let me give you an example.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] If genes do get duplicated, what would constitute "observing" it? It doesn't count unless you actually watch the DNA getting duplicated in the microscope, perhaps? And what would "escaping purifying selection", or "acquiring novel function" look like?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] No need to actually watch.  Just give an example of novel function (that's not deleterious).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] Nylon digestion
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] Nylon-eating bacteria
                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp, > and ...
                  < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1994/ >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  THERE! Right there! See? That's what I'm talking about! The implication is that these references respond in some meaningful way to an undeniable, clearcut case of an organism evolving a new function. Notice afdave doesn't bother to quote anything from them. There's a reason for that. There's nothing to quote that does dave any good. Oh, sure. There are lots of words in those articles. However, no combination of those words does anything to refute the observation that a novel function clearly evolved.

                  Now, here's a second problem I want to alert Truth Seekers to. I just showed an example of the annoying tendency of would-be obfuscaters to just type out a reference or two, rather than actually dealing with the issue - implying, of course, that those referenced articles deal with it. But those references, in turn, do the same thing! They consist entirely of far-fetched handwaving, and hang their only extremely tenuous claim to credibility on a few references to "real-world"  scientific literature. So let's cut out the middle-man, why don't we? AiG doesn't do any research; they only spin excuse me, "interpret" actual research done by real-world scientists.

                  So if you want to be honest and informative, and not simply obstructive and annoying, cut to the chase for crissakes. If your AiG article has some cogent objection among those pages and pages of handwaving, quote that, and give the relevant "real-world" reference to back it up. That is, if you do want to be honest and informative, and not just obstructive and annoying.

                  [An interesting aside:
                  the "creationontheweb" reference - that's the Australian branch of AiG that broke away because Ken Ham et al. are too slimy even for them - consists of a lame response to a well-written and worth-reading "feedback" letter from one David Cerutti. Cerutti pulled a trolling act a couple of years ago on Panda's Thumb, where he adopted the identity of "Admonitus", an over-the-top fundy nutcase. For a long time, I thought "afdave" might be "Admonitus redux". I'm still not 100% convinced he's not.]
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 26 2006,11:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman-- I don't recall the name of the lab in California that Humphreys used, but you probably can. Can you show that those researchers routinely check for 3He?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It doesn't matter if THAT lab "routinely " does 4He/3He ratio analysis, DimDave -- any decent lab with a good mass spectrometer can...and the price for such analysis TODAY is less than $1000 per sample, according to the USGS, who contract such work  (actually, it's about 850-900). Such work is regularly done in aquifer studies, agricultural hydrology, petroleum geology, etc., etc....this is nothing NEW, and it's been around for decades. IT'S LESS THAN A THOUSAND BUCKS TO DO..  don't you think the RATE group has the money from sales of books, DimDave?
                  Now...Humphreys has known about He3/He4 ratios for years and years....he KNOWS it would make or break his claims... He HAS the money to do the work ( you DID say that these creationist groups were growing by leaps and bounds, right?) Then they should have done the work already...I'd be willing to bet Humphreys makes quite a bit off this scam of his...so why doesn't he plunk down 900 bucks? Why don't YOU front him the money, Mr. Entrepreneur?
                  How about because Humphreys doesn't WANT TO? It would be just one more black eye to add to a list of known fraud and fakery coming out of creationist "studies" in which they deliberately set out to con people -- and YES, there are lots of known cited examples of this.

                  Oh, yeah, and when is "Dr." Don Batten going to be trailing his invertebrate slime over here to talk about his "study" of farmed pine trees negating dendrochronology, DimDave?

                  Will that be about the same time that Humphreys does the He isotope analysis that others have been asking him to do ?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Dr. Humphreys needs to analyze his zircons for 3He, and quartz and other low-uranium minerals in the Fenton Hill cores for extraneous 4He"...Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Will it be about the same time Humphreys analyzes the mineral composition so he can SHOW he knows it's granodiorite and NOT gneiss, which is indicated by Laughlin, A.W., A.C. Eddy, R. Laney and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1983, "Geology of the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, Hot Dry Rock Site," J. of Volc. and Geotherm. Research, v. 15, p. 21-41. ?

                  Or about the same time that Humphreys releases his notes as Hencke requested?

                  Or provides samples from the same Fenton Hill core as Hencke requested, so independent analysis could be done?

                  Or about the time that Humphreys does the heat/pressure history studies for Fenton Hill?

                  You're a chump -- on top of being a blowhard know-nothing poseur, coward, plagiarist, quote-minin' fool and general liar.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 26 2006,11:44

                  Russel said:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  annoying tendency of would-be obfuscaters to just type out a reference or two, rather than actually dealing with the issue - implying, of course, that those referenced articles deal with it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  it's like we're playing top trumps with davey or something. Or, bullshit baton racing perhaps?
                  The fundies just pass the problems back and back, like a baton in a race but the further the baton goes away the more misty the view, the bigger the potential gaps for goddit to live in.
                  I think their mindset must colour everything they do - in their world, they deal with their problems (i.e things that require forgiveness) by asking for and getting forgiveness from the sky-daddy (via the intemediary of the church and hangers on, donations, church roof falling down, etc etc).

                  So, take a problem and hand it back, up, down. davey thinks he can hand off things back to his masters at AIG as it certanly seems to work for the things he's done wrong that he requires forgiveness for. Worked for A, will work for B, those damm pesky scientists with their inquiring minds.
                  He really thinks he's dealt with the questions by placing those links, as it's standard procedure in the rest of his life - no need to think about difficult questions, just pass them back, back and to the left, back and to the left.

                  And JayRay Said



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do I understand it right that AFD is in charge of teaching groups of children about (whatever passes for) his version of science?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  davey waives < this >
                  around like it's the finest thing since the LOTR. And not a sad example of lies4kids. He's made various claims to be teaching groups of kids his verison of the truth, I believe.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 26 2006,16:06

                  Oh man, it seems I should always trust my instinct with dave... Just before I left for the weekend, I wanted to say how I was sure that dave would do what he ALWAYS does, every time he's bombarded with a multitude of questions he is unwilling (and unable) to respond to:
                  1) Post a few small lame, nagging posts with absolutely no context whatsoever

                  2) Lay low for awhile, waiting for the replies to pile up, and the response rate to eventually cool down

                  3) Post one of his well-known "SUMMARIES", complete with boldcaps titles and asterisks and neat little bulleting, where he gives us a glimpse of his fantasy world: You know, the universe where he has supposedly "demonstrated" and "proved" aaaaall those riduculous assertions of his- the very same ones he has been repeadedly smacked around for in the past, and eventually he ran away from

                  4) IMMEDIATELY try to change the subject.
                  Not to distract us, of course: He knows we won't forget to point out to him how crap his "summary" is; it's just a means of evasion for him. He will simply ignore all posts that remind him of all the previous questions  he left unaddressed, and if someone presses him too much, he'll just say "come on, [Eric/Deadman/Argy/Russel/Drew/etc], we've moved on now! At this time we're discussing point #4562... Do you have anything meaningful to say about that?"
                  In the end someone will make a comment about his new (but as ludicrous as always) issue, and dave will immediately jump at that, ignoring everyone else, steering his YEC dingy into safe (hah! ) waters for awhile. Another victory for standard creationist debate tactics!

                  But (and I'm fairly sure about that) dave also uses the "point summarry" to please himself. I believe eric was not far off the mark: He is trying to convince and flatter his own ego. After being repeatedly smacked around in every point he has taken up, his wounded pride needs some comfort; this "summary" sends him to his happy place, you might say. It helps him feel confident and sure of himself, like when he indoctrinates those poor kids. He feels in control.


                  Too bad the illusion dissolves into reality with the first couple of answers, but such is the nature of dreams...  :)
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 27 2006,10:35

                  Once again, I will simply C&P something to get this started:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Founders of the American Revolution

                         Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.

                             There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of the Gospels stand out even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) "2. or 3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day." He was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament...(Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149. Click to go to a copy of The Jefferson Bible).

                         In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

                             The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)

                         Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of Independence. But he was a Deist:

                             I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)

                         Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:

                             I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it] to be false...(Roberts, p. 375)

                         About the afterlife, he wrote:

                             I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do. (Roberts, p. 375)

                         John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

                             As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

                         This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had been written and concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington's Administration. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797; President Adams signed it on June 10, 1797 and it was first published in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress, first session in 1797. Quite clearly, then, at this very early stage of the American Republic, the U.S. government did not consider the United States a Christian nation.
                         Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for their deliberations:

                             In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)

                         It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his motion after "four or five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned that Franklin's motion was voted down! Fine Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore, the context is usually ignored, too. He made the motion during an especially trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:

                             Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith, his suggestion had been salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to a realization that destiny herself sat as guest and witness in this room. Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of thirteen united states - venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual sacrifice and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative efforts. (Bowen, p. 127)

                         About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion. His answer would indicate that he remained a Deist, not a Christian, to the end:

                             As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

                         He died just over a month later on April 17.

                  Deism

                         Certainly it is generally the case that these people believed in God, but it was not the God of Christianity. Deism began in the eighteenth century and was very popular in America. According to the dictionary, it was "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation." Jefferson wrote that the religious doctrines of Jesus that he accepted, and which he regarded as consistent with his deistic perspective were three:

                     1. that there is one God, and he all-perfect:
                     2. that there is a future state of rewards and punishments
                     3. that to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

                         Why do Christians want the founding fathers to be Christians?
                         Is it because they wish the best for these people?
                         Hardly.
                         It is because they hope that by demonstrating they were Christians, they can justify their political agenda. Rather than wanting something new (the injection of Christianity into government) they seek to restore something they imagine has been lost.
                         Reality: nothing has been lost. It wasn't there to start with. Therefore the whole concept of "taking back America" is a lie. America was never Christian.

                  Recent Misinformation on the Concept of Separation of Church and State

                         Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
                         This simply isn't true.
                         Separation of church and state is not something the Supreme Court invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802.
                         The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."
                         Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

                             The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added)

                         The concept of the separation of church and state appears in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of an earlier statement where it also appears) adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention:

                             God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power. (emphasis added).

                         Look at what Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, had to say about religious freedom in the 17th century. He was a Baptist persecuted for his faith who argued for the separation of church and state nearly a hundred fifty years before Jefferson.

                             The Church and State need not be, Williams insisted, inextricably linked: 'A Pagan or Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to carry the Ship to its desired Port, as any Christian Mariner or Pilot in the World, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed.' 'God requireth not an Uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any Civill State,' he declared. Rather, the tares in the field of Christian grain must be left alone; let man hold whatever religious opinions he chooses provided he does not 'actually disturb civil peace,' ran a provision of the Rhode Island Charter of 1663; let civil government be based on the consent of the governed. 'The Soveraigne, originall, and foundation of civil power lies in the People,' Williams insisted. They 'may erect and establish what forme of Government seemes to them most meete for their Civill condition.'
                             William's plea for Separation of Church and State stemmed far less, Harold Laski writes, from tender concern for men's consciences than from 'a fear that their unity meant the government of the Church by civil men and thus a threat to its purity.' Popular control of the Church through elected magistrates Williams thought evil since it gave the Church 'to Satan himself, by whom all peoples natural are guided.' The precise intention of Scripture could not be ascertained, he believed, with the icy certainty claimed by the New England clergy. He wanted Church and State separated so the Church would not be corrupted by the State. Thomas Jefferson entertained the opposite conviction, fearing that the State would become contaminated by the Church. (Alpheus Thomas Mason. Free Government in the Making: Readings in American Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 55)

                         In his tract on the topic of religious toleration Williams madesome important points:

                             ...Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.
                             Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in their respective constitutions and administrations, are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and worship.
                             Sixthly. It is the will and command of God that, since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships be granted to all men in all nations and countries: and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only, in soul matters, able to conquer: to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the word of God.
                             Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.
                             Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
                             Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jews' conversion to Christ.
                             Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
                             Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth, only can, according to God, procure a firm and lasting peace; good assurance being taken, according to the wisdom of the civil state, for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
                             Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile... (Roger Williams. The Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience Discussed, 1644. excerpted from A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 64)

                         Notice what Ulysses S. Grant said in his seventh annual address (State of the Union address) to the Congress, December 7, 1875:

                             As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which may be legislated upon and settled at this session:
                             First. That the States shall be required to afford the opportunity of a good common-school education to every child within their limits.
                             Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.
                             Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres; and that all church property shall bear its own proportion of taxation (emphasis added). (A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1897, p. 4310)

                         Here is a quotation from the Encyclopedic Index of A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, published in 1917:

                             Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.) requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest inspiration from James Madison while he was in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was made to levy a tax upon the people of that state "for the support of teachers of the Christian religion." Madison wrote what he called a "Memorial and Remonstrance," in which he appealed to the people against the evil tendency of such a precedent, and which convinced people that Madison was right. A bill was passed providing "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever * * * nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and, by argument, maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." The religious test to which many of the states put their office-holders were gradually abandoned, and the final separation of church and state in America came in 1833, when Massachusetts discontinued the custom of paying preachers (emphasis added).(A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XX. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1917).

                         It should be clear, from these quotations, that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history.
                         If this is a "Christian" nation, then why did Jefferson write what he did to a group of Baptists? Shouldn't he instead of said that they had something to worry about? If the concept of separating church and state were a recent idea, then why did Jefferson himself use it, one of the founding fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence?
                  I think it is a big surprise to the Jewish people who have been living here for longer than my ancestors (who only got here in the middle of the 19th century) to think that this is a "Christian" nation. If it were "Christian" then there would be religious requirements to be a part of it and to participate in the public arena. If this were a Christian nation, then why are so few Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic Gallup pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S. population claims to be "born again". Interestingly, that's up considerably since the time of the nation's founding, when barely ten percent, if that, claimed intense religious affiliation.
                         I believe that those who talk about "restoring" prayer to the public school have a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling and have failed to carefully think through their position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962 that for the school administrators to write prayers and read them over the intercoms to the students was wrong. It is hard for me to figure out how anyone in their right mind would think it's a good idea for the state to compose prayers and force them on people.
                         So why would you want to "restore" government sponsored religiosity? Students and faculty and other employees are free to pray for themselves if they want; that has never been a problem (admittedly, some examples of overzealous administrators who didn't understand the issue, who tried to stop individuals from exercising their religious beliefs, can doubtless be found; but that is the exception, not the rule. That there are murderers is not proof that murder is legal.).
                         As a Baptist, I frankly would be bothered by a Moslem or a Hindu writing a prayer for my child. I no more want them imposing their religious views on me and mine than they would want me to impose my Baptist beliefs on them. And what about the agnostics and atheists? They no more wish to be inundated by religious concepts in school than I would like to have my children inundated by their beliefs (or lack thereof).
                         The attempt in the public arena is toward neutrality; certainly it is a tough ideal to reach, and certainly there are a lot of mistakes made on all sides. Certainly, too, in the past there has been a lot of inconsistency in these ideals. But the ideal remains nevertheless.
                         The history of the U.S. has been one of lofty ideals rarely achieved; our shame is that we so rarely reach what we proclaim: freedom, equality, and the like. But our pride is that, unlike so many before, at least we have ideals and we're trying, how often unsuccessfully, by fits and starts, to reach them. Most of the political disagreements between the parties is not so much over the goals (both Democrats and Republicans want a free, prosperous, safe and happy society), but over the methods to reach those goals. Demonizing the opposition is not reasonable, and both parties are guilty of this (Democrats tend to turn Republicans into Fascists and Republicans tend to turn Democrats into Communists; neither caricature is accurate, appropriate or dignified).

                  The American Revolution, at its Foundation, was Unscriptural

                         At its foundation, our American revolution was unscriptural. Therefore I have a hard time seeing how our government could have been founded on Christian principles, when its very founding violated one:

                             Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

                         No matter how you cut it, the founding fathers were revolting against the King of England. It should be remembered that Peter wrote these words while Israel was suffering under the domination of government far more oppressive than England ever was. In fact, compared to current taxes, our forefathers had nothing to complain about.
                         What Peter wrote seems perfectly clear and unambiguous; furthermore, it is consistent with what Jesus said about his kingdom not being a part of this world (John 18:23 and 36).
                         As a Christian, it would be very difficult to justify armed revolt against any ruler. Passive resistance to injustice and evil, as embodied in the concept of civil disobedience, however, does have Scriptural precedent (as for instance in the case of the early Christians described in Acts 5:28-29:

                             "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

                         Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" (see also Acts 4:18-20)
                         Civil disobedience means obeying a higher, moral law, but willingly suffering the consequences of your actions and submitting to the authority of those in power to arrest or even kill you for your disobedience. Peter and the others were arrested, and many of them were ultimately martyred. But they never participated in violent protest, nor did they resist those in authority by violence.

                  Conclusion

                         Certainly many of the early immigrants to the New World came for religious reasons - often to escape persecution. However, they were not interested in religious freedom for anyone other than themselves, and often turned around and persecuted others who had slightly different viewpoints.
                         As Pastor Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter to the Los Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:

                             Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity!
                             It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine.
                             We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995)
                         The United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination a Christian nation today, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be. The Religious right (or left) would do well to stop looking for the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  < source >
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 27 2006,12:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 25 2006,08:49)
                  WOW ... WE'VE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND!  LET'S REVIEW THE LATEST HIGH POINTS.
                  * We examined many other examples of RM dating and found that discordance is the rule, not the exception

                  * It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true.  The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes.  And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.   Woodmorappe has excellent information on this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Geez Dave,
                  Your really think you have succeeded on these points?

                  I can Permalink the posts from me where you have run away and not responded to pertinent questions that I have been involved.

                  I can Permalink to a post about Rb-Sr dating techniques that you have yet to respond.

                  I can Permalink to a post about 61 HLA-B alleles that appeared in less than 250 years that you have yet to respond.  (And THAT discussion is based on only ONE set of data I found, skipping hundreds (nay thousands) of other data sets available).

                  I can Permalink to a post asking you about the UCGH timeline between the UCGH flood and the UCGH ice age ending.

                  I can Permalink to a post where......  well you get the idea now I think.

                  So....   methinks your claims in your summary (yes, you like that format I see) hold as much air as this plane does.


                  DO YOU NEED ME TO PERMALINK THE ABOVE CLAIMS I MADE?  OR DO YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR THESE CLAIMS.
                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 27 2006,14:00

                  See Dave,  Your ideas come from people who so badly want xians to be important that they make stupid arguments which get soundly refuted as fast as they make them. If you come back with anything of substance, I'll try to work up an argument. We'll see. But for now, I felt bad for just C&P when I promised more so I wrote this little ditty this morning:

                  Basically, The ideas of the enlightenment grew out of the discoveries of natural laws  that governed the world. Copernicus, Gallileo and Keppler were able to maintain their faith because they believed they were describing god's laws. As the scientific method gained momentum as a way of knowing, Christiaan Huygens, a contemporary of Newton was able to proclaim "The world is my country... science my religion."

                  The enlightement thinkers proposed a concept of "Natural Religion" which was anything but dogmatic. It emphasised empiricle fact and experience over dogma and pure logic or speculation. Voltaire and Locke believed that there was some sort of basic moral code that equated to a sort of generic religion and David Hume disagreed with even that, saying  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Some nations have been discovered, who entertained no sentiments of Religion, if travellers and historians may be credited; and no two nations, and scarce any two men, have ever agreed precisely in the same sentiments.
                  It would appear, therefore, that this preconception springs not from an original instinct or primary impression of nature, such as gives rise to self-love, affection between the sexes, love of progeny, gratitude, resentment; since every instinct of this kind has been found absolutely universal in all nations and ages, and has always a precise determinate object, which it inflexibly pursues. The first religious principles must be secondary; such as may easily be perverted by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too, in cases, may, by an extraordinary concurrence of circumstances, be altogether prevented.
                  What those principles are, which give rise to the original belief, and what those accidents and causes are, which direct its operation, is the subject of our present enquiry."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  John Locke, as his epitaph, put's religion into perspective  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Stop, Traveller! Near this place lieth John Locke. If you ask what kind of a man he was, he answers that he lived content with his own small fortune. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. This thou will learn from his writings, which will show thee everything else concerning him, with greater truth, than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, indeed, if he had any, were too little for him to propose as matter of praise to himself, or as an example to thee. Let his vices be buried together. As to an example of manners, if you seek that, you have it in the Gospels; of vices, to wish you have one nowhere; if mortality, certainly, (and may it profit thee), thou hast one here and everywhere."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Both the constitution and the declaration of independence were very much taken from the ideas of Locke and Hume. The romantic period roughly following the birth of America was a reaction to the strictly monological view of empiricism. If you read your Whitman you might find the ideas of reintegrating spiritual experience with observable fact but you will be hard pressed to find it in the writings of Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Paine, (I do have a copy of "Common sense" here and I do see the biblical references but be careful if you want to go down that path) Locke, Hume or Voltaire.

                  No Dave, our country was founded by deists who were exactly not fundementalist xians as defined in the post from last week.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 27 2006,14:59

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 27 2006,12:41)
                  DO YOU NEED ME TO PERMALINK THE ABOVE CLAIMS I MADE?  OR DO YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR THESE CLAIMS.
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you take his word for it, Dave, that will be an admission of defeat on your part, and an admission that you were lying in your "summary" that you had actually demonstrated any of the points you claimed you were making.

                  Otherwise, I think Mike should permalink to exactly where you ran away from his questions and objections.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 27 2006,15:59

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 27 2006,15:59)
                   
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 27 2006,12:41)
                  DO YOU NEED ME TO PERMALINK THE ABOVE CLAIMS I MADE?  OR DO YOU TAKE MY WORD FOR THESE CLAIMS.
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you take his word for it, Dave, that will be an admission of defeat on your part, and an admission that you were lying in your "summary" that you had actually demonstrated any of the points you claimed you were making.

                  Otherwise, I think Mike should permalink to exactly where you ran away from his questions and objections.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric,
                  I think your taking AFDave for granted here.  Your implying that he can reason more than one step beyond the question.

                  I learned chess when I was young and got bored quickly.  It wasn't that I was good or anything, just too small a field of play.  I got into such things as Avalon-Hill board games ('Diplomacy' with a group of six others drinking your favorite beverage can be an evening of back-stabbing fun) and more complicated strategic wargaming.

                  I have yet to see Dave think one move beyond his next statement.  He has anticipated a couple people with data before but I think BWE and others give him too much credit for the depth of argument he can sustain on a lot of issues.  I know it's 'for the lurkers' so that is why BWE posted the C&P reply (why waste precious drinking time writing it yourself when others have already done it).

                  It does say something about the weakness of Dave's own points when BWE, Deadman, you, myself (he!!, everyone) can post a SINGLE rebuttal to one of Dave's C&P articles and SUSTAIN the rebuttal with ONLY that SINGLE piece of evidence over pages and pages of Dave trying to shoot the rebuttal down.

                  I wonder sometimes how Woodmoorappe, Snelling, Humphreys, and other 'Luminaries of Creationist Science' can write such drivel when the logical holes are so large.

                  Cognitive dissonance indeed.  I would need to take Schedule I meds to reach that state myself......  (let me think on that one a little....  opiates.....  of the masses....   oooooooooopss!!!;))  :O
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 27 2006,16:30

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 27 2006,15:59)
                  Eric,

                  I think your taking AFDave for granted here.  Your implying that he can reason more than one step beyond the question.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I know, I know. It's very, very difficult not to constantly overestimate Dave.

                  One of his other, annoying tics is his refusal to address fatal issues with his "hypothesis," for weeks after the issue has arisen, and only after poster after poster has pestered him with it. Look how long it took for him to have his "Churchill moment."

                  Often I run out of patience and let the cat out of the bag, as it were. Which doesn't really help Dave argue any more effectively, but it probably does take the fun out of it for others.

                  I'll try to do better in the future.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 27 2006,16:36

                  Egads! I have been accused of giving Davey too much credit!
                  I demand you take it back and offer a full apology! My words and deeds offer no evidence whatsoever of credit given to the churlish vacuum that is AFDave's reasoning capacity. I merely sport with him.

                  If you attempt to offer proof then I will offer counter-proof of immeasurably more weight!

                  !
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 27 2006,18:04

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2006,17:36)
                  Egads! I have been accused of giving Davey too much credit!
                  I demand you take it back and offer a full apology! My words and deeds offer no evidence whatsoever of credit given to the churlish vacuum that is AFDave's reasoning capacity. I merely sport with him.

                  If you attempt to offer proof then I will offer counter-proof of immeasurably more weight!

                  !
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ummmmm......
                  (sniffs at offered troll paté)

                  I would respond b-u-u-u-u-t.....
                  (smells a distinct pheromone, "green" in nature)

                  (rereads bolded comment in relation to present lack of response to recent posts by BWE) {or in this case 'bwee'} ;)

                  You can debate with DAVE, not me.  I'm not going to sink to your 'pathetic level of detail' you request to support my general assertion.

                  I detect that you n-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-d to debate someone over something now that Dave has started your juices flowing.  I won't provide a crutch for your present addiction!  Go ask someone else for a fag (in the Canadian sense of the word of course).

                  !!
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 27 2006,19:01

                  Aaarrrggghhh!
                  My aching ego. I am sorely wounded.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 27 2006,22:14

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2006,20:01)
                  Aaarrrggghhh!
                  My aching ego. I am sorely wounded.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They have a patch for that now.  Just follow the instructions.

                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 28 2006,01:55

                  and kick me while I'm down. ahhh, I fear this could be the end for me. Go. fly to safety those of you who still can.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 28 2006,05:58

                  GREAT HEROES OF AMERICAN HISTORY WHO PROMOTED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

                  FRANCIS SCOTT KEY, AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ANTHEM


                  Everyone knows the first verse of the American National Anthem, but how many know the 4th verse?

                  Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
                  Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
                  Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
                  Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
                  Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
                  And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
                  And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
                  O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


                  < http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner >




                  Proclamation by George Washington Issued on October 3, 1789
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . . Now, therefore, I do recommend . . . that we may all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection . . . And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions . . . to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue."

                  Washington, Writings (1838) Vol. XII, pp. 119-120, October 3, 1789. See also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by the Authority of Congress, 1899), VOl. I, p. 64, October 3, 1789. OI-115.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thomas Jefferson
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

                  Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virgina (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. MS-176.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Benjamin Franklin
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir were heard, and they were graciously answered . . . I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

                  James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 984-986, June 28, 1787.

                  "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

                  James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  John Jay -- First Chief Justice of the United States
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

                  William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p.376, to John Murray, Jr. on October 12, 1816. OI-334.

                  "Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation."

                  John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.52, to Lindley Murray on August 22, 1794. OI-168.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  *******************************************
                  THE SKEPTIC'S FAVORITE FOUNDER QUOTE ... PUT BACK IN CONTEXT

                  The following is a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Skeptics, of course, love this quote and pounce on it while disregarding hundreds of other quotes which support the fact that America is most definitely a Christian nation.

                  The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me), showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--from founding colleges at Harvard, Princeton and Yale for the express purpose of training Christian preachers to go throughout all the land, to forming Bible Societies to help get Bible distributed everywhere, to having prayer meetings in Congress, to carving Bible verses in stone, etc, etc, etc.

                  So this treaty could really be worded ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 28 2006,06:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave] I will supply you some references [on 14C in diamond and coal] Monday.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right.
                  Or Tuesday. Tuesday would be good too.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 28 2006,07:25

                  BWE, you are going to be on your own for the most part, since I am in Mexico on business this week.  But, I have complete faith in you, since this is the same weak cut-and-paste job that Dave has used before.  Exactly the same.  Let me get a few quick hits in here, though.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Thomas Jefferson
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, what do you think about what Jefferson did to the New Testament?  He specifically rejected the divinity of Christ and excised all mentions of Christ as the son of God, miracles and such from the New Testament.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                       

                  Benjamin Franklin
                                 

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir were heard, and they were graciously answered . . . I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

                  James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 984-986, June 28, 1787.

                  "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

                  James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985, June 28, 1787.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
                  But, about Madison.  He was so strident on keeping church and state separate, that he considered military chaplains unconstitutional.  And do you have any cut-and-pastes from wallbuilders.com about "Memorial and Remonstrance?"

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  John Jay -- First Chief Justice of the United States

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You know, of course, that Jay introduced a measure at the New York Convention to ban Catholics from holding public office.  Is that really the type of fellow you want to enlist in your fight against the Establishment Clause?Which sects would you ban from holding office?  Mormons?  Muslims?
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The following is a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Skeptics, of course, love this quote and pounce on it while disregarding hundreds of other quotes which support the fact that America is most definitely a Christian nation.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Therein lies your problem, Dave. You, and David Barton, are forced to search around for quotes to support your position.  When looked at from the Founders complete body of work, it is pretty clear what they felt and it wasn't that it was a Christian nation.   Memorial and Remonstrance?
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions,"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nice of you to admit that.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me),

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which ones Dave?  I will grant you Jay was very much a strong Protestant, but that is about it.  Washington was so weak in his religious commitment he never took communion.  Franklin and Jefferson were clearly deists.  Adams was a unitarian.  Madison was Anglican, but is clearly not your friend on this issue, so strident were his beliefs on keeping church and state separate.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So this treaty could really be worded ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can you point to any original source writings by John Adams that supports this interpretation?  I doubt you can.  You are too firmly entrenched in the shoddy scholarship of David Barton and I am willing to bet you won't leave its comfort to explore any of the 200 plus years of scholarly work on any of the Founders to look for it.  But, unless you can provide support in the writings of Adams for this interpretation, I have to assume that you are blowing it out your (and Barton's) butt.  Prove me wrong, if you can.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 28 2006,08:08

                  davey said


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  good to see you are admitting you are a liar now. Small steps, but we are getting there.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 28 2006,08:25

                  I'm not sure I should encourage people to fall for afdave's current attempt to dodge questions and change the subject, but... what the heck.

                  < Here's a little preview > of a soon-to-be available article by Jeff Sharlet in December's Harper's Magazine:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jeff Sharlet has immersed himself in the new curricula of fundamentalism.  One of the most potent tools is a very ordinary one used by every American classroom – the retelling of history.  Let's face it:  history has been conveniently altered in American schools since the nation came into being, and not just by fundamentalists.   But now Christian fundamentalists making careers of rewriting history – and science –  to “prove” they are right, and have been right all along.

                  The cause behind every effect, says fundamentalist science, is God. Even the inexorable facts of math are subject to His decree, as explained in homeschooling texts such as “Mathematics: Is God Silent?”  Two plus two is four because God says so. If He chose, it could just as easily be five.

                  It would be cliche to quote Orwell here were it not for the fact that fundamentalist intellectuals do so with even greater frequency than those of the left. At a rally to expose the "myth" of church/state separation I attended this spring, Orwell was quoted at me four times, most emphatically by William J. Federer, an encyclopedic compiler of quotations whose “America's God and Country” – a collection of apparently theocentric bons mots distilled from the Founders and other great men, “for use in speeches, papers, [and] debates" has sold half a million copies. "Those who control the past," Federer said, quoting Orwell's) 984, "control the future." History, the practical theology of the movement, reveals destiny.

                  They’ve got the “separation of church and state” argument wrapped up. Public schools without religion are an invention of the 1930's and – thanks to recent appointments to the Supreme Court – they will soon be gone.  Sharlet reminds us:

                  Well into the nineteenth century, most American schoolchildren learned their ABCs from The New-England Primer, which begins with "In Adam's Fall/We sinned all" – and continues on to "Spiritual Milk for American Babes, Drawn out of the Breasts of both Testaments." In 1836, McGuffey's Eclectic Rentiers began to displace the Primer, selling some 122 million copies of lessons such as "The Bible the Best of Classics" and "Religion the only Basis of Society" during the following century.”

                  Homeschooling and fundamentalist schools are growing and with them a burgeoning industry producing " educational materials.

                  Who, knowing the facts of our history," asks the epigraph to the 2000 edition of “The American Republic for Christian Schools,” a junior-high textbook, "can doubt that the United States of America has been a thought in the mind of God from all eternity?" So that I would know the facts, I undertook my own course of homeschooling. In addition to “The American Republic,” I read the two-volume teacher's edition of “United States History for Christian Schools,” appropriate for eleventh graders, as well as “Economics for Christian Schools,” and I walked the streets of Brooklyn listening to an eighteen-tape lecture series on America up to 1865 created for Christian college students by Rousas John Rushdoony, the late theologian who helped launch Christian homeschooling and revived the idea of reading American history through a providential lens.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 28 2006,09:14



                  To say that David Barton's scholarship is shoddy displays profound ignorance of the truth.  This man is so good and so careful in documenting the quotes he uses that he has become THE SOURCE for this type of information.

                  His standards are so high that he has created his own standard, which is higher than traditional academic standards.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Unconfirmed Quotations

                  by David Barton

                  (This article has created controversy in some quarters; read the background behind the “Unconfirmed Quotations” article controversy.)

                  The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).

                  It is only in using this much higher standard that we call the following quotes “unconfirmed”: that is, while the quotes below have been documented in a completely acceptable fashion for academic works, they are currently “unconfirmed” if relying solely on original sources or sources contemporaneous to the life of the actual individual Founder. These original sources for these quotes may still surface (for example, a major primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946), and in fact you will note that we have actually located the original sources for some to the quotes below that originally we listed as unconfirmed. However, with the remaining quotes listed below, we recommend that you refrain from using them until such time that an original primary source may be found, notwithstanding the fact that the quotes below may be documented to a number of contemporary sources.
                  < http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20 >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ********************************

                  Carlson--  The Franklin quote is found in the papers of Madison.  Why is that surprising?

                  I have no reason to dispute what you say about Jefferson and the NT ... but this does not destroy my position that America was founded as a Christian nation, meaning it was founded on the general principles of Chrisitianity (Protestant Christianity we could add).

                  As for Jay trying to ban Catholics from public office ... you need to remember the context of the birth of our country.  It was founded as a response and reaction to the Authoritarian regimes of Europe of which the Pope and Catholicism were the origin and source of this form of despotism.  Where do you think the Church of England learned its practice of persecuting non-conformists?  From Rome of course.  Where did the Church of England learn to try to control the government?  From Rome.  The Founders of America did not want Institutional Authoritarian Religious Organizations to control our government.  Thus the push to ban Catholics who at that time had a public sworn allegiance to a foreign power--the Vatican.

                  This was in no way a repudiation of free (protestant) Christianity, but a repudiation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of Christ.

                  Carlson...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Therein lies your problem, Dave. You, and David Barton, are forced to search around for quotes to support your position.  When looked at from the Founders complete body of work, it is pretty clear what they felt and it wasn't that it was a Christian nation.   Memorial and Remonstrance?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are utterly mistaken as I will show in the coming weeks.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can you point to any original source writings by John Adams that supports this interpretation?  I doubt you can.  You are too firmly entrenched in the shoddy scholarship of David Barton and I am willing to bet you won't leave its comfort to explore any of the 200 plus years of scholarly work on any of the Founders to look for it.  But, unless you can provide support in the writings of Adams for this interpretation, I have to assume that you are blowing it out your (and Barton's) butt.  Prove me wrong, if you can.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have already with the quotes given so far and I will continue to do so.

                  ***************************************

                  Russell--  Dodge questions and change the subject?  You are the ones with a multitude of unanswered and unanswerable questions.  My latest quotations from Sanford should be a huge red flag in your mind that something is desperately wrong with ToE.  I do owe you some references on C14 in coal and diamonds ... I'll try to get those soon.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 28 2006,09:30

                  SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OBSERVES THAT THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION
                  Justice David J. Brewer, author of the Holy Trinity opinion, also wrote a book in 1905 called The United States: A Christian Nation. Brewer opened his work with these words:
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We classify nations in various ways. As, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallic, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation-in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.

                  David J. Brewer, The United States A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), pp. 11-12.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,09:55

                  Dave,
                  I'm an observer for this subject.  Military History is more my thing.

                  But.....

                  Are you going to "sew" these disparate quotes into a "tapestry" that clearly reinforces your contention?

                  Are you going to combine these factual pieces into an intelligable mosaic of mutually supporting and mutually reinforcing facts to support your contention?

                  Or, are you going to sling quotes from historical reference without them interlocking or intermingling.

                  I think BWE has already laid out how quotes from some historical figures support and reinforce certain specific historical results (the Constitution, Treaty of Algiers, etc....).

                  You at least have to counter these claims and show how your quotes, in context, rebutt BWE or support your claim directly.  Otherwise these quotes on there own have no direct support to your original contention.  We aren't disputing that historical figures were themselves religious in nature afterall.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 28 2006,10:07

                  Hmm, bad time to change the subject, Dave.  I just invited a guy from Answers in Genesis to come give you some help with your hypothesis (he said he'd consider it).  Pharyngula was a little too much for him, so I thought he might enjoy it here.

                  Though I suspect he won't show.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 28 2006,10:16



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To say that David Barton's scholarship is shoddy displays profound ignorance of the truth.  This man is so good and so careful in documenting the quotes he uses that he has become THE SOURCE for this type of information.

                  His standards are so high that he has created his own standard, which is higher than traditional academic standards.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Huh? According to whom? I never heard of the guy before, but I did find at least < one dissenting opinion: >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAVID BARTON'S BAD HISTORY

                  When A Myth Is As Good As A Mile

                  David Barton makes a number of inaccurate statements in his anti-separationist book the Myth of Separation and its accompanying videos. Barton also relies heavily on half truths, often failing to tell the whole story behind selected historical incidents.

                  Two versions of Barton's hour-long video "America's Godly Heritage" are in circulation. Although the newer edition (1992) omits some of the more egregious errors of the earlier tape, both are similar overall and contain the same information. (A condensed, 12-minute version of the tape titled "Foundations of American Government" is also in circulation.)

                  Since Barton's materials are being used increasingly by the Religious Right in their war against church-state separation, Church & State examined the book and videos carefully and prepared the following analysis of some of Barton's key points.

                  Barton: The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801.Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

                  Response: This inaccurate claim about Jefferson is undoubtedly Barton's biggest mistake, and he omitted it in the updated version of his tape. But earlier copies remain in wide circulation, and the charge is being recycled repeatedly by the Religious Right.

                  Barton is wrong on three counts. In truth, Jefferson first used the "wall" metaphor in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The letter says nothing about the wall being "one directional" and certainly does not assert that it was intended to keep Christian principles in government.

                  Barton: Fifty-two out of 55 of the founding fathers were "orthodox, evangelical Christians."

                  Response: This is a good example of the half truths common in Barton's materials. Most of the founders were members of the Church of England, which can hardly be described as an evangelical body. While it is true that many of the framers were devout Christians, that does not make them theological compatriots of today's Religious Right. (Barton must have again realized his mistake. In the updated version of the tape, he says 52 of the framers were simply "orthodox" Christians and adds, "Many of them were evangelicals.")

                  Richard V. Pierard, history professor at Indiana State University, calls Barton's claim "ridiculous." According to Pierard, the term "evangelical" did not come into wide use in America until the late 19th century and cannot properly be applied to any religious movement of the colonial period. "To try to take a later definition and impose it on these people is a historical anachronism," Pierard said.

                  Barton: Early versions of the First Amendment considered by the Congress prove that all the framers meant to do was prohibit the establishment of a national church.

                  Response: This charge is an ironic one, because early versions of the First Amendment prove exactly the opposite. Before the language of the First Amendment we know today was settled on, drafts were submitted to Congress explicitly forbidding only the establishment of a national church or one denomination in preference to any other. These were all rejected. If Barton were correct, and all the framers wanted to do was bar an official Church of the United Slates, one of these early versions would have sufficed.

                  Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.

                  Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.

                  Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."

                  Barton: In 1854 a small religious group asked Congress to officially establish a system of separation of church and state in the United States, but Congress refused.

                  Response: This is an example of Barton taking an obscure incident from U.S. history and, through distortion, giving it an exaggerated sense of importance. What actually happened is quite different from what Barton describes. A religious group did not ask Congress to establish church-state separation. Rather, a Baptist association from North Carolina and several citizens from Kentucky presented Congress with "memorials" (petitions) asking them to abolish congressional and military chaplains. In 1854 the House and Senate Judiciary Committees issued reports denying the petitions.

                  While there is language in the reports referring to the United States as a "Christian" nation, it is clear from the context that the committees saw the country as "Christian" only in a social sense, not a legal one.

                  Far from rejecting church-stale separation, the Senate committee report specifically affirms the doctrine by stating that the First Amendment prohibits the government from giving any denomination financial "endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions..."

                  Elsewhere the Senate document reads, "We are Christians, not because the law demands it nor to gain exclusive benefits, or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education...." (Not surprisingly, Barton never mentions that congressional committees in the latter half of the 19th century twice rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would have had the United States officially recognize the authority of Jesus and forthrightly state that America is a Christian nation.)

                  Barton: In the late 19th century "Christian principles in government" were challenged at the Supreme Court, but the justices upheld them and pointed out that Thomas Jefferson supported mixing Christianity and government.

                  Response: This is an extremely bad interpretation of 1878's Reynolds v. United Slates decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Mormons do not have a religious freedom right to practice plural marriage. Reynolds was a free exercise case; it had nothing to do with a Challenge to "Christian principles in government." Furthermore, while the justices do quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that contains the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor, they say nothing about Jefferson favoring Christian principles in government..

                  Clearly the justices could make no such assertion about Jefferson, as he never said anything even remotely akin to what Barton alleges. In reality, Jefferson specifically denied that Christianity is the basis of the common law and regarded efforts to declare it so as anti-separationist propaganda. In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson observed, "The proof...is incontrovertible, to wit, that the common law existed while the Angle- Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never heard the name Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character existed. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

                  Barton: Everson v. Board of Education, a 1947 Supreme Court parochial school aid case, was the first court ruling upholding church-state separation.

                  Response: Barton's assertion is incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court had dealt with the church-state issue several times before Everson was decided. Many of these decisions upheld the separation concept.

                  For example, by 1947 the high court had already ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses could not be compelled to salute the flag in public schools. In the early 1900s the high court decided a series of cases giving members of some religious groups the right to refuse the military draft in wartime, granting them conscientious objector status on the basis of religious belief. In 1925, the court ruled unanimously that states could not force children to attend public schools if their parents would rather send them to religious institutions. In addition, numerous state courts and lower federal courts had grappled with the church-state issue prior to 1947.

                  Barton: The Supreme Court's decision in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, which banned government-sponsored prayer in public schools, cited no historical or legal precedents and relies on a legal theory that the justices made up out of whole cloth.

                  Response: Even a brief perusal of the Engel opinion shows that Barton is again wrong. In fact, Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion in Engel cites the history of the First Amendment and the early colonial experience with state-established religion. The concurring opinion by Justice William Douglas cites several previous church-state cases.

                  Barton: Religious practices in public schools had never been challenged in the courts prior to 1962.

                  Response: 1962's Engel case was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court took up school prayer, but several state supreme courts had ruled on the issue prior to that. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down government-sponsored Prayer in schools in 1892; the Nebraska Supreme Court followed suit in 1902, and the Illinois Supreme Court removed mandatory worship from public schools in 1910.

                  These are just a few examples. A 1960 survey by Americans United found that only five states had laws on the books requiring daily Bible reading in public schools. Twenty-four slates allowed "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had banned the practice as unconstitutional. (The remaining states had no laws on the subject.)

                  Aside from these specific distortions, Barton relies on a variety of semantic tricks to mislead the viewers of his video. For example, the Texas activist uses the terms "Supreme Court" and "court" interchangeably throughout, which could lead an uninformed listener to believe that several low-level court decisions at odds with separation of church and state are actually Supreme Court rulings.

                  One such case is 1958's Baer v. Kolmorgen, which Barton cites as an example of how "the court" backed Christianity in public schools prior to Engel. In reality, the case, which was decided by a New York state appellate court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, was only tangentially related to the religion in schools issue. The ruling upheld the display of a Nativity scene at a public school during Christmas break. The crèche was permissible, said the court, because the students were not attending the institution at the time. This hardly amounts to a Supreme Court blessing of Christian Instruction in public schools.

                  Barton also relies on sweeping generalizations that overlook the facts. For instance, he claims that by 1963 the Supreme Court had "completely removed religion from public schools." Barton ignores 1952's Zorach v. Clauson decision, in which the high court upheld religion classes during the school day off school property, because the ruling clashes with his ideological agenda. He also ignores Justice Tom Clark 's comment in 1963's Abington School District v. Schempp case, which banned state-mandated Bible reading in public schools."It certainly may be said," Clark observed, "that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

                  Finally, some of the arguments Barton makes are simply so convoluted or bizarre that they can be dismissed out of hand. For example, he claims that the doctrine of separation of powers--the constitutional principle that provides for "checks and balances" among the three branches of the federal government, springs from the biblical book of Jeremiah 17:19. This is, to say the least, a creative interpretation of the passage, which reads, "Thus said the Lord unto me: Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, whereby the kings of Judah come in, and by which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem."

                  (Likewise, Barton asserts that our country's three branches of government were inspired by Isaiah 33:22. The passage reads, "For the lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.")
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But don't let me distract you! Please, save your rebuttal till after the diamond/coal thing is settled.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 28 2006,10:48

                  Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2006,10:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [my emph.]
                  < Wikipedia.org >

                  Kind of kills your argument that the Founding Fathers were "Fundies," doesn't it, Dave? It was a stupid argument anyway; anyone who knows anything about the history of Christian Fundamentalism should know this simple fact, but why would anyone think that Dave knows any simple fact.

                  Now. Are you ever going to get around to trying to find support—any support whatsoever—for your loony-tunes "hypothesis," Dave? Or are we going to spend the rest of the year on these stupid digressions.

                  Actually, virtually this entire thread has been off on one digression or another.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 28 2006,12:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  
                  You will note that American government (designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.
                  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  GREAT HEROES OF AMERICAN HISTORY WHO PROMOTED THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  1. How is this related to my claim that the religious philosophy of the founders was the deism of the enlightenment, not fundy xian? Of course there were xians around. Just not the framers/ founders.

                  Dave

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Washington: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . . Now, therefore, I do recommend . . . that we may all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection . . . And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions . . . to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And where does this mention the divinity of Jesus?

                  Dave

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jefferson:  "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And same as above. Especially since Jefferson explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus. Here's another Jefferson quote you might like. It comes from his bible:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Benjamin Franklin: "In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir were heard, and they were graciously answered . . . I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm. Sounds good. Here's another Franklin quote:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:
                  "...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Madison: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ok, once again, let's try this Madison quote:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The critical word there is "superstition", an enlightenment term for xianity. I get the feeling that you really don't get the concept of the enlightenment. Technically following the "Age of Reason" it was really the product of or an extention of it. The European scientists and philosophers that began to examine surfaces and physical properties of the universe recognized that miracles aren't the way god works. The downside of their philosophy was to radically deligitimize the interior dimentions. Any knowledge gained from contemplation or meditation became suspect since it was difficult to prove empirically. The beauty of what they did however, was to force us to examine our propositions in light of empirical observations. That is why Kant was so successful with "A Critique of Pure Reason"  but fell just short with "A Critique of Judgement". He couldn't reconcile the two modes of knowledge. It is interesting to note that the romantic movement followed close on it's heels. (You fall into that camp. That, by the way, is not an insult. You are in some very good company. You unfortunately don't rise to their level.)

                  Dave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  John Jay: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."... and..."Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The exception that proves the rule.

                  Dave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me), showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--from founding colleges at Harvard, Princeton and Yale for the express purpose of training Christian preachers to go throughout all the land, to forming Bible Societies to help get Bible distributed everywhere, to having prayer meetings in Congress, to carving Bible verses in stone, etc, etc, etc.
                  So this treaty could really be worded ...    


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow.  No. You are wrong. "The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me), showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--..." Is a factually misleading statement in this context. As I have already demonstrated, the founding fathers were not xian fundies, they were Deists from the same school of thought as Locke, Hume, Voltaire, etc. So no, you must retract that statement or fix it to be accurate in context. To make a false claim and then use it as supporting evidence is poor form. Now, about that treaty: do you have a quote from one of the drafters of the document that shows that it "Could have been" the way you wrote it? I ask that because Joel Barlow, the American consul to Algeirs was a Deist and good freind of Thomas Paine and all evidence points to the conclusion that he believed what he wrote, that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

                  Dave, Deism /= xianity

                  America was a product of enlightenment philosophy, including the natural rights of man. These ideas came from the understanding that there are natural laws. God does not intervene. Not fundy.

                  PS. I don't care about barton, just make sure you can back up what you claim.
                  For example:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This was in no way a repudiation of free (protestant) Christianity, but a repudiation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of Christ.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  is an unsupported claim and thus has no value in terms of your argument. A summary of the argument would have to exclude it.

                  Your move.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 28 2006,12:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,08:48)
                  Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Daniel J. Lewis
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 28 2006,12:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  To say that David Barton's scholarship is shoddy displays profound ignorance of the truth.  This man is so good and so careful in documenting the quotes he uses that he has become THE SOURCE for this type of information.

                  His standards are so high that he has created his own standard, which is higher than traditional academic standards.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Unconfirmed Quotations

                  by David Barton

                  (This article has created controversy in some quarters; read the background behind the “Unconfirmed Quotations” article controversy.)

                  The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).

                  It is only in using this much higher standard that we call the following quotes “unconfirmed”: that is, while the quotes below have been documented in a completely acceptable fashion for academic works, they are currently “unconfirmed” if relying solely on original sources or sources contemporaneous to the life of the actual individual Founder. These original sources for these quotes may still surface (for example, a major primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946), and in fact you will note that we have actually located the original sources for some to the quotes below that originally we listed as unconfirmed. However, with the remaining quotes listed below, we recommend that you refrain from using them until such time that an original primary source may be found, notwithstanding the fact that the quotes below may be documented to a number of contemporary sources.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Talk about an Orwellian explanation.  Dave, let me let you in on a not-too-secret secret.  Even Barton's new standards are not higher than academic standards. While they are certainly more stringent that what he employed previously, they are still rather slipshod in comparison to what real academics use. You see, real academic historians only work from primary sources, not "numerous books, periodicals, editorials, and speeches, etc."  While real historians undoubtedly research such secondary sources, they will trace them back to the primary sources.  And, when real historians are unable to trace such references back to the primary source, the information is excluded from their work.

                  Barton fails on both counts.  He didn't trace his quotes back to primary sources and when real historians challenged him publicly on this, he had no choice but to acknowledge that primary sources didn't exist for many of his quotes.  While I will give him credit for stating that the quotes are unconfirmed, it is hardly a higher standard than what an academic would do. An intellectually honest academic would have withdrawn such quotes from the body of their work. Barton leaves material that cannot be confirmed as true in his work and only cautions (wink..wink) the reader not to use them.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Carlson--  The Franklin quote is found in the papers of Madison.  Why is that surprising?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Primary sources, Dave, primary sources.  If you go back to Madison's notes from the convention (which can be purchased at Amazon), you would find that Franklin's motion to open the convention sessions with prayer was never passed by the Convention.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have no reason to dispute what you say about Jefferson and the NT ... but this does not destroy my position that America was founded as a Christian nation, meaning it was founded on the general principles of Chrisitianity (Protestant Christianity we could add).

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, remind me again, where in the Constitution the 10 commandments are?  Oh, heck, I'll make it easier for you. Show me where in any federal law where the 10 commandments are.  I'll bet you can't find more than 3.  Heck, just find the first commandment anywhere in US law.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Therein lies your problem, Dave. You, and David Barton, are forced to search around for quotes to support your position.  When looked at from the Founders complete body of work, it is pretty clear what they felt and it wasn't that it was a Christian nation.   Memorial and Remonstrance?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are utterly mistaken as I will show in the coming weeks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, goody!
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can you point to any original source writings by John Adams that supports this interpretation?  I doubt you can.  You are too firmly entrenched in the shoddy scholarship of David Barton and I am willing to bet you won't leave its comfort to explore any of the 200 plus years of scholarly work on any of the Founders to look for it.  But, unless you can provide support in the writings of Adams for this interpretation, I have to assume that you are blowing it out your (and Barton's) butt.  Prove me wrong, if you can.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have already with the quotes given so far and I will continue to do so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now you haven't.  You have not shown any primary sourced information from Adams (or Joel Barlow's as BWE points out) own writing to support your interpretation.  Adams was a prolific, perhaps even obsessive, writer. Surely you can scrounge up, in Adams own words, support for your interpretation?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2006,13:05

                  I'm guessing that Dave's given up on his UPDATED Creator God "Hypothesis." The last time he even discussed it was in his discussion of "genetic richness," when he got the living crap kicked out of him on genetics and information theory. Maybe he's still smarting from the mishandling he got on those two issues.

                  Ever since then, he's been futilely flailing away at radiocarbon dating, trying to prove that there's no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation (btw, there's a good article over on < Questionable Authority > that illustrates how difficult it is to tell whether a particular mutation is beneficial or not, not that Dave will read it), and now he's trying, and failing, to prove that the Founding Fathers were Fundamentalist Christians, a faction of Christianity that didn't even exist in the 18th Century. None of these issues has anything whatsoever to do with presenting affirmative support for his "hypothesis."

                  But not a peep about his "hypothesis" in weeks.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,13:09

                  Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 28 2006,13:23)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,08:48)
                  Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Daniel J. Lewis
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I see that he (re)draws pictures.  Maybe he can improve Dave's photoshop evidence creation skills.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Figure 13.2. Dispersion from the Tower of Babel. (Drawn by Daniel Lewis of AiG–USA.)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter13.asp >

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Figure 1.6. Woolly mammoth carcass distribution in Northern Hemisphere. (Redrawn by Daniel Lewis with Eurasia.30)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter1.asp >

                  **Edit** AND a 'presentations professional'.  Maybe he can 'present' the UCGH with a little more flair than Dave.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DANIEL LEWIS (presentations professional)< http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/creationCollege2/speakers.aspx >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 28 2006,14:35

                  You know dave, when I read your summary, I couldn't help feeling that something was missing...
                  And then I figured it out: There was no "point" saying how you had supposedly schooled us on Shannon information theory.
                  Now, I must say I was surprised. Admitting defeat was quite unlike you, as we have observed again and again... Could it really be that you were sticking with your last take on this issue (that Shannon's I-Theory is entirely irrelevant with your definition of "information"), thereby admitting that your previous assergtions were moot, and Schneider's quotes misused and beside the point?
                  But: only a few posts down, you present us with another Sanford quote, < here. > Sanford mentions Gitt; bear in mind that Gitt SUPPOSEDLY bases his claims on Shannon's theory.

                  So, it seems that, either you still believe Shannon helps you, or you just throw quotes from "authority" around without bothering to actually understand what they say.
                  Let's clarify this once and for all: Again I ask, Do you think that a message that consists of white noise does not have more info than one that consists of a speech, according to Shannon theory? Do you think Schneider agrees with you?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 28 2006,15:42

                  I liked this quote from Daniel Lewis, discussing frozen mammoth carcasses:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The reason I favor adaptations to the cold is that such adaptations are built into the genes and chromosomes of many mammals and people today. We adapt to winter temperatures by physiological changes, such as the body producing thicker blood. ( < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter1.asp > )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm wondering what "thicker blood" looks like...indeed, what it means at all. I know that a drop in ambient temperature can cause vessels and capillaries to constrict, and that hypothermia victims have more "viscous" blood due to actual change in the core body temperature to below normal....but this is not the body "producing " viscous blood, it's simple physics (like Boyle's Law) and not "genetic" so far as I know.

                  Perhaps Daniel Lewis can explain.

                  I have hopes that he does a better job at actually supporting his claims than DimDavey-doodles the ducking, dodging, diverting, dissembling data-dancer
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 28 2006,16:11

                  "data dancer" ==> hypothesis hula? ah! hypothesis hustle!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,16:39

                  Quote (Steviepinhead @ Nov. 28 2006,17:11)
                  "data dancer" ==> hypothesis hula? ah! hypothesis hustle!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  I wondered when I could use this picture. {From the 'Worst Album Covers Ever' file circulating}

                  In this case turntable means circular like many of Dave's arguments.
                  Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 28 2006,16:54

                  Dare you forget....



                  Or:



                  Now that's a cover with a backstory!

                  These are just for Louis:


                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 28 2006,17:35

                  Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 28 2006,17:54)
                  Dare you forget....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  GoP.  You've done it again.  Posted a picture of scantily clad men.  Louis is going to comment I'm sure.

                  **Edit**
                  AND....  < Version II >

                  AND.... < Version III >

                  Enjoy!  (p.s. to the GoP vs. Louis flesh war.  More exposed flesh available.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2006,17:43

                  Is it me, or is Dave becoming kind of despondent? His posts, never exactly content-rich, have become increasingly vacant. The discussion on whether or not the United States was founded by radical right-wing fundamentalist Bible-thumpers, while not devoid of interest, is way, way, way off-topic. But then 90% of Dave's posts on his own thread are pretty off-topic anyway.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 28 2006,18:02

                  On topic would be providing evidence for his itty-bitty sky daddy theory. As of yet Dave is still trying to figure that one out. Give him time. Maybe starting with baby steps in the non-scientific field of historical evidence for fundy founders will get him in the swing of providing evidence.

                  My job in that endeavor is only to point out the fact that he is an idiot. I never was one to volunteer for the hard jobs. Maybe a dose of humble pie will convince him of his overall failings.... Naw.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2006,19:18

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 28 2006,18:02)
                  Maybe a dose of humble pie will convince him of his overall failings.... Naw.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Humble pie? Dave thinks he's winning all his arguments! Or at least he claims he thinks he is.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 28 2006,19:34

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 28 2006,19:18)
                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 28 2006,18:02)
                  Maybe a dose of humble pie will convince him of his overall failings.... Naw.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Humble pie? Dave thinks he's winning all his arguments! Or at least he claims he thinks he is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's harder to win this one though. He will have to rely on primary sources and show how they support his theory. Presumably, he won't need to understand elementary science to be able to tell whether the facts support his hypothesis.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Nov. 28 2006,19:38

                  There are a number of people who post strange ideas here (not just Afdave) and get them thoroughly demolished, who then come back for more time and time again. They may be masochists or they may be sincere, but I wonder how many are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong about anything (not just religious beliefs), even if they know in their hearts that they are indeed mistaken. Clearly that is not the case for people like JAD or Larry Fafa who seem to compulsively post wherever will have them, but for others . . . ? It would account for the apparent inability to understand the most basic points and the failure to make coherent responses. I feel sorry for them, but they are still entertaining in a hair-tearing kind of way.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 28 2006,20:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but I wonder how many are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong about anything
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  See, that's why some of us were interested in following the "Portuguese moment" to its [il]logical conclusion. The question was: "Is afdave's apparent inability to process information a sort of 'blind spot' specific to questions abutting his cult? Or is it more general than that?"

                  I don't remember whether you were with us for that experiment, Richard, but the results pretty clearly point to a more general dyslogia.
                  Posted by: BWE on Nov. 28 2006,20:35

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 28 2006,20:03)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but I wonder how many are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong about anything
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  See, that's why some of us were interested in following the "Portuguese moment" to its [il]logical conclusion. The question was: "Is afdave's apparent inability to process information a sort of 'blind spot' specific to questions abutting his cult? Or is it more general than that?"

                  I don't remember whether you were with us for that experiment, Richard, but the results pretty clearly point to a more general dyslogia.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Portuguese #1 >
                  < Portuguese #2 >

                  More than a blind spot.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 28 2006,20:55

                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 28 2006,19:34)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 28 2006,19:18)
                   
                  Quote (BWE @ Nov. 28 2006,18:02)
                  Maybe a dose of humble pie will convince him of his overall failings.... Naw.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Humble pie? Dave thinks he's winning all his arguments! Or at least he claims he thinks he is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's harder to win this one though. He will have to rely on primary sources and show how they support his theory. Presumably, he won't need to understand elementary science to be able to tell whether the facts support his hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He doesn't need to do any such thing to declare victory. This is how Dave will declare victory, in, say, six weeks.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We have demonstrated in detail how the fundamentalist Christian Founding Fathers based the American system of government on biblical principles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's all he has to do, and presto! Instant victory!
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 28 2006,21:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,09:14)
                  As for Jay trying to ban Catholics from public office ... you need to remember the context of the birth of our country.  It was founded as a response and reaction to the Authoritarian regimes of Europe of which the Pope and Catholicism were the origin and source of this form of despotism.  Where do you think the Church of England learned its practice of persecuting non-conformists?  From Rome of course.  Where did the Church of England learn to try to control the government?  From Rome.  The Founders of America did not want Institutional Authoritarian Religious Organizations to control our government.  Thus the push to ban Catholics who at that time had a public sworn allegiance to a foreign power--the Vatican.

                  This was in no way a repudiation of free (protestant) Christianity, but a repudiation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of Christ.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I skipped over this before, but I want to come back to it. What you say above is true, but it isn't particularly enlightening.  It isn't much beyond the level of high school history.  I want to explore this in more depth with you, but it will probably involve several exchanges back and forth.  Are you up for that, Dave?  The denouement may be a few days into the future, but it may be helpful to move the discussion along more productively and we can exercise some real scholarship here.

                  So, my question to you, Dave, is this.  John Jay tried to pass a motion to ban Catholics from holding public office.  We all know it was never passed. With 200+ years of hindsight, Dave, was Jay right?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 28 2006,23:04

                  Here is another Fundy clanger.
                  For all their 'anti-authoritarian' claims they enforce a despotic regime of subservience and repression on their followers.

                  Under the guise of 'family values' the women are forced barefoot into the kitchen and turned into baby farms while their homophobic menfolk snort speed and play hide the sausage with other boys.

                  The children under the threat of banishment must conform or be sent to the emotional gulags.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This was in no way a repudiation of free (protestant) Christianity, but a repudiation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in the name of Christ.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That Christ AFD prays to, is a dictator.

                  The real reason for Ben Franklin not getting his cheeky prayer motion up, was because the bible thumpers knew that it didn't matter one whit if they got god on the books, the whole purpose of the game was mammon and time costs money, they crumbled immediately and signed up.
                  Posted by: skeptic on Nov. 28 2006,23:33

                  k.e., I think that last post would make Mike Richards proud but for rational people it's not even good comedy.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 29 2006,01:54

                  Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 28 2006,23:33)
                  k.e., I think that last post would make Mike Richards proud but for rational people it's not even good comedy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Buy a clue skeptic.

                  Maybe we can get Grace Jones to help "straighten out" the Reverend Ted, or would Shirley Phelps-Roper be a better choice? Should we ask him?

                  As for the album cover pics this one



                  caused a severe case of deja vu.

                  As for the album cover pics this one



                  caused a severe case of deja vu.

                  I dunno why.

                  Can somebody tell me why?

                  Davey, still waiting for the baboon dogs explanation. Are you really that stupid? Iron on iron sharpened common sense indeed!
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,03:25

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 28 2006,20:55)
                  This is how Dave will declare victory, in, say, six weeks.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We have demonstrated in detail how the fundamentalist Christian Founding Fathers based the American system of government on biblical principles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's all he has to do, and presto! Instant victory!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, I think I'll keep a permalink toyour post handy. Something tells me that's the exact phrase dave will use, down to the last word!
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 29 2006,06:16

                  Russell, Saturday, Nov 25:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And - if it's not too much trouble - could you supply "real-world"* references to the 14C in diamond and coal data?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  afdave, Sunday, Nov 26:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, there are many references in the literature for the detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds.  I do not have my copy of the RATE Book with me which has the citations ... I will supply you some references Monday.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Russell, Sunday, Nov 26:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Looking forward to it!
                  Now, have you checked out these references? Any of them? Or are you just trusting that, if your RATE authors gave a citation, it must deal effectively with the issue at hand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [time passes... Monday comes and goes]
                  Russell, Tuesday, Nov 28:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Right.
                  Or Tuesday. Tuesday would be good too.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  afdave, Tuesday, Nov 28:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do owe you some references on C14 in coal and diamonds ... I'll try to get those soon.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Russell: Wednesday, Nov. 29:
                  Or perhaps Wednesday. Sure. Wednesday would be OK.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 29 2006,07:08

                  I get it skeptic .....all comedians are racist if all homophobic bi-sexual anti-Darwinian  mega church pastors who preach gay hate are leaders of hypocritical Christians.

                  If I asked you if 'you wanna kiss'
                  1.Do you turn the other cheek.
                  2.Call up your church and see if you can get time off for bad behavior
                  3.Ask if I like it better with Xtal.
                  4.Check with the wife.
                  5.See if the kids (all 5 of them)want to leave town.
                  6.Call the President and push to ban gay marriage.
                  7.Collect more money on Sundays and see if you can keep it going for 3 years.
                  8.Threaten Richard Dawkins with a big red SUV.
                  (We could always ask Dawkins if Rev. Ted had bad breath, he WAS in his face)
                  9. Deny you are descended from monkeys, or had sex with THAT MAN)
                  10.Demonstrate the holier than thou politically conservative bibliolating  readers of Myth  are morally bankrupt and deserved to Lose an election.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 29 2006,08:07

                  stolen from fark (bad me)

                  foozdude seyz:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  1. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
                  Unconstituional by the first amendment. Freedom of religon.

                  2. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image
                  Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

                  3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
                  Unconstituional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

                  4. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it
                  Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech/expression.

                  5. Honour thy father and thy mother
                  Unconstitutional by the first amendment. Freedom of speech.

                  6. Thou shalt not kill.
                  Finally! One that is universially consistent throughout all of history. Unfortunately, it was written down in the Code of Hammurabi 500 years before moses. Not original to the Bible.

                  7. Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
                  It can be used as grounds for divorce, but there are no federal laws against cheating on your partner or having pre-marital sex.

                  8. Thou shalt not steal.
                  Ahh! Another universal law. Too bad codes of hammurabi got to it first. Not original to the Bible.

                  9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
                  No laws against lying except under oath.

                  10. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbor's wife, thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's
                  Our entire economy is built on people wanting stuff. Without our nation coveting useless crap we wouldn't have the lives we do today. No computers, no cars, nothing. No laws against this.

                  From now on, anyone claiming that the laws of of the United States are based on the 10 commandments is automatically considered a pink tutu wearing moran.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 29 2006,08:08

                  Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Nov. 29 2006,02:54)
                  As for the album cover pics this one



                  caused a severe case of deja vu.

                  I dunno why.

                  Can somebody tell me why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's something for everyone in music.

                  Crabby,
                  I read w-a-a-a-a-y back why you chose your avatar and what it represents.

                  Now, with selective memory loss....  I ummm.....  oh yeah...  I forgot what it represents.

                  Can you provide a link to your historical avatar?

                  Thanks,
                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,08:12

                  HOW THE BIBLE MADE AMERICA -- NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our Founding document."
                  Kenneth Woodward and David Gates, "How the Bible Made America," Newsweek, Dec 27, 1982, p. 44.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  From Lutz, Donald S., The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Lousiana State University Press, 1988), p. 141.  OI-226.

                  ***************************************

                  THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI: A SKEPTIC'S FAVORITE, BUT AGAIN, THE SKEPTICS HAVE MERELY BEEN DUPED BY THE LYING REVISIONISTS

                  I think it was Stephen Elliot and Eric who have a problem reconciling my statements of "I am not religious" yet I am "a member of a Baptist church."

                  I have said that I detest "organized religion" which to me means church hierarchies such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Pope and his cardinals, bishops and priests, and the like.  I like churches to be independent and autonomous which ours is.  We are not a part of any hierarchy.

                  Understanding this is also the key to understanding a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Skeptics, of course, love this quote and pounce on it while disregarding hundreds of other quotes which support the fact that America is most definitely a Christian nation.

                  The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me), showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--from founding colleges at Harvard, Princeton and Yale for the express purpose of training Christian preachers to go throughout all the land, to forming Bible Societies to help get Bible distributed everywhere, to having prayer meetings in Congress, to carving Bible verses in stone, etc, etc, etc.

                  So this treaty could really be worded ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here's the proof for this assertion from the unparalleled scholarship of David Barton ...

                  Now here are his footnotes documenting his statements ...

                  I just have to shake my head and laugh when people like Carlson say that David Barton is a shoddy scholar.  

                  Carlson, you've been duped by the revisionists.  :-)

                  *******************************

                  LOOKS LIKE IT'S "WHACK-A-MOLE" TIME AGAIN
                  Every time someone tries to say I lost this or that debate on a particular issue, I have fun posting the truth again ...

                  PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

                  (Posted originally in response to Rilke's Granddaughter who attacked me for making a casual reference to Portuguese being a mixture of Spanish and French)

                  (Posted again now because Arden Chatfield apparently is still miffed that his arguments were not as good as mine in spite of the fact that he is a linguist. He lost the debate back then and it was actually one of the few debates at ATBC that I have actually had some agreement from other ATBC members. Also note that Arden claims that people would have respected me if I had simply admitted defeat on this topic.  This is ludicrous and is plainly false simply by examining the threads PRIOR TO the Portuguese debate.  This debate itself was precipitated by a blatant ad hominem by Rilke.  It is quite clear why I am not respected by some people here at ATBC ... I am a creationist.  PERIOD.  End of story.  Need more proof?  Look at the thread started by 'skeptic' called 'Reinventing Evolutionary Theory.'  He simply SMELLED like a creationist and he was immediately and continuously ridiculed.)

                  Arden, my advice to you is to read your own post and follow the advice written there ... admit that YOU were the one who was wrong ... not me.  The truth is that I have quite prominently admitted that I have been wrong about certain details when the evidence is clear ... Chimp chromosomes, a study in the UK, maybe a couple other things.  You, on the other hand, have not admitted you have been wrong about anything that I can remember.

                  REHASHING THE EVIDENCE
                  My original quote from Wikipedia ... (sometime in May or June?)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.< Portuguese and French >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  April 28, 2006 Version of the "Portuguese" article from Wikipedia ...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand, Portuguese is phonetically closer to French and Catalan than to Spanish in some respects; such as the occurrence of nasalization, palatalization, diphthongization of low-mid stressed vowels, aspiration of /f/, and devoicing of sibilants — all features that are not shared by Spanish. The same can be said of the basic vocabularies: compare e.g. Portuguese bom ("good") with French or Catalan bon and Spanish bueno; or Portuguese filha with French fille, Catalan filla, and Spanish hija.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/w....0655924 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Many of you probably know that Wikipedia changes all the time.  One can only guess why this paragraph is no longer in the current version.  Actually, I guess you could research the question if you really wanted to spend the time.

                  and...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe the 2006 version says the same thing.

                  And the local linguist, Arden Chatfield, said that my claim may be true if you can show significant French influence on Portugal (which I did ... it's right here ... it happened in the 12th century).

                  If you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian (French) influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  
                  (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)

                  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.

                  Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
                  Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  Remember?  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.

                  (Side Note: This was the first major instance of a non-sensical "quote mine" charge, of which now there have been many more, equally non-sensical.  Faid said I quote mined by quoting EB as saying "Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon."  Many hopeful "Creo-snipers" jumped on the bandwagon with Faid.  This is an obviously absurd charge as anyone can see from the full quote above.)

                  Hmmm ... let's think now ... Spanish and Portuguese are the same language until 1143 ... then a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese. (And some other factors, admittedly)

                  FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
                  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

                  Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
                  Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
                  French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

                  < http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm >

                  Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person.  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

                  And if you think and are honest, instead of just shooting your mouth off about how all YECs are stupid idiots, you can see how Wikipedia would make a statement like ...

                  phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. (by the way, Catalan was the language of Andorra -- just below France on the map)

                  OK, Arden.  Now you have a choice.  You can admit that you were wrong ... OR ...

                  You can do some more weaseling ...  (AGAIN)

                  ***********************************************

                  To which Arden had no answer at all and could only say ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Arden Chatfield

                  Posts: 1689
                  Joined: Jan. 2006
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,18:41    

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Dave, you're a buffoonish, lying sack of shit with severe delusions of grandeur. I'd urge you to get help.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... after which he ran away and we have not heard from him since.

                  ****************************************
                  ERIC MURPHY CLAIMS I DON'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ericmurphy
                  Posts: 1793
                  Joined: Oct. 2005
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,12:32    

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

                  Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.

                  But since MHC genes are effective because of the vast number of alleles, and wouldn't work nearly as well if there were only a handful of alleles, it's difficult to understand why Dave would think that all those extra alleles don't add "information" to the human genome no matter what the definition of "information" is.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Eric apparently thinks that proliferation of different alleles equates to an INCREASE in biological information.  And he demonstrates his "superior knowledge" of biological information to my "inferior knowledge" of biological information by comparing White Noise to a Winston Churchill speech.

                  Note also that Eric thinks blue eyes are caused by an allele of a particular gene ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ericmurphy
                  Posts: 1786
                  Joined: Oct. 2005
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:33    
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... which, of course, is erroneous.  Eye color is not caused by a randomly generated allele of a particular gene.  It is controlled by at least 3 gene pairs ... probably more ... < http://www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html >

                  The basic mistake Eric (and many ToE advocates) is making is the Mistaken Assumption that Mutations Increase Information.  Alleles of particular genes (as I learned) are the result of Random Mutations, and as such, anyone with an ounce of honesty would say that this is DEGENERATIVE.  Only a fool would say that copying errors increase the information content of a book, or a software program, or what have you.  And yet here we have it in black and white ... Eric Murphy claiming that "Alleles Increase Biological Information."  Remember also my chart from Kimura showing that the overwhelming majority of mutations (which cause alleles) are "nearly neutral" (i.e. slightly deleterious) ... the ones that can be construed as "beneficial" are infinitesmally small and they can only be considered "beneficial" in a limited, narrowly defined sense.

                  So Eric takes this completely upside down view of Biological Information, which by the way, is quite different from Crick's definition of Biological Information (I would say Crick is an authority, wouldn't you?) ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein”
                  [url]http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf [/url]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You see, when a nucleotide gets miscopied or deleted, the resulting allele is LESS SPECIFIC.   Anyone can see that the English word "yes" has a very specific meaning, right?  If we talk about deleting or substituting a letter, we can make "alleles" of that word, right?  And of course you can make many alleles, many of which are non-sensical such as "ys" and "es" and "ybs" etc.  None of these "alleles" have a SPECIFIC meaning in the English language and so we have a LOSS OF SPECIFITY, hence a LOSS OF INFORMATION.  Now you could say "Oh but substitute a "t" for the "s" and now you have meaning."  Yes, but the meaning is changed significantly and you have to look at the context to see how destructive this change in meaning is to the whole set of instructions.  No matter how you slice it, you have a loss of specificity, in this case, the loss of the message "yes" which is highly specific.

                  Now Eric takes his backwards understanding of Biological Information and tries to support it by saying that White Noise has more information than a Winston Churchill Speech.  Now it has become clear, after much debate, that what he means is "It takes a bigger channel to communicate White Noise (being communicated as a signal ... why would you do that? ... dunno ... Dr. Tom Schneider was also mystified as to why someone would do that) ... than to communicate a Speech as a signal."  

                  Of course this is true but is irrelevant to the discussion of ... What is Biological Information?  ... and Does it Increase or Decrease as a result of Mutations?

                  So, Eric, give me your address ... I'll send you a White Noise Generator and a recording of Winston Churchill ... you can play both of them to your heart's content and revel in the fact that you are right ... it takes more bandwidth to transmit that White Noise through your headphone cord than it does to transmit the Churchill Speech.

                  Now ... can we please get back to discussing Biological Information?  (which you claim I don't understand?)

                  Thanks!
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 29 2006,08:22

                  Dave, you continue to reinforce my determination to never fall back into christianity.  I don't want to be in #### with you, and if I were a Christian or believed Christianity to be either credible or true, I would have to consider myself at great risk of that fate.
                  Fortunately, there is no more truth in Christianity than in your posted fantasy drivel.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 29 2006,09:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,08:12)
                  Here's the proof for this assertion from the unparalleled scholarship of David Barton ...

                  Now here are his footnotes documenting his statements ...

                  I just have to shake my head and laugh when people like Carlson say that David Barton is a shoddy scholar.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, thank you for providing the page in question and the associated footnotes. But you may want to stop laughing for a second.  Let me make a couple  observations.  Barton has certainly provided a number of footnotes to back up various assertions of fact. I would note that none of the footnoted statements are in the least bit controversial. I also noticed that the section where Barton provides his interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli (namely the second through the fourth paragraph on page 127), there is not a single footnote referencing either primary sources in the writings of Adams or Barlow nor any secondary sources of scholarship that support his interpretation.

                  This leads the reader to the conclusion that Barton is providing his own interpretation.  That is fine, historians are in the business of interpreting history, so I won't quibble with the fact that he is making and stating his interpretation.  The problem here is that academic historians that are generally expected to provide primary source support for their interpretation and Barton doesn't do this.  It is certainly good that I can verify where he determined that Washington sent envoys to negotiate with the Barbary pirates and that we eventually paid $525K in ransom, but those facts are not in question.  In contrast, he provides me no place to go in the writings of Adams or any other involved party that would support his interpretation of the meaning.  

                  I'm sorry, Dave, but that isn't true scholarship.  Footnoting accepted statements of fact is fine, but providing footnoted support for controversial interpretations is where real scholarship takes place. Let me give you an example.

                  In the editors introduction to my copy of The Federalist Papers, the author discusses two things.  First, how he determined to attribute authorship for the 85 separate essays (which were published under the single name Publius) and how he determined which versions of the essays to use (both Madison and Hamilton separately made changes after the original newspaper publication and prior to their publication in book form.)  These are matters of some weight to serious historians and in the space of this short introduction, the editor provided 100 footnotes.  He didn't footnote that Madison and Hamilton (and Jay) were in fact authors, but he footnoted heavily the discussion of how it was determined which author wrote which essay.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Carlson, you've been duped by the revisionists.  :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  For my interpretation to be revisionist, it would have to run contrary to the 200+ years of scholarship on the subject.  Unfortunately, Barton is the johnny-come-lately.  That he doesn't provide any footnoted, primary sourced support for his interpretation can only lead the disinterested reader to a different conclusion who the revisionist is.
                  Posted by: Ved on Nov. 29 2006,09:38



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're welcome, Dave. Just popping in to see how you're thread is doing. Nice to see you're still getting mileage out of my suggestion.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 29 2006,10:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... can we please get back to discussing Biological Information?  (which you claim I don't understand?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, I asked you two weeks ago about how you would measure biological information.  Why don't you write a useful definition, that we can all use to determine relative amounts of information, so that the discussion can move forward?  It's simply a waste to spend your whole morning writing reviews.

                  EDIT: Note that I am asking for how you measure biological information, not a definitition of biological information.  That way we don't have to spend 3 days arguing about how to measure information before you get bored and change the subject again.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,10:51

                  Yaaaaaay! dave wants to get smacked on the Portuguese issue again! Well, I'm happy to oblige!
                  Dave dave dave... You must have missed my question once again, like you did time and time before. Maybe your brain filters out everything that's not in BOLD CAPS, I dunno.
                  So! Here's your claim again, Brave Sir AFDave:

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Side Note: This was the first major instance of a non-sensical "quote mine" charge, of which now there have been many more, equally non-sensical.  Faid said I quote mined by quoting EB as saying "Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon."  Many hopeful "Creo-snipers" jumped on the bandwagon with Faid.  This is an obviously absurd charge as anyone can see from the full quote above.)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, all your babble about Portuguese has been thoroughly dismissed and ridiculed < WAY > < BACK > < IN > < JUNE, > when you first posted them WORD FOR WORD in the way you did now. but what the he11, let's go through this again, for the EB article at least:
                  Let's see... this is your snippety snip:

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And this is the full quote (about which I learned thanks to EB Concise- you didn't think of that back then, did you?)

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.
                  Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  And, since you're into simply reposting previous crap you've posted, as if noone replied to them, it's only fair that I simply repost my unanswered question again for you... Here goes:

                  Oh and, dave, I see that, in my absense, you decided to touch the Portuguese thing again, and triumphantly asserted that my accusations of you quotemining the EB article were "absurd".
                  Now, I won't go into what, IMO, this says about you and your cajones, since when I was HERE, and DARED you to address it, you had simply called me a troll and ran away.
                  But maybe you have mustered the courage to do so this time. So, once more, here goes nothing:

                  1. Dave, does that paragraph from EB actually talk about the origins or history of the Portuguese Language?  Does that little phrase you snipped about Lisbon have anything to do with the HISTORY of Portuguese?

                  2. Dave, what does EB ACTUALLY have to say about the origins and history of portuguese, along with all other Romance languages, according to the quote I gave you?


                  Take your best shot, champ. But remember: Once again, I will hold you to your answer. Any distortions, evasive manoeuvres and handwaving will mean instant admission of defeat, and loss of your last shred of respect.


                  ...There ya'go. Who knows, maybe this time you'll find the guts to actually answer, instead of running away... HIGHLY unlikely, I know, but one can only hope...  :D

                  PS. Oh, and, if anyone still cares (or has doubts about what EB really says and whether dave is being honest -hah!-, here's the article on Romance Languages:
                  < Read it and weep dave. >
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The major Romance languages—French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian—are national languages. French is probably the most internationally significant, but Spanish, the official language of 19 American countries and Spain and Equatorial Guinea, has the most speakers. Languages spoken in smaller areas include Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, and Rhaeto-Romance. The Romance languages began as dialects of Vulgar Latin, which spread during the Roman occupation of Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, and the Balkans and developed into separate languages in the 5th–9th centuries. Later, European colonial and commercial contacts spread them to the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ...Which is EXACTLY what all those OFFICIAL sites that we gave you links to said. Now, how did that go again? "Portuguese didn't exist untill 1143"?


                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,11:22

                  Oh, and dave: About "biological information"...

                  Since my entire post from a few days back remains unaddressed, I thought I'd post it again. Saves a lot of time in dealing with your evasions.

                  There you go:




                  You're unbelievable, dave.

                  You actually accuse Eric of twisting and distortion? What did he do, fudge the links? Forge the posts?
                  Dave, in your posts, you mock and accuse people all over the place, for not having any understanding on SHANNON'S theory. You claim you know better what SHANNON says, and you quote SCHNEIDER as evidence:

                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36205 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36215 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36611 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=36698 >

                  And now, you're telling us that the whole issue was that "Eric didn't have a good definition of biological information", and Shannon's theory has nothing to do with it? Then why didn't you say that in the first place, and nothing else?
                  Why didn't you just say "well OK, but that is Shannon's theory, which has nothing to do with my definition of information, which is blah blah", in which case the debate would have shifted to what exactly your definition is (and how you can support it), and go on? Instead, you decided to adopt the opposite stance, saying that we evos have no idea what we're talking about, and Shannon's theory actually supports your claims...

                  And got creamed. Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
                  Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.

                  Dave, this is indeed another Portuguese Moment for you. Not because you made a blooper on a simple subject: On the contrary. The concepts of Shannon's theory are complicated, and it's easy to get confused (I should know).
                  No. This is another PM for you because, like in the "P=S+F<+other factors>" issue, you got carried away by your arrogance and your pride, thinking it was finally time to triumph against your foes... And, stubbornly and provokably, argued about a subject for which you had little to go with, save a misunderstood source and your own unsupported  assumptions.

                  And the more you keep doing this, the more you will end up like now, with your "arguments" reduced to mere handwaving and evading: "I still don't think... You got nothing... Alladin's lamp this... Magic wand that..."

                  Dave, I think your god is trying to introduce you to the concept of humility. Maybe you should pay attention.

                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,11:23

                  Ah, another rehash of Dave's Portuguese moment. I love how enjoys savoring his defeats. Anyway:

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,08:12)
                  LOOKS LIKE IT'S "WHACK-A-MOLE" TIME AGAIN
                  Every time someone tries to say I lost this or that debate on a particular issue, I have fun posting the truth again ...

                  PORTUGUESE = SPANISH + FRENCH + OTHER FACTORS

                  (Posted originally in response to Rilke's Granddaughter who attacked me for making a casual reference to Portuguese being a mixture of Spanish and French)

                  (Posted again now because Arden Chatfield apparently is still miffed that his arguments were not as good as mine in spite of the fact that he is a linguist. He lost the debate back then and it was actually one of the few debates at ATBC that I have actually had some agreement from other ATBC members.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sorry, Dave. No one here agrees that you "won" this debate. Why do you think we call things like this a "Portuguese moment" for you? (If you do think someone agrees that you won this argument, kindly post their name.) In fact, you haven't even really presented an argument. Note that this is a linguistic argument, and that you have yet to present any linguistic evidence to support your argument. Comparison of vocabularies is not a linguistic argument, Dave. English has an immense number of French cognates. Does this make English a "Romance" language like French? Does it somehow make English a "mixture of French and German"? No, it does not. That Portuguese may sound closer to French than to Catalan or Spanish is not a linguistic argument, Dave.

                  Here's the problem in a nutshell: you are not a linguist. You clearly know nothing (less than I do, which essentially means you know nothing) about linguistics. No professional linguist on the planet agrees with you, Dave. Normally I don't make appeals to authority (unlike you, I never make appeals to a single authority), but when an entire profession disagrees with you, that means you are wrong, in the most comprehensive sense of the term.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also note that Arden claims that people would have respected me if I had simply admitted defeat on this topic.  This is ludicrous and is plainly false simply by examining the threads PRIOR TO the Portuguese debate.  This debate itself was precipitated by a blatant ad hominem by Rilke.  It is quite clear why I am not respected by some people here at ATBC ... I am a creationist.  PERIOD.  End of story.  Need more proof?  Look at the thread started by 'skeptic' called 'Reinventing Evolutionary Theory.'  He simply SMELLED like a creationist and he was immediately and continuously ridiculed.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, people don't disrespect you because you're a creationist. That you're a creationist means you're wrong about a huge swath of human knowledge, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are unworthy of respect. What makes you unworthy of respect is your breathtaking intellectual dishonesty. That's where the problem lies.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Arden, my advice to you is to read your own post and follow the advice written there ... admit that YOU were the one who was wrong ... not me.  The truth is that I have quite prominently admitted that I have been wrong about certain details when the evidence is clear ... Chimp chromosomes, a study in the UK, maybe a couple other things.  You, on the other hand, have not admitted you have been wrong about anything that I can remember.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Arden should admit he's wrong when you can provide some evidence that you are right. Not only have you done no such thing, but the vast weight (indeed, the entire profession) of opinion among linguists is against you. If you think I'm wrong about that, kindly post a quote from a linguist, not from Wikipedia, or Encyclopedia Brittanica, but an actual, credentialled linguist who states unambiguously that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish (among other things). Until you can do that, you will still be wrong.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  REHASHING THE EVIDENCE
                  My original quote from Wikipedia ... (sometime in May or June?)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Although the vocabularies of Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar, phonetically Portuguese is somewhat closer to Catalan or to French. It is often claimed that the complex phonology of Portuguese compared to Spanish explains why it is generally not intelligible to Spanish speakers despite the strong lexical similarity between the two languages.< Portuguese and French >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where's the linguistic evidence here, Dave? Saying that Portuguese "sounds" like some other language is not a linguistic argument. Saying that there are lexical similarities between Portuguese and Spanish says nothing to support your argument because it doesn't even mention any lexical similarities with French, and in any event all three languages are derived from Latin and therefore almost by definition have many lexical similarities. This does not support the contention that Portuguese is in any way a "mixture" of French and Spanish.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  April 28, 2006 Version of the "Portuguese" article from Wikipedia ...
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand, Portuguese is phonetically closer to French and Catalan than to Spanish in some respects; such as the occurrence of nasalization, palatalization, diphthongization of low-mid stressed vowels, aspiration of /f/, and devoicing of sibilants — all features that are not shared by Spanish. The same can be said of the basic vocabularies: compare e.g. Portuguese bom ("good") with French or Catalan bon and Spanish bueno; or Portuguese filha with French fille, Catalan filla, and Spanish hija.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/w....0655924 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, evidence that two languages sound similar is not a linguistic argument. Some words in Portuguese sound very similar to words in Japanese. Does that provide evidence of common derivation? No. This is simply not a linguistic argument, Dave, and does not support your position. Further, given that all three languages are derived from Latin, is entirely to be expected that there will be similarities among them.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese and Spanish were essentially the same language until about AD 1143, when Portugal broke away from Spanish control. World Book, 1993, "Portuguese Language."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe the 2006 version says the same thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, even if this quote is accurate, it does not support your contention that Portuguese is a "mixture" of French and Spanish. Where does this quote even mention French?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And the local linguist, Arden Chatfield, said that my claim may be true if you can show significant French influence on Portugal (which I did ... it's right here ... it happened in the 12th century).

                  If you get a good Medieval History Encyclopedia, you can get all kinds of details about this period in history when Portuguese and Spanish diverged.  What you will see is massive Burgundian (French) influence beginning with the influx of contingents of Burgundian knights in response to Alfonso VI who had a Burgundian wife, then the Burgundian Henry, grandson of Robert I of Burgundy then to Afonso Henriques, son of Henry.  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.  
                  (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, v. 10, 1988, American Council of Learned Societies) (From the public library, a famous, non-YEC source)

                  Then if you do some further reading, you find out that standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.

                  Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
                  Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061011 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Can you guess that Lisbon probably had greater French influence than anywhere else in Portugal?  Remember?  Afonso Henriques captures Lisbon and sets up his capital.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this crap simply does not demonstrate a [i]linguistic
                  influence of French on Portuguese. These are historical influences, not linguistic influences, and listing them does not in any way support your argument. You're wasting your time even posting them.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hmmm ... let's think now ... Spanish and Portuguese are the same language until 1143 ... then a whole bunch of French knights come into western Spain to help out the king who has a French wife.  Another French guy comes into Spain and marries a Spanish wife.  They take over Lisbon and set up the Kingdom of Portugal.  Do you see what's happening?  This is not rocket science folks.   This is kind of like 1+2=3.  See?  Spanish + French = Portuguese. (And some other factors, admittedly)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not evidence, either. You simply aren't providing any linguistic evidence to support a linguistic argument, Dave. I'm going to keep repeating that until you understand it. There was a HUGE French influence on England from the 11th century. For a time, French was the official language of the English court. Does that somehow make English a "mixture" of German and French? No, it does not.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
                  Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

                  Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
                  Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
                  French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

                  < http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm >

                  Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person.  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, all three languages are all romance languages, derived from Latin. They share huge numbers of cognates. This does not support your argument that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK, Arden.  Now you have a choice.  You can admit that you were wrong ... OR ...

                  You can do some more weaseling ...  (AGAIN)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you can claim you're right when you actually present some linguistic evidence to support your linguistic argument. So far, you have not done so. There's a reason not a single linguist anywhere agrees with you. It's because you're wrong.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To which Arden had no answer at all and could only say ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Arden Chatfield

                  Posts: 1689
                  Joined: Jan. 2006
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,18:41    

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Dave, you're a buffoonish, lying sack of shit with severe delusions of grandeur. I'd urge you to get help.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... after which he ran away and we have not heard from him since.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Arden obliterated your argument. How many times do you think it's necessary for him to obliterate it. (For that matter, I've obliterated your argument, and I've never even studied linguistics!;) He hasn't run away to anywhere.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,11:43

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, I asked you two weeks ago about how you would measure biological information.  Why don't you write a useful definition, that we can all use to determine relative amounts of information, so that the discussion can move forward?  It's simply a waste to spend your whole morning writing reviews.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Argy, the best I have is a Definition of Biological Information, which as I have said, comes from Crick ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  As for MEASURING it and determining relative amounts, this is a different matter.  As I have mentioned before, this has always been intuitive up until Dembski and Behe's attempts at quantifying it.  I watch with interest to see what they will come up with.  To those who would say "See ... you don't even have a rigorous, mathematical means of detecting biological information ... how then can you talk about it and say that it is decreasing whenever mutations occurs?"

                  To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

                  Didn't think so.  And yet only a fool would say that it has not deteriorated.  Hmmm ... makes you think now, doesn't it?  

                  ****************************************

                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, thank you for providing the page in question and the associated footnotes. But you may want to stop laughing for a second.  Let me make a couple  observations.  Barton has certainly provided a number of footnotes to back up various assertions of fact. I would note that none of the footnoted statements are in the least bit controversial. I also noticed that the section where Barton provides his interpretation of the meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli (namely the second through the fourth paragraph on page 127), there is not a single footnote referencing either primary sources in the writings of Adams or Barlow nor any secondary sources of scholarship that support his interpretation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What part of paragraphs 2-4 do you disagree with?  Why?  Were not the practices of "Christian" Europe--i.e. the Crusades--well known among "Musselmen"?  Knowing the context of the treaty, how could you possibly disagree with Barton's interpretation?

                  Now I realize that you have not read Chapter 2 of Barton's book, but let me assure you that he documents the assertion that "the Founders openly described America as a Christian nation" quite thoroughly from original writings of the Founders.

                  I have given you a taste of this already and I will give you many more.

                  I also think you need to re-evaluate your idea of a reliable source for quoting the Founders.  I note the fact you did not recognize Madison's writings as an authoritative source for a Franklin quote.  What would like to have?  Writings from Franklin's secretary?  His son perhaps?  Further, you implied that this was an unreliable quote simply because Franklin's proposal didn't get adopted.

                  And finally ... YOU and your REVISIONISTS are the "Johnny Come Latelys" to American history.  Barton is simply restoring the truth that has been obscured by the revisionists.

                  You lose ... but thanks for playing!  :-)

                  ***********************************

                  Faid ... your flagellations about Portuguese are comical.  I have saved off my piece about Eric's blunder with Biological Info and Arden's (and your) blunders about Portuguese.  As I said, I enjoy reposting them when people try to say I somehow lost.  :-)

                  Argy ... I'm not wasting my morning writing reviews ... it's a simple cut and paste ... takes about 30 seconds.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,11:43

                  Eric, let's also not forget to mention that:

                  The Portuguese language existed already way before 1143, and it was the FIRST official language of the Kingdom of Portugal

                  The "Massive French influence" dave speaks of was, in fact, a passing army of French, English and Portuguese knights on their way to the Crusades, Some of which (mostly Templars) were later given, as a reward, a portion of feudal land to exploit by Alphonso -no french immigration, no population exchange, no shift of central authority, nothing. And that means ZERO linguistic (or even cultural) influence, let alone any imaginary "french-spanish" dialect of Lisbon that never existed, save in dave's fevered imagination. People of Lisbon spoke PORTUGUESE at the time (those who didn't speak ARABIC, that is).
                  So his historical evidence is "baloney" too.
                  All this has, of course, already been pointed out to dave, again and again (and again, and again). Will he be brave enough to address them this time?

                  Any bets?  :p
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,11:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ... your flagellations about Portuguese are comical.  I have saved off my piece about Eric's blunder with Biological Info and Arden's (and your) blunders about Portuguese.  As I said, I enjoy reposting them when people try to say I somehow lost.  :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Brave Sir AFDave ran away.
                  Bravely ran away, away!
                  When danger reared its ugly head,
                  He bravely turned his tail and fled.
                  Yes, brave Sir AFDave turned about
                  And gallantly he chickened out.
                  Bravely taking to his feet
                  He beat a very brave retreat,
                  Bravest of the brave, Sir AFDave!

                  He is packing it in and packing it up
                  And sneaking away and buggering up
                  And chickening out and pissing off home,
                  Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  Thanks dave. It seems that "comical", in your dictionary, means "unanswerable"... But I knew that already.
                  Remember what I said?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Take your best shot, champ. But remember: Once again, I will hold you to your answer. Any distortions, evasive manoeuvres and handwaving will mean instant admission of defeat, and loss of your last shred of respect.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thanks, Losah. Be sure that, every time you repost your blabber, you'll see me repost my unanswered questions (and your running away from them) to make you look silly again and again.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,12:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To those who would say "See ... you don't even have a rigorous, mathematical means of detecting biological information ... how then can you talk about it and say that it is decreasing whenever mutations occurs?"

                  To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

                  Didn't think so.  And yet only a fool would say that it has not deteriorated.  Hmmm ... makes you think now, doesn't it?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah dave, it makes me think of how incredibly dense you are.

                  Tell me, did your friend have a chance to mate his pickup truck before it got old and rusty? Did he keep the little trucklings, give them away, or put them all to sleep?

                  "Amateur scientist". Suuure.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 29 2006,12:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I have a nonsubjective way of measuring.  I don't need to rely on my intuition.  Why can't you do the same with bioinfo?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,12:22

                  WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION?

                  1) We can say that it is DEGENERATING.  On what authority?  Virtually every investigator ... Kimura, Neel, Kondrashov, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley and Crow ... to name a few cited by Sanford.

                  2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)

                  3) We can say that Information Content in genomes was GREATER in the past.  This is a logical inference from (1) and (2) above and of course agrees with the historical record of the Bible.  We also have no reason to doubt that there were NO mistakes at some point in the past as Genesis clearly teaches about how life was in the Garden of Eden.  We cannot prove this of course, but we have no reason to doubt it based upon our observations in population genetics.

                  So, I would ask ... what is the point of MEASURING biological information?  Maybe there is a point ... fine if so.  Go Behe and Dembski!  But again, what is the point?  Are we trying to build a "life meter" that we can use on Mars to detect if widgets we find there are alive or not?  Or what?

                  Which brings me back to my purpose ...

                  I am interested in understanding the Nature of Man primarily.  Is he a product of Evolution?  Or of the Mind of God?  

                  The answer makes all the difference in the world.

                  And you don't need to be able to measure Biological Information to determine the answer.

                  ************************************

                  Faid...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Tell me, did your friend have a chance to mate his pickup truck before it got old and rusty? Did he keep the little trucklings, give them away, or put them all to sleep?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  But only because the inventor of the truck wasn't technologically advanced enough to engineer a reproductive system on the truck whereby "baby trucks" could be born.

                  God was a much better engineer than Henry Ford!  :-)

                  ************************************

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have a nonsubjective way of measuring.  I don't need to rely on my intuition.  Why can't you do the same with bioinfo?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm all ears.  Please explain this process to me.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,12:45

                  Sooo... Your definition of "biological information" is "something the genome has that degenerates, cannot increase and was greater in the past".


                  Ooooookaaaaaay.  :)

                  Hey dave, since you are not brave enough to answer any of my questions on Shannon theory and Portuguese, can you at least answer the ones I posted about Crow's article? (And please, don't make me have to go get the links for you- they're just a few pages back, and I'm already bored searching months-old posts to show your dishonesty in the Portuguese issue...)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No.  But only because the inventor of the truck wasn't technologically advanced enough to engineer a reproductive system on the truck whereby "baby trucks" could be born.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I see. And by doing so, overcome the problem of deterioration of DNA by aging, right?
                  Or is that not what you meant? I mean, all this AMAZING biodiversity after your "FLOOD" shows there is no problem, either with DNA deterioration, or with increase in information, right?

                  ;)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,12:51

                  And let's let Dave savor one more defeat, while we're at it:

                   [quote=afdave,Nov. 29 2006,08:12][ERIC MURPHY CLAIMS I DON'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS
                         [quote]ericmurphy
                  Posts: 1793
                  Joined: Oct. 2005
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,12:32    

                  Dave has this idea that mutations resulting in, say the extra 490 alleles for a single HLA locus that have appeared since the Noachian flood do not amount to an increase in "information." Of course, Dave has no idea what the definition of "information" is (Dave, which signal has more information: a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech, or the same number of megabytes of broadband white noise?), so I don't know how he would know one way or another.[/quote][/quote]
                  (my emph.)
                  Dave, it would be helpful if you actually posted quotes that supported your claims. Do I say anything about "biological information" here? I know you don't know anything about biological information, but I didn't say anything about biological information in this quote.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But since MHC genes are effective because of the vast number of alleles, and wouldn't work nearly as well if there were only a handful of alleles, it's difficult to understand why Dave would think that all those extra alleles don't add "information" to the human genome no matter what the definition of "information" is.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Eric apparently thinks that proliferation of different alleles equates to an INCREASE in biological information.  And he demonstrates his "superior knowledge" of biological information to my "inferior knowledge" of biological information by comparing White Noise to a Winston Churchill speech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, Dave, a proliferation of alleles for a given gene is, in fact, an increase in information. If you think it is not, please explain why it is not. You haven't done so, and you cannot do so.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Note also that Eric thinks blue eyes are caused by an allele of a particular gene ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ericmurphy
                  Posts: 1786
                  Joined: Oct. 2005
                   (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:33    
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  It's entirely possible that the allele for blue eye color didn't even exist until a few thousand years ago
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... which, of course, is erroneous.  Eye color is not caused by a randomly generated allele of a particular gene.  It is controlled by at least 3 gene pairs ... probably more ... < http://www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Once again, Dave, your quote doesn't support your position. Whether it takes one allele to produce blue eyes (as distinct from eye color in general, and the distinction is important) or more than one, you have never demonstrated one way or another. It may be true, it may not be, but in any case, it doesn't change the fact that for all you know, whatever allele or alleles are responsible for blue eyes may not have existed until a few thousand years ago.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The basic mistake Eric (and many ToE advocates) is making is the Mistaken Assumption that Mutations Increase Information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Wrong. This is not a mistake I or anyone else is making, nor is it an assumption I or anyone else is making. A single point mutation at one base pair does not increase information to the genome. However, a gene (or whole genome) duplication does in fact increase information, no matter how you define information. Under both Shannon's and Crick's definition, a gene (or genome) duplication increases information, and if one of those genes subsequently mutates so that it is no longer identical to the original gene, information (by any definition) increases even further.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alleles of particular genes (as I learned) are the result of Random Mutations, and as such, anyone with an ounce of honesty would say that this is DEGENERATIVE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why, Dave? You haven't supported this claim with any evidence. If a random mutation confers an adaptive advantage (and you've already admitted that this can happen), THEN THE CHANGE IS NOT DEGENERATIVE. IT IS ADAPTIVE.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Only a fool would say that copying errors increase the information content of a book, or a software program, or what have you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you saying Shannon is a fool? Because if you have a string of "A"s in a text, and replace random "A"s with other different characters, then you have increased the information content of that text. You don't like it, but you're gonna have to live with it.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   And yet here we have it in black and white ... Eric Murphy claiming that "Alleles Increase Biological Information."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A larger number of alleles for a given locus increases the sum total of the information contained in the populations' genome. Explain to me, in detail, why this is not the case, Dave. Can you do that? No? Didn't think so. Are you claiming that a more genetically diverse population embodies less, or even the same amount, of genetic information than a population that is more homozygous?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Remember also my chart from Kimura showing that the overwhelming majority of mutations (which cause alleles) are "nearly neutral" (i.e. slightly deleterious) ... the ones that can be construed as "beneficial" are infinitesmally small and they can only be considered "beneficial" in a limited, narrowly defined sense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is right out of any text on evolutionary biology, Dave. Unless you can show that it is impossible for any mutation to confer an adaptive advantage, you lose. And you've already admitted that at least one mutation (Milano) is known to confer an adaptive advantage. Therefore, you lose.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So Eric takes this completely upside down view of Biological Information, which by the way, is quite different from Crick's definition of Biological Information (I would say Crick is an authority, wouldn't you?) ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As Crick would explain in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein”
                  [url]http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/DNAPerspectives.pdf [/url]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is not a measure of information, which is what we are talking about. In what way is a genome ever not "precisely determined"? Is a viral or bacterial genome any less "precisely determined" than a much larger eukaryotic genome? So if you're talking Crick's definition of "biological information," it doesn't make much sense to talk about whether mutations increase or decrease the amount of information, does it? Does a mutation make a genome any less "precisely determined" than it was before the mutation? No.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You see, when a nucleotide gets miscopied or deleted, the resulting allele is LESS SPECIFIC.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. It's exactly as specific as it was before. One codon = one amino acid, Dave. While multiple codons can specify for the same amino acid, the opposite is not true. There is no way for more than one amino acid to be coded for by a given codon. A mutation doesn't make a gene any less specific than it was before. You only think so because you think a given gene is "supposed" to code for a particular protein. This is because you're assuming what you're trying to prove: design.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Anyone can see that the English word "yes" has a very specific meaning, right?  If we talk about deleting or substituting a letter, we can make "alleles" of that word, right?  And of course you can make many alleles, many of which are non-sensical such as "ys" and "es" and "ybs" etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Does the word "eyes" have meaning in English, Dave? Yes, it does, doesn't it. Now, would you say the word "eyes" has more, less, or the same amount of information as the word "yes"?


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  None of these "alleles" have a SPECIFIC meaning in the English language and so we have a LOSS OF SPECIFITY, hence a LOSS OF INFORMATION.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, you're wrong. But even if you were right, all you've proven is that most substitutions or additions of a letter or letters to an English word produce nonsensical strings of characters. You haven't proven that all do, and I've given you a counterexample. In other words, you lose.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now you could say "Oh but substitute a "t" for the "s" and now you have meaning."  Yes, but the meaning is changed significantly and you have to look at the context to see how destructive this change in meaning is to the whole set of instructions.  No matter how you slice it, you have a loss of specificity, in this case, the loss of the message "yes" which is highly specific.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But this is exactly how adaptive mutations work! And if you had two brain cells together, you'd see that. Sure, most changes are going to be problematic. But you have to prove that all are, and you cannot do so.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now Eric takes his backwards understanding of Biological Information and tries to support it by saying that White Noise has more information than a Winston Churchill Speech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, no. My intent was to show that you have a wrong, broken misunderstanding of information theory. I accomplished that aim. In spades.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Now it has become clear, after much debate, that what he means is "It takes a bigger channel to communicate White Noise (being communicated as a signal ... why would you do that? ... dunno ... Dr. Tom Schneider was also mystified as to why someone would do that) ... than to communicate a Speech as a signal."  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What has become clear, after much debate, is that Dave has finally admitted(!) that a digital recording of broadband white noise contains more information than a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech. You read it here first.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course this is true but is irrelevant to the discussion of ... What is Biological Information?  ... and Does it Increase or Decrease as a result of Mutations?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I have demonstrated conclusively that mutations can and do increase information in the genome, either by Shannon's definition or Crick's definition.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, Eric, give me your address ... I'll send you a White Noise Generator and a recording of Winston Churchill ... you can play both of them to your heart's content and revel in the fact that you are right ... it takes more bandwidth to transmit that White Noise through your headphone cord than it does to transmit the Churchill Speech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So are you now going to admit, since you've already admitted you were wrong, that my question was far from the dumbest question ever asked on this thread? If not, I have a candidate for the dumbest question on this thread: "Why couldn't Adam have had 500 alleles for the HLA-B gene?"



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... can we please get back to discussing Biological Information?  (which you claim I don't understand?)

                  Thanks!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That is what we're discussing, Dave, and you're still totally, inextricably, irretrievably wrong. No surprises there.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 29 2006,12:54



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson...   What part of paragraphs 2-4 do you disagree with?  Why?  Were not the practices of "Christian" Europe--i.e. the Crusades--well known among "Musselmen"?  Knowing the context of the treaty, how could you possibly disagree with Barton's interpretation?

                  Now I realize that you have not read Chapter 2 of Barton's book
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  My disagreement with Barton is rooted in his fundamental premise.  To that end, you are right that jumping into the Treaty of Tripoli is probably premature. And you are correct also that I haven't read Barton's book and probably won't anytime soon. I have a whole stack of original Founding Fathers and Enlightenment philosophy to read (Founding Grandfathers?).
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  , but let me assure you that he documents the assertion that "the Founders openly described America as a Christian nation" quite thoroughly from original writings of the Founders.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I doubt that, but let's go with it.  And as long as we are, let's get back to John Jay.  You didn't respond to my question from yesterday.  Please do so now.  If you need a reminder, here it is:

                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=40353 >

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I also think you need to re-evaluate your idea of a reliable source for quoting the Founders.  I note the fact you did not recognize Madison's writings as an authoritative source for a Franklin quote.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Indeed Madison's notes from the convention are considered an authoritative source of information regarding the deliberations.  I was in error.  But, I note that you did not acknowledge that Franklin's motion was not passed by the Constitutional Convention.  
                  Why should we consider Franklin's comments authoritative, when they did not result in any official action by the convention?  I am sure I can go to Madison's notes and find contrary comments by other Founders (not now, of course, since I am out of the country).  But, what then? Do we duel with quotes from convention participants or do we work from the official documents prepared by the convention for ratification by the states (and the compelling case for ratification offered in the Federalist Papers?)
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,13:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now it has become clear, after much debate, that what he means is "It takes a bigger channel to communicate White Noise (being communicated as a signal ... why would you do that? ... dunno ... Dr. Tom Schneider was also mystified as to why someone would do that) ... than to communicate a Speech as a signal."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave... Let me get this staight: Are you saying that Schneider was mystified as to why someone would send white noise as a signal? What?

                  Dave. Enough with the tapdancing and dishonesty.
                  YOU KNOW DAMNWELL THAT SCHNEIDER AGREES WITH US. And you know why you know it? Because IT'S IN THE PAGE WITH THE VERY LINKS YOU HAVE GIVEN US. And you know how I know you know it? Because THERE'S NO WAY YOU HAVEN'T READ IT. And you know why? Because YOU HAVE GIVEN US EVERY SINGLE LINK ON THAT PAGE, SAVE THAT ONE- THE ONE WHERE SCHNEIDER CLEARLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY SHARES OUR VIEW- and also, as a bonus, provides an explanation to your question "why would someone transmit white noise".

                  You're trying to hide behind your finger dave. Give it up. It's pathetic.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 29 2006,13:38

                  AntiFact Dave is also refusing to see the huge contradiction in his nonsense about mutations.
                  It is known that mutation occurs.  Dave has acknowleged this.
                  It is known that a mutation which occurs can suffer a subsequent mutation *which reverses the original mutation*.  Dave cannot avoid this fact; it is irrefutable in theory and practice.
                  Dave nonetheless wants to insist that that the gene after the second mutation, when it is identical to the gene prior to the first mutation, *has less information and has degenerated from the gene with which it is identical*.  He seems to want to take the additional step of insisting that the gene after the second mutation is *more different* from the original (with which it is idnetical) than the gene after the first mutation (which is in fact different from the gene before the first mutation and again the gene after the second mutation).

                  afDave -- more tard than Springer, just less power.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,13:38

                  RUSSELL ... HERE IS THE C14 DATA FROM THE LITERATURE AS PROMISED



                  Supposedly very old samples ... many of them supposedly MILLIONS of years old ...

                  They should be "C14 dead" if Long Agers are correct.

                  But they are not.

                  Hmmmmmm .......

                  ****************************************
                  Carlson ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Indeed Madison's notes from the convention are considered an authoritative source of information regarding the deliberations.  I was in error.  But, I note that you did not acknowledge that Franklin's motion was not passed by the Constitutional Convention.  
                  Why should we consider Franklin's comments authoritative, when they did not result in any official action by the convention?  I am sure I can go to Madison's notes and find contrary comments by other Founders (not now, of course, since I am out of the country).  But, what then? Do we duel with quotes from convention participants or do we work from the official documents prepared by the convention for ratification by the states (and the compelling case for ratification offered in the Federalist Papers?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  My quote of Franklin was given simply to demonstrate a clear statement of a prominent Founder--Franklin--who was a "Christian fundy" in the sense that he believed in the General Principles of Christianity and he believed that prayer and other general Christian practices accepted by most "brands of Christians" SHOULD be a part of public life.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, my question to you, Dave, is this.  John Jay tried to pass a motion to ban Catholics from holding public office.  We all know it was never passed. With 200+ years of hindsight, Dave, was Jay right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's hard to judge in hindsight because we are not there in his context.  But I would say that IF (IF IF IF) a candidate for public office has a sworn allegiance to a foreign power (Vatican, Secret Society, what have you) which cannot be subordinated to his oath to defend the US Constitution, then yes, he should be barred from federal office.

                  *******************************

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, a gene (or whole genome) duplication does in fact increase information, no matter how you define information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So I can go make Xerox copy of a page and have twice as much information?

                  Maybe you could apply this principle commercially and make a public announcement to software authors that they can now become twice as rich simply by selling everyone TWO COPIES of their work!

                  Or maybe 3 or 4 copies!  :-)

                  *******************************

                  Faid ... why do you--a supposedly smart doctor--like to climb out on these branches with people who make such ignorant claims?  Only to have them sawn off?  That makes 2 for you ... Portuguese and Biological Info.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 29 2006,13:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION?

                  1) We can say that it is DEGENERATING.  On what authority?  Virtually every investigator ... Kimura, Neel, Kondrashov, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley and Crow ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Biological information is degenerating? Can you show us the exact quotes where your authority say that?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  2) The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What a load of cr*p. So, when you have a mutation from A to B then another from B to A, both reduced information? Anyway, all this blithering on information has nothing to do with evolutionary biology and your hypothesis.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  3) We can say that Information Content in genomes was GREATER in the past.  This is a logical inference from (1) and (2)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Since (1) and (2) are completely illogical, so is the conclusion.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, I would ask ... what is the point of MEASURING biological information?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There's not point. Who brought the topic of information again?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And you don't need to be able to measure Biological Information to determine the answer.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Tell that to Dembski.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 29 2006,13:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) We can say that [biological information] is DEGENERATING.  On what authority?  Virtually every investigator ... Kimura, Neel, Kondrashov, Nachman, Crowell, Walker, Keightley and Crow ... to name a few cited by Sanford.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.  It's not enough to say some creationist (even if he used to be a functional scientist) says that's the conclusion or opinion of any investigator, let alone "every" investigator. You need to actually read that authority, in context, understand what they're talking about, and cite the source that leads you to this highly unlikely claim.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure, you can "say" anything you like. Especially if you're using terms like "increase" and "decrease" on a quantity you refuse to quantify.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sure they can. Watch:
                  "Before the mutations in question, the two species in question (one Flavobacterium, one Pseudomonas) were not capable of digesting the nylon precursors. Mutations resulted in the production of theretofore nonexistent enzymes which catalyze the breakdown of the molecules in question."

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What makes that "the truth"? Your saying so?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  News flash for davy: no gene can be described as "beneficial" without defining a context. The "narrowness" of the definition for when apo-AIM or the "nylonase" genes is beneficial is no different than for any other gene you care to mention.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) We can say that Information Content in genomes was GREATER in the past.  This is a logical inference from (1) and (2)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, since (1) and (2) both fail miserably, we can infer exactly nothing.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for MEASURING it and determining relative amounts, this is a different matter.  As I have mentioned before, this has always been intuitive up until Dembski and Behe's attempts at quantifying it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ha! Who told you that? First of all, I'm not aware of anything Behe has written that even pretends to quantify biological information. Are you? Dembski likes to write in mathematical jargon, but if you look at the musings of Crick and his contemporaries in the 1950's, wherein they contemplate how much nucleotide information would be required per unit specification of protein sequence, I don't think Dembski has added to that one whit. Do you? Or, more to the point, can you cite anything to change my mind?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,13:47

                  Shirley...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AntiFact Dave is also refusing to see the huge contradiction in his nonsense about mutations.
                  It is known that mutation occurs.  Dave has acknowleged this.
                  It is known that a mutation which occurs can suffer a subsequent mutation *which reverses the original mutation*.  Dave cannot avoid this fact; it is irrefutable in theory and practice.
                  Dave nonetheless wants to insist that that the gene after the second mutation, when it is identical to the gene prior to the first mutation, *has less information and has degenerated from the gene with which it is identical*.  He seems to want to take the additional step of insisting that the gene after the second mutation is *more different* from the original (with which it is idnetical) than the gene after the first mutation (which is in fact different from the gene before the first mutation and again the gene after the second mutation).

                  afDave -- more tard than Springer, just less power.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

                  You do work in the real world, don't you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,13:57

                  Hey, Faid, give credit where credit is due. Dave did finally admit he was wrong about the Winston Churchill speech (that he claims it doesn't matter that he was wrong doesn't help him much). Given how seldom Dave ever admits he was wrong (and he still hasn't admitted his Portuguese moment—or was it a "Portuguese month?—was an example of his being wrong), he should definitely get a pat on the back when he does.

                  Of course, he still won't admit my question wasn't the dumbest question of all time, but I wouldn't want him to choke on his own tongue or anything.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 29 2006,14:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:47)
                  Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

                  You do work in the real world, don't you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Have you heard of reverse mutations or "homoplasy" dude? Of course not. If you had, you wouldn't write such nonsense.
                  Posted by: Ved on Nov. 29 2006,14:03

                  Does it take more information to describe the rusty truck or the same truck when it was new?

                  The truck is degenerating, it must be losing information, right?  :p
                  Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 29 2006,14:09

                  Good grief, is this still going on?

                  Henry
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,14:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:38)
                  RUSSELL ... HERE IS THE C14 DATA FROM THE LITERATURE AS PROMISED

                  Supposedly very old samples ... many of them supposedly MILLIONS of years old ...

                  They should be "C14 dead" if Long Agers are correct.

                  But they are not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Interesting scan, Dave. Russell specifically asked for data on diamonds. What data is missing from your table? Actually, a lot more data than that is missing. I see a material, a quantity, and a cite to research. Have you checked all those cites to make sure they actually support the claims being made? No? Didn't think so.

                  And you still won't touch the biggest problem you have here: the extensive concordance C14 dating has with multiple (over 40) independent dating methods, that all match precisely. Showing why one (or even all) of these methods are unreliable still won't explain how they're all wrong in exactly the same way.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My quote of Franklin was given simply to demonstrate a clear statement of a prominent Founder--Franklin--who was a "Christian fundy" in the sense that he believed in the General Principles of Christianity and he believed that prayer and other general Christian practices accepted by most "brands of Christians" SHOULD be a part of public life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So this is your new definition of "Christian Fundy," Dave? Anyone who believes in the general principles of Christianity is now a "Christian Fundy"? My father would therefore be a "Christian Fundy," and he's Catholic! You don't even seem to believe Catholics are Christians, let along "Christian Fundies."

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, a gene (or whole genome) duplication does in fact increase information, no matter how you define information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So I can go make Xerox copy of a page and have twice as much information?

                  Maybe you could apply this principle commercially and make a public announcement to software authors that they can now become twice as rich simply by selling everyone TWO COPIES of their work!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, if you make a copy of the instructions for baking a cake, and then follow the instructions, first for baking a cake from the original instructions, and then follow them again using the copy of the original instructions, do you get one cake, or two? Now, if the copy has a transcription error in it (maybe it doubles the quantities for all the ingredients), are you still going to maintain that you have the same amount of information you started with? Yes? Well, color me surprised.

                  Genetic information doesn't exist in a vacuum, Dave. It actually does stuff. If two slightly different copies of a gene result in two slightly different proteins, both of which are used by the organism, are you still going to maintain that information hasn't increased? Yes? Well, I'm even more surprised.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 29 2006,14:27

                  Of course I do, antiFactDave -- the real world is the only world there is.  That's what 'real' means, you know -- or, apparently, do not know.

                  And of course I have real-world examples.
                  Why on earth, though, would I want to do your research for you.  

                  You have acknowleged that mutations occur, yes?
                  enter answer here:

                  You have not refuted the notion, nor presented any evidence whatsoever in support of the notion, that a subsequent mutation cannot reverse a prior mutation, yes?
                  enter answer here [note that any answer other than 'yes' requires a permalink to what you said and when, your all-but-patented "I've already addressed that point and we've moved on" shall count as an admission of defeat, because I assure you you have not.]:

                  So, what now for your absurd and illogical notion that a mutation is always inherently deleterious and always represents a loss of information?
                  enter answer here:


                  I defy you to come up with any meaning of 'information' which allows you to hold to the implications of your plain and oft-repeated assertion that mutations are always a loss of information.
                  enter attempt at such a defintion here:


                  I prophesy that there shall be no answers entered and no support directly given to these questions.
                  And we all know that prophesy somehow cannot ever be challenged or in error, right?

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 29 2006,14:37

                  Holy Christ on a stick Dave -

                  It's not bad enough you're a proven liar, and an egotistical blowhard, and as stupid as a sack of doorknobs, but now you're getting BORING.

                  This "there's no new information" battle is over.  YOU LOST.  You got the sh*t beat out of you, had it stuffed back down your throat, then had it beaten out of you again.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave:) Argy, the best I have is a Definition of Biological Information, which as I have said, comes from Crick ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   "By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As for MEASURING it and determining relative amounts, this is a different matter.  As I have mentioned before, this has always been intuitive up until Dembski and Behe's attempts at quantifying it.  I watch with interest to see what they will come up with.  To those who would say "See ... you don't even have a rigorous, mathematical means of detecting biological information ... how then can you talk about it and say that it is decreasing whenever mutations occurs?"

                  To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

                  Didn't think so.  And yet only a fool would say that it has not deteriorated.  Hmmm ... makes you think now, doesn't it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, it's a proven fact that natural processes can cause a genome sequence to change from generation to generation - sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, sometimes the same size but a different sequence.  The changed genotypes when expressed produce changed phenotypes. By your own f*ckin' definition when the genome sequence has gotten larger, it takes a larger value to describe the precise sequence (the natural log of the number of base pairs) and it has increased information.

                  In your asinine truck example (asinine because trucks don't reproduce with variation), your rusty truck is an example of a single individual phenotype degrading, not a genotype.  Did the blueprints for the 1972 pickup truck degrade?  Also, changes to the genome that are relevant to evolution only occur between successive generations.  Are the blueprints for a 1972 truck the same as a 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, or 2002  model?  Does the 2002 blueprint represent a gain or loss of information over the 1972 model?  My 2002 truck has fuel injection instead of a carb, and airbags, and anti-lock brakes.  Is that a gain or loss of information?

                  Davie, do you ever think before you open your mouth?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 29 2006,14:44

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 29 2006,14:22)
                  If two slightly different copies of a gene result in two slightly different proteins, both of which are used by the organism, are you still going to maintain that information hasn't increased? Yes? Well, I'm even more surprised.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, haven't you understood? The information was already there <insert link to a wiki page about phenotypic plasticity>.

                  I declare victory. :-)
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 29 2006,15:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My quote of Franklin was given simply to demonstrate a clear statement of a prominent Founder--Franklin--who was a "Christian fundy" in the sense that he believed in the General Principles of Christianity and he believed that prayer and other general Christian practices accepted by most "brands of Christians" SHOULD be a part of public life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think we have a definitional issue that we need to clear up here first.  How do you define Christian?  Above you seem to imply it is acceptance of the general principles.  Is that it, or does being a Christian require the acceptance of the divinity of Christ?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, my question to you, Dave, is this.  John Jay tried to pass a motion to ban Catholics from holding public office.  We all know it was never passed. With 200+ years of hindsight, Dave, was Jay right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's hard to judge in hindsight because we are not there in his context.  But I would say that IF (IF IF IF) a candidate for public office has a sworn allegiance to a foreign power (Vatican, Secret Society, what have you) which cannot be subordinated to his oath to defend the US Constitution, then yes, he should be barred from federal office.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, that is all well and good, and you may be surprised for me to say I agree. But, Dave, you didn't answer the question.  I was not asking about any particular candidates fitness for office.  I was asking whether you thought Jay was right about banning all Catholics, regardless of their allegiances, from holding public offices.

                  Side question:  Do you consider Skull and Bones a secret society?  ;)
                  Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 29 2006,15:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:38)
                  RUSSELL ... HERE IS THE C14 DATA FROM THE LITERATURE AS PROMISED



                  Supposedly very old samples ... many of them supposedly MILLIONS of years old ...

                  They should be "C14 dead" if Long Agers are correct.

                  But they are not.

                  Hmmmmmm .......


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, this just showcases AFDave's general cluelessness of science in general, and radiocarbon dating in particular.  No scientist would ever use an analytical technique without considering sources of error, in this case ASSuming that there is no reason to consider other sources of C-14 such as contamination.

                  For example, from one of the papers near the top of AFDaves table:

                  Title: Carbonate C-14 background: Does it have multiple personalities?
                  Author(s): Nadeau MJ, Grootes PM, Voelker A, Bruhn F, Duhr A, Oriwall A
                  Source: RADIOCARBON 43 (2A): 169-176 Part 1, 2001
                  Document Type: Article
                  Language: English
                  Cited References: 8      Times Cited: 7      Find Related Records Information
                  Abstract: Measurements of the radiocarbon concentration of several carbonate background materials, either mineral (IAEA C1 Carrara marble and Icelandic double spar) or biogenic (foraminifera and molluscs), show that the apparent ages of diverse materials can be quite different. Using 0.07 pMC obtained from mineral samples as a processing blank, the results from foraminifera and mollusc background samples, varying from 0.12 to 0.58 pMC (54.0-41.4 ka), show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of the contamination. In light of these results, the use of mineral background material in the evaluation of the age of older unknown samples of biogenic carbonate (>30 ka) proves inadequate. The use of background samples of the same species and provenance as the unknown samples is essential, and if such material is unavailable, generic biogenic samples such as mixed foraminifera samples should be used. The description of our new modular carbonate sample preparation system is also introduced.

                  In other words, different species in the  same sample will have different amount of C-14.  Now why would that be, AFDave?  If they were the same "young" age, shouldn't they have the same C-14 content?
                  Posted by: Drew Headley on Nov. 29 2006,15:32

                  In light of the shift towards talking about beneficial mutations, this recent paper in nature genetics might be interesting.

                  This paper actually tracts the mutations and fitness of bacterial colonies in a novel growth medium.

                  < http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n12/full/ng1906.html >
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 29 2006,15:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

                  You do work in the real world, don't you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Google or wiki "Ames Test"
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,15:40

                  Eric, I would be willing to give credit to dave, if I wasn't sure he would come back to this,maybe in a month from now, in another "summary", saying how he schooled us on Shannon information. I'm sure he has that planned already in his devious little mind.

                  Also, I'm pretty sure that dave knew that he was wrong even as he was arguing. Like I said, he gave us all those links from < Schneider's page, > except one: A link where Schneider clearly and without doubt agrees with what we told him. And there's NO chance he hadn't read it. It would be the first place anyone who had questions about this issue, and was looking for answers, would click.

                  You know what I'm talking about, right dave?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 29 2006,15:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  RUSSELL ... HERE IS THE C14 DATA FROM THE LITERATURE AS PROMISED
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You're kidding, right?

                  Let's review.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell, Nov.25] The point is that coal or diamond that was formed more than 50-100,000 years ago should not still contain a detectable 14C/12C ratio, but our creationist friends say that it does. Now, it's not too difficult to imagine that coal might be contaminated with diffusible gaseous or liquid carbon of more recent vintage. It's harder - at least for me - to picture "younger" carbon penetrating a diamond matrix. So I'm wondering:

                  Well, first, of course, I'm wondering if these data even exist outside of the creationist parallel universe. Can I find them in sources that are more, shall we say, scrupulous about transparency, reproducibility, objective peer review?

                  But assuming - as I do for the meantime - that there are levels of 14C in these materials significantly and reproducibly above the near-zero levels you would expect from millions-years-old carbon, were attempts made (by, say, mass spectrometry or some such technique) to distinguish between 14C in relatively volatile/mobile forms - e.g. CO, CO2, hydrocarbons - and 14C in the ancient matrix - i.e. the crystalline structure of diamond or the graphite-like component of coal?

                  Obviously, I don't know. But my predictions, based on the premise of millions-years-old origins, is that the "crystalline" carbon - diamond or graphite - would be essentially 14C-free; that the 14C content would be present in the mobile, diffusible component; that the 14-C content of relatively impure grades of coal, like lignite, would be higher than less porous grades like anthracite, and that diamond should be the most 14C-free - particularly if care is taken to separate the crystalline component from relatively porous impurities.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And - if it's not too much trouble - could you supply "real-world"* references to the 14C in diamond and coal data?

                  *i.e. available without going through creationist organizations and publications
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave] Yes, there are many references in the literature for the detectable levels of C14 in coal and diamonds.  I do not have my copy of the RATE Book with me which has the citations ... I will supply you some references Monday.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell]Looking forward to it!
                  Now, have you checked out these references? Any of them? Or are you just trusting that, if your RATE authors gave a citation, it must deal effectively with the issue at hand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Now, how does your response address anything I asked for? You've scanned a page from a creationist source. How will I go about checking any of these? (Did you?) I specifically asked for real-world references, as opposed to parallel creationist universe information. If Baumgardner is talking about anything in the real world those names and dates should indicate publications that real-world geologists publish in. But how can I tell from a scanned page from the very source whose reliability is the question?

                  Did you get my point about tests for whether or not the 14C is part of the crystalline matrix? Did you understand why, for that reason, the diamond data is more interesting than the less pure forms? Is there any diamond data in there? Not that I can see.

                  Now the reason I'm pursuing this is that you keep pretending that the chromosome fusion story is the only one where AiG screwed up. I, on the other hand, suspect that virtually every one of their stories will similarly dissolve under scrutiny. So let's just see how this one pans out. So far, you're not doing too well.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,15:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ... why do you--a supposedly smart doctor--like to climb out on these branches with people who make such ignorant claims?  Only to have them sawn off?  That makes 2 for you ... Portuguese and Biological Info.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, why do you--a supposedly mature and intelligent person-- resort to such childish behavior, instead of directly addressing my questions -something I have been waiting for since June? Only to make your ignorance and immaturity shine, when you get served again, and quickly run away -as you will surely do once more now?

                  Do you think you're fooling anyone? When people ask you the same things again and again and again, and, instead of replying, you shamelessly deny reality and babble away, as if your "arguments" were never demolished, do you think there is even one person here who doesn't see how desperate you are?


                  I shall be eagerly waiting for the moment you'll finally gather the courage to address EVEN ONE of my questions, instead of behaving like some immature brat that hates being wrong and puts his hands to his ears, shouting "NAH NAH NAH".

                  In the meantime, every void claim you make of having "won" the Portuguese issue (or the Schneider/Shannon issue, or everything else you have run away from), shall be met with the mockery and ridicule it deserves.

                  It's not our fault that you sawed off the wrong end of the branch again, Yosemite Sam. :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 29 2006,16:30

                  DimDave:

                  Vulgar Latin developed differently in the various provinces of the Roman Empire, thus gradually giving rise to modern French , Italian, Spanish , Portuguese, Romanian , Catalan and Romansh . Although the official language, in all of these areas, was Latin, Vulgar Latin was what was popularly spoken until the new localized forms diverged sufficiently from Latin to emerge as separate standard languages. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin >


                  Let me be very clear here, Dave. The only claim you have to "Portuguese = Spanish +French + other factors"  is phonetics.
                  The phonetic relationship between Portuguese and French, as I have said in another post...comes from a common Celtic source.
                  The very name "Galicia" comes from the same roots as "Gaul" (as does the "Galatians" of the NT, based in modern Turkey-- they were CELTS).

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....ecia%29 >
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Gallaecia >
                  < http://arkeotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm >

                  Edwin B. Williams (1968)  From Latin to Portuguese. Historical Phonology and Morphology of the Portuguese Language. U. of Pennsylvania Press.
                  Thomas D. Cravens (2002). Comparative historical dialectology: Italo-Romance clues to Ibero-Romance sound change. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 231.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pp. xi+163.
                  Andre Martinet (1952) Celtic Lenition and Western Romance Consonants.
                  Language, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1952), pp. 192-217
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Gallaecia >

                  Spanish and Portuguese and French are all Latinate languages. In Iberia, and Gaul, the Celts had an influence on phonology long before Fench and Spanish and Portuguese BECAME LANGUAGES.

                  THUS THE PHONETIC SIMILARITY IS DUE TO CELTISH INFLUENCE, NOT FRENCH KNIGHTS, IDIOT.
                  ALL THE ABOVE SOURCES AGREE WITH THIS.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 29 2006,16:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,12:43)
                  Argy, the best I have is a Definition of Biological Information, which as I have said, comes from Crick ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?

                  If this is the case, how do you determine whether one allele is degenerate from another if they both provide an equivelent function?  Do you count carbon atoms?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for MEASURING it and determining relative amounts, this is a different matter.  As I have mentioned before, this has always been intuitive up until Dembski and Behe's attempts at quantifying it.  I watch with interest to see what they will come up with.  To those who would say "See ... you don't even have a rigorous, mathematical means of detecting biological information ... how then can you talk about it and say that it is decreasing whenever mutations occurs?"

                  To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

                  Didn't think so.  And yet only a fool would say that it has not deteriorated.  Hmmm ... makes you think now, doesn't it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3.  However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery.  I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".

                  Where have Dembski or Behe provided an attempt to MEASURE Biologic Information?  Are you implying CSI here?  Or maybe the EF?

                  Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.

                  Again Dave you conflate terms and practice semantic gymnastics.  Your "definition of Biologic Information" is wholly lacking a key ingredient....
                  ...the actual definition...

                  Try again.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 29 2006,16:56

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 29 2006,13:51)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   And yet here we have it in black and white ... Eric Murphy claiming that "Alleles Increase Biological Information."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A larger number of alleles for a given locus increases the sum total of the information contained in the populations' genome. Explain to me, in detail, why this is not the case, Dave. Can you do that? No? Didn't think so. Are you claiming that a more genetically diverse population embodies less, or even the same amount, of genetic information than a population that is more homozygous?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric,
                  I think there is one point in this discussion that needs clarification.

                  In most of the discussion both Dave and others are discussing point mutations on a single genome and how alleles are created/destroyed/function/etc...  However, every once in a while someone makes the above statement relating to the population.  The two subjects are seperate and distinct because when we talk about information we need to constrain the set (or so I'm contending right now, please correct me if I'm wrong).  If we move from individuals to populations then we need to restate the premise that we're trying to discuss.

                  I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,16:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:38)
                  *******************************

                  Faid ... why do you--a supposedly smart doctor--like to climb out on these branches with people who make such ignorant claims?  Only to have them sawn off?  That makes 2 for you ... Portuguese and Biological Info.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, once again, if you think you've "won" either of these arguments, I invite you to post the names of at least one person for each of them who agrees that you've "won."

                  Surely that can't be so difficult.

                  And while you're at it, if you think you've "won" your "Portuguese moment," why don't you prove it by providing a quote from an actual credentialed linguist who actually agrees with you that Portuguese is somehow a "mixture" of French and Spanish (plus, presumably, other languages, not just "factors"; a language cannot contain "factors"). If you're correct, it shouldn't be too hard to find such a quote. Since the Romance languages are some of the most studied and well-known languages, it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of information on their relationships.

                  Have at it, Man!
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 29 2006,17:08

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hey, Faid, give credit where credit is due. Dave did finally admit he was wrong about the Winston Churchill speech (that he claims it doesn't matter that he was wrong doesn't help him much).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I did?  No.  Quit lying Eric.

                  Shirley...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And of course I have real-world examples.
                  Why on earth, though, would I want to do your research for you.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Didn't think you did.  Thanks for playing! :-)

                  OA ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's not bad enough you're a proven liar, and an egotistical blowhard, and as stupid as a sack of doorknobs, but now you're getting BORING.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Then go away.  No one is forcing you to stay.

                  OA ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Did the blueprints for the 1972 pickup truck degrade?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, actually, they have.  The paper copies are quite degraded now.  You will come back and say that new copies can be made from the software which stored the blueprints originally.  Fair enough, but note that these are copies reproduced FROM THE ORIGINAL.  With biological systems, this does not happen because the parent eventually dies.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, changes to the genome that are relevant to evolution only occur between successive generations.  Are the blueprints for a 1972 truck the same as a 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, or 2002  model?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. The INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created new ones for those years.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Does the 2002 blueprint represent a gain or loss of information over the 1972 model?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would say a gain, but only because an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created it.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My 2002 truck has fuel injection instead of a carb, and airbags, and anti-lock brakes.  Is that a gain or loss of information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  For the same reason.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davie, do you ever think before you open your mouth?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, except when eating steaks and fudge.  :-)  How about you?

                  Carlson...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was asking whether you thought Jay was right about banning all Catholics, regardless of their allegiances, from holding public offices.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I cannot judge his specific case because I do not know all the facts.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Side question:  Do you consider Skull and Bones a secret society?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I do.


                  Tracy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Abstract: Measurements of the radiocarbon concentration of several carbonate background materials, either mineral (IAEA C1 Carrara marble and Icelandic double spar) or biogenic (foraminifera and molluscs), show that the apparent ages of diverse materials can be quite different. Using 0.07 pMC obtained from mineral samples as a processing blank, the results from foraminifera and mollusc background samples, varying from 0.12 to 0.58 pMC (54.0-41.4 ka), show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of the contamination. In light of these results, the use of mineral background material in the evaluation of the age of older unknown samples of biogenic carbonate (>30 ka) proves inadequate. The use of background samples of the same species and provenance as the unknown samples is essential, and if such material is unavailable, generic biogenic samples such as mixed foraminifera samples should be used. The description of our new modular carbonate sample preparation system is also introduced.

                  In other words, different species in the  same sample will have different amount of C-14.  Now why would that be, AFDave?  If they were the same "young" age, shouldn't they have the same C-14 content?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice that they call this strange too high C14 "contamination".  this is precisely my point.  They are committed to Deep Time, yet they see this extra C14 and have to explain it somehow.  What are they to do but ASSUME it is "contamination?"

                  Faid ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You know what I'm talking about, right dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No I don't know which link you're talking about, but Schneider doesn't help your case.  I invoked Schneider simply because it was obvious that Eric had a massive misunderstanding of reality and I thought Schneider had identified his problem.  Turns out it was a different misunderstanding than the one Schneider identified.  If you keep up your nonsense, I'll just post the truth again and you'll continue to discredit yourself every time I do.

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ames test
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                  The Ames test is a biological assay to assess the mutagenic potential of chemical compounds. As cancer is often linked to DNA damage the test also serves as a quick assay to estimate the carcinogenic potential of a compound as the standard tests for carcinogenicity done on rodents take years to complete and are expensive to do. The procedure is described in a series of papers from the early 1970s by Bruce Ames and his group at the University of California, Berkeley.

                  [edit] General procedure

                  In the test several strains of Salmonella typhimurium that carry mutations in genes involved in histidine synthesis are used. The bacteria require histidine for growth. The variable being tested is the mutagen's ability to cause a reversion to growth on a histidine-free medium. The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]

                  The bacteria are spread on a histidine-free agar plate in the middle of which the mutagen to be tested is added. The plates are then incubated for 48 hours. The mutagenicity of a substance is proportional to the number of colonies observed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ok.  So what is my "creation-diseased" mind supposed to glean from this that will finally set me straight?

                  Russell-- I was wrong about C14 data in diamonds in the general literature.  There may be some ... I don't know.  You are right that there is none in the RATE chart I posted.  If you would like to inquire of the labs used by RATE for their c14 in diamonds testing, I'll be happy to give you that so you can verify the RATE Team's data.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,17:22

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 29 2006,16:56)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 29 2006,13:51)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   And yet here we have it in black and white ... Eric Murphy claiming that "Alleles Increase Biological Information."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A larger number of alleles for a given locus increases the sum total of the information contained in the populations' genome. Explain to me, in detail, why this is not the case, Dave. Can you do that? No? Didn't think so. Are you claiming that a more genetically diverse population embodies less, or even the same amount, of genetic information than a population that is more homozygous?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric,
                  I think there is one point in this discussion that needs clarification.

                  In most of the discussion both Dave and others are discussing point mutations on a single genome and how alleles are created/destroyed/function/etc...  However, every once in a while someone makes the above statement relating to the population.  The two subjects are seperate and distinct because when we talk about information we need to constrain the set (or so I'm contending right now, please correct me if I'm wrong).  If we move from individuals to populations then we need to restate the premise that we're trying to discuss.

                  I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.

                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, there's a lot of confusion here, in large part because of whom we're trying to discuss this with, i.e., Dave.

                  If we restrict ourselves exclusively to individuals, for the moment, then the only two possibilities for a given gene are either homozygosity or heterozygosity. I'm not positive about this, but I'm assuming that in most cases, any given alleles for a given gene are the same length. Whether those two alleles have the same amount of Shannon information or different amounts is dependent on the redundancy (not functional redundancy) in the actual sequence. The amount of "Crick information" is exactly the same, since any two alleles are equally specific in that they both code for one protein.

                  Dave has yet to define a method for determining the measure of "Crick information" for a given genome, so he cannot say whether a mutation increases, decreases, or leaves unchanged the amount of "Crick information." This follows logically.

                  Whether a point mutation increases Shannon information, of course, is dependent on exactly how that mutation works into the rest of the genome, and one cannot say in general whether a mutation would increase or decrease Shannon information. One can only speak of specific mutations to specific genes, and of course Dave hasn't done that. If Dave is talking about "Crick information," then a point mutation will have no effect whatsoever on the amount of "Crick information," because the genome post-mutation is exactly as specific as it was before the mutation. There is no ambiguity going from codon to amino acid, and therefore there is no way for the genome to become less "specific."

                  Dave claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that a gene duplication and subsequent mutation leading to novel function cannot increase the information content of the genome. This is where he's most obviously wrong.

                  He also makes the claim that additional alleles cannot add information to the genome, and this claim really only makes sense in the context of population genetics. It's still wrong, but at least it's not non-sensical, in the context of population genetics.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 29 2006,17:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ok.  So what is my "creation-diseased" mind supposed to glean from this that will finally set me straight?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.

                  And I'm one post late on my measure of degradation of your friend's truck.

                  Here's one (I'll bet you can think of many more): Square inches of rust.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 29 2006,17:35

                  Gosh...And Dave fails to even mention my post demolishing the last vestiges of his credibility in regard to "Portuguese = Spanish+French."

                  The only thing you had was phonetics, DimDave, and I'm quite happy to show that you were wrong about that, too. I have other citations that all deal with this issue, so I'd say you're better off just NOT mentioning it again, stupid.

                  The first step in dealing with your ego-driven compensation for your ignorance...is in admitting it, Davey-boy.

                  Now, back up on the table and dance for me, sweetcheeks.

                  You may address me as "master" now, but later on, maybe I'll let you call me "daddy."   ;)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,17:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
                  Eric ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hey, Faid, give credit where credit is due. Dave did finally admit he was wrong about the Winston Churchill speech (that he claims it doesn't matter that he was wrong doesn't help him much).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I did?  No.  Quit lying Eric.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, really? Then what did you mean by this:

                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,08:12)
                  Now it has become clear, after much debate, that what he means is "It takes a bigger channel to communicate White Noise (being communicated as a signal ... why would you do that? ... dunno ... Dr. Tom Schneider was also mystified as to why someone would do that) ... than to communicate a Speech as a signal."  

                  Of course this is true but is irrelevant to the discussion of ... What is Biological Information?  ... and Does it Increase or Decrease as a result of Mutations?

                  So, Eric, give me your address ... I'll send you a White Noise Generator and a recording of Winston Churchill ... you can play both of them to your heart's content and revel in the fact that you are right ... it takes more bandwidth to transmit that White Noise through your headphone cord than it does to transmit the Churchill Speech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  My emphasis, Dave. You have now admitted, for everyone to see, that you admit you were wrong in claiming that a digital recording of a Winston Churchill speech contains more Shannon information than a digital recording of broadband white noise. "More bandwidth" means "more Shannon information." As an electrical engineer, I have to assume you know this.

                  Even when Dave's admitted he was wrong, he can't admit he admitted he was wrong.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,17:37



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...

                  No I don't know which link you're talking about, but Schneider doesn't help your case.  I invoked Schneider simply because it was obvious that Eric had a massive misunderstanding of reality and I thought Schneider had identified his problem.  Turns out it was a different misunderstanding than the one Schneider identified.  If you keep up your nonsense, I'll just post the truth again and you'll continue to discredit yourself every time I do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Projection won't help you here, dave. Neither will playing dumb.

                  One last chance, dave. I'll ask you one more time, and see if now, in your intelectual "deathbed", you finally have the guts to face the truth. The truth you already know.

                  Do you think that a message consisting of white noise cannot have more info than one consisting of a speech, according to Shannon's theory? Do you think Schneider agrees with you?

                  Have you got what it takes?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 29 2006,17:57

                  Eric,
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Even when Dave's admitted he was wrong, he can't admit he admitted he was wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  :D

                  Actually, he had almost done the same thing, more or less, with the Portuguese issue, but his almighty ego quickly took over:

                  Dave gets plastered-
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20425 >

                  Dave's hurt pride makes him fight back-
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20429 >

                  And, of course, gets challenged immediately-
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=20433 >

                  Guess what dave's response to that was? Sorry, no more bets on "he ran away"- I gots to make me a profit you see.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 29 2006,18:01

                  Oh, so very cute antiFactDave.
                  As others have pointed out, most people grow out of this long before leaving grade school.
                  I am not playing, but you certainly appear to be.  Whatever it is you're doing, it isn't working.  Not in any sense of the term.
                  So, no answers to my questions?
                  No response to the total logical demoliton of your claims?
                  I didn't think so.
                  So facts have no impact on you, logic has no impact on you, the Bible has no impact on you (or you wouldn't be a johnny-come-lately bibliolator), there's nothing left.
                  Thaks for again proving that you are dishonest scum.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 29 2006,18:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You know what I'm talking about, right dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No I don't know which link you're talking about, but Schneider doesn't help your case.  I invoked Schneider simply because it was obvious that Eric had a massive misunderstanding of reality and I thought Schneider had identified his problem.  Turns out it was a different misunderstanding than the one Schneider identified.  If you keep up your nonsense, I'll just post the truth again and you'll continue to discredit yourself every time I do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, even after you've admitted in print that you were wrong, you still persist in claiming you were right.

                  I don't have any "massive misunderstanding," Dave, and neither do you. We both understand that a digital recording of broadband white noise contains more information than a digital recording of a Churchill speech of the same length. You can't "post the truth" again; I < already have. >

                  Your empty threats are truly pathetic, Dave. The only one being discredited here is you.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 29 2006,18:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave) Then go away.  No one is forcing you to stay.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No one is forcing you to be a lying butthole Dave, but yet you keep doing it.  

                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   (OA) Did the blueprints for the 1972 pickup truck degrade?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (AFDave)Yes, actually, they have.  The paper copies are quite degraded now.  You will come back and say that new copies can be made from the software which stored the blueprints originally.  Fair enough, but note that these are copies reproduced FROM THE ORIGINAL.  With biological systems, this does not happen because the parent eventually dies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Did the information in the blueprints degrade? BTW, in biological systems every genetic copy is created (with random changes) from the original that was its immediate predecessors (parents).  That is the only 'original' that is of any concern.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   (OA)Does the 2002 blueprint represent a gain or loss of information over the 1972 model?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (AFDave)I would say a gain, but only because an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you say an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER can create new information by copying and changing an existing plan - OK. That means you admit that it is possible for an imperfectly created copy to GAIN INFORMATION that the original didn’t have.  But we know for a fact that in genetics that there are NATURAL OCCURING PROCESSES that create new genome sequences and new phenotype by impefectly copying and changing an existing plan.

                  What prevents natural occurring processes from making the exact same changes that the ‘designer’ can?  And vice versa?  

                  Looks like you just stuck your foot in your mouth again Dave.  Either the ‘designer’ and natural processes can each create new information, or they each can’t.  You can’t have it both ways Dave.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 29 2006,18:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was wrong about C14 data in diamonds in the general literature.  There may be some ... I don't know.  You are right that there is none in the RATE chart I posted.  If you would like to inquire of the labs used by RATE for their c14 in diamonds testing, I'll be happy to give you that so you can verify the RATE Team's data.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  QED

                  I want you to note that the unreflective confidence with which you have been touting this "evidence" for months was entirely unwarranted. Does that give you pause, at all? Does it make you wonder, just for a second, about all that other "evidence" that you're so unreflectively confident of? Are you at all embarrassed?

                  You should be.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 29 2006,19:53

                  So how is your church audit going AFD?

                  I'll bet they can't get anything past you .....eh?

                  Did you make sure the auditors were tame?

                  What do you tell them when they dig up the bodies, so to speak?

                  Your skillful denial and obfuscation makes the Mafia look like a bunch amateurs.

                  Have you personally benefited from any of the huge checks you pastor has written for himself?

                  Or are you doing it for free?

                  Don't worry AFD I don't expect an honest answer.

                  It's a pity there isn't someone in your church who won't take you and your cohorts on.

                  How many years would you get for embezzlement or assisting corruption?

                  Then AFD you would find like minded thinkers, everyone in jail is innocent by their own account.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 29 2006,20:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, changes to the genome that are relevant to evolution only occur between successive generations.  Are the blueprints for a 1972 truck the same as a 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, or 2002  model?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. The INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created new ones for those years.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Does the 2002 blueprint represent a gain or loss of information over the 1972 model?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would say a gain, but only because an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created it.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My 2002 truck has fuel injection instead of a carb, and airbags, and anti-lock brakes.  Is that a gain or loss of information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  For the same reason.  [quote]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Huh. Too bad Henry Ford didn't front-load the first automobile so that it would "degrade" or "degenerate" into all of today's advanced models without needing to gain information, eh? After all, that's a plausible scenario for an intelligent designer, right? That's what happened in the evolution of the world's biodiversity, right?

                  Your analogies stink, Dave.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 29 2006,21:12

                  Dave has now descended beneath moron.

                  Sub-moron?

                  What will be below that?

                  Infra-moron?

                  How LOW can he go, in his onward and downward limbo?

                  That's it, Dave, shake that thing!  Do the hypothesis hustle!

                  The only information around here that's degenerating is whatever whacked-out code specifies Dave-ness.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 29 2006,22:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Carlson...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was asking whether you thought Jay was right about banning all Catholics, regardless of their allegiances, from holding public offices.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I cannot judge his specific case because I do not know all the facts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wait a minute.  You practically gave a dissertation on the "context" of the Treaty of Tripoli, but don't have any understanding of the context of John Jay's attempt to ban Catholics from holding office?  Even though they come from the same wellspring of church-state philosophy?  You are perfectly willing to enlist Jay in your quest to make the US into a Christian nation, but run for cover when you are asked to offer an opinion on Jay's bigotry towards Catholics.  

                  Here is the problem, Dave.  You can't offer up a quote from Jay unless you are willing to explain the context of it.  And to explain the context of Jay's quotes, you need to explain it in light of Jay's bigotry towards non-Protestants. Further, you need to elucidate why such bigotry is not a clear repudiation of the concept of freedom of conscience that the bulk of the Founders espoused.  Are you willing to do that?  If Barton doesn't have anything ready to cut and paste, don't be afraid to wander of the res and offer your own thoughts. I promise I will be civil (unlike some of the other people around here ;) .)

                  We can still try to deal with Franklin, but first we do still need to clear up your definition of Christian and if being a Christian requires acceptance of the divinity of Christ.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Side question:  Do you consider Skull and Bones a secret society?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  2004 must have been a bummer of a Presidential election for you, huh?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Nov. 30 2006,02:49

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 29 2006,08:08)
                  Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Nov. 29 2006,02:54)
                  As for the album cover pics this one



                  caused a severe case of deja vu.

                  I dunno why.

                  Can somebody tell me why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's something for everyone in music.

                  Crabby,
                  I read w-a-a-a-a-y back why you chose your avatar and what it represents.

                  Now, with selective memory loss....  I ummm.....  oh yeah...  I forgot what it represents.

                  Can you provide a link to your historical avatar?

                  Thanks,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm not sure what you mean by a link to my historical avatar Mike but unlike Davey I'll try to take up the slack and accomodate you.

                  G.Thomas Powell wrote, "Surprisingly enough, yes, there actually is an answer to all the problems, large and small, that are plaguing this planet. The answer is J.R. "Bob" Dobbs and The Church of the SubGenius. Not just another cheesy scam like all those other One-True-Religions, The Church of the SubGenius delivers on its promises of salvation, fortune and power over others, and backs it up with a triple-your-money-back guarantee.

                  Let's see the Baptists match that."

                  Follow this link < http://thewag.net/divertissements/reports_1.html > to start your own quest for Eternal Salvation or Triple Your Money Back

                  I could toss in a lot of comments about my success in business and real estate using the techniques I learned while earning a Computer Science degree at AU but that would be untrue.

                  I never achieved REAL success untill I submitted to The Stark Fist of Removal.

                  What is remarkable is that as soon as I committed myself to J.R. "Bob" Dobbs is, my MALE BABOON DOGS SURVIVED TO ADULTHOOD AND I NO LONGER HAD ANY PROBLEMS PROVIDING OBSCENELY SHORT SPINED BUT OTHERWISE NORMAL DEGENERATE MUTANT DOGS TO MY CUSTOMERS!

                  My block headed, floppy eared, web toed, otter tailed, pointing Labrador Retrievers got much better too despite the fact that they are about to go extinct any day now, praise Bob.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 30 2006,03:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
                  The INTELLIGENT DESIGNER created new ones for those years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  this intelligent designer, care to make any guesses as to who it is? Remember, your friends over at UD insist (when they remember) that it's not your xthian god.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,05:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Remember, your friends over at UD insist (when they remember) that it's not your xthian god.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  They don't, though, do they?
                  I think the "official line" is that "Intelligent Design Theory" infers the existence - at least in the past - of an intelligent designer responsible for life, but that, being science, it can't identify that designer.

                  (Actually, I can't think of any reason why "being science" would prevent them from identifying the designer, but wanting to skirt constitutional restrictions on church-state entanglement does).

                  So they don't generally deny - I don't think - that The Intelligent Designer = The Christian God; they're just very coy and cagey about it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,08:17

                  STONE AGE MAN AS HEARTLESS BRUTE IS A FALSE PICTURE


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Stone Age babies buried with love
                  By Roger Highfield
                  Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 16/11/2006
                  The image of Stone Age man as a heartless brute will have to be revised after the discovery of an ancient grave where babies had been carefully buried and ritually decorated.
                  Although childhood mortality may well have been high more than 20 millennia ago, the use of red ochre, as well as the grave gifts — a chain of ivory beads — shows that babies were even then considered full members of society.
                  The burials in Krems-Wachtberg in Lower Austria are the first findings of such young individuals from the Upper Palaeolithic period.

                  An Austrian team analysed the graves of three infants who died 27,000 years ago. According to their report today in the journal Nature, two of the babies, who were found together and estimated to have died shortly after birth, were probably twins. A third, buried 3ft away, was thought to have died after less than three months. The well-preserved burials were recovered as "blocks" and analysed by laser and computer imaging. Dr Christine Neugebauer-Maresch, of the Prehistoric Commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues believe that the skeletons found together, embedded in red ochre, are twins because their thigh bones are of equal size, indicating they were the same age at death. Their bodies were covered with a mammoth shoulder bone, supported by part of a tusk. One of the babies was decorated with more than 30 ivory beads. A fingerprint found in clay has also preserved a trace of those who buried the babies.
                  < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....116.xml >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  *******************************************************

                  TOP TEN MYTHS CIRCULATING IN MODERN ACADEMIA
                  1) Mankind and apes have a common ancestor
                  2) The universe is billions of years old
                  3) Micro-evolution can be extrapolated to validate "macro"-evolution
                  4) All life evolved from a single celled organism over millions of years by RM+NS
                  5) There was no Global Flood
                  6) Mutations are a good thing and are the cause of "upward" evolution
                  7) Genomes are improving
                  8) The Bible is a fairy tale
                  9) America was not founded as a Christian nation
                  10) If Christians take over, America will become a backwards nation

                  ********************************************************

                  ASSUMPTIONS - THEY MAKE AN "ASS" OUT OF "U" AND "ME" - THINK ABOUT IT
                  Many people today make unwarranted assumptions.  "Group think" is a real problem today and it starts early in life -- often at the day care center.  Johnny decides that the Lego helicopter is the coolest toy in the toy box, so all the other kids uncritically agree with him and start fighting over it.  Never mind that there are a hundred other cool toys in the box.  They all want THAT one.  Why?  They are engaged in "group think."  They have ASSUMED that Johnny's toy is the coolest and they want it.

                  This behaviour continues up through grade school and high school and college as kids copy each other in their clothing, the music they listen to, the movies they watch and so on.  In college, their group think becomes more sophisticated and they start making philosophical choices which govern things like who they will marry, what they think about politics, how they conduct their personal lives, how they will raise their kids, etc.  Where do they get these ideas?  Again, from peers.  Nothing has changed since the Day Care Center.  Do they ever question anything they are doing?  Rarely.  They make ASSUMPTIONS about everything and never once question them.

                  When they get advanced degrees in the Life Sciences or Physical Sciences, this behaviour continues.  Everyone believes in Evolution and thinks the Bible is a myth, so guess what?  That's what they believe as well.  And ... just like at the Day Care Center, these uncritical ASSUMPTIONS make some pretty silly behaviour.

                  I have seen plenty of this here at ATBC, but I will just highlight one instance that happened recently.

                  THE GROUP:  ATBC people, many of whom have advanced college degrees
                  THE ASSUMPTION:  Barton is a shoddy scholar, AFDave is an unthinking fundy Creobot
                  AFDave:  (Gives a quote from Franklin documented in Madison papers)
                  Carlson:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave: I did thanks.  How do you get a better source for the quote than Madison?
                  Carlson:  Oops.  You're right.

                  MORAL OF THE STORY:  His ASSUMPTION led him into an error.  Happens all the time.  Happens to me too.  His assumption that Barton is a shoddy scholar is actually just the opposite of the truth.  And many of the other things that he and you have been taught in school are also just the opposite of the truth ...

                  ... like those Top Ten Myths I just posted.

                  Think about it ... are you a victim of Group Think?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,08:35

                  IS IT SENSIBLE TO THINK THAT AFDAVE IS A NON-THINKING, FUNDY CREOBOT?

                  While you are ruminating about my earlier post, think about this one, too.  Some of you have ASSUMED that I am a stupid, redneck, non-thinking fundy Creobot who just blindly "drinks the koolaid" that AIG gives me because that's what certain loudmouths around here say about me.

                  But does this square with reality?  No.

                  How could a stupid, non-thinking drone who blindly accepts false statements be so successful in business?  Let me tell you something about being in business.  Group thinkers get creamed.  It's the independent, out-of-the-box thinkers who survive and prosper.  Or in my marriage?  I've been married happily for almost 17 years.  My wife is a joy to me.  We are just as in love with each other as when we got married.  Or with my family?  I have 5 wonderful children and we are adopting a sixth.  Yes, the social workers came and inspected our home and they did all the background checks and we were approved with flying colors.  My kids are a constant joy to me as you would know if you asked anyone who knows us.

                  So your assumption that I'm automatically stupid because I'm a Creationist just doesn't fly.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Nov. 30 2006,08:42

                  No, antiFactDave, the group think is all you and yours.
                  The latest classic example is your claim to the wonders of Barton's scholarship -- as delivered by no less an authority than Barton himself.
                  And as elegantly fisked above, Barton's claims to a "higher standard" are as ludicrously false as would be Jim Jones' claims to higher quality of nutrition from his special kool-aid.

                  You continue your absurdly childish diversion of topics and actively ignore the many cogent responses to and criticisms of your increasingly desparate drivel.  But you are clearly running out of corners to paint yourself into.

                  BTW, is it at all relevent to you that others have provided exactly what you were so smug about my refusal to provide, including your condescending assertion that as per your expectations I was just making up stories and so *couldn't* provide?  I rather suspect not give your past history.  But here you are, pwned again.

                  As always, the facts are against you. ALL the facts.  You have nothing.  And insofar as you 'know' anything, you ought to know that by now.
                  But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
                  Contemptible.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,08:51

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think we have a definitional issue that we need to clear up here first.  How do you define Christian?  Above you seem to imply it is acceptance of the general principles.  Is that it, or does being a Christian require the acceptance of the divinity of Christ?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Obviously, the definition in the present context is going to be looser than if we were talking about it within by Baptist church.  In the context of exploring the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation, I think I have been consistent here at ATBC in saying that by "Christian" I mean subscribing to the general principles of Christianity.  This means that in general, the Founders of this nation ...

                  1) Believed in God
                  2) Believed that God created all things
                  3) Believed that mankind is sinful and needs moral guidelines
                  4) Believed that the 10 commandments are a good moral code
                  5) Believed the teachings of Jesus, i.e. "Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc." are a good idea
                  6) Based many of our laws on Mosaic laws
                  7) Believed in going to church on Sunday
                  8) Believed that religion should not be excluded from public life
                  9) Believed that Bible contains good history and is a good book to read

                  ... maybe some other things, but this hits the high points.

                  Drew ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n12/full/ng1906.html
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Would you like to post the relevant snippets? ... I don't have a subscription.

                  Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THUS THE PHONETIC SIMILARITY IS DUE TO CELTISH INFLUENCE, NOT FRENCH KNIGHTS, IDIOT. ALL THE ABOVE SOURCES AGREE WITH THIS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are utterly mistaken.  Just like you are mistaken about me supposedly quote mining.  Just like you were mistaken about that silly Infidels.org statement about the Ager quote.  Just like you were mistaken about supposedly being able to date the layers of the Grand Staircase radiometrically.  Just like you were mistaken about Egypt and China existing prior to the Flood.  Just like you were mistaken about the the Indians of Mato Grosso living thousands of miles away from ancient Inca lands.  Just like you were mistaken about Humphreys and pressure testing of zircons.  Just like you were mistaken about 3He ratio testing being common practice at the time of Humphreys experiment.  Just like you were mistaken about Don Batten being wrong about dendrochronology (still waiting for your response to my latest post about this weeks ago).  You are wrong so often that you have become a legend here.  All I can figure is that you are so arrogant and hostile that this blinds you to your many errors.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  deadman_932 Posted on Oct. 27 2006,07:06
                  I don't sleep Dave. I keep awake to slay people like you. I am People that you cannot find fault in. People that know more than you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And, may I add, that you are The Poster Child for Arrogance and Hostility.


                  Portuguese and Spanish were not separate languages until 1143 when the recent French influence had had time to make a significant impact.  I have never disputed the fact that Portuguese (which was identical to Spanish prior to 1143) developed in the way you say it did.  My statements were about modern (post 1143) Portuguese ... and they are correct.

                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  Read the quote.

                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3.  However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery.  I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No you wouldn't.  Let me prove this to you.  Let's pretend I own a used car lot and you come to my lot to buy a car.  I show you a nice, mid-90s truck and an old rusty mid-70s truck.  I tell you "Mike, this truck is not deteriorated ... it's just different.  You can have either one for $5000."  What would be your reaction?  Hmmmm....

                  Sometimes it just blows me away to see how Darwinian thinking has destroyed your common sense!

                  Mike PSS ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Please read what I type.  I don't have such a wonderful tool.  I said so plainly.  All I have at the moment is my intuition.  But again, intuition is quite valuable if kept in its proper place.  You have no rigorous mathematical tools to help you on my used car lot above, but you have your eyeballs and your intuition.  Ditto for biological systems.  Use it, my friend!

                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you have now made several statements which show that you do not read what I post.  Please re-read the posts from the many POPULATION GENETICISTS beginning with Muller in the 50's that I have posted.

                  Argy ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sorry, but I did not see an example of a reverse mutation in that link.  Could you post the exact snippet that you think contains this?

                  Argy...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I'm one post late on my measure of degradation of your friend's truck.

                  Here's one (I'll bet you can think of many more): Square inches of rust.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I agree with you.  And I would add scratches on the paint and windows, rips in the seats, brittleness of the wiring, etc.  

                  But think. WHY is rust and these other things a measure of degredation?

                  I submit to you that it is because they are contrary to the DESIGN of the DESIGNER.  The designer doesn't want there to be any rust, or rips or scratches or dysfunction.  Therefore, in living systems as well, when we see dysfunction, we naturally say DEGREDATION.  We say this about an old man, don't we?  Of course.  We talk all the time about his eyes (and ears and mind and everything else) aren't as good as they used to be.  Well guess what?  Those new babies that were born this year (compared to the ones who were born 6000 years ago) are not as good as they used to be either.  While the ingeniously designed system of reproduction eliminates the somatic mutations responsible for the ultimate death of the organism, there are still many mutations (100? 300? per individual per generation in humans) passed on to the offspring.  As we have seen from the population geneticists cited, Natural Selection cannot eliminate all of these.

                  The mutations are accumulating.

                  We are headed inexorably towards extinction.

                  Just like the Bible says.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
                  Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

                  Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, really? Then what did you mean by this:
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,08:12)
                  Now it has become clear, after much debate, that what he means is "It takes a bigger channel to communicate White Noise (being communicated as a signal ... why would you do that? ... dunno ... Dr. Tom Schneider was also mystified as to why someone would do that) ... than to communicate a Speech as a signal."  

                  Of course this is true but is irrelevant to the discussion of ... What is Biological Information?  ... and Does it Increase or Decrease as a result of Mutations?

                  So, Eric, give me your address ... I'll send you a White Noise Generator and a recording of Winston Churchill ... you can play both of them to your heart's content and revel in the fact that you are right ... it takes more bandwidth to transmit that White Noise through your headphone cord than it does to transmit the Churchill Speech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Exactly what I said.  I simply was not clear at first on which error you were making ... Error A or Error B.  I assumed you were making Error A at first (identified by Schneider.)  Then it became clear that you were making Error B.  And you persist in making Error B, namely, you think that a proliferation of alleles (caused by mutations) represents an INCREASE in biological information.  And you think that a comparison of White Noise to a Churchill speech somehow proves this.  Remarkable!

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do you think that a message consisting of white noise cannot have more info than one consisting of a speech, according to Shannon's theory? Do you think Schneider agrees with you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are very confused.  No working engineer is interested in transmitting white noise as a signal.  Think about it, Faid.  Why would someone want to transmit noise as a signal?  This is absurd.  Communications engineers are interested in transmitting INFORMATION and minimizing noise so the INFORMATION gets to its destination with a minimum of degredation.  They want to do this as cost effectively as possible so they try to design the smallest channel possible while still providing an acceptable level of signal fidelity.  Note Schneider's response to Drew ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise',[which Eric has done in talking about transmitting White noise as a signal] and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a
                  mess.  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear.  You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white
                  noise" is sent over a noisy channel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... which, of course I agree with.  So Schneider and I agree on this.

                  But let us get back to the real issue.  These wars about Shannon information are irrelevant.

                  Again, the issue is "What is Biological Information?"  and "Does it increase or decrease as a result of mutations (which give rise to allelic diversity)?"  

                  I say it decreases.  And the many quotes from prominent population geneticists that I have given support this.

                  You (or at least Eric) say it increases.  And the support you have for this are the active imaginations of yourselves and most modern evolutionary biologists.  You have no experimental data to support this.  All the experimental data proves just the opposite.

                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We both understand that a digital recording of broadband white noise contains more information than a digital recording of a Churchill speech of the same length.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No it does not.  It takes a larger channel to transmit.  It does not contain more information.  To say so is nonsensical and misleading.  And yes it qualifies as one of the Top Ten Silly Statements ever posted on ATBC.

                  OA...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave) Then go away.  No one is forcing you to stay.

                  No one is forcing you to be a lying butthole Dave, but yet you keep doing it.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You complain to me that I am boring.  So I tell you that no one is forcing you to stay.  You come back with "No one is forcing you to be a lying butthole Dave, but yet you keep doing it." (????) (Head scratching) (Confused look) (Head shaking) (Sigh) (Laughter) "Go figure!"

                  OA...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you say an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER can create new information by copying and changing an existing plan - OK. That means you admit that it is possible for an imperfectly created copy to GAIN INFORMATION that the original didn’t have.  But we know for a fact that in genetics that there are NATURAL OCCURING PROCESSES that create new genome sequences and new phenotype by impefectly copying and changing an existing plan.

                  What prevents natural occurring processes from making the exact same changes that the ‘designer’ can?  And vice versa?  

                  Looks like you just stuck your foot in your mouth again Dave.  Either the ‘designer’ and natural processes can each create new information, or they each can’t.  You can’t have it both ways Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's funny how you say my foot is in my mouth while choking on your own.  Did you read that piece I wrote above?  

                  You say "That means you admit that it is possible for an imperfectly created copy to GAIN INFORMATION that the original didn’t have." Of course.  Either by ACCIDENT (highly, highly, highly, highly, highly improbable) or by INTELLIGENT INPUT.

                  Then "But we know for a fact that in genetics that there are NATURAL OCCURING PROCESSES that create new genome sequences and new phenotype by impefectly copying and changing an existing plan."  Oh we do, do we?  I keep asking for examples and no one gives me any that I cannot easily refute.  Remember Chris Hyland's supposed 8 Alternative Mechanisms to RM+NS?  I refuted those easily.  The fact is THERE ARE NO NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESSES that create new biological information as defined by Crick.  The only supposed examples you point to are NOT examples at all of "spontaneously generated information."  The information was either already there, or it was duplicated, or it was degraded and happened to confer an advantage like Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria resistance, etc.  But in the big scheme of things, these few and far between examples are not even advantages at all because they constitute a loss of specificity.

                  Then "What prevents natural occurring processes from making the exact same changes that the ‘designer’ can?  And vice versa?"  You're serious, aren't you?  OK.  Very simple.  Natural processes do not have a mind.  They have no intelligence to guide them.  They have no plan.  This is pretty basic stuff, Mr. OA.  Go out and observe the world.  You will see that natural processes cause things to DETERIORATE, not improve.  In the overwhelming majority of cases it is INTELLIGENCE that causes improvement.

                  Russell...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  QED

                  I want you to note that the unreflective confidence with which you have been touting this "evidence" for months was entirely unwarranted. Does that give you pause, at all? Does it make you wonder, just for a second, about all that other "evidence" that you're so unreflectively confident of? Are you at all embarrassed?

                  You should be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  It was not unwarranted at all.  The RATE Team had many diamond samples tested at leading labs and you are free to verify their results if you want to go to the effort.  There are detectable levels of C14 in diamonds.

                  And if Deep Time is true, there should not be.

                  Don't be lazy.  Go check it out and leave your ASSUMPTIONS at home.

                  You just might learn something.

                  **************************************************************
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,08:56

                  K.E AND AFTERSHAVE SHOOT THEIR MOUTHS OFF ... BUT WOULD THEY STICK BY THEIR WORDS IN FRONT OF A JUDGE?
                  k.e. ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So how is your church audit going AFD?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It went fine thanks.  And if you and the other coward (Aftershave) who claim that I and other leaders at my church are somehow getting rich off members would like to back your libelous claims, please give me a PM with your real names and addresses.  I will have my attorney send you an ... er ... invitation to a party. :-)  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Occam's Aftershave
                  Posts: 474
                  Joined: Feb. 2006
                   (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,05:42    
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  BTW, what's your take on Kent Hovind going to jail?  I bet you think he's just another nice honest YEC being persecuted for his beliefs, right?  Tell me Dave, how many Kevlar vests do you think could have been purchased for our troops from the $480K that Kent put in his own pocket? You know all about lining your own pocket with church funds, don't you Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What about it, guys?  You say I'm a thief of church funds.  Would you like to tell that to a judge?  I'll be happy to buy your airplane tickets.

                  I'll be waiting for those PM's.

                  Cory...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Huh. Too bad Henry Ford didn't front-load the first automobile so that it would "degrade" or "degenerate" into all of today's advanced models without needing to gain information, eh? After all, that's a plausible scenario for an intelligent designer, right? That's what happened in the evolution of the world's biodiversity, right?

                  Your analogies stink, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Henry Ford wasn't smart enough to front load all that information.  

                  God was. And by the looks of things, that's exactly what He did.

                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wait a minute.  You practically gave a dissertation on the "context" of the Treaty of Tripoli, but don't have any understanding of the context of John Jay's attempt to ban Catholics from holding office?  Even though they come from the same wellspring of church-state philosophy?  You are perfectly willing to enlist Jay in your quest to make the US into a Christian nation, but run for cover when you are asked to offer an opinion on Jay's bigotry towards Catholics.  

                  Here is the problem, Dave.  You can't offer up a quote from Jay unless you are willing to explain the context of it.  And to explain the context of Jay's quotes, you need to explain it in light of Jay's bigotry towards non-Protestants. Further, you need to elucidate why such bigotry is not a clear repudiation of the concept of freedom of conscience that the bulk of the Founders espoused.  Are you willing to do that?  If Barton doesn't have anything ready to cut and paste, don't be afraid to wander of the res and offer your own thoughts. I promise I will be civil (unlike some of the other people around here ;) .)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  My purpose here is to show that the Founders made America a Christian nation.  And my purpose is to help restore that lost understanding in the minds of the general public.

                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2004 must have been a bummer of a Presidential election for you, huh?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Politics is a constant choice among multiple evils.  You just take the choices you are given and decide which would be worse.  My philosophy is that Government is a Necessary Evil.  Let's minimize it as much as possible.

                  Oldman...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  this intelligent designer, care to make any guesses as to who it is? Remember, your friends over at UD insist (when they remember) that it's not your xthian god.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The designer we were speaking of was Ford or Chevy.  Read, Oldman, read.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,09:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, the social workers came and inspected our home and they did all the background checks and we were approved with flying colors.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sure AFD....just to be safe, get them to check your posts here.

                  I can only imagine what whoppers you spun when talking to them.

                  Like I said you make lying a virtue and would put to shame the worlds very best.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,09:05

                  Waiting on your PM, k.e
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,09:07

                  Science papers as wrong as AiG's
                  any evidence suggesting significant problems with carbon dating
                  any evidence supporting a young earth
                  logic behind mutations necessarily lead to loss of biological information
                  any consistent definition of biological information
                  any reason to believe the "top 10 myths" are, in fact, myths
                  any support for "Portuguese = Spanish + French"
                  baboon dogs...


                  These are a few of my favorite [nonexistent] things.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,09:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So how is your church audit going AFD?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It went fine thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's a pity fleecing suckers isn't illegal only the backwash is left ......the smart ones hit the road.

                  I know all about audits AFD, you call in someone to whitewash the missing millions and because you are paying them they provide the report you want, so they get paid.

                  You and your lawyers can take a running ****.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,09:19

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,09:05)
                  Waiting on your PM, k.e
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Better yet AFD get your Lawyers to PM me.

                  <snicker>
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,09:27

                  Be bold, k.e.  If you want to stand by your false claims, come out from the bushes and face the music.  A PM with your real name and contact info, please.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,09:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There are detectable levels of C14 in diamonds.

                  And if Deep Time is true, there should not be.

                  Don't be lazy.  Go check it out and leave your ASSUMPTIONS at home.

                  You just might learn something.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is rich. I'm lazy because I don't chase down every wing-nut idea that afdave comes up with.

                  davy, davy, davy. You just don't get it, do you? You're the one making extraordinary claims here. You're the one asking us to believe that all the textbooks, all the professors, all the experts are all wrong and don't know what they're talking about. It's up to you to provide evidence for these extraordinary claims. You keep saying that you have provided the evidence, but whenever we look closely, it evaporates.

                  Here. Try this. I contend that exactly opposite the earth, on the opposite side of the sun, there's another planet that nobody's ever noticed, because it's always behind the sun. Now, get off your butt and provide some serious evidence that I'm wrong.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,09:38



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Be bold, k.e.  If you want to stand by your false claims, come out from the bushes and face the music.  A PM with your real name and contact info, please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  Struck a nerve have I?

                  I'll repeat...... you make lying a virtue and are in class of your own.

                  Now just remember what Judge Jones said about the Dover twits and that using creationism to disparge the theory of evolution is "breathtaking inanity".

                  Are you prepared to defend that breathtaking inanity in a court of law?

                  Come on AFD see if you can find a lawyer who can stomach 300 pages of your posts and get them to read through your drivel and I'll happily reply to him if he dares to contact me.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,09:46

                  Quote (Liar Dave @ Nov. 30 2006,08:35)


                  IS IT SENSIBLE TO THINK THAT AFDAVE IS A NON-THINKING, FUNDY CREOBOT?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yep, given what you've shown us in the last year

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So your assumption that I'm automatically stupid because I'm a Creationist just doesn't fly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  We don't assume it Dave, you've demonstrated it repeatedly with your mindless repetition of anti-science drivel, your lying and quote mining, your refusal to address the factual data that blows your CGH out of the sky. It's not just sensible, it's the only conclusion given the evidence.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You say "That means you admit that it is possible for an imperfectly created copy to GAIN INFORMATION that the original didn’t have." Of course.  Either by ACCIDENT (highly, highly, highly, highly, highly improbable) or by INTELLIGENT INPUT.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Guess what moron - highly improbable doesn't mean NEVER.  That's what we've been trying to pound into your thick skull for months.  All a mutation has to do is give a teeny weeny advantage in survival (like the 0.02 in the previously cited paper) and it can become fixed in the population.

                  From a deck of cards, I can 'intelligently" pull out a royal straight flush (at once), or I can deal random hands until I get a royal straight flush (many many hands)  If the rules allow me to keep some cards and discard/draw others (which is basically how RM+NS operates), I can get a royal straight flush pretty damm quick.

                  So from now on, when you claim that "mutations can NEVER add information" we'll know you are lying again, right?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,09:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese and Spanish were not separate languages until 1143 when the recent French influence had had time to make a significant impact.  I have never disputed the fact that Portuguese (which was identical to Spanish prior to 1143) developed in the way you say it did.  My statements were about modern (post 1143) Portuguese ... and they are correct.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, dave... This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad.


                  For MONTHS, we've been providing you with a dozen links at least that say Portuguese was A SEPARATE LANGUAGE EARLY ON, that is, DIFFERENT THAN SPANISH, and derived separately from Vulgar Latin. I gave you links from official sites that study the Portuguese language, to sites about Portugal and its history, to your favorite source even -Encyclopedia Britannica. I even showed you MAPS that show the linguistic history of the Iberian Peninsula, for haploid christ's sake.

                  And what do you do, after all this time? you just ignore all this, and stubbornly, immaturely, illogically hold on to your obviously flawed position, like a spoiled brat that just cant stand not having things his own way.

                  Aren't you the least bit ASHAMED, dave? You are a husband and a father, for crying out loud. Behave like an adult for once in these boards, and admit you are wrong.

                  After all, this has nothing to do with your hypothesis; it's just an ego issue, and you know it. And it makes your credibility sink to unfathomed depths, dragging everything else you say with it- I'm sure you understand what that means.
                  Will you still let your bloated pride interfere in doing the work of your Lord? You be the judge.

                  ***********************************************

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are very confused.  No working engineer is interested in transmitting white noise as a signal.  Think about it, Faid.  Why would someone want to transmit noise as a signal?  This is absurd.  Communications engineers are interested in transmitting INFORMATION and minimizing noise so the INFORMATION gets to its destination with a minimum of degredation.  They want to do this as cost effectively as possible so they try to design the smallest channel possible while still providing an acceptable level of signal fidelity.  Note Schneider's response to Drew ...    
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thanks for not answering again, dave. Like EVERYONE has told you already, meaning does not enter the issue when Shannon information is discussed. What the issue is is that YOU chose to "educate" us by claiming we know nothing about Shannon's theory, and that Shannon agrees with you. You could have said immediately, "Shannon is irrelevant in this debate" and proceed to define your own, private definition of information.
                  But you didn't. In another Portuguese moment-inspiring Ego-rush, you decided to school people who are above you- and failed.
                  And you know what's worse? YOU KNEW IT ALL ALONG.

                  HERE IS THE LINK FROM SCHNEIDER'S PAGE. THE LINK YOU COULD NOT HAVE MISSED, WHEN YOU POINTED US TO ALL THE OTHER ONES:

                  < http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/conversation1.html >
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please help me understand the relationship between source uncertainty and the reduction of uncertainty at the receiver. As far as I can understand Shannon's equations, they state that the more random the source generator (the larger the value of H(x)), the greater the reduction of uncertainty can be for the receiver:

                  Right.

                  If all characters are equally likely, p(i) = 1/n, then H(x) is at its maximum value. This is equivalent to a random string when transmitted.

                  Right.

                  If the characters are weighted, with some more likely than others, then H(x) is less than that potential maximum value (for the same n).

                  Right.

                  Since Information is the reduction of uncertainty:
                  R = H(x) - H(x)(y)


                  Shannon usually wrote Hy(x) for the latter (the equivocation, "the average ambiguity of the received signal").

                  it seems to me that transmitting the random string would cause more of a reduction of uncertainty than transmitting the weighted string; and thus more information would be transmitted.

                  That's right. There is one more thing to add: the more random the initial string is, the more information can be transmitted. But random is a matter of perspective in this case. It means that the perfect transmission code looks random to an outsider, because it has no correlations or your weightings. To someone who knows how to read the code, it is a wonderfully clear message because it can have most of the noise removed by proper decoding. (Shannon's amazing channel capacity theorem says that as long as the rate R is less than or equal to the channel capacity C, the error rate can be made as low as desired! This has rather interesting implications for biology: it allows the evolution of 'near perfection' in communication. (See CCMM for details of applying the theorem to molecular biology.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You DID read all that, right dave? You HAD read how, the closest to white noise the massage(*) is, the more info is transmitted, according to Shannon's theory? And you HAVE read the answer to your "question"- why one would transmit "white noise"? Schneider provides an exellent real-life example where Shannon's theory applies -and the answer is provided. And did you notice the implications this has for BIOLOGY?

                  Of course you did. You just decided it was a hush-hush.

                  Poor dave. One can only imagine the turmoil inside your mind.

                  As for "biological information", as soon as you get a better definition than "something the genome has, that always decreases", we can talk.
                  (Remember: Crick's definition doesn't help, as many have already pointed out to you it can easily increase- or simply remain constant)
                  Until that time, I believe Schneider (your accepted authority) has you covered here:
                  < Evolution of Biological Information -by Thomas D. Schneider >







                  (*): I didn't edit that typo, because a massage that's close to white noise sounds awesome right now  ;)
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 30 2006,09:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,08:56)
                  Carlson...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wait a minute.  You practically gave a dissertation on the "context" of the Treaty of Tripoli, but don't have any understanding of the context of John Jay's attempt to ban Catholics from holding office?  Even though they come from the same wellspring of church-state philosophy?  You are perfectly willing to enlist Jay in your quest to make the US into a Christian nation, but run for cover when you are asked to offer an opinion on Jay's bigotry towards Catholics.  

                  Here is the problem, Dave.  You can't offer up a quote from Jay unless you are willing to explain the context of it.  And to explain the context of Jay's quotes, you need to explain it in light of Jay's bigotry towards non-Protestants. Further, you need to elucidate why such bigotry is not a clear repudiation of the concept of freedom of conscience that the bulk of the Founders espoused.  Are you willing to do that?  If Barton doesn't have anything ready to cut and paste, don't be afraid to wander of the res and offer your own thoughts. I promise I will be civil (unlike some of the other people around here ;) .)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Because it is exactly the type of bigotry exhibited by Jay (*) that the Founders sought to forestall by keeping church and state completely separate.  So, unless you can articulate reasoning to the contrary, by embracing Jay in your quest to prove this is a Christian nation, you are embracing his bigotry.  So, I am trying to give you a chance to escape that problem.  Why should we give any credence to Jay's opinion, when his "Christian nation" does not allow complete freedom of religion?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  My purpose here is to show that the Founders made America a Christian nation.  And my purpose is to help restore that lost understanding in the minds of the general public.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your definition of a Christian (offered in an another post) is sufficiently broad that it is practically useless. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson all specifically questioned and/or rejected the divinity of Christ.  Claiming them as Christians is a bit of a stretch.  But it gets worse. As we have seen already, only 3 of the 10 commandments can be found in American law and those three are also common across any number of different belief systems.  In short, your definition could allow you to claim a Buddhist as a Christian.  But, I am a bit short on time. I have work to do, a plane to catch, and given the weather at home it is unclear I will make it much further than Houston.  :(

                  So, let me ask a different question that I would like you to think over and respond to.  Don't feel obligated to respond right away.  Take your time.  You said yesterday, in the discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was a Christian nation, but did not have a Christian government.  Do you wish to have a Christian government?  If yes, explain how it would be different than the government we have now. If no, then what is the point of all this Christian nation effort if there is no practical difference to the government we have now.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Carlson...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2004 must have been a bummer of a Presidential election for you, huh?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Politics is a constant choice among multiple evils.  You just take the choices you are given and decide which would be worse.  My philosophy is that Government is a Necessary Evil.  Let's minimize it as much as possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  On that I agree completely, although I expect that I am much more the libertarian than you are.

                  (*) Lest anyone think I am down on John Jay, I am not.  Like all the Founding Fathers, he was human.  He had his faults, but still made significant contributions.  Dave and I certainly don't agree on what some of those contributions may be.  And, to a certain extent, Jay's anti-Catholicism is somewhat understandable given his French Huguenot ancestry.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,10:03

                  Having trouble finding an honest lawyer AFD ?

                  I can make a couple of suggestions..... Larry Farfaman is always available, he and you resonate in perfect harmony.

                  You could try Hovind's lawyer ...he ...er .....has some interesting ideas.

                  Howabout the A-team, The Thomas Moore (we bombed in  Dover) Law Centre.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,10:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy ...    


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sorry, but I did not see an example of a reverse mutation in that link.  Could you post the exact snippet that you think contains this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In the test several strains of Salmonella typhimurium that carry mutations in genes involved in histidine synthesis are used. The bacteria require histidine for growth. The variable being tested is the mutagen's ability to cause a reversion to growth on a histidine-free medium. The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And if you want specific examples of successful Ames tests, you could always click the links to the PDFs at the bottom of the wiki page.  Or google.

                  So, Dave.  Do these mutations represent a decrease in information?  What about the mutations that made it so the bacteria couldn't synthesize histidine?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,10:29

                  Argy, we had the same discussion ("discussion" as in, I asked and dave ignored me) many months ago, when we were talking about antibiotic resistance in the "prove evolution to AFDave" thread. I had asked him to explain this: If a point mutation that makes a bacteria lose it's ability to synthesize an enzyme (making it imperemeable to an antibiotic), is in fact a decrease in information, then what does another point mutation, in the same point, that substitutes the original base, do?
                  Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer, so don't get your hopes up.
                  Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 30 2006,10:32

                  Dave you talk tough for a pussy.  The fact you and your church take money when you know what you pitch as fact is plain bullsh!t, is dishonest.

                  While it may not be against the law, it is morally bankrupt.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,10:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are very confused.  No working engineer is interested in transmitting white noise as a signal.  Think about it, Faid.  Why would someone want to transmit noise as a signal?  This is absurd.  Communications engineers are interested in transmitting INFORMATION and minimizing noise so the INFORMATION gets to its destination with a minimum of degredation.  They want to do this as cost effectively as possible so they try to design the smallest channel possible while still providing an acceptable level of signal fidelity.  Note Schneider's response to Drew ...    
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave. Do you remember reading < this post? > You did read it, didn't you? Where I talked about an encrypted data stream? What does that encrypted data stream resemble? Remember I said that a good, unbreakable encryption algorithm produces an almost perfectly random data stream as the cyphertext? What does an almost perfectly random data stream resemble, Dave? Any ideas? Here; I'll help you out. It resembles a digital recording of broadband white noise. Is my point starting to come clear?

                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random? You must have not thought of this possibility, or you never would have said something so ridiculous.

                  Are you sure you have a degree in electrical engineering, Dave? Are you sure you're not just an electrician?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,10:49

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,08:29)
                  Argy, we had the same discussion ("discussion" as in, I asked and dave ignored me) many months ago, when we were talking about antibiotic resistance in the "prove evolution to AFDave" thread. I had asked him to explain this: If a point mutation that makes a bacteria lose it's ability to synthesize an enzyme (making it imperemeable to an antibiotic), is in fact a decrease in information, then what does another point mutation, in the same point, that substitutes the original base, do?
                  Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer, so don't get your hopes up.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The funny thing about all of this is that I could swear that a couple of months ago I berated Dave for awhile asking him if he believed a mutation could never increase information.  Eventually, he answered "no!"  So if memory serves, he's been contradicting himself the last few days.

                  I'd been waiting for months to use the Ames test example, since it represents a beneficial mutation that we can observe happening in real time, if we were patient enough to stare at an incubator all day.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,11:01

                  Carlson...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  

                  Because it is exactly the type of bigotry exhibited by Jay (*) that the Founders sought to forestall by keeping church and state completely separate.  So, unless you can articulate reasoning to the contrary, by embracing Jay in your quest to prove this is a Christian nation, you are embracing his bigotry.  So, I am trying to give you a chance to escape that problem.  Why should we give any credence to Jay's opinion, when his "Christian nation" does not allow complete freedom of religion?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I do not know if it was bigotry or not.  If it is true (as some have claimed) that many Catholics placed loyalty to the Vatican ABOVE loyalty to the US Constitution, then I would agree with Jay.  If not, then I would have opposed Jay in this.  My guess is that Jay's position had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with LOYALTY to one's country.

                  Carlson ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But it gets worse. As we have seen already, only 3 of the 10 commandments can be found in American law and those three are also common across any number of different belief systems.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's because you are looking for EXPLICIT citations of the 10 commandments in the Constitution.  Obviously, this cannot be found.  I have never claimed that it can.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In short, your definition could allow you to claim a Buddhist as a Christian.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true at all.

                  Carlson ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You said yesterday, in the discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was a Christian nation, but did not have a Christian government.  Do you wish to have a Christian government?  If yes, explain how it would be different than the government we have now. If no, then what is the point of all this Christian nation effort if there is no practical difference to the government we have now.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I wish to RETURN to a government which more closely resembles our Original Government, which our Christian Founders gave us.  Among my political action items are ...

                  DAVE'S POLITICAL GOALS FOR AMERICA
                  1) Reduce the size and power of government.  Government is a necessary evil.  It is necessary.  And it can be quite evil especially if it is too big.  Let's make it as small as possible.  Power corrupts.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
                  2) Get the government out of the welfare business.  Government at both the state and federal levels redistributes wealth at a level never dreamed of by the Founders.  Private citizens get handouts.  Special interest groups get handouts.  School districts get handouts.  Universities get handouts.  Companies get handouts.  Everyone gets handouts.  It's ridiculous.
                  3) Get government out of the Education business.  Abolish the DOE.  We don't need it.  Let colleges, universities and public schools stand on their own two feet if they can.  Stop taxing my property to pay for the overpriced public school that I don't even want.  If people want that public school, let them pay for it voluntarily.  I have a much more efficient means of educating my children.  It's called Abeka DVD.
                  4) Abolish the Federal Reserve and restore the US Treasury to it's rightful role in controlling our money.  Quit paying interest to the Fed for them printing money for us.  Print it ourselves and save the interest.
                  5) Get rid of this revisionist interpretation of Separation of Church and State once and for all.  Do we have freedom of religion or not?  We used to.  Until the revisionist judges abolished prayer and Bible reading in public life.
                  6) Accomplish massive tort reform.  We have far too many people suing one another for everything under the sun.
                  7) Impeach judges who violate their oaths of office.
                  8) Quit telling Christians they can't pray in school, write book reports about Mary & Joseph, etc. etc.
                  9) In short, stick to the basics of good government based on the general principles of Christianity--honor your parents, marriage is a man and a woman, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't bear false witness, don't covet, etc.  Do a good job of enforcing the basics and leave it at that.
                  10)  Recognize that America was founded as a Christian nation, so quit trying to change that, i.e. we swear in Congressmen on BIBLES, not the Koran, thank you very much.  It's fine if you want to read the Koran and be a Muslim and build a mosque and what have you.  It's NOT fine to insist that you be allowed to be sworn in with a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible in America.  What next?  Should we allow a neo-Nazi congressman to be sworn in using "Mein Kampf"?   ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

                  What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

                  Dear David,

                  Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

                  America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
                  By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

                  Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

                  He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

                  First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

                  Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

                  Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

                  Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

                  So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

                  The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

                  This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

                  But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

                  When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble. (End Commentary) < http://www.townhall.com/Columni....oath_on >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Russell...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is rich. I'm lazy because I don't chase down every wing-nut idea that afdave comes up with.

                  davy, davy, davy. You just don't get it, do you? You're the one making extraordinary claims here. You're the one asking us to believe that all the textbooks, all the professors, all the experts are all wrong and don't know what they're talking about. It's up to you to provide evidence for these extraordinary claims. You keep saying that you have provided the evidence, but whenever we look closely, it evaporates.

                  Here. Try this. I contend that exactly opposite the earth, on the opposite side of the sun, there's another planet that nobody's ever noticed, because it's always behind the sun. Now, get off your butt and provide some serious evidence that I'm wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  YOU are the one that doesn't understand what is going on here.  You seem to think that I am here to try to convince you of the truth.  Come on.  I'm not that naive.  Remember, YOU are the Emperor who has no clothes.  Up until recently, you have remained cloistered in the palace of Academia.  But now you are being brought out into the public square by people like me (and AIG).  I am simply here to verify that you have no clothes.  And so far I've only seen a few scanty threads.

                  OA...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Guess what moron - highly improbable doesn't mean NEVER.  That's what we've been trying to pound into your thick skull for months.  All a mutation has to do is give a teeny weeny advantage in survival (like the 0.02 in the previously cited paper) and it can become fixed in the population.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmmm hmmm ... and it has to do it VERY QUICKLY before the species becomes extinct from all the zillions of deleterious mutations which overwhelm your little supposedly advantageous one.

                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, dave... This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes it is.  It is sad that YOU are so hard headed and blind.

                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  proceed to define your own, private definition of information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Private, huh?  Tell that to Crick.

                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You DID read all that, right dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I read it and it doesn't help you if you combine it with everything that Schneider says.  You are still confused.

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And did you notice the implications this has for BIOLOGY?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I did.  The question is DID YOU?  Why don't you take a shot at pulling yourself out of your hole and explain the facts of biological information to me in your own words.

                  Steverino...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave you talk tough for a pussy.  The fact you and your church take money when you know what you pitch as fact is plain bullsh!t, is dishonest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK, Mr. Tough Talker.  I'll add your name to my list of chickens who hide behind bushes and accuse me of stealing from my congregation.  If you ever get enough spine to come out from behind the bushes, drop me a PM with your contact info (this is for K.e and Aftershave also) and I'll have my attorney send you an "invitation to a party."

                  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The bacteria require histidine for growth. The variable being tested is the mutagen's ability to cause a reversion to growth on a histidine-free medium.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,11:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random? You must have not thought of this possibility, or you never would have said something so ridiculous.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, he thought of it alright, Eric. He had read about it in his own links. He just pretended not to.

                  When is your next confession, dave? Seems like you have a lot to say.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,11:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Good grief.  Read the sentence following the bolded ones.  And then answer my questions.

                  Oh, and yes, the loss of function mutations were engineered in. If that fact is important to you (it shouldn't be - it's still a mutation), then answer this additional question: Is this loss of function mutation a decrease in information when it occurs in the lab?  What about in the wild?
                  Posted by: Steverino on Nov. 30 2006,11:12

                  Dave,

                  Since I have not posted or accused you of anything libelous, I'd be more than happy to contact you but, bring friends.  You will need them.

                  You are quick to threaten lawsuits.  In my opinion, that speaks of a true, sniveling pussy that cannot win either the argument or the fight.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,11:14

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,11:02)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random? You must have not thought of this possibility, or you never would have said something so ridiculous.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, he thought of it alright, Eric. He had read about it in his own links. He just pretended not to.

                  When is your next confession, dave? Seems like you have a lot to say.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Faid, Dave is under the delusion that he doesn't get any respect around here because he's a creationist. That isn't it at all. As I've explained to him before, being a creationist means he's wrong about nearly everything that has anything to do with science, but it doesn't mean he's automatically unworthy of respect. I'm sure, in principle, it's possible to be an intellectually-honest (if somewhat ignorant, to put it mildly) creationist.

                  The reason Dave doesn't get any respect around here is because he is staggeringly intellectually dishonest. You'll note he didn't respond to the post of mine you just quoted. He just pretends it doesn't exist.

                  I'm actually kind of proud of my response/no response ratio with Dave. It means I'm posing a large number of questions Dave cannot deal with.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,11:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,11:01)
                  Faid...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, dave... This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes it is.  It is sad that YOU are so hard headed and blind.

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  proceed to define your own, private definition of information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Private, huh?  Tell that to Crick.

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You DID read all that, right dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I read it and it doesn't help you if you combine it with everything that Schneider says.  You are still confused.

                  Faid ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And did you notice the implications this has for BIOLOGY?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I did.  The question is DID YOU?  Why don't you take a shot at pulling yourself out of your hole and explain the facts of biological information to me in your own words.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Congrats for doing all the work for me, dave. Once again, you write a non-reply, full of denial, hand-waving and ad hominems. And, of course, ZERO context.

                  Are you not even able to TRY and answer a single one of my questions?

                  Are you so dense, that you have absolutely NO conception of how this makes you look?

                  Like I said: Sad. Truly sad. My nephews behave more maturely than you.

                  And like I said, I'll be waiting for when you grow the cojones to actually try to address (with arguments) a single one of my points- about Portuguese, Shannon, you name it. The ball's in your court, and it's gathering dust.
                  In the meantime, try to actually read something besides your creo sites- you might, for the first time, actually learn something.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,11:23

                  Quote (Lying Pussy Dave @ Nov. 30 2006,11:01)

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (OA) Guess what moron - highly improbable doesn't mean NEVER.  That's what we've been trying to pound into your thick skull for months.  All a mutation has to do is give a teeny weeny advantage in survival (like the 0.02 in the previously cited paper) and it can become fixed in the population.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mmmm hmmm ... and it has to do it VERY QUICKLY before the species becomes extinct from all the zillions of deleterious mutations which overwhelm your little supposedly advantageous one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wrong again moron.  Deleterious mutations which are too harmful kill the individual who has them, so they aren't passed on or added to the gene pool.  The extremely largest amount of mutations are neutral, which get carried along may or may not end up being beneficial sometime much later when the environment changes.

                  This has been explained to you at least a dozen times, yet you still insist on repeating your misconceptions and lies. Davie, is it any wonder everyone here considers you such a stupid jackass?
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,11:33

                  Argy...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Good grief.  Read the sentence following the bolded ones.  And then answer my questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... OK.  Here's that part.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Again I say ... This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it. Over to you.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, and yes, the loss of function mutations were engineered in. If that fact is important to you (it shouldn't be - it's still a mutation), then answer this additional question: Is this loss of function mutation a decrease in information when it occurs in the lab?  What about in the wild?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In the wild, almost certainly, unless you hit on some lucky mutation that happens to put a "C" back where it should be in the place where an "A" got substituted by accident.  In the lab, probably, in spite of the fact that an Intelligent Agent did it.  And the reason is because you are basically "messing" with a highly engineered system from a very limited-knowledge perspective.  Will lab technicians ever be smart enough to actually improve biological systems?  In theory, yes.  We do much now to fix many types of broken things in human bodies.  It stands to reason that we should be able to do this on a genetic level as well.  But our intervention will consist of correcting what has gone wrong, not improving the original design.

                  OA ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mmmm hmmm ... and it has to do it VERY QUICKLY before the species becomes extinct from all the zillions of deleterious mutations which overwhelm your little supposedly advantageous one.

                  Wrong again moron.  Deleterious mutations which are too harmful kill the individual who has them, so they aren't passed on or added to the gene pool.  The extremely largest amount of mutations are neutral, which get carried along may or may not end up being beneficial sometime much later when the environment changes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No moronism. You are the one who doesn't read what I write before you begin mouthing off.  That's the kind of mutations I've been talking about for weeks now--the nearly neutral ones.  Remember?  You know ... all those quotes from the famous population geneticists?  The tiny miniscule fraction of beneficial mutations would have to be fixed very quickly, but would actually get overwhelmed anyway by the gradual accumulation of nearly neutral mutations.  The species goes extinct and your dinky beneficial mutation goes bye bye.  Welcome to your future!

                  Steverino ....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since I have not posted or accused you of anything libelous, I'd be more than happy to contact you but, bring friends.  You will need them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   What is that supposed to mean?  How do you figure that accusing me of stealing money from my congregation is not libelous?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,11:36

                  Davy - < according to AiG >:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years
                  RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now this is on a webpage promoting your precious RATE books, so presumably those books are the "go-to" creationist source for this alleged diamond data. But, as you note, it wasn't on the page you copied.
                  So where is it? Or will you have to concede a second case where AiG is "less than reliable, as an honest broker of information"*?

                  *(i.e. "lying")
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,11:37

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 30 2006,11:14)
                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,11:02)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random? You must have not thought of this possibility, or you never would have said something so ridiculous.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, he thought of it alright, Eric. He had read about it in his own links. He just pretended not to.

                  When is your next confession, dave? Seems like you have a lot to say.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Faid, Dave is under the delusion that he doesn't get any respect around here because he's a creationist. That isn't it at all. As I've explained to him before, being a creationist means he's wrong about nearly everything that has anything to do with science, but it doesn't mean he's automatically unworthy of respect. I'm sure, in principle, it's possible to be an intellectually-honest (if somewhat ignorant, to put it mildly) creationist.

                  The reason Dave doesn't get any respect around here is because he is staggeringly intellectually dishonest. You'll note he didn't respond to the post of mine you just quoted. He just pretends it doesn't exist.

                  I'm actually kind of proud of my response/no response ratio with Dave. It means I'm posing a large number of questions Dave cannot deal with.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's just it, eric. Displaying the apparent EQ of a 5 year-old, dave thinks that, by ignoring a question (like he did with yours, or with mine in the post right above) he makes the bad thoughts go away. And, like a5yo again, he does not understand (or care) how amazingly immature this makes him look, and how much it discredits him- as well as the views he stands for. He doesn't even realise that he is hurting his "cause".

                  And this man teaches children, for crying out loud. And he wants to get hired at AiG, and get a degree in biology or something.
                  Amazing.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,11:45

                  I'm not sure I can explain the Ames test more clearly than that wiki article.  Why don't you tell me how you think the Ames test works, and then I can figure out where your misconception is.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,11:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yep. That's exactly what it says. And if you can't see that, you have no business pretending to school grade-schoolers on how all those molecular geneticists are wrong about molecular genetics.

                  What do you think the definition of "reversion" is?
                  Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Nov. 30 2006,12:00

                  Dave:

                  I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why? I don't recall a creationist addressing this kind of mutation in a coherent way.

                  I really don't understand how this event could not increase information.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,12:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,11:33)
                  OA ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mmmm hmmm ... and it has to do it VERY QUICKLY before the species becomes extinct from all the zillions of deleterious mutations which overwhelm your little supposedly advantageous one.

                  Wrong again moron.  Deleterious mutations which are too harmful kill the individual who has them, so they aren't passed on or added to the gene pool.  The extremely largest amount of mutations are neutral, which get carried along may or may not end up being beneficial sometime much later when the environment changes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No moronism. You are the one who doesn't read what I write before you begin mouthing off.  That's the kind of mutations I've been talking about for weeks now--the nearly neutral ones.  Remember?  You know ... all those quotes from the famous population geneticists?  The tiny miniscule fraction of beneficial mutations would have to be fixed very quickly, but would actually get overwhelmed anyway by the gradual accumulation of nearly neutral mutations.  The species goes extinct and your dinky beneficial mutation goes bye bye.  Welcome to your future!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, has it ever occurred to you wonder why it is that the vast majority of most large, complex eukaryotes' genome is non-coding introns? Where do you suppose all those introns came from? Do you think they'd been there all along? Wouldn't that seem to be rather poor, um, "design"?

                  And what makes you think neutral mutations would make an organism go extinct, Dave? Do you understand the meaning of the word "neutral"? You keep using this term "nearly neutral." You're going to use this as an escape hatch to claim that all mutations are harmful, because the "nearly neutral" ones are also harmful (but maybe only a little harmful). Ain't gonna work. The vast majority of mutations are exactly neutral in that they do absolutely nothing.

                  And, would you care to explain why beneficial mutations would need to be "fixed very quickly"?

                  Sometimes I wonder if you're not just assembling words randomly from the dictionary.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Nov. 30 2006,12:38

                  I agree with the (pro-evolution, btw) emailers who say that libellously specific accusations of fraud towards AFDave should not be tolerated here. Future ones won't be moved to the bathroom wall, they'll be deleted.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,12:51

                  Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 30 2006,12:38)
                  I agree with the (pro-evolution, btw) emailers who say that libellously specific accusations of fraud towards AFDave should not be tolerated here. Future ones won't be moved to the bathroom wall, they'll be deleted.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Frankly, it's more than enough fun just making fun of Dave's pre-schooler's understanding of science. Making fun of his personal life isn't nearly as entertaining, in my opinion.

                  Dave's intellectual dishonesty gives plenty of entertainment all by itself, and it's easily provable (all it takes is a few permalinks). Criticizing his dishonesty in other areas seems kind of pointless, since it would take a lot of actual gumshoe work to prove them.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,13:22

                  Faid...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't say that.  I said no working engineer talks about transmitting white noise as a signal.  You and Eric morphed the original conversation into this stuff about encryption.

                  Now ... if you have the intellectual guts ... get back to to topic at hand ... Biological Information.  And get off that silly branch that Eric is on of Shannon Information and Encryption and such.

                  GoP...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why? I don't recall a creationist addressing this kind of mutation in a coherent way.

                  I really don't understand how this event could not increase information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This was covered in response to Chris Hyland's post about the supposed 8 alternative mechanisms for evolution, one of which was gene duplication.  Please download the thread and do a search beginning just before Thanksgiving and you will find it.  If you can't, let me know.

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The vast majority of mutations are exactly neutral in that they do absolutely nothing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong.  Read Kimura.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yep. That's exactly what it says. And if you can't see that, you have no business pretending to school grade-schoolers on how all those molecular geneticists are wrong about molecular genetics.

                  What do you think the definition of "reversion" is?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know what "reversion" means but I am challenging Argy to SHOW me an example of this occurring.  I see nothing that says this has occurred in the article he has posted.


                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davy - according to AiG:
                  Quote
                  RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years
                  RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.
                  Now this is on a webpage promoting your precious RATE books, so presumably those books are the "go-to" creationist source for this alleged diamond data. But, as you note, it wasn't on the page you copied.
                  So where is it? Or will you have to concede a second case where AiG is "less than reliable, as an honest broker of information"*?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am beginning to lump you in with the dishonest operators here.  Of course this data is in the RATE Book.  You asked about studies in the non-YEC literature and that is what I gave you.

                  If you want the diamond data, fine.  I can post next chance I get to do some scanning.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,13:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I know what "reversion" means but I am challenging Argy to SHOW me an example of this occurring.  I see nothing that says this has occurred in the article he has posted.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Uh, YOU posted that article, Dave.  The actual example showing where it works is in the PDF linked at the bottom.  Do you understand how the Ames test works, or not?
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Nov. 30 2006,13:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,11:33)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Again I say ... This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it. Over to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Isn't it hilarious that people can post articles which say "We took bacteria (which can synthesise histidine), mutated them so they couldn't synthesise histidine, then applied a mutagen, and observed some bacteria mutate back to a form that can synthesise histidine," and Dave's response is "This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it." That's some weapons-grade denial.

                  BTW, just got back from a great holiday in Hawaii. Dave's silly claims about the earth being only 6000 years old just don't compare to the experience of actually standing on a volcanic island, watching new land being formed as lava flows into the ocean; and looking out along a chain of such islands, each older than the one before, formed as the Pacific plate moves (at about the speed of fingernail growth) over the volcanic hotspot; and looking at a map of the undersea topography and seeing a chain of now-submerged islands leading all the way from Hawaii to Kamchatka...    reality is so much more beautiful and exciting.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,13:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am beginning to lump you in with the dishonest operators here.  Of course this data is in the RATE Book.  You asked about studies in the non-YEC literature and that is what I gave you.

                  If you want the diamond data, fine.  I can post next chance I get to do some scanning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course I want the diamond data. What did you think I was asking for? And I want "real-world" - i.e. non-YEC sources for that data.

                  And, lest we lose focus, I want to know if there's any way of assessing whether or not the 14C is in the crystalline carbon matrix (be it diamond or graphite) or in contaminating, "mobile", "young" carbon.

                  I've gone to great pains to keep my requests clear, and the reasons for my requests clear, and your lack of response to these requests clear. If I took you at all seriously, I would take umbrage at your intimations of "dishonesty". Please direct me to what you think is dishonest in this particular line of inquiry.

                  Now, with respect to "reversions" - see stephenWells post. It isn't going to get any clearer than that.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 30 2006,13:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are utterly mistaken.  Just like you are mistaken about me supposedly quote mining.  Just like you were mistaken about that silly Infidels.org statement about the Ager quote.  Just like you were mistaken about supposedly being able to date the layers of the Grand Staircase radiometrically.  Just like you were mistaken about Egypt and China existing prior to the Flood.  Just like you were mistaken about the the Indians of Mato Grosso living thousands of miles away from ancient Inca lands.  Just like you were mistaken about Humphreys and pressure testing of zircons.  Just like you were mistaken about 3He ratio testing being common practice at the time of Humphreys experiment.  Just like you were mistaken about Don Batten being wrong about dendrochronology (still waiting for your response to my latest post about this weeks ago).  You are wrong so often that you have become a legend here.  All I can figure is that you are so arrogant and hostile that this blinds you to your many errors.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  LOL. Except on all of those things that you CLAIM I was "mistaken" on, you cannot show it.
                  Just as you failed miserably at showing that    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese and Spanish were not separate languages until 1143
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Odd that even WIKIPEDIA says it  was beginning to be used in written documents "around the 9th century" See, Dave, put on your thinking cap....if it wasn't distinguishable from Spanish until the 12th C, how can any scholar say that it was used in the 9th Century, three HUNDRED years earlier? Yet they do. It seems you have a problem there, bright boy.

                  There are  documents IN Portuguese that precede your alleged "differentiation" date, Dave...how do you explain that?

                  Again, you cannot show a word-list of terms in Portuguese derived ONLY from French. We already know both languages developed from Latinate roots, this is not an issue. Your claim was Portuguese was Spanish+French. You hung your last remaining vestiges of hope on "phonetics" and didn't bother to even look at WHY the phonetic similarities were there, just as lots of Indo-European languages have distant similarities in phonetics due to localized influences.

                  Yes, I showed you how to date the Grand Canyon layers that you claimed had NOT been dated, then you admitted 1...then 2, then 5 had been dated, then I still showed you more and showed you precisely how to date ashfall layers.
                  I showed you how you quote-mined lots of people, not just Ager.
                  I told you where the Guarani homeland was and it's a LONG ways from the heartland of the Inca Empire, even the Incan outlying extents of the Empire are over 600 miles away. It is fully 2000+ miles away from the heart, as I said.
                  Humphreys of ICR lied to you when he claimed that no one tested for He isotopes when he did his "study." His "work" consisted of sieving out zircons from parts of  a known core, then sending them out under false pretenses. ( kinda souds familiar, eh?)  and was done WHEN? Not the 1950's, not the 1960's , not the 70's or 80's...and in all the decades I mentioned, He3/4 isotope testing was and continues to be available to determine sources of He. It was quite common and could in fact have been done by any lab with a decent spectrometer and costs only 1000 bucks today. Help a brutha out by paying for it, Dave...Humphreys STILL won't do it TODAY, even though he and ICR have thousands of dollars from fleecing the flocks???

                  I asked when Don Batten is going to show up, Davey-boy...and still no response. I said I wanted it in written form, baby. And still no word on his magical appearance here. Tsk.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,13:53

                  From the 1st PDF:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We constructed the tester strain, TA1534, by introducing a
                  uvrB mutation (14) into the strain with the frameshift
                  mutation hisD3052 that was described by Oeschger and
                  Hartman (19). They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
                  mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
                  by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen,
                  ref. 12) as well as by hycanthone and 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide
                  (21); it was not revertible by 2-aminopurine, an agent that
                  causes only base-pair transitions (20).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA
                  Vol. 69, No. 11, pp. 3128-3132, November 1972

                  Blech.  Don't you like lay-friendly summaries of methods better? The thing is, Dave, that this is all old news (11 years older than me!;).  Why would anyone find this surprising?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,13:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,13:22)
                  Faid...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't say that.  I said no working engineer talks about transmitting white noise as a signal.  You and Eric morphed the original conversation into this stuff about encryption.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, white noise is an example of a nearly-perfectly-random signal. An encrypted file is another example of a nearly-perfectly-random signal. An engineer would be unlikely to be able to distinguish between the two. We haven't "morphed" the conversation into anything. It's right where it always has been: your utter misunderstanding of information theory.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... if you have the intellectual guts ... get back to to topic at hand ... Biological Information.  And get off that silly branch that Eric is on of Shannon Information and Encryption and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you establish that you even understand what "biological information" is, then you can have a rational discussion about it. As has been pointed out, Crick's definition of "biological information" does not set forth any methodology for measuring the quantity of biological information. Without that metric, you have no basis for saying whether any process increases, decreases, or leaves unchanged the amount of biological information. Therefore, your whole argument that mutations cannot increase the amount of biological information is utterly without foundation, because you cannot tell if biological information has increased, decreased, or remained the same.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  GoP...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why? I don't recall a creationist addressing this kind of mutation in a coherent way.

                  I really don't understand how this event could not increase information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This was covered in response to Chris Hyland's post about the supposed 8 alternative mechanisms for evolution, one of which was gene duplication.  Please download the thread and do a search beginning just before Thanksgiving and you will find it.  If you can't, let me know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It wasn't "covered" anywhere, Dave. Feel free to whip out a permalink or a quote if you think it has. You still have provided no support for your claim that a gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation cannot increase the amount of biological information. Once again, you're claiming you've done something you have not in fact done. This is essentially a lie, Dave.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The vast majority of mutations are exactly neutral in that they do absolutely nothing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong.  Read Kimura.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I've read it, and it remains true that "neutral" mutations are exactly what they say they are: neutral. They are also the vast majority of mutations. Kimura says nothing to contradict this simple, well-known fact.

                  Deleterious, neutral, beneficial mutations. They all exist, and you have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. You still, after all this time, cannot distinguish between "most" and "all," or between "few" and "none."

                  Read a real textbook on genetics, Dave, not quotemines from AiG.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,14:20

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,13:22)
                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now are you going to contend that "no working engineer" would be interested in transmitting an encrypted data stream that is almost perfectly random?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't say that.  I said no working engineer talks about transmitting white noise as a signal.  You and Eric morphed the original conversation into this stuff about encryption.

                  Now ... if you have the intellectual guts ... get back to to topic at hand ... Biological Information.  And get off that silly branch that Eric is on of Shannon Information and Encryption and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you got so confused, you don't even know who you're replying to anymore. But I'll do the honors.


                  Dave, you didn't just say "no engineer transmits white noise as a signal". You accused people of not understanding Shannon's theory, and gloated about how you knew better. And were, of course, wrong. Once again.

                  Dave, as you so often like to say, this is no rocket science.
                  Shannon's information has absolutely nothing to do with meaning. Schneider has explained that many times, and, to my knowledge, Shannon himself did too.
                  The context of a message is more information rich, the more random it is. You can substitute "is" for "appears to be", if you like, but it makes absolutely no difference in Shannon's theory. the intentions of the transmittor are irrelevant. But you obviously know that already.
                  The real-life applications of Shannon's theory, are all the advancements in message transmission and encryption mentioned- much like planes are an application of the field of aerodynamics. And, of course, Scneider's application in biological information.

                  But all this is irrelevant. Like I said, you could have simply stated "My definition of biological information depends entirely on meaning, and is irrelevant with Shannon's" from the beginning, and we would have moved on with you explaining just what the heck you mean...

                  ...but no. You just had to jump on the Shannon debate, thinking you would have a chance to finally score a point for your ego....

                  ...and got served.

                  As for biological information, it's not me who needs guts, my friend. EVERYONE can see that.
                  It's not me that struggles to form a definition of biological information, and the best he has come up with is "something that decreases in the genome"! Your messing with Crick's definition is irrelevant, since we already showed you how there is nothing to make it decrease all the time, as you claim... So now you need to find some other debris from your wreck of a theory to hang on to.
                  I'm perfectly content with what Schneider (your authority) has to say about biological information- have anything to say about that? No?


                  But, seeing as you ran away from the Portuguese issue once again, I guess I don't have much to expect from you... Maybe an assertion in a future "summary", (preferably when I'm not around) saying how you schooled me, right dave?

                  You're becoming predictable, dave. I wonder- Did you think you could impress the people at AiG with your record here, to make them hire you? if that's it, your chances are slim, dave.
                  They're looking for competent con artists, dave.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 30 2006,14:21

                  Oh, and by the way, Dave --I just read your "threat" of a lawsuit...you better understand something, stupid...the rules for civil cases are quite different than for criminal. What I mean by this is any litigant in such a case of "libel" would be able to subpoena your own church's records and depose any members, present or former, who had been defrauded at ANY time by your church hierarchy. I think you better check with your masters on whether you want to open that particular can of worms, stupid. BWAHAHAHAHA

                  This is a separate issue from whether or not your state would even allow such statements to be considered libellous -- which I doubt -- given that you are a public figure by virtue of having a public website and crowing about it here. This means a LOT of latitude in satire/scathing vicious name-calling and invective. Your Tri-City Ministries is also a public institution, and as an INSTITUTION, even **more** latitude is given.
                  This is why many prominent public figures/organizations...from all ends of the political/social arena can be called frauds and much more without fear of lawsuits. Look at all the sites calling the Catholic Church every name in the book....you think THEY don't have the money to sue?
                  But by all means, you can have your attorney request a judge to order the determination of IP's and hence identities, although trying to sue anyone will be hilarious -- the judge will likely laugh you out of his court. Check the case law, brainless, these topics are discussed quite a bit.

                  I think you're just angry, little Davey--at being slapped around so much. I think you need to calm down, baby, and listen to daddy....take a deep breath and pray for guidance and ask yourself "WWJD?"...LOL
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 30 2006,14:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,08:56)
                  Cory...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Huh. Too bad Henry Ford didn't front-load the first automobile so that it would "degrade" or "degenerate" into all of today's advanced models without needing to gain information, eh? After all, that's a plausible scenario for an intelligent designer, right? That's what happened in the evolution of the world's biodiversity, right?

                  Your analogies stink, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Henry Ford wasn't smart enough to front load all that information.  

                  God was. And by the looks of things, that's exactly what He did.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Bravo, Dave. So the 'degradation' in 'information' that we see in living things (i.e., becoming all kinds of newer -- and you say 'degenerative' -- models) doesn't have a fucking thing to do with your rusty pickup stories, now does it? Whethery you subscribe to the ToE or have faith in a front-loading intelligent designer that made all this life possible from the very first 'pickup', your analogy stinks.

                  Thanks for demonstrating my point for me. I'll go back to snickering as you similarly contradict yourself on so many other fronts.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,14:43

                  And lest you've forgotten, Dave, there's one other teeny little problem with your "genetic information can only decrease" argument.

                  In case you've forgotten, there were only a few thousand "kinds" on Noah's ark. You've never settled on an actual value, but the one I heard you mention once was 35,000.

                  In case you've forgotten, there is now, supposedly 4,500 years later, a minimum of a few million, and possibly as many as a billion, species of organisms on earth.

                  So how do you explain, Dave, where all this explosive genetic diversity has come from in five short millennia? Especially when all the genomes out there are supposedly going to he11 in a handbasket, and everything will be extinct "soon."

                  Lest you've forgotten, Dave, you haven't presented any evidence for a decline in biodiversity or genetic diversity over the past five thousand years.

                  But we haven't forgotten.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Nov. 30 2006,14:46

                  For example, Dave, blatant contradictions like this, in the < very same post >, really give me the giggles:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  6) Accomplish massive tort reform.  We have far too many people suing one another for everything under the sun.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Steverino...  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave you talk tough for a pussy.  The fact you and your church take money when you know what you pitch as fact is plain bullsh!t, is dishonest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK, Mr. Tough Talker.  I'll add your name to my list of chickens who hide behind bushes and accuse me of stealing from my congregation.  If you ever get enough spine to come out from behind the bushes, drop me a PM with your contact info (this is for K.e and Aftershave also) and I'll have my attorney send you an "invitation to a party."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, while we wait for that "massive tort reform" that's going to eliminate frivolous lawsuits while at the same time allowing you to threaten litigation for some nasty anonymous comments made on an internet board, I'll mention that, like Eric, I find any comment about your personal life to be superfluous. (This includes you defending your ludicrous 'arguments' here on the grounds of your success in business, love or procreation, by the way.) I have pointed out-- and will continue to point out -- that you are dishonest, immature and ignorant, but lucky for me, demonstrable truth is an absolute defense against libel.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,15:10

                  and, just to be really REALLY clear - your scanned page from Baumgardner did not supply me with ANY real world references, even to non-diamond fossil carbon. You copied a table that seems to indicate that there is a list of real-world references at the end of the chapter, or of the book, or somewhere, where I can connect, e.g. "Nadeau et al, 2001" with an actual journal article somewhere, but without that, how am I supposed to locate the article? ? ?
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 30 2006,15:33

                  Ghost:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This was covered in response to Chris Hyland's post about the supposed 8 alternative mechanisms for evolution, one of which was gene duplication.  Please download the thread and do a search beginning just before Thanksgiving and you will find it.  If you can't, let me know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Just so you know Ghost, Dave didn't explain why gene duplications can't add information. What he said was:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He also claimed that no one has observed gene duplication, which kind of suggests to me that Dave doesn't spend much time reading the science he claims to refute.
                  Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 30 2006,15:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
                  Tracy...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Abstract: Measurements of the radiocarbon concentration of several carbonate background materials, either mineral (IAEA C1 Carrara marble and Icelandic double spar) or biogenic (foraminifera and molluscs), show that the apparent ages of diverse materials can be quite different. Using 0.07 pMC obtained from mineral samples as a processing blank, the results from foraminifera and mollusc background samples, varying from 0.12 to 0.58 pMC (54.0-41.4 ka), show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of the contamination. In light of these results, the use of mineral background material in the evaluation of the age of older unknown samples of biogenic carbonate (>30 ka) proves inadequate. The use of background samples of the same species and provenance as the unknown samples is essential, and if such material is unavailable, generic biogenic samples such as mixed foraminifera samples should be used. The description of our new modular carbonate sample preparation system is also introduced.

                  In other words, different species in the  same sample will have different amount of C-14.  Now why would that be, AFDave?  If they were the same "young" age, shouldn't they have the same C-14 content?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice that they call this strange too high C14 "contamination".  this is precisely my point.  They are committed to Deep Time, yet they see this extra C14 and have to explain it somehow.  What are they to do but ASSUME it is "contamination?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, is not what you said an ASSUMPTION (i.e. that there should be no C-14 in sample X only because it is very old)  .  What is strictly correct to say is that IF the only C-14  in a sample is from what remains from C-14 that was originally in the sample, then there should be none left.  

                  Assumptions can be tested.  I already asked the question which showed that the sample of two different species in the same time and location have DIFFERENT C-14 levels.  This means they did not have the same original C-14 levels (which would be an amazing mystery - care to put forward any testable hypotheses?), if there was no contamination.

                  Here is another article which may hint at what the REAL situation is about "old carbon"

                  Title: E/Q and ME/Q(2) interference in the two models of C-14 Tandetron systems: towards the 21st century
                  Author(s): Nadeau MJ, Lee HW, Litherland AE, Purser KH, Zhao XL
                  Source: NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS 223: 328-332 AUG 2004
                  Document Type: Article
                  Language: English
                  Cited References: 18      Times Cited: 2      Find Related Records Information
                  Abstract: All C-14 accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) systems exhibit backgrounds mainly from sample contamination and target preparation. The imperfections in the associated mass spectrometric systems are at present lower and near C-14/C similar to10(-16). In view of the increased interest in much lower mass spectrometric background, <10(-18), for the measurement of natural hydrocarbons, a short review of the existing C-14 systems based upon the Tandetron accelerator will be presented. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

                  Now why would somebody need an instrument to measure C-14 in hydrocarbons if they were all young?  Current methods are limited to 100,000 years ago.  This instrument will get about 7 more half-lives, a total of 40,000 years more.  We can explain "too high" levels easily enough - high levels of C-14 are everywhere on this planet, even the air you breathe.  Your problem: explaining why there is ANY hydrocarbons without high levels of C-14.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,16:12

                  by the way, dave. You've been called on this kind of crap already; you're not going to get away with it again:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wrong.  Read Kimura.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Have you actually read Kimura yourself dave?
                  Or just "excerpts" helpfully extracted for your convenience by creationist secondary sources?

                  See, here's another one of these situations. Is it shoddy "scholarship"? Or dishonesty? Is there really a clear line between the two? You pretty clearly imply here that you have read Kimura. But by now we all know you only read creationists, don't we?

                  The other dead give-away that this is BS is (once again, surprise! ) the lack of an actual reference. Kimura wrote multiple papers, if I'm not mistaken. Which one are you referring to?

                  It's this kind of shoddy scholarship/dishonesty, not "viewpoint discrimination", that keeps creationists from publishing in the legitimate scientific literature.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,16:38

                  Tracy Hamilton:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We can explain "too high" levels easily enough - high levels of C-14 are everywhere on this planet, even the air you breathe.  Your problem: explaining why there is ANY hydrocarbons without high levels of C-14.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because poor dave has so many unanswered questions to catch up on, I'm going to help him out here. (And he thought we were all hateful and unfair!;))

                  I believe it's davy's position that in the beginning (if you'll pardon the expression) the carbon in the biosphere was 100% 12C. Then there had to be a period of time during which cosmic radiation converted 14N into 14C faster than the 14C could decay. So all the carbon trapped in creatures before the point in time when the 14C had accumulated to the point where it was being lost to decay as fast as it was being regenerated by cosmic irradiation of 14N has an extremely low 14C/12C ratio, not because it's been decaying for dozens of half-lives (after all, the universe is barely more than one 14C half-life old!;)), but because the world's carbon had not yet reached 14C/12C equilibrium. Now, according to Davism, it just happens that a radical shift in this rate of equilibration coincides with The (alleged) Flood, so that everything prior to that time will be 14C-poor - much more so than it would be if the carbon originally incorporated into living stuff had had anything like recent 14C/12C ratios.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,16:43

                  Quote (Chris Hyland @ Nov. 30 2006,15:33)
                  Ghost:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the most fruitful class of mutations on average is gene duplication. Gene duplication + natural selection seems to be a very good way to increase the complexity of the genome. You apparently think that this process does not increase biological information. Would you mind explaining why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This was covered in response to Chris Hyland's post about the supposed 8 alternative mechanisms for evolution, one of which was gene duplication.  Please download the thread and do a search beginning just before Thanksgiving and you will find it.  If you can't, let me know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Just so you know Ghost, Dave didn't explain why gene duplications can't add information. What he said was:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He also claimed that no one has observed gene duplication, which kind of suggests to me that Dave doesn't spend much time reading the science he claims to refute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen- dave's debate tactics in a nutshell.


                  We shouldn't complain, though- it's part of what makes him entertaining.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,16:50

                  StephenWells...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]
                  Again I say ... This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it. Over to you.

                  Isn't it hilarious that people can post articles which say "We took bacteria (which can synthesise histidine), mutated them so they couldn't synthesise histidine, then applied a mutagen, and observed some bacteria mutate back to a form that can synthesise histidine," and Dave's response is "This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it." That's some weapons-grade denial.

                  BTW, just got back from a great holiday in Hawaii. Dave's silly claims about the earth being only 6000 years old just don't compare to the experience of actually standing on a volcanic island, watching new land being formed as lava flows into the ocean; and looking out along a chain of such islands, each older than the one before, formed as the Pacific plate moves (at about the speed of fingernail growth) over the volcanic hotspot; and looking at a map of the undersea topography and seeing a chain of now-submerged islands leading all the way from Hawaii to Kamchatka...    reality is so much more beautiful and exciting.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So they applied a mutagen so they couldn't synthesize histidine, and observed some mutated back to a form that can synthesise histidine.  Did this reversion happen by the same mechanism?  i.e. frame shift?  Was it an exact reversion?  IOW did the original frameshift revert to it original "un-frame shifted" state?  Or are they simply saying that some of them mutated again via a different mechanism and the mutated form again was able to synthesise histidine?

                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.  Of course it is logically possible and possibly occurs once in a while, just as it is conceivable for a letter in an English message to get changed randomly and this change happens to confer some minor advantage to the process which the message controls.

                  But only people experiencing "weapons grade" denial like Mr. Wells would say that these  few and far between advantageous mutations can possibly serve as the driving force for evolution.

                  Glad you had a nice religious moment in Hawaii ... !  Hail Darwin!

                  Deadman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I asked when Don Batten is going to show up, Davey-boy...and still no response. I said I wanted it in written form, baby. And still no word on his magical appearance here. Tsk.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not going to even ask him to show up until you answer his article here < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 > that I presented to you many weeks ago.  

                  Cory...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Bravo, Dave. So the 'degradation' in 'information' that we see in living things (i.e., becoming all kinds of newer -- and you say 'degenerative' -- models) doesn't have a fucking thing to do with your rusty pickup stories, now does it? Whethery you subscribe to the ToE or have faith in a front-loading intelligent designer that made all this life possible from the very first 'pickup', your analogy stinks.

                  Thanks for demonstrating my point for me. I'll go back to snickering as you similarly contradict yourself on so many other fronts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes. It has EVERYTHING to do with my analogy.  Your mistake is the same as Eric's.  You seem to think that the diversity of life we see since the Flood is caused by mutations.  Not so.  Remember your buddy Ayala?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
                  p. 58
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  p. 59
                  “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
                  p. 63
                  “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation,[Ayala, like you, says this on faith in ToE (Hail Darwin!;), not because of his observation] it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
                  p. 64
                  “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The variation was DESIGNED IN by the Creator.  The mutations are BAAAAD ... degenerative ... nearly neutral, but accumulating and threatening us with extinction, not super-man-hood.  Remember our discussion of deteriorating genomes?

                  Oh I have such fun refuting you guys!  Thanks for the privilege!

                  Russell...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and, just to be really REALLY clear - your scanned page from Baumgardner did not supply me with ANY real world references, even to non-diamond fossil carbon. You copied a table that seems to indicate that there is a list of real-world references at the end of the chapter, or of the book, or somewhere, where I can connect, e.g. "Nadeau et al, 2001" with an actual journal article somewhere, but without that, how am I supposed to locate the article? ? ?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There's this handy thing called Google Scholar ... you should try it.  If you have trouble, I'll help you on a few of the references.  But past that you need to buy the book.  I promise it won't kill you.  I actually went out and bought a college level text on Biochemistry.  (non-YEC no less ... got it from UMKC!;)  (And it didn't kill me! )

                  Here's your references for the RATE diamond tests.  Background was 0.08.  As I said, I was wrong about C14 analysis in diamonds in the general literature.  I don't think conventional researchers really want to research such a thing.  Could create problems for their world view, don't you think?


                  I'll give you the fact that the diamond data is not overwhelmingly conclusive or anything.

                  But how about that coal data?  How does that not pose a huge problem for Deep Time?

                  *******************************

                  Actually, Chris ... my whole post was this ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene Duplication

                  Quote
                  Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. [End factual data.  Begin wishful thinking] The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function [Yes, yes, that's nice my pretty ... drink the Koolaid and go to sleep now ... Hail Darwin!]or (b) acquire deleterious mutations [thanks for this brief return to reality] and become a pseudogene.[Fantasy Zone again ... there's no such thing as pseudogenes.]
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication >

                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice the highlited word there -- ERROR.  Chris conveniently overlooked this word, but it is the key.  

                  The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.  Everyone knows this except for the hopeful Darwinists.  

                  Gene Duplication is a PROBLEM for organisms

                  It's not an engine for "Upward Evolution."

                  ********************************

                  Yes, I've read Kimura and No, I'm not saying he's a Creationist ... if that's your gripe (a common one).
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,17:13

                  Dave gets creamed, and then instead of admitting he was wrong, he lies about it.
                  Yesterday:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Today:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You're the best.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,17:18

                  Quote (Russell @ Nov. 30 2006,16:38)
                  Tracy Hamilton:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We can explain "too high" levels easily enough - high levels of C-14 are everywhere on this planet, even the air you breathe.  Your problem: explaining why there is ANY hydrocarbons without high levels of C-14.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because poor dave has so many unanswered questions to catch up on, I'm going to help him out here. (And he thought we were all hateful and unfair!;))

                  I believe it's davy's position that in the beginning (if you'll pardon the expression) the carbon in the biosphere was 100% 12C. Then there had to be a period of time during which cosmic radiation converted 14N into 14C faster than the 14C could decay. So all the carbon trapped in creatures before the point in time when the 14C had accumulated to the point where it was being lost to decay as fast as it was being regenerated by cosmic irradiation of 14N has an extremely low 14C/12C ratio, not because it's been decaying for dozens of half-lives (after all, the universe is barely more than one 14C half-life old!;)), but because the world's carbon had not yet reached 14C/12C equilibrium. Now, according to Davism, it just happens that a radical shift in this rate of equilibration coincides with The (alleged) Flood, so that everything prior to that time will be 14C-poor - much more so than it would be if the carbon originally incorporated into living stuff had had anything like recent 14C/12C ratios.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Russel, if that is dave's position, I wonder what the he11 all that talk about carbon being 100 times more in the past was...
                  Then again, we shouldn't be surprised. Dave is unable to think for himself; he just quotes his creo mentors, and we know they have no problem supporting mutualy contradicting theories, depending on when it suits them.
                  One day they might say that the readings are too old because C12 was too much, the next that they are too old because C14 was too little- because of not reaching equilibrium, or even because of volcanic gases everywhere on the planet (I think I read something like that in one of dave's links as well! ), vaguely question the validity of the method by pretending that known (and accounted for) issues, like the resevoir effect, pose fatal problems for the theory (live snail etc), accept the validity of the theory again by hailing the discovery of C14 in some (why not ALL?) coal reservoirs ...or just throw it all away again by simply arguing for accelerated decay.
                  And so on, and so on.
                  There's just no pattern you can follow- they themselves don't know what they'll support next.
                  Much like dave.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 30 2006,17:18

                  Nano-moron?

                  Dave, you are not proving that you are stupid (unable to think and learn, though you are probably proving that you have distinct relative limitations in those regards).  After all, you can read and write English, and operate a computer terminal--though thedegree of your comprehension and articulation are apparently compromised, see parenthetical statement above.

                  What you are proving here is that you are mule-stubborn ignorant: though you exhibit some limited capacity for learning, you simply refuse to educate yourself, and instead mire yourself in denial and dishonesty.

                  But as long as you've returned to the topic of the Inca and Guarani, Dave, and your sad claims of Spanish "admixtures" to the alleles...  Does Guarani = Inca + Spanish?  Or does Inca = Guarani + Spanish?

                  Looking forward to understanding your "Spanish influence" theory of the differentiation of South Amercan native languages.

                  Sincerely, Your Favorite Pinhead
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,17:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O  :O


                  Amazing. Simply amazing.

                  Dave, do you even THINK before you type?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,17:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,16:50)
                  So they applied a mutagen so they couldn't synthesize histidine, and observed some mutated back to a form that can synthesise histidine.  Did this reversion happen by the same mechanism?  i.e. frame shift?  Was it an exact reversion?  IOW did the original frameshift revert to it original "un-frame shifted" state?  Or are they simply saying that some of them mutated again via a different mechanism and the mutated form again was able to synthesise histidine?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why do you think it matters whether the mutation that reverts to an ability to synthesize histidine is the same exact mutation that removed it in the first place? Regardless of whether it's the same mutation or a different one, you have one mutation which (according to you) results in a reduction in function, and another which (according to you) results in a gain in function. If it's two different mutations, that makes things possibly worse for you, but in no way at all better for you, because it shows that adaptive mutations are not as rare as you claim they are.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course you have, Dave. This is the lynchpin of your claim that all genomes are degenerating. Since it's clearly not true that genomes can only lose information, what's left of your claim?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course it is logically possible and possibly occurs once in a while, just as it is conceivable for a letter in an English message to get changed randomly and this change happens to confer some minor advantage to the process which the message controls.

                  But only people experiencing "weapons grade" denial like Mr. Wells would say that these  few and far between advantageous mutations can possibly serve as the driving force for evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The only reason you think this, Dave, is because you simply cannot wrap your mind around the amount of time evolution has to work. And don't start with any crap about how "evolutionists need deep time." The "deep time" is available, Dave, the evidence for it is overwhelming, and it completely kills your argument that a tiny number of adaptive mutations over time can lead to macroevolution.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes. It has EVERYTHING to do with my analogy.  Your mistake is the same as Eric's.  You seem to think that the diversity of life we see since the Flood is caused by mutations.  Not so.  Remember your buddy Ayala?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I'm not assuming anything about how you claim the explosive increase in the diversity of life since the flood was achieved. My point is that you have no mechanism by which it can be achieved. It's obviously not achieved by lethally-high levels of mutation, and as we have pounded into your skull via HLA-B alleles, it cannot have been achieved through "genetic richness" or "variability." YOU NEED A MECHANISM, DAVE, AND YOU HAVEN'T PROPOSED ONE.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Actually, Chris ... my whole post was this ...

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene Duplication

                  Quote
                  Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. [End factual data.  Begin wishful thinking] The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function [Yes, yes, that's nice my pretty ... drink the Koolaid and go to sleep now ... Hail Darwin!]or (b) acquire deleterious mutations [thanks for this brief return to reality] and become a pseudogene.[Fantasy Zone again ... there's no such thing as pseudogenes.]
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication >

                  IOW … yippee!  If mutations are good and are the magic genie which drives evolution, MORE MUTATIONS are even better!  Wow!  Now this duplicated gene is free to mutate all it wants to!  What a wonderful system!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice the highlited word there -- ERROR.  Chris conveniently overlooked this word, but it is the key.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you think this somehow "proves" that gene duplication and subsequent mutation cannot increase biological information, Dave, you're hallucinating. Of course a gene duplication is an error. It's a mistake. What's your point? Do you have one, other than personal incredulity? Because it's invisible to anyone here other than your own deluded self.  Your claim that there's "no such thing as pseudogenes" is based on what? Your personal incredulity again? Or your "skimming" of evolutionary biology texts until they get boring and/or hard to understand?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.  Everyone knows this except for the hopeful Darwinists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Darwinists" are just as aware of this as you idiot creationists are, Dave. The difference is, you idiot creationists think that genes are "supposed" to do something, that they were "designed" to do something. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. That a gene duplication is a "mistake" says nothing about its utility. If you think otherwise, please explain your reasoning.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene Duplication is a PROBLEM for organisms

                  It's not an engine for "Upward Evolution."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  1) It is not a "problem" for organisms. If you think it is, please explain your reasoning.

                  2) There is no such thing as "upward evolution." The concept is an invention of idiot creationists such as yourself, and has no meaning in evolutionary biology.

                  The dominant form of life on the planet, Dave, is bacteria, not eukaryotes, nor metazoans, and certainly not humans. Your religion makes you think there's something special about humans. Not any actual facts.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, I've read Kimura and No, I'm not saying he's a Creationist ... if that's your gripe (a common one).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. The gripe is that you have likely not read Kimura. As I recall, you also claimed to have read Gould, Dawkins, Mayer, et. al. but when pressed, it turns out you did no such thing. You basically read the first few chapters, and then when the going got tough (or the cognitive dissonance threatened to blow your head clean off your body), you bailed. Why should we think any different of your claims to have read Kimura?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,17:28

                  Awww, poor little Davie's having a bad month, ain't he? :p  

                  After swearing up and down that mutations can NEVER produce new information (i.e. be beneficial), you finally admit that YES THEY CAN. :D :D :D

                  Then to top it off, you LIE about having ever made the original claim!  No wonder you don’t want any of your Christian friends reading this site.

                  Finally, to try and avoid further embarrassment, you change your claim to "Well, the beneficial ones are so infrequent they get swamped by the 'near neutral' ones!!"

                  Wrong again moron Dave.  The only 'problem' with a low rate of beneficial mutations is when the environment changes too fast for the beneficial genetic modifications to keep up. In that case, the species goes extinct.  BFD Dave,  99% of all species that ever lived on the planet have gone extinct. It's a good bet that Humans will too eventually, although we may be able to delay that a bit due to our technology.

                  I know this sciency stuff is just killing you Davie, which is why you need to change the topic and cry about how you’re such a persecuted, misunderstood victim.  When you decide to stop being such a big whining douche and actually discuss scientific evidence, however, maybe you could try explaining about where your post-flood scavengers came from, or how data from the Hubble telescope supports your YEC claims.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,17:37

                  Argy, I'm not gonna let dave get away with this. I'm through cutting him slack.

                  Dave, were you lying then:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Or are you lying now:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Or is it that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and simply babble away, hoping that your lord will put the words of truth in your mouth?

                  Debates are won by arguments, dave, not glossolalia.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,17:58

                  It's amazing that dave keeps using Ayala's quote, a quote that not only clearly speaks of mutations as the only source of novel diversity (not diversity in a population), not only explains the way these mutations are carried (while dave can only say to that "BAD mutations! NO mutations! ITS DESIGNER-MAJIKK! MAH LORD says so!"), but also blows away another one of dave's supposed "heavy" arguments (the ones that go 'plop' instead of 'pop';): that "near-neutral mutations cannot be selected, and eventually, I dunno, dissolve or something".

                  Poor dave.

                  ...So, dave, about information: were you lying then, or now? Or are you just obliviously ignorant, and just say the first thing that comes to your mind?
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,18:11

                  So, davy, which Kimura reference do you contend proves eric wrong when he says:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The vast majority of mutations are exactly neutral in that they do absolutely nothing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  or is it up to us to figure that out via Google Scholar?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,18:16

                  Russel, how can dave answer that, when obviously he has never read a single word by Kimura? He just copy/pasted the passage from his creo site (Sanford?) and said "so there".
                  He doesn't need to learn. He doesn't need to know. He believes.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 30 2006,18:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not going to even ask him to show up until you answer his article here < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 > that I presented to you many weeks ago.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Many weeks ago," Dave? Can you point to where you posted this? I expect a link to where you cited it, Dave.

                  Moreover, this appears to be nothing more than a rehash of what I already dealt with ( < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp > ) ...he mentions the Pinus radiata claim of his, along with his claims that two whole studies out of tens of thousands were redone due to procedural problems. I dealt with those months ago, and *I* can provide you with the exact links

                  in June of this year : < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22684 > ;
                  in July of this year  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24107 > ;
                  in August of this year < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27052 > ;  
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27219 >

                  The 14C issues have also already been dealt with, DimDave....so what part specifically did you need to go over again BEFORE you invite ol' "Dr." Don on over, snookums?

                  Oh, and as I said, you can start referring to me as "daddy" now...it's okay, I won't spank you.
                  Posted by: afdave on Nov. 30 2006,18:42

                  I'll be glad to get you the Kimura stuff again tomorrow ...

                  I see Argy is running from my spotlight on his reversion thing ... and claiming I'm a liar.

                  He is understandably confused with so much whizzing around today ... or is he?

                  Here's the deal Argy ... When I say that mutations don't add information to genomes, that is like saying that removing a teaspoon of water from the ocean doesn't help empty it.  Technically it does, but come on.

                  Only a fool would say I'm a liar for saying that.

                  That's what it's like with your supposed "information adding" or your "beneficial" mutations.

                  Sure, you might get one out of a bazillion that's a benefit, or even that reverts the gene back to its original design.

                  But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?

                  Apparently you are.  

                  God help you.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Nov. 30 2006,18:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When I say that mutations don't add information to genomes, that is like saying that removing a teaspoon of water from the ocean doesn't help empty it.  Technically it does, but come on.

                  Only a fool would say I'm a liar for saying that.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, folks, you heard right...taking SOME water out of the ocean...is **Really not ** taking some water out of an ocean.

                  BWAHAHAHA
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Nov. 30 2006,19:32

                  Dave, you are  such a moronic ignoramus.  

                  While we're waiting for a more complete explication of Dave's Spinca language theory (or maybe it's the Guaranish theory...), let's get real basic with Dave's "no beneficial mutations" aka "no new information" aka "the genome was degenerating even as biodiversity was proliferating" hypothesis hustle.

                  Dave apparently thinks that almost every genetic copying "error" aka mutation is deleterious or slightly so (we assume this is what he means by continually repeating his "nearly neutral" mantra, though he's too much of a woosy to actually take a firm position).  Who cares, Davey--any mutation that is significantly deleterious, that is harmful to the critter's chances of survival when exposed against the background of its immediate environment (let's call that impact-in-the-immediate "exposure" for short), will eliminate that particular critter from the gene pool.  Bad mutation=low odds of reproducing before dying=elimination of that mutation from the population.

                  So--barring that poor mutant individual--cares about "bad" mutations?  Only comprehension-stunted Davey.

                  (Of course, even immediately-bad mutations aren't necessarily immediately "exposed," because of the whole dominant/recessive alleles thingy that Dave has such trouble wrapping his head around: one of a mutation may confer an immediate benefit that outweighs the potential harm that results when that mutation doubles up. but why get complicated when Dave has enough difficulty with the fundamentals.)

                  That leaves "neutral" mutations--let's say they are the overwhelming majority after "exposure" deletes any immediately-harmful mutations.

                  Notice these value-laden terms (good, bad, neutral) aren't absolutes.  They mean nothing outside the context provided by the environment in which the critter has to develop and survive.  Today's "neutral" mutation can become tomorrow's "good" or "bad" mutation, depending on changes in the environment.

                  And any mutation that isn't immediately "exposed" is the equivalent of "neutral," right, Davey, because if the phenotype that's carrying it doesn't express that mutation, then the phenotype can't be hurt or harmed--yet--by carrying it (I know, Davey, this gets back into the alleles thingy that's such heavy sledding for you, so just skip this section if it makes your brain sweat).

                  So, we can disregard the bad mutations, which get eliminated, and the bad mutations which aren't "exposed" to the current environment (they'll either get eliminated when they are exposed or, if the environment changes enough in the meantime, maybe they'll turn out to be neutral or good by then).

                  Likewise, we can disregard the neutral mutations (they have no current survival impact and can't be selected for or against: that's what "neutral" means...).  If the environment changes enough so that "neutral" turns out to mean "bad," then see above.  If the environment changes enough so that "neutral" turns out to mean "good," then see below.

                  Note, Davey, that it doesn't matter how overwhelmingly numerous the bad and neutral mutations may be relative to how non-numerous any occasional (or even "vanishingly rare," teaspoon-in-the-ocean) good mutation may be.  The bad ones get eliminated, the neutral ones don't matter either way [/I]for the present[I], so the however-rare-you-wanna-believe-them-to-be good mutations are the only ones that get "counted" by this utterly-unintelligent sieve-system.

                  Good mutations, however rare, simply can't get "overwhelmed," Davey.  

                  And remember, in addition to any good-out-of-the-box mutations, you've also gotta count the good-eventually ones that started out as bad (but didn't get expressed because they were recessive) or neutral...

                  So there's more than you think, in any event.

                  This is all agonizingly simple stuff, Davey, which is why it's so funny to see you twist in the wind trying to pretend that's it's too hard to comprehend.

                  Well, okay, for you, maybe it is.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 30 2006,19:38

                  Dave Hawkins, you got caught lying again

                  You can spin and wriggle and say "well, it's just a little lie, so that shouldn't count", but that doesn't change the fact that you got caught lying again

                  Your entire argument for months now has been based on "mutations can produce NO new information".  Not "they can produce a little bit', or "they produce some, but it gets immediately lost" , but "mutations can produce NO new information"

                  When you finally were forced to admit that was wrong, you LIED about having ever used the argument in the first place

                  Now this is not the first time you've been caught lying (remember your 'challenge' that you reneged on and claimed you never made Davie?) but it certainly is the most blatant.

                  An honest man would have just admitted his argument was flawed and moved on, but no one has ever mistaken you for an honest man, have they Dave?

                  No one is going to let you slide on this one Dave.
                  Posted by: Chris Hyland on Nov. 30 2006,19:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Firstly I'm not sure how the fact that mutations are caused by errors in the copying process has anything to do with your argument. Secondly I didn't accuse you of not reading the wikipedia page properly, I accused you of not fully surveying the literature in a field you're claiming to refute.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,20:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The liars paradox AFD, you are a moral failure.

                  When you constantly lie to people, eventually you will be caught out, you provide your own come-comeuppance.

                  On every topic you have addressed to support your false claims you have been caught out.....every single one.

                  Those pseudoscientific claims have been tested by creationists in the Supreme Court over  and over and have been found to have been false. Not a single one has passed the test using the rules of evidence...NOT ONE.

                  AND AFD you are well and truly aware of that.
                  You and your con artist pals at AiG along with Hovind and all the rest of them have had ample opportunity to have those claims tested in a Court of law. That makes your claims on par with other great false claims such as 'cigarettes are safe'.

                  AFD you should know that as a pathological liar to make sure your story is consistent you MUST REMEMBER what lies you told.

                  Think of all the worlds great liars and what undid them.

                  Richard Nixon and Ted Haggard both told massive whoppers ON INTERNATIONAL TV, now if they just kept their mouths shut no one could accuse them of lying.

                  AFD whether you like it or not, you are a compulsive and pathological liar, the statement you made above proves that and it is not the only one.

                  This is basic stuff AFD surely you have that down pat by now, 10 points for false sincerity though.

                  You are so morally bankrupt there is  only one possible conclusion to make about how you live your life. What other infidelities do you hide?
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,20:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,18:42)
                  Here's the deal Argy ... When I say that mutations don't add information to genomes, that is like saying that removing a teaspoon of water from the ocean doesn't help empty it.  Technically it does, but come on.

                  Only a fool would say I'm a liar for saying that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, dave... Took you so much time to come up with an excuse as lame as that?

                  You're not fooling anyone. Everyone can read what you said.
                  And it's not "Technically mutations can increase information, but it doesn't matter".

                  It's not "mutations in general can't really (substantially, decisively, whatever) increase information in the genome".

                  It's not EVEN as vague and ambiguous as "mutations don't add info to genomes", as you falsely claim now.

                  No. dave. What you said, beyond any doubt or misinterpretation, was this:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here, I'll quote it again for you:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ALL.

                  Mutations.

                  REDUCE.

                  Information.

                  (caps yours.)

                  No misunderstanding, no ambiguation, no nothing. Clear as clear. You were quite helpful in demonstrating that. Thanks!



                  Dave Hawkins, you are a blast. Arguing with you, and demonstrating your blatant dishonesty, from Portuguese to Shannon to Biology, is easier than taking candy from a baby- a sleeping one.
                  But it doesn't cease to be entertaining, in a weird way.  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,20:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,18:42)
                  I'll be glad to get you the Kimura stuff again tomorrow ...

                  I see Argy is running from my spotlight on his reversion thing ... and claiming I'm a liar.

                  He is understandably confused with so much whizzing around today ... or is he?

                  Here's the deal Argy ... When I say that mutations don't add information to genomes, that is like saying that removing a teaspoon of water from the ocean doesn't help empty it.  Technically it does, but come on.

                  Only a fool would say I'm a liar for saying that.

                  That's what it's like with your supposed "information adding" or your "beneficial" mutations.

                  Sure, you might get one out of a bazillion that's a benefit, or even that reverts the gene back to its original design.

                  But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, everyone else here understands the "reversion" thing. You seem to be the only person incapable of understanding it. You've got some bacteria that have a mutation that prevents them from synthesizing a protein. You add a mutagen to the environment, and watch as some bacteria mutate in a way that regains the ability to synthesize that same protein.

                  In other words, we have a mutation that (by your definition) "reduces" information in the genome, and then another mutation that "increases" information in the genome, something you said was impossible. Which means you were wrong. Q.E.D.

                  Now you're claiming that you never said it was impossible for biological information to increase, but we've all seen the quotes where you said exactly that. You were wrong when you said it. Quod Erat Demonstratum.

                  You said it was impossible, Dave, not that it was unlikely, or rarely happened.

                  Now, as to your teaspoon analogy: if you took a teaspoon of water out of the ocean every five seconds for a few billion years, are you saying there never would be any change in sea levels?

                  And one more time for the hard of reading: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "UPWARD EVOLUTION." THE TERM HAS NO MEANING. Are we clear on this now, Dave? Your stupid broken misinterpretation of how evolution works does not give you the right to just make up terms, like "upward evolution" to suit your argument.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,20:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I see Argy is running from my spotlight on his reversion thing ... and claiming I'm a liar.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, what am I running away from?  Did you have a question I didn't answer? EDIT: And, as I recall, it was YOU who welched on our little bet.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What the fuck is upward evolution?  You keep using this term, but I don't think anyone else here has except when quoting you.

                  Oh, and as for calling me a fool, you can be assured that my foolishness begins and ends with Seahawks football.  Yours, however, apparently subsumes every subject of your interest.  But hey, life's not about how smart you are, it's about how happy you are.  Ignorance.. nirvana.. or something.

                  And my wife's way hotter than yours.
                  Posted by: Russell on Nov. 30 2006,20:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "except a small minority. And those we can ignore, because we refuse to consider the idea that evolution requires mutation PLUS selection; it's just way too far-fetched and convoluted an idea to even take seriously"

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure, you might get one out of a bazillion that's a benefit, or even that reverts the gene back to its original design.

                  But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?

                  Apparently you are.  

                  God help you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How many times will we have to point out to you, davy, that you're the only one here who has ever used the term "upward evolution"?

                  How many times will you attack the strawman argument that evolution depends entirely on mutation  alone? Or natural selection alone?

                  Truly, you are a bonehead.

                  I'm too tired now, but tomorrow I'm going to take you through the math of the Ames test. So be forewarned: I'm going to use terms even more exact than "bazillion".
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,20:57

                  It's pretty clear that Dave is not used to arguing with scientists. Scientists value things like accuracy, precision, and disambiguation. They say what they mean, and they don't go beyond what the evidence supports. This is often why scientists come across as tentative, unsure hairsplitters.

                  Dave's used to dealing with religious discussions, where a god can be one thing and three things simultaneously. He's used to arguments that sound impressive. He's impressed by a lot of footnotes (he must luuuv Ann Coulter).

                  When you say "ALL mutations REDUCE information," Dave, that's interpreted to mean all mutations. Not most, not "nearly all," not "practically every single one." It means "every single last solitary mutation" reduces information. If you don't mean "all," then don't say "all." And then you can start arguing coherently.

                  Dave's lack of intellectual rigor makes for some pretty entertaining pratfalls. This is a particularly savory one.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,21:02

                  Ponder this AFD.

                  Proverbs 4:26 "ponder the path of your feet and let all your ways be established."

                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,21:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm too tired now, but tomorrow I'm going to take you through the math of the Ames test. So be forewarned: I'm going to use terms even more exact than "bazillion".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'm looking forward to it!  Do you think our resident mendacitor will even read it?  I don't, but don't let that stop you.  Also, any opinion on its usage for determining the carcigenicity of a compound?  I think Ames himself has railed a bit against its misuse, as it has suggest that things such as coffee are ubernasty.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,21:04

                  k.e. let's give dave a break. even if he did keep dark secrets (and I'm sure he does not- for one thing, he'd have better things to do than presenting fairytales as scientific theories and spending 400 pages trying to "defend" them on the webs), He would hardly be able to keep them for long.

                  Think about it: He'd claim that, say, he came home late at night because:

                  -He had to stay and work overtime because some other guy had taken a leave
                  -He had to drive a sick colleague to the hospital
                  -His car broke down, and couldn't drive at all, and had to walk home
                  -There was an accident on the road and had to go to the police department and testify as a witness
                  -Aliens (demons?) kidnapped him. It's all a blur.

                  ...And he'd claim them all at the same time.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,21:17

                  Faid



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Think about it: He'd claim that, say, he came home late at night because:

                  -He had to stay and work overtime because some other guy had taken a leave
                  -He had to drive a sick colleague to the hospital
                  -His car broke down, and couldn't drive at all, and had to walk home
                  -There was an accident on the road and had to go to the police department and testify as a witness
                  -Aliens (demons?) kidnapped him. It's all a blur.

                  ...And he'd claim them all at the same time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  He doesn't have the smarts to say "I went and got a gay massage and smoked some ICE." and everyone just cracks up and forgets the question.

                  So then when anyone asks "You know the other night when those Aliens made you late, where was it again?"

                  he would answer "What aliens? I never said anything about aliens"
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,21:30

                  Here are a few excuses that always work.

                  I'm late because.
                  1. One of the females at work wanted me to snap her garters.
                  (that one always makes my wife laugh)
                  2. The elevator broke down between the 21st and 20th floors when Sandra in payroll was giving me a BJ.
                  3.A filing cabinet fell on me when Anny pulled the draw out so she could sit on it.
                  4. The guys decided to celebrate that big contract and I had to drink a bucket of beer or dance naked on the bar.I swear its the only reason they won the contract.

                  Thankyou, thankyou I've got a hundred of them. I'll be in the piano bar at 10 all week.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,21:40

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 30 2006,20:57)
                  When you say "ALL mutations REDUCE information," Dave, that's interpreted to mean all mutations. Not most, not "nearly all," not "practically every single one." It means "every single last solitary mutation" reduces information. If you don't mean "all," then don't say "all." And then you can start arguing coherently.

                  Dave's lack of intellectual rigor makes for some pretty entertaining pratfalls. This is a particularly savory one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, I think you're giving dave too much credit.

                  See, that is what he meant.

                  Both the phrase and the post's context are crystal clear: Dave claims that ALL mutations (neutral, deleterious, beneficial, whatever) REDUCE information (the caps are there for a reason), and then simply says that the few mutations called "beneficial", are defined as such arbitrarily in specific occasions, based on a "narrow context", and have nothing to do with information increase.

                  There's just no way round it; that is what he said.

                  And now he denies it.

                  It's not a question of knowing the "science talk" (and I'm sure dave will come up with a silly term like that, to try to demean all this)
                  Nope. It's a question of honesty.
                  Posted by: Faid on Nov. 30 2006,21:49

                  k.e., is there a way I can get a job where you work? I'm willing to move.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Nov. 30 2006,21:57

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,21:40)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 30 2006,20:57)
                  When you say "ALL mutations REDUCE information," Dave, that's interpreted to mean all mutations. Not most, not "nearly all," not "practically every single one." It means "every single last solitary mutation" reduces information. If you don't mean "all," then don't say "all." And then you can start arguing coherently.

                  Dave's lack of intellectual rigor makes for some pretty entertaining pratfalls. This is a particularly savory one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, I think you're giving dave too much credit.

                  See, that is what he meant.

                  Both the phrase and the post's context are crystal clear: Dave claims that ALL mutations (neutral, deleterious, beneficial, whatever) REDUCE information (the caps are there for a reason), and then simply says that the few mutations called "beneficial", are defined as such arbitrarily in specific occasions, based on a "narrow context", and have nothing to do with information increase.

                  There's just no way round it; that is what he said.

                  And now he denies it.

                  It's not a question of knowing the "science talk" (and I'm sure dave will come up with a silly term like that, to try to demean all this)
                  Nope. It's a question of honesty.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dammit! I keep overestimating Dave! There; I've gone and done it again!

                  But, in my defense, you have to admit it's almost impossible not to.

                  But yes, I know Dave was lying when he claimed he'd never said that all mutations decrease biological information. Aside from not knowing how to talk to scientists, he's never gotten the hang of this whole "written communication" thing. You know, where what you "say" is preserved for future perusal, so if you deny you said something, anyone who wants to can go back and look at what you actually did say.

                  I've noticed a lot of people in Washington these days have the same problem, so Dave's not alone.
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,22:19

                  Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,21:49)
                  k.e., is there a way I can get a job where you work? I'm willing to move.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He he ...well you know what the wages of sin are...but hey ......the hours are good.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Nov. 30 2006,23:15

                  Dave,
                  Thanks for the reply.
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 30 2006,09:51)
                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  Mike PSS...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you implying (from this Crick quote) that biologic information is a measure of the chemical makeup of a protein?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  Read the quote.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It was a question of clarification.  I was hoping on something more than a yes or no from you.  I still am asking that.  But whatever.....



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  If I applied Crick's definition to your truck analogy I would say that a certain quantity of the original metal (primarily Iron, but with other constituents of course) had oxidized to Fe2O3.  However, why I would characterize this as "DEGENERATE" is a mystery.  I would characterize this as "DIFFERENT".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No you wouldn't.  Let me prove this to you.  Let's pretend I own a used car lot and you come to my lot to buy a car.  I show you a nice, mid-90s truck and an old rusty mid-70s truck.  I tell you "Mike, this truck is not deteriorated ... it's just different.  You can have either one for $5000."  What would be your reaction?  Hmmmm....

                  Sometimes it just blows me away to see how Darwinian thinking has destroyed your common sense!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  O.K. Dave,
                  I've gotton my mind around this analogy a little more and it 'stinks'.  Your are saying that a single 1972 pick-up that ages is to DEGENERATION as the genomic mutation of multiple generations of an organism.

                  This analogy sucks.  Someone earlier (OA?) mentioned the progression of designs of a pick-up over time.  That would be more of an apt analogy in this case.

                  Now, you could also argue around the blueprints to the 1972 pick-up.  And if a 'new' truck built in 2006 from the 1972 plans came out looking like a rust bucket then this would be an apt analogy for ?transcription error? maybe.

                  So my answer to the salesman question would be "I think both are overpriced but the 1972 truck is older and showing signs of wear."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please provide a reference or link to this wonderful biologic information measurement tool you think you would use so the rest of us can share the results.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Please read what I type.  I don't have such a wonderful tool.  I said so plainly.  All I have at the moment is my intuition.  But again, intuition is quite valuable if kept in its proper place.  You have no rigorous mathematical tools to help you on my used car lot above, but you have your eyeballs and your intuition.  Ditto for biological systems.  Use it, my friend!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think I just used that skill above.

                  Do you like how I used it?  :O



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think Dave's premise of degenerate information is even less applicable when we talk about a population instead of an individual.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you have now made several statements which show that you do not read what I post.  Please re-read the posts from the many POPULATION GENETICISTS beginning with Muller in the 50's that I have posted.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So your ready to start talking about HLA-B genes again.  And how 61 new alleles appeared "fully expressed in the population" in less than 250 years.

                  I have a little brain teaser in response to your Ayala post that you use to support this whole mixture analogy you seem to hold onto.  Anyway, Ayala is referring to populations mixing genes over a l-o-o-o-o-o-ng time.  So we'll have to start talking about deep time again when discussing Ayala.

                  Assume sickle-cell anemia (SCA) is the same as an HLA-B allele.  Black Africans brought the SCA allele to the NA continent over 300 years ago.
                  Now, how distributed within the NA population is SCA?
                  Do we find it expressed in Native Americans?
                  Do we find it expressed in European natives?
                  Do we find it expressed in South-East Asian Natives?

                  How long before the population becomes fully admixed so that the SCA distribution within the NA population is statistically avereaged?  Another 300 years?  5 years?  never?

                  And....  Will there be populations living in NA that can trace ancestry back that shows no admixture with other groups?

                  Population genetics is discussed in terms of statistics.  It's one of the few mathamatical practices I loathe (give me matrix mathamatics any day, eigen value anyone?) but I think I can muddle my way through.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,23:33

                  So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him.  And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

                  Mike,
                  Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor?
                  Posted by: k.e on Nov. 30 2006,23:37

                  Dorothy Parker I believe Argy
                  Posted by: argystokes on Nov. 30 2006,23:48

                  Ah, right you are, King Elvishfantastic!
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 01 2006,00:04

                  Dave, it appears you could use a little break from genetics and I am, unfortunately, stranded here at IAH for the night, so what say we do a little history?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Show me why I should be interested in what Jay thought about Catholics.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Because it is exactly the type of bigotry exhibited by Jay (*) that the Founders sought to forestall by keeping church and state completely separate.  So, unless you can articulate reasoning to the contrary, by embracing Jay in your quest to prove this is a Christian nation, you are embracing his bigotry.  So, I am trying to give you a chance to escape that problem.  Why should we give any credence to Jay's opinion, when his "Christian nation" does not allow complete freedom of religion?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I do not know if it was bigotry or not.  If it is true (as some have claimed) that many Catholics placed loyalty to the Vatican ABOVE loyalty to the US Constitution, then I would agree with Jay.  If not, then I would have opposed Jay in this.  My guess is that Jay's position had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with LOYALTY to one's country.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your guess would be wrong and I even gave you a big ole clue as to where Jay's bigotry came from.  It was anti-Catholic bigotry, period.  All Catholics, not just those who might have given first allegiance to the RCC.  Every last one of them.  And, I might add, you still haven't answered the question.  I can't say I blame you.  You are staring at another Portuguese moment if you were to answer it.  No worries, guy.  We can move on to (hopefully) more productive fields.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But it gets worse. As we have seen already, only 3 of the 10 commandments can be found in American law and those three are also common across any number of different belief systems.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's because you are looking for EXPLICIT citations of the 10 commandments in the Constitution.  Obviously, this cannot be found.  I have never claimed that it can.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, I am not looking for that at all.  I am perfectly capable of dealing with abstractions.  So, if you can point to anywhere in US law where the commandments are codified, even if they are not literally transcribed. I will grant you "Thou shalt not (kill, steal, bear false witness)"  Those are, after all, endemic to most belief systems.  But, can you offer up any of the other 7?  Don't limit yourself to the Constitution.  You are free to use the entire body of American law.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote  
                  In short, your definition could allow you to claim a Buddhist as a Christian.
                  Not true at all.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You'll need to explain in a little more detail.  You've already stated that acceptance of Christ's divinity is not necessary for you to count someone as a Christian.  So, by what criteria do you include diests and unitarians, but exclude Buddhists?  
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  You said yesterday, in the discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli that the United States was a Christian nation, but did not have a Christian government.  Do you wish to have a Christian government?  If yes, explain how it would be different than the government we have now. If no, then what is the point of all this Christian nation effort if there is no practical difference to the government we have now.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wish to RETURN to a government which more closely resembles our Original Government, which our Christian Founders gave us.  Among my political action items are ...

                  DAVE'S POLITICAL GOALS FOR AMERICA
                  1) Reduce the size and power of government.  Government is a necessary evil.  It is necessary.  And it can be quite evil especially if it is too big.  Let's make it as small as possible.  Power corrupts.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, cool.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  2) Get the government out of the welfare business.  Government at both the state and federal levels redistributes wealth at a level never dreamed of by the Founders.  Private citizens get handouts.  Special interest groups get handouts.  School districts get handouts.  Universities get handouts.  Companies get handouts.  Everyone gets handouts.  It's ridiculous.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I tend to agree.  Churches get handouts too.  If you agree that we should end the tax deduction for contributions to churches and the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, I believe we can close this deal today.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  3) Get government out of the Education business.  Abolish the DOE.  We don't need it.  Let colleges, universities and public schools stand on their own two feet if they can.  Stop taxing my property to pay for the overpriced public school that I don't even want.  If people want that public school, let them pay for it voluntarily.  I have a much more efficient means of educating my children.  It's called Abeka DVD.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And what of the working poor who can't afford the private education to help their children aspire to better?  Do you feel no obligation to them, the least of these my brethren?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  4) Abolish the Federal Reserve and restore the US Treasury to it's rightful role in controlling our money.  Quit paying interest to the Fed for them printing money for us.  Print it ourselves and save the interest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh, boy. There have been several successful attempts in US History to abolish the independent central bank.  All precipitated financial chaos.  But, okay, lets go with this for a moment.  What you are advocating is turning control of monetary policy over to the elected government.  Please reconcile this with your statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Why do you think we should trust the politicians to control the purse strings?  They already spend like drunken sailors and you want to give them the controls of the printing press?  

                  Side question:  Do you understand why the Fed loans money at interest?  Your statement implies you don't, but I'll give you a chance to disabuse me of that notion.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  5) Get rid of this revisionist interpretation of Separation of Church and State once and for all.  Do we have freedom of religion or not?  We used to.  Until the revisionist judges abolished prayer and Bible reading in public life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Umm, judges have abolished no such thing.  Individual citizens have always been, and continue to be, free to do such things. The problem comes in when you ask the government to endorse such acts. There is no question that, in an effort to avoid lawsuits, government officials have wrongly infringed on peoples rights under the Free Exercise Clause, but that can also be remedied through the courts. Hells bells, the ACLU has defended street preachers and Christians in free exercise cases, for goodness sake. And successfully, I might add.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  6) Accomplish massive tort reform.  We have far too many people suing one another for everything under the sun.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Says the man threatening to sic lawyers at other forum participants.  (chuckle)

                  I am not unsympathetic, mind you.  My wife is an attorney that does a lot of work for a large, local company.  She tells me about some of the stuff that comes across her desk.  But, we are a nation of laws. How should we resolve disputes, if not through the courts?  And how do we ensure access to the courts for all citizens regardless of financial means (again, the least of these my brethren)?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  7) Impeach judges who violate their oaths of office.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That takes place now.  Are the names Alcee Hastings and Roy Moore familiar to you?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  8) Quit telling Christians they can't pray in school, write book reports about Mary & Joseph, etc. etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Umm, again, they can do such things now. But, also again, asking the government to provide endorsement is problematic.  If you want to pursue this line of discussion, please take more care in differentiating Establishment Clause from Free Exercise Clause.  You are muddling the two.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  9) In short, stick to the basics of good government based on the general principles of Christianity--honor your parents, marriage is a man and a woman, don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't bear false witness, don't covet, etc.  Do a good job of enforcing the basics and leave it at that.

                  10)  Recognize that America was founded as a Christian nation, so quit trying to change that, i.e. we swear in Congressmen on BIBLES, not the Koran, thank you very much.  It's fine if you want to read the Koran and be a Muslim and build a mosque and what have you.  It's NOT fine to insist that you be allowed to be sworn in with a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible in America.  What next?  Should we allow a neo-Nazi congressman to be sworn in using "Mein Kampf"?   ...  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which brings us to the $64,000 question. Would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?
                  Posted by: thurdl01 on Dec. 01 2006,08:20

                  President Teddy Roosevelt did not swear the oath of office on a Bible.  He, instead, affirmed it without a Bible present.

                  Did the US survive?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,08:27

                  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "EXACTLY NEUTRAL" MUTATION IN THE REAL WORLD

                  KIMURA ON "NEARLY NEUTRAL" MUTATIONS (1979)



                  Now ... do YOU see any EXACTLY neutral mutations on Kimura's chart?  I don't.  Furthermore, you cannot find the phrase "exactly neutral" anywhere in Kimura's paper.  Just because he makes a distinction by using the terms "neutral" and "nearly neutral" doesn't mean that "exactly neutral" mutations actually occur in nature.  Remember that the only reason they are termed "neutral" at all is because of our lack of knowledge about genomes.  Note Emile Zuckerkandl's statements on "junk DNA" (Editor of J. Molecular Evolution) ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ‘Given a sufficient lack of comprehension, anything (and that includes a quartet of Mozart) can be declared to be junk. The junk DNA concept has exercised such a hold over a large part of the community of molecular biologists …(emphasis in original).’ (Zuckerkandl, E. and Hennig, W., Tracking heterochromatin, Chromosoma 104:75, 1995.)

                  ‘DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ (Zuckerkandl, E. et al., Maintenance of function without selection, J. Molecular Evolution 29:504, 1989.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Gotta love it!  IOW ... no one can say there is such a thing as truly neutral mutations.  If all this "junk DNA" really isn't junk after all (evidence is accumulating for this) then those mutations most likely aren't neutral.  May not have a big effect, true.  But not neutral.

                  Note also that Kimura explains that "effectively neutral" is in fact "very slightly deleterious." (VSDMs)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
                  Vol. 76, No. 7, pp. 3440-3444, July 1979
                  Genetics
                  Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective
                  constraint is incorporated

                  (molecular evolution/protein polymorphism/population genetics/neutral mutation theory)
                  MOTOO KIMURA
                  National Institute of Genetics, Mishima 411, Japan
                  Contributed by Motoo Kimura, April 25, 1979

                  "Finally, there is one biological problem that we have to consider. Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual's survival and reproduction-i.e., in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount to o-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point,[IOW "Look, we're here, aren't we?] but, this will easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur [They MUST occur ... I KNOW they do ... I don't know of any ... but they MUST occur ... Hail Darwin!] from time to time (say once every few hundred generations)."
                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/76/7/3440 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So again, the idea of "exactly neutral mutations" is just another fairy tale concocted by Darwinists to try to keep their dying theory alive.

                  There is no evidence of "exactly neutral mutations" in the real world.

                  And again the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious ... at least if you exclude the Fantasy Land of Darwinian Theory.  Yes ... a few teaspoonfuls in the vast ocean of mutations are possibly, maybe, hopefully-are-if-you're-a Darwinist beneficial, but these get overwhelmed easily and the species goes extinct.  Again, welcome to your future.  You can either continue in denial of reality, or you can accept the truth.  And if you accept the truth iin the world of science (which agrees with the written Word from the Creator of the phenomena which science studies) ... then everything makes sense.

                  ************************************************
                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  I see that some of you have various erroneous ideas ... Faid saying that I think nearly neutral mutations cannot be selected for ... and we have Steviepinhead ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Note, Davey, that it doesn't matter how overwhelmingly numerous the bad and neutral mutations may be relative to how non-numerous any occasional (or even "vanishingly rare," teaspoon-in-the-ocean) good mutation may be.  The bad ones get eliminated, the neutral ones don't matter either way [/I]for the present, so the however-rare-you-wanna-believe-them-to-be good mutations are the only ones that get "counted" by this utterly-unintelligent sieve-system.

                  Good mutations, however rare, simply can't get "overwhelmed," Davey.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh really?  How do you explain this quote from Crow then ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  J.F. Crow. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386.
                  "It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don't we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime." [Hmmm ... he's saying we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors? ... how then did we evolve into what we are now?]

                  "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. "
                  (Snip author's rejection of "truncation selection" as not viable ... proposes "quasi-truncation selection" instead which Sanford soundly refutes.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Or how about this one ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Why have we not died 100 times over?"

                  Gotta love it.  Right there in the title and Stevie blithely drinks the Darwinian koolaid and says "Good mutations, however rare, simply can't get "overwhelmed," Davey."

                  Sleep tight, Stevie.  Everything's fine.  We're evolving into Superman.  There is no God, no afterlife, no judgment, no sin.  Sleep tight!

                  *************************************************

                  IS GENE DUPLICATION A POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR TOE?
                  Chris Hyland ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.
                  (Chris responds) Firstly I'm not sure how the fact that mutations are caused by errors in the copying process has anything to do with your argument. Secondly I didn't accuse you of not reading the wikipedia page properly, I accused you of not fully surveying the literature in a field you're claiming to refute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  My argument is simply that the Primary Axiom (RM+NS) is dead.  I have demonstrated this with numerous recent quotes from population geneticists.  Note that I am not saying that [i]they
                  think it is dead.  I'm not that naive.  I realize that they are still wishful thinkers in spite of the evidence.  I am saying that it is in fact dead and their statements prove it.  I even gave you Allen MacNeill ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm
                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success. ... And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.
                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archive....14]http >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  MacNeill goes on to exult about what a great time it is to be an evolutionary biologist because he and his colleagues "curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown."

                  Great, Dr. MacNeill ... what new ideas are there that can salvage ToE?

                  (Enter Chris Hyland with 8 ideas ... one of which was "Gene Duplication")

                  He referred me to Wikipedia which says this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function or (b) acquire deleterious mutations and become a pseudogene.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Notice again the word "error."  It was not a biased YEC that wrote that, friends. The author said "Gene duplications occur when an ERROR happens."  

                  Why does this have anything to do with my argument?  It has everything to do with it.  You are trying to use this mechanism as an engine for evolution and yet it's an error??  Things don't get built by accumulating errors, friends.  Maybe they do in Darwinland and Alice in Wonderland, but not in the real world.

                  *****************************************
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,08:32

                  Which brings me to ...

                  UPWARD EVOLUTION
                  You all keep saying there is no such thing.  OK.  If not, then how did that worm grow fins and eyes to eventually become a fish-like creature?  How did that ape-like ancestor get a larger brain and all the other characteristics that make us human? What are these scientists talking about when they say "higher genomes" ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Construction of a large-insert yeast artificial chromosome library from sheep DNA - group of 3 »
                  MF Broom, DF Hill - Mammalian Genome, 1994 - Springer
                  ... YAC cloning system to accommodate up to two megabases of foreign DNA has dramatically
                  enhanced our abil- ity to dissect the higher genomes, facilitating the ...
                  Cited by 24 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct

                  Computational prediction of transcription-factor binding site locations - group of 8 »
                  ML Bulyk - Genome Biol, 2003 - obiweb.bcgsc.ca
                  ... more difficult than in model organisms with smaller genomes, partly because of the
                  larger genome size, because a larger portion of higher genomes is noncoding ...
                  Cited by 49 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct

                  A probabilistic view of gene function - group of 3 »
                  AG Fraser, EM Marcotte - Nature Genetics, 2004 - polaris.icmb.utexas.edu
                  ... Even if such a grand goal may be currently unattainable, transporting entire networks
                  from model organisms into higher genomes may already provide a valuable ...
                  Cited by 30 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

                  Systematic functional analysis of the yeast genome - group of 12 »
                  SG Oliver, MK Winson, DB Kell, F Baganz - Trends in Biotechnology, 1998 - personalpages.umist.ac.uk
                  ... represent a major resource, not only for the functional analysis of the yeast genome
                  but also for facilitating the analysis of higher genomes by permitting ...
                  Cited by 124 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

                  Comparative cytological study of Solanum aethiopicum Gilo group, Solanum aethiopicum Shum group and … - group of 2 »
                  HU Anaso - Euphytica, 1991 - Springer
                  ... In angiosperm evolution, Stebbins (1974) sug- gested that lower genomes or
                  morphologically less complex forms gave rise to higher genomes or Page 5. ...
                  Cited by 2 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  A General Approach for Identifying Distant Regulatory Elements Applied to the Gdf6 Gene - group of 8 »
                  DP Mortlock, C Guenther, DM Kingsley - 2003 - genome.org
                  ... Regulatory sequences in higher genomes can map large distances from gene coding
                  regions, and cannot yet be identified by simple inspection of primary DNA ...
                  Cited by 14 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct

                  Spectral Analysis of Guanine and Cytosine Fluctuations of Mouse Genomic DNA - group of 5 »
                  W Li, D Holste - Arxiv preprint q-bio.GN/0411017, 2004 - arxiv.org
                  ... has been established for yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome sequence [67], no
                  conclusive result have yet been ob- tained for higher genomes such as human ...
                  Cited by 1 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

                  A Two-Edged Role for the Transposable Element Kiddo in the rice ubiquitin2 Promoter - group of 4 »
                  G Yang, YH Lee, Y Jiang, X Shi, S Kertbundit, TC … - The Plant Cell Online, 2005 - plantcell.org
                  ... Evolutionary Implications of the Role of MITEs in Higher Genomes At first sight,
                  TEs appear to be disruptive forces for the integrity of a genome. ...
                  Cited by 1 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  Mechanism of extreme genetic recombination in weedy Amaranthus hybrids - group of 4 »
                  AN Steinau, DZ Skinner, M Steinau - Weed Science, 2003 - bioone.org
                  ... Various types of repetitive DNA constitute much of the higher genomes of eukaryotes,
                  including tandemly repeated sequences, transposons, and retrotransposons ...
                  Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search - BL Direct

                  A Two-Edged Role for Kiddo in the rice ubiquitin2 Promoter - group of 2 »
                  G Yang, YH Lee, Y Jiang, X Shi, S Kertbundit, TC … - The Plant Cell Online - plantcell.org
                  ... DISCUSSION Evolutionary Implications of the Role of MITEs in Higher Genomes At first
                  sight, TEs appear to be disruptive forces for the integrity of a genome. ...
                  Related Articles - Web Search
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... or how about the 21,600 results of a "higher organisms" search of Google Scholar search ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Scholar  All articles  Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 21,600 for  "higher organisms". (0.16 seconds)



                  … of thousands of copies of DNA sequences have been incorporated into the genomes of higher organisms …
                  RJ Britten, DE Kohne - Science, 1968 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
                  Repeated sequences in DNA. Hundreds of thousands of copies of DNA sequences have
                  been incorporated into the genomes of higher organisms. Britten RJ, Kohne DE. ...
                  Cited by 582 - Related Articles - Cached - Web Search

                  A Genomic Scanning Method for Higher Organisms Using Restriction Sites as Landmarks - group of 5 »
                  I Hatada, Y Hayashizaki, S Hirotsune, H … - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1991 - pnas.org
                  ... ARTICLE. A Genomic Scanning Method for Higher Organisms Using Restriction Sites
                  as Landmarks. I Hatada, Y Hayashizaki, S Hirotsune, H Komatsubara and T Mukai. ...
                  Cited by 144 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  [BOOK] A Genetic Switch: Phage [lambda] and Higher Organisms
                  M Ptashne - 1992 - Cell Press Cambridge, Mass
                  Cited by 196 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search

                  … in Gram-negative bacteria: A signaling mechanism involved in associations with higher organisms - group of 6 »
                  MR Parsek, EP Greenberg - 2000 - pnas.org
                  ... Colloquium Paper Acyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing in Gram-negative bacteria:
                  A signaling mechanism involved in associations with higher organisms. ...
                  Cited by 119 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct

                  … of bacteriophage lambda useful in the cloning of DNA from higher organisms: the lambdagtWES system - group of 2 »
                  P Leder, D Tiemeier, L Enquist - Science, 1977 - sciencemag.org
                  ... articles. EK2 derivatives of bacteriophage lambda useful in the cloning of DNA from
                  higher organisms: the lambdagtWES system. P Leder, D Tiemeier, and L Enquist ...
                  Cited by 105 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  General Model for the Chromosomes of Higher Organisms - group of 2 »
                  F CRICK - Nature, 1971 - nature.com
                  ... Nature 234, 25 - 27 (05 November 1971); doi:10.1038/234025a0. General Model
                  for the Chromosomes of Higher Organisms. FRANCIS CRICK. ...
                  Cited by 86 - Related Articles - Cached - Web Search

                  Marine Pseudoalteromonas species are associated with higher organisms and produce biologically … - group of 6 »
                  C Holmstroem, S Kjelleberg - FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 1999 - Blackwell Synergy
                  ... Volume 30 Issue 4. Marine Pseudoalteromonas species are associated with higher
                  organisms and produce biologically active extracellular agents. ...
                  Cited by 67 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  [CITATION] A Genetic Switch: Phage and Higher Organisms
                  M Ptashne - Cambridge, MA: Cell-Blackwell Scientific, 1994
                  Cited by 76 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  … Lasker Medical Awards. Clusters of master control genes regulate the development of higher organisms - group of 4 »
                  EB Lewis - JAMA, 1992 - jama.ama-assn.org
                  ... ARTICLES. The 1991 Albert Lasker Medical Awards. Clusters of master control
                  genes regulate the development of higher organisms. EB Lewis. ...
                  Cited by 42 - Related Articles - Web Search - BL Direct

                  Control of Specific Gene Expression in Higher Organisms
                  GM Tomkins, TD Gelehrter, D Granner, D Martin Jr, … - Science, 1969 - adsabs.harvard.edu
                  ... below) · Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML) · · Translate Abstract Title:
                  Control of Specific Gene Expression in Higher Organisms Authors: Tomkins ...
                  Cited by 47 - Related Articles - Web Search
                  (etc etc etc)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No such thing as "Upward Evolution" !!!  Such nonsense!

                  From scientists, no less!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,08:38

                  MY NEWEST FAVORITE WORD -- "GLOSSOLALIA" -- FROM FAID
                  Thanks, Faid.  I'm glad to see that you contribute something substantive once in a while.

                  ************************************************
                  Argy ... since you missed it the first time ... I asked ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So they applied a mutagen so they [the bacteria] couldn't synthesize histidine, and observed some mutated back to a form that can synthesise histidine.  Did this reversion happen by the same mechanism?  i.e. frame shift?  Was it an exact reversion?  IOW did the original frameshift revert to it original "un-frame shifted" state?  Or are they simply saying that some of them mutated again via a different mechanism and the mutated form again was able to synthesise histidine?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ******************************************************
                  ISN'T TWO COPIES OF INFORMATION = DOUBLE THE INFORMATION?
                  I've also heard this "Well Dave, if you copy a book don't you have twice as much information?"  No.  You don't.  You have multiple copies of the same information.  I have a suggestion for whoever asked this question ... Go to the US Patent Office and find some really successful invention that GE or IBM or somebody holds.  Make an exact copy of all the paperwork and submit it to the Patent Office ... see what they say.  I can hear them now, "Wow, Mr. Murphy!  That's a really cool invention!  How did you ever come up with such a great idea!  You must be brilliant!  Here, let us nominate you for a Nobel Prize!"

                  THE RUSTY PICKUP TRUCK ANALOGY EXPLAINED AGAIN
                  [b]Degeneration in the pickup truck is analogous to the accumulating load of VSDMs in genomes. (do you remember what VSDMs are?) (Remember ... those nasty things that Darwinists don't like to talk about that Kondrashov asked about saying "Why have we not died 100 times over?"  Remember?)

                  Got it?

                  Pickup truck rust <=> Accumulating VSDMs in Genomes.

                  Recombination alone ==> Sufficient to produce the variation we see (Ayala)

                  *********************************************************

                  Carlson ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your guess would be wrong and I even gave you a big ole clue as to where Jay's bigotry came from.  It was anti-Catholic bigotry, period.  All Catholics, not just those who might have given first allegiance to the RCC.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And what evidence would you offer to show that this fear was not due to the widespread concern over misplaced allegiance observed within the Catholic hierarchy?  Remember the history of Protestantism and the Catholic Counter Reformation which opposed it.  This was heavy stuff back then and prominent in people's minds.  How many countries did the Jesuits get officially kicked out of back then?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,08:40

                  AFD I'm surprised you came back.

                  You DO REALIZE you have absolutely proven BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT you are nothing more than a shameless fraud?

                  BTW I'm waiting on a PM from your attorney...liar.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,08:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD I'm surprised you came back.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Many people here at ATBC have encountered a lot of surprises in the last 6 months. :-)
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,09:01

                  If you understand, things are just as they are...
                  if you do not understand, things are just as they are
                  Zen proverb





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which brings me to ...

                  UPWARD EVOLUTION
                  You all keep saying there is no such thing.  OK.  If not, then how did that worm grow fins and eyes to eventually become a fish-like creature?  How did that ape-like ancestor get a larger brain and all the other characteristics that make us human? What are these scientists talking about when they say "higher genomes" ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Woa Neddy Flanders......

                  would never say "If not, then how did that worm grow fins and eyes to eventually become a fish-like creature? "

                  he would say g$d made the whole lot at once, between dictating scriptures and working out where the arms and legs went on his Ken and Barby dolls.

                  Are you saying evolution happened or not?

                  You must start an index card system AFD and script your replies for continuity that way when you tell the big lie it won't be so obvious.

                  Did you get your adoption case worker to vet your 'work' here?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,09:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,08:56)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD I'm surprised you came back.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Many people here at ATBC have encountered a lot of surprises in the last 6 months. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well considering your need as someone suffering from a severe case of NPD, I suppose it shouldn't be that surprising.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,09:32

                  I already answered your question, Dave. Before you asked it, actually.  See < here > and feel free to read the whole PDF if you have any other questions.

                  By the way, I'd like to see you answer Faid's question on information.  It's another one of those easy yes/no type questions:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
                  Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,09:50

                  Why AFD, do you bother quote mining non creationist sources.



                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Hmmm ... he's saying we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors? ... how then did we evolve into what we are now?]


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Considering all your Mythology is  bronze age based there is no mention of pre-historic Levantine stone age based cultures, even in Sumerian times.

                  So Adam and Eve were stone age and non literate were they?

                  ....careful AFD your AiG index cards are getting mixed up.

                  And BTW the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens is around 200,000 years old and there is fossil evidence that 'stone age' man was in the ME around 90,000 years ago.

                  You and I AFD are that same species and there has been no evolution of a new species of 'Homo' since then. There were isolated stone age cultures up until recent times, whose cultures have been  the target of western missionaries
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 01 2006,09:53

                  Liar Dave, do you wake up each morning and resolve to tell six lies before breakfast?

                  Your stupidity and arrogance is unbelievable.

                  You post an excerpt from a Kimura paper and scream for joy when it mentions that VSDM's may accumulate, but totally blow off the following sentences that says they are not a problem due to adaptive gene substitutions.

                  And your rant on 'upward evolution' is pure BS too.  You've been using the term to mean 'Man and all creatures were created perfect and can't evolve to get any better'.  Scientists use the term to mean 'evolution tends to create more complexity in organisms'.  These are two completely different ideas.  Not only that, all the quotes you C&Ped support the idea that evolution has occurred over hundred millions of years.  Even when you try, you can't help but shoot yourself in the foot. :D

                  Even the A.S. Kondrashov paper you cite is a quote mine.  Here is whole abstract (from PubMed)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?

                  ABSTRACT: It is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below approximately 1/4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is approximately 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G < s < 1/4Ne. Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why did you (or Sanford) take the quote out of context and omit the conclusions Dave?  What did someone here recently say about out of context quotes?
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your warped, twisted, data ignoring, "lies for Jesus are acceptable" little world is alien to the honest people here Dave.  Rest assured we will keep calling you on your lies.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,10:15

                  See OA, you've parsed this one incorrectly, so Dave's not lying.  See,


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Which is nothing more than lying" refers to the active verb in the preceding clause, which is "enjoy."  Stallwort Dave the Christian Soldier isn't enjoying himself, he's grimly meting out the justice of God's terrible swift sword.  Therefore, he's not lying, at least by his own definitions.

                  Also thanks to Faid, who by teaching me the word glossolalia, has given me the second cool new word for my vocabulary of late (Panjandrum, used by PZ and directed at Brayton, was the first).
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,10:16

                  afdave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now ... do YOU see any EXACTLY neutral mutations on Kimura's chart?  I don't
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That may be. But that's only because you don't know how to read this kind of chart. And, quite frankly, if you can't even look at the pictures in the article correctly, there's not much point in even trying to read the text.

                  But if you look at the graph, find the "maximum": the point on the curve with the highest vertical  position (i.e. the highest frequency). Now, move down to the corresponding point on the x-axis (the selective disadvantage) What is the x-axis value at that point?

                  Why, it's ZERO! In other words, exactly neutral.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,10:16

                  Argy...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I already answered your question, Dave. Before you asked it, actually.  See here and feel free to read the whole PDF if you have any other questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No you didn't.  I read that.  Are you going to answer my specific questions?  Or just keep dodging?   Do you even understand the stuff you post well enough to explain it in your own words?  I'm suspecting maybe not.

                  Here's my questions again ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So they applied a mutagen so they [the bacteria] couldn't synthesize histidine, and observed some mutated back to a form that can synthesise histidine.  Did this reversion happen by the same mechanism?  i.e. frame shift?  Was it an exact reversion?  IOW did the original frameshift revert to it original "un-frame shifted" state?  Or are they simply saying that some of them mutated again via a different mechanism and the mutated form again was able to synthesise histidine?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Aftershave ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Kondrashov's conclusion] ...Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Why did I omit this?  Because it gets very boring to hear Darwinian wishful thinking over and over again offered up to try to explain things.  You act like this is some sort of real solution for Kondrashov.  It's not.  He's speculating like most of you here do.  Do you remember how I explained "synergistic epistasis" to you?  Do you even know what that means? I do.  It means "interactive interaction."  Pretty brainy stuff, yes?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,10:17

                  Here is something else to ponder AFD.

                  Why has Homo Sapiens Sapiens (our species) not evolved from 200,000 years ago?

                  Hint .....the ToE predicts new species came about because......
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,10:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why did I omit this?  Because it gets very boring to hear Darwinian wishful thinking over and over again offered up to try to explain things.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Bwhahahahahaha

                  Then why did you quote him to support your
                  Creationist wishful thinking over and over again.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,10:40

                  Look AFD if you must lie everytime you open your mouth at least do it with sincerity.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why did I omit this?  Because it gets very boring to hear Darwinian wishful thinking over and over again offered up to try to explain things.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Just a little lacking in passion and conviction there AFD I'm afraid 1 out of 10.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,10:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
                  mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
                  by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen
                  ,
                  ref. 12)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Or, if you prefer, from later in the paper which you say you read...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Our data l)resented here and the recent data of Ames, Sims,
                  and Grover (16) onl polycyclic hydrocarbon epoxides show
                  that various chemical carcinogens are frameshift mutagens.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The only way to revert a frameshift mutation is with another frameshift (OK, or introduction of a complementing gene... but you have to do that yourself or pray the perfect phage has contaminated your culture).  You, uh, do know what a frameshift mutation is, right?

                  And if you don't believe I can explain the Ames test in my own words, well, you're welcome to make a bet with me.  But it's generally not a good idea to do so.  I don't lose often.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,10:48

                  Hmmmm it seems monkey boy does know what a lie is



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying..
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Over to you AFD.

                  perhaps to make it easier for us don't bother with the quote mines just put



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFDave:  OUT of context quote, (which is nothing more than lying).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,10:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,08:27)
                  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "EXACTLY NEUTRAL" MUTATION IN THE REAL WORLD

                  KIMURA ON "NEARLY NEUTRAL" MUTATIONS (1979)



                  Now ... do YOU see any EXACTLY neutral mutations on Kimura's chart?  I don't.  Furthermore, you cannot find the phrase "exactly neutral" anywhere in Kimura's paper.  Just because he makes a distinction by using the terms "neutral" and "nearly neutral" doesn't mean that "exactly neutral" mutations actually occur in nature.  Remember that the only reason they are termed "neutral" at all is because of our lack of knowledge about genomes.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow, Dave. I've seen you step in stupidity before, but this time you've tripped headlong and fallen face-down in it.

                  See that Kimura chart you've posted? That chart demonstrates that the single largest category of mutations, by far, is exactly neutral!

                  There oughta be a prize. Any ideas for a name for it?

                  And no, Dave, the reason they're referred to as "exactly neutral" is because they have no effect whatsoever on the phenotype. If a codon mutates to another codon that codes for the exact same amino acid, in what way is that mutation not exactly neutral? If a sequence is never expressed, in what possible way is it not exactly neutral?

                  You're on a quixotic quest to find evidence that any possible mutation is a degeneration of the genome (since your argument that mutations cannot increase information is DOA), when it's already been proven beyond all possibility of doubt that this is not the case. What's your next move, genius?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IS GENE DUPLICATION A POSSIBLE MECHANISM FOR TOE?
                  Chris Hyland ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact is that MUTATIONS ARE ERRORS.  Says so right there in the link which Chris Hyland supplied which he thinks I don't read carefully.
                  (Chris responds) Firstly I'm not sure how the fact that mutations are caused by errors in the copying process has anything to do with your argument. Secondly I didn't accuse you of not reading the wikipedia page properly, I accused you of not fully surveying the literature in a field you're claiming to refute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  My argument is simply that the Primary Axiom (RM+NS) is dead.  I have demonstrated this with numerous recent quotes from population geneticists.  Note that I am not saying that they think it is dead.  I'm not that naive.  I realize that they are still wishful thinkers in spite of the evidence.  I am saying that it is in fact dead and their statements prove it.  I even gave you Allen MacNeill ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Would you care to post a permalink as to where, exactly, you've proven that RM+NS is "dead," Dave? Because the MacNeill quote doesn't do it, doesn't even come close, and I've read every post you've written on this thread, and you've never done it either.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Enter Chris Hyland with 8 ideas ... one of which was "Gene Duplication")

                  He referred me to Wikipedia which says this ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gene duplication occurs when an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome leads to the duplication of a region of DNA containing a gene [1]. The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that, unlike a single functional gene, which is usually subject to purifying selection and thus has a slowed mutation rate, one copy of a duplicate set of genes is often freed from selective pressure, allowing it to freely mutate. This is because with two copies of a gene present, mutations in just one copy of the gene often have no deleterious effect on the organism; thus, the second copy is free to "explore" the sequence space by mutating randomly. The duplicate gene may either (a) acquire mutations that lead to a gene with a novel function or (b) acquire deleterious mutations and become a pseudogene.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Notice again the word "error."  It was not a biased YEC that wrote that, friends. The author said "Gene duplications occur when an ERROR happens."  

                  Why does this have anything to do with my argument?  It has everything to do with it.  You are trying to use this mechanism as an engine for evolution and yet it's an error??  Things don't get built by accumulating errors, friends.  Maybe they do in Darwinland and Alice in Wonderland, but not in the real world.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, do a little research on the origins of the vulcanization process sometime. Then do a little research on the discovery of the cosmic microwave background. Maybe you'd like to research how the technology of the tempering of steel was discovered. Have you ever worked in a kitchen before? Do you have any idea how many technological advances are the result of "errors," or "mistakes"? This idea that because a gene duplication is an "error" it cannot possibly drive evolution forward is utterly wrong.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 01 2006,10:59

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 01 2006,10:50)
                  Dave, do a little research on the origins of the vulcanization process sometime. Then do a little research on the discovery of the cosmic microwave background. Maybe you'd like to research how the technology of the tempering of steel was discovered. Have you ever worked in a kitchen before? Do you have any idea how many technological advances are the result of "errors," or "mistakes"? This idea that because a gene duplication is an "error" it cannot possibly drive evolution forward is utterly wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  lol

                  Dave, maybe you should jot this question about how it might be possible that useful things can arise from errors down on a Post-It note. However, since it takes you forever to get around to answering questions, and we wouldn't want your note to succumb to that rapid degradation you're always going on about, maybe you can enclose your note in plastic cling-wrap (e.g., Saran wrap) as a sort of poor-man's lamination.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,11:01

                  Just a gentle reminder, Dave: you have not discussed anything that has anything to do with your joke of a "hypothesis" since your last mention of "genetic richness" (another precious Portuguese moment). Are you planning on diving in again in your desperate attempts to find any evidentiary support for your "hypothesis" before the end of the year? Or have you tacitly admitted that your "hypothesis," the supposed but long-neglected subject of this thread, is DOA?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 01 2006,11:05

                  Oh come ON, dave... Don't tell me you've never heard of < Glossolalia? > You of all people?

                  Sooo... What juicy bits do we have in this new post of yours? Let's see... Saying that "neutral" does not mean "EXACTLY neutral", although Kimura distinguishes between neutral and nearly neutral... Meh, same old mumbo-jumbo. Doing a google search on "EXACTLY neutral" to prove it... Heh, better, made me snicker, but still nothing new.... Hey, "proving" that "upward evolution" is a valid term, by googling, not "upward evolution", but "higher genomes" and "organisms"! Haha! That's a good davism, worth the read... Anything else? Let's see... OH MY GOSH!


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I see that some of you have various erroneous ideas ... Faid saying that I think nearly neutral mutations cannot be selected for ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now, why did I think of that... Oh, I dunno... Maybe because < YOU SAID IT? >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT IS TRUNCATION SELECTION?  QUASI? SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS?
                  TRUNCATION SELECTION
                  Crow (1997) has a good explanation of Truncation Selection (which he says is totally unrealistic) here
                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 >
                  Instead he proposes "Quasi" Truncation Selection.  Crow's theory has been modeled using computer simulations by both YEC's (ReMine) and non-YECs (Schoen et al, 1998) and the bottom line is that the mutations still accumulate disastrously and the species goes extinct in 300 generations.  And this, only if we can actually select effectively.  If all the mutations are nearly neutral, then they are unselectable, and Crow's model breaks down completely.

                  Remember also that estimates for the number of mutations per generation in humans has been steadily rising ... Kondrashov's recent numbers IN PRINT (2002) are 100 per individual per generation (10% of which he says are deleterious, but I say ALL are at least mildly deleterious).  Privately, he says the numbers may be as high as 300 with 30% being deleterious.  Will the number keep rising?  Yes, because we are finding out that "junk DNA" isn't junk after all. (R. J. Taft and J. S. Mattick. 2003. Increasing biological complexity is positively correlated with the relative genome-wide expansion of non-protein-coding DNA sequences.  Genome Biology 5(1):P1.)  Ooops!!   Also, near-neutral are unselectable.  So how are you going to detect which ones to select?  Big problem, guys!!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Remember what we told you, dave? A good liar has to keep track of his lies.

                  Well, I have to say that dave has really been on fire these last few days... He has demonstrated his blatant dishonesty in no less than 4 issues:

                  - Pretending he had "read" all those accursed evilutionist books
                  - Pretending not to know that Schneider agreed with us on Shannon, when he was quoting him as authority
                  - Pretending he never said that "ALL mutations REDUCE information", or that it was not what he meant (that was even more embarrassing for him)

                  - And now, pretending he never said that Neutral mutations cannot be selected. (I'd like to see him try to distort the meaning of his words on this one too, I must say).


                  ...And I'm sure I missed some.

                  Dave, if you keep doing all the work for us, this will get boring pretty soon...  :D
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,11:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If a codon mutates to another codon that codes for the exact same amino acid, in what way is that mutation not exactly neutral?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, some organisms have a codon bias due to unequal amounts of tRNAs containing the same amino acid but different anticodons.  Thus, if the organism is producing a large amount of protein, having a synonymous change could actually have an effect on the efficiency of translation because the tRNA supply begins to get exhausted.

                  In lab, when we're using E. coli to produce large amounts of a particular protein, sometimes we optimize the sequence of the gene we're expressing in order to use E. coli's "favorite" codons.  I don't imagine this sort of thing is ever much of an issue with proteins produced in normal conditions, though.  Just a bit of something to look out for in the lab.

                  Hmm, that was kind of technical.  I'm happy to reexplain it with more, but less sciency words if you like.

                  Here's another thing I agree with Dave on: Dave Hawkins is one of the most degenerate humans in the history of the planet.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,11:20

                  The Ames test for mutagens is simple in concept, and an understanding of it illuminates some of the fundamental concepts of molecular genetics. The procedure was described in 1972 < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/69/11/3128 >

                  In principle, any number of bacteria – or even eukaryotic species – could be used for the test. But for practical and historical reasons, the original test species chosen was the enteric bacterium – Salmonella typhimurium. The Salmonella genome is about 5 x 10^6 base pairs long.

                  For the purposes of the test, the bacterial strain was engineered so that it would be maximally sensitive to mutation. A system for detecting and reversing untemplated copying was knocked out. The result of that modification is a convenient increase in the effective rate of mutation, but it doesn’t change the logic of the test.

                  Multiple strains, including different mutations, are used, since different mutagens induce different kinds of chemical mutation. Frame-shift mutations, for instance, result both from one more or one less nucleotide being incorporated in the copy, relative to the template DNA.

                  Now here’s an important linguistic caveat. Molecular geneticists often speak, in shorthand, of “errors” in replication. This does not imply that there is a “correct” version and an “incorrect” version, relative to some ideal sequence. “Error”, in this context, means a difference between the template and the copy. If the template encodes a lethal defect with respect to its ability to encode a gene product, then “fixing” that defect by mutation requires the introduction of an “error”.  

                  For simplicity’s sake, let’s consider a point-mutation detecting system. One of the test strains has a base-pair substitution such that one of the genes involved in histidine synthesis is truncated. Let’s say a codon (TGG) that encodes the amino acid, tryptophan in the functional gene, is mutated to TGA, which directs the protein to be aborted at that point in the sequence.

                  Now, consider a single such bacterium. In the course of replication, there is small finite probability µ at each of the 5,000,000 positions that the copy will be different from the template. Let’s take a not untypical value of 10^-8 for µ. So starting with a single bacterial cell, in the first doubling event there is a probability of

                  1-µ = 0.99999999

                  (i.e. a near certainty) that the lethal truncation will be maintained, and an infinitesimal probability, µ = 0.00000001, that an “error” will be introduced that will “patch” the premature truncation, allowing the cell bearing that gene to synthesize histidine.

                  (A fine point: IF the protein can make do with any amino acid at that position, the probability of reversion is µ. However, if the enzyme absolutely requires tryptophan at that position, the probability is slightly lower, since µ is the collective probability that TGA will be miscopied as (TGT, TGC or TGG), and the ability to synthesize histidine is only restored by TGG. For simplicity, let’s just call the probability of restoring the functionality as µ.)

                  OK. So if we let that one bacterium divide, say, 27 times, we’ll have 134,217,728* cells. At this point – there is approximately even chance that at least one cell will have the lethal, truncating, mutation reversed. The basis of the Ames test is that the frequency of reversion is directly related to the probability of incorporating a nontemplated nucleotide. So how to detect the rare revertant? SELECTION! Take those 134,217,728 cells and spread them on a Petri dish containing no histidine in an otherwise Salmonella-supportive nutrient agar. Now the number of revertants is easily counted as the number of colonies that are formed after a day or so. Only the rare revertant “needle” has what it takes to grow; the “haystack” of nonrevertant cells can’t live without supplemental histidine, and therefore remain invisible after a day or so.

                  (Another fine point: during the course of 27 generations, there will almost certainly be mutations at other sites. In fact, with a genome of 5,000,000 base-pairs, you probably have at least one mutation by the time you have 5 divisions. Some small fraction of these mutations will be lethal, of course, so after enough time for 27 doublings, you may have slightly fewer than exactly 134,217,728 cells. Doesn’t matter.)

                  Mutagens that significantly increase the rate of this kind of mutation are easily recognized as the ones leading to significant increase in the rate of reversion.

                  So what have we learned? We’ve learned that there is a critical difference between “very very very very very low” and ZERO. We’ve learned that mutations with no selective advantage (e.g. encoding histidine synthesizing enzymes in an environment where histidine is freely available for free) are extremely unlikely to be noticed, but that selection has enormous power, in effect, to rewrite the consensus genome of a population.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,11:21

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 01 2006,11:07)
                  Eric, some organisms have a codon bias due to unequal amounts of tRNAs containing the same amino acid but different anticodons.  Thus, if the organism is producing a large amount of protein, having a synonymous change could actually have an effect on the efficiency of translation because the tRNA supply begins to get exhausted.Hmm, that was kind of technical.  I'm happy to reexplain it with more, but less sciency words if you like.

                  Here's another thing I agree with Dave on: Dave Hawkins is one of the most degenerate humans in the history of the planet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, I can see how that would be.

                  [edit, since AFD is a known quote-miner] And of course, determining that a particular mutation  is exactly, precisely neutral, i.e., that has exactly zero selective effect,  is difficult (harder than finding TDC on a crankshaft, no doubt).

                  But Dave's claim that there are no neutral mutations remains utterly hogwash, as is his stronger claim that all mutations are bad because they're "mistakes."
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,11:45

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
                  mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
                  by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen,
                  ref. 12)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So what caused the frameshift?  One MORE or one LESS nucleotide?  And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?  IOW ... did it remove (or add) the same nucleotide?

                  **************************************

                  So how did your ancestor, the lowly worm, evolve himself to be a "higher organism" if not by "upward evolution"??  Why are we called "higher organisms"?

                  Is this some special linguistic shorthand?  Like how geneticists don't really don't mean "error" when they say "error"?

                  Is this anything like "Bill Clintonese"??

                  ***************************************

                  And could someone please explain to Eric what an asymptote is?
                  Posted by: Trogdor on Dec. 01 2006,11:50

                  Is it just me, or is AFDave's entire debate style is straight out of the fifth form playground?

                  "I'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off of me and sticks to you".

                  AFD is shown to be lying. His response: "Noooooooo! YOU'RE the liar!!!".
                  AFD is show to have been quotemining. His response: "Nooooooo! U R quoteminR!".
                  AFD is accused of making shit up. His response: "Noooo! My quotes support me! YOU don't READ any of the references!".

                  Not exactly a persuasive way to convince all the poor misguided lurkers that T.O.E. is a huge mistake/conspiracy/athiest indoctrination scheme...
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,12:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So what caused the frameshift?  One MORE or one LESS nucleotide?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The exact opposite of what caused the original frameshift.  The paper doesn't say if the original frameshifted strains were shifted by deletion or by insertion.  If you dig around the literature for TA1531, TA1532, and TA1534 you might be able to find out.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  At least one fourth of them will have.  See Russell's post above.*

                  Now, don't you have a backlog of questions you need to answer?

                  *EDIT: Whoops, just realized that this is wrong. 5 points if you can tell me why.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,12:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,11:45)
                  Argy...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
                  mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
                  by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen,
                  ref. 12)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So what caused the frameshift?  One MORE or one LESS nucleotide?  And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?  IOW ... did it remove (or add) the same nucleotide?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why do you think this question helps you, Dave? If it's exactly the same frameshift mutation, it hurts your case, because your claim is that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation. If it's a different mutation, that hurts your case even more, because it's evidence that beneficial mutations are less rare then you think they are.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So how did your ancestor, the lowly worm, evolve himself to be a "higher organism" if not by "upward evolution"??  Why are we called "higher organisms"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, did you miss my post when I told you what the dominant form of life on the planet was? Did you just skip over that post, or possibly "skim" it?

                  "More complex" does not mean "upward." You are using an impermissibly teleological interpretation of evolution, which is an inevitable consequence of your religious beliefs. Evolution doesn't have a "goal." There are more complex and less complex organisms on earth, and the more complex ones are merely at the far end of the curve. They're much much much less successful than simpler organisms. The vast, vast, vast majority (probably 99.999%) of all organisms are unicellular or less (if you include viruses as "organisms," the percentage is even higher). Once again, Dave's "intuition" has led him completely off course.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is this some special linguistic shorthand?  Like how geneticists don't really don't mean "error" when they say "error"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Higher" basically means more complex, Dave. Not "better." Or "having a higher God-approval rating."

                  Do you know what the distinction is between "primitive" and "derived" characteristics when discussing cladistics? Because they don't mean what you think they mean.

                  I guess you didn't read my post about industrial processes or products that originated in mistakes or errors, either. Bad Dave. Bad, naughty Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And could someone please explain to Eric what an asymptote is?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, I know what an asymptote is. I also know that as the  selective disadvantage gets closer and closer to zero, the frequency goes up too. If your point is that there is no mutation that is at exactly, precisely zero, so what? You're looking at half a curve here anyway, because Kimura isn't even looking at something we already know exists: beneficial mutations. At some point, that "asymptote" will cross the origin at the x-axis. So where does that get you, Dave? Nowhere.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,12:26

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The exact opposite of what caused the original frameshift.  The paper doesn't say if the original frameshifted strains were shifted by deletion or by insertion.  If you dig around the literature for TA1531, TA1532, and TA1534 you might be able to find out.

                  Quote
                  And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?

                  At least one fourth of them will have.  See Russell's post above.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK, so let's summarize.  A mutagen is introduced that causes a frameshift mutation which is an error ... er ... *cough* ... change ... in a sequence like this:

                  AGTCGGATTC could get copied as
                  AGTCGATTC if a 'G' was deleted, or as
                  AGTCGGTATTC if a 'T' was inserted for example.

                  Right?

                  Then another mutagen is introduced and the sequence reverts back to ...

                  AGTCGGATTC

                  Wonderful.  But how is this simulating natural processes if it is the lab technicians picking the mutagen to cause the reversion?

                  I thought we were discussing ToE which, by definition, is change WITHOUT intelligent input.

                  Weren't we?

                  *************************************

                  Eric-- Kimura's curve doesn't touch the vertical axis ... gets real close ... but doesn't touch it.  

                  No "exactly neutrals"
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,12:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wonderful.  But how is this simulating natural processes if it is the lab technicians picking the mutagen to cause the reversion?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The reversion is selected for, but not targeted.  No intelligent input necessary.  And any agent could be used as the mutagen (even water).  As Russell's math shows above, an increased rate of mutation is not necessary to cause the reversion.

                  But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,12:37

                  Cory...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do a little research on the origins of the vulcanization process sometime. Then do a little research on the discovery of the cosmic microwave background. Maybe you'd like to research how the technology of the tempering of steel was discovered. Have you ever worked in a kitchen before? Do you have any idea how many technological advances are the result of "errors," or "mistakes"? This idea that because a gene duplication is an "error" it cannot possibly drive evolution forward is utterly wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  And all those inventions have a common ingredient - Intelligence.  Those mistakes would not have produced any inventions at all unless an intelligent human was there to act upon them.

                  This doesn't happen in the natural world, Cory.

                  Wake up.

                  ***************************************

                  Argy...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It matters because I am in the process of systematically picking apart many details of ToE and showing how bankrupt it is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.

                  This is just the latest avenue for doing so.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 01 2006,12:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,08:38)
                  Carlson ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your guess would be wrong and I even gave you a big ole clue as to where Jay's bigotry came from.  It was anti-Catholic bigotry, period.  All Catholics, not just those who might have given first allegiance to the RCC.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And what evidence would you offer to show that this fear was not due to the widespread concern over misplaced allegiance observed within the Catholic hierarchy?  Remember the history of Protestantism and the Catholic Counter Reformation which opposed it.  This was heavy stuff back then and prominent in people's minds.  How many countries did the Jesuits get officially kicked out of back then?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The proof that the fear wasn't widespread is found in the simple fact that the motion was DOA at the convention.  It didn't pass.  QED.

                  BTW, I'm feeling a little unloved here.  After I spent all that time on the post and this is the only response I get out of you?  Would it help if I was more provocative?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,12:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,12:26)
                  Eric-- Kimura's curve doesn't touch the vertical axis ... gets real close ... but doesn't touch it.  

                  No "exactly neutrals"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Kimura's graph is a mathematical abstraction. It's not a true "asymptote," but even if were it wouldn't matter because we already know that the curve continues on the other side of the x-origin. We know this, because we know for a fact (you've even admitted it) that some mutations are beneficial.

                  If you were to look at the actual graph (not a graph of a mathematical function) of all mutations, Dave, you would see that the vast majority of mutations are close to exactly, precisely neutral, with the ones with strong negative or positive selection effects dropping off very steeply on either side of the x-origin.

                  What this means, Dave, is that the vast majority of mutations are either very slightly beneficial or very slightly deleterious, with some small number being exactly, precisely neutral. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts, and it blows a gigantic hole in your argument that all mutations are bad. Which you've already admitted is wrong anyway. You've already admitted numerous times that some mutations are beneficial, and you've already admitted that you were wrong when you claimed that ALL mutations REDUCE biological information.

                  So what's left of your argument on this point, Dave? Nothing.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Dec. 01 2006,12:42

                  It's important to him because he thinks that's a different issue than whether or not every change to a gene is deleterious.  Watch for his next move -- yes, some RARE cases of mutation might add information, but it is always information that [somehow entirely undefinedly] "detracts" from the functionality or "specification" of the gene.
                  He cannot face the logical contradiciton inherent in his position -- if a gene mutates and a subsequent mutation restores the original form, he MUST be able to maintain that the identical versions differ, and differ in that the latest is "less than" the first.
                  The man is an idiot at best.  Fortunate indeed is he that the autonomic nervous system requires no thought, or he'd be long gone.  And sad that we have yet to wait for that fate to befall him.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Yes, antiFactDave, I am saying the world will be a better place after your demise -- the real world, the only one there is.  Upon your demise the average intelligence of the planet will increase.  Oddly, so will the aggregate intelligence.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,13:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric-- Kimura's curve doesn't touch the vertical axis ... gets real close ... but doesn't touch it.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  davy, the graph is Kimura's model. If it doesn't actually touch the axis, that's because his equation for frequency asymptotically approaches infinity at the zero ("exactly neutral") point. Are you trying to tell us it doesn't touch because it goes to zero?!  Or perhaps your point is that every point on the graph, being a "point" has zero horizontal width, the definite integral from point x... to itself being zero, and that therefore there is no degree of selective disadvantage that has any frequency at all?! I think you'd better stick with Jack Chick comic books.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK, so let's summarize.  A mutagen is introduced that causes a frameshift mutation which is an error ... er ... *cough* ... change ... in a sequence like this:

                  AGTCGGATTC could get copied as
                  AGTCGATTC if a 'G' was deleted, or as
                  AGTCGGTATTC if a 'T' was inserted for example
                  Right?

                  Then another mutagen is introduced and the sequence reverts back to ...

                  AGTCGGATTC

                  Wonderful.  But how is this simulating natural processes if it is the lab technicians picking the mutagen to cause the reversion?

                  I thought we were discussing ToE which, by definition, is change WITHOUT intelligent input.

                  Weren't we?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is the dumbest, most desperate anti-science argument I've ever seen. Sal Cordova has been roundly smacked down for it for years.

                  No, there is no "intelligent input" into the choice of random, nontemplated action. And you're going to get the same results, qualitatively, with or without your "intelligently designed mutagen" in either case, you will measure a mutation rate. It's just that it will be detectably, significantly higher if there is a mutagen.  (Was this not clear from my summary?)

                  Sometimes it turns out that you revert back to the exact sequence you started with; sometimes all you have to do is add any of several bases where one was "missing". What difference does it make?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,13:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It matters because I am in the process of systematically picking apart many details of ToE and showing how bankrupt it is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [guffaw]
                  Yeah, ToE is trembling in its boots, dave!

                  I can't recall a day when you've been as patently dumb as today, what with your inability to read a graph, and your contention that no experiment can ever provide evidence against "intelligent design", because experiments themselves are intelligently designed!

                  If this really has been one long drawn out parody, today is the day to reveal it. Everything after this will be anticlimax.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,13:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,12:37)
                  Yup.  And all those inventions have a common ingredient - Intelligence.  Those mistakes would not have produced any inventions at all unless an intelligent human was there to act upon them.

                  This doesn't happen in the natural world, Cory.

                  Wake up.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, "intelligence" wasn't an ingredient in the original mistake (in fact, one could argue that "stupidity" was the crucial ingredient).

                  An intelligence isn't necessary to find a use for them either, Dave. That's what natural selection is there for. If a "mistake" confers an adaptive advantage, then it will be selected for—by definition.

                  No intelligence necessary. Again, your argument that because mutations are "mistakes" they cannot be adaptive is defeated by your admission that some mutations are, in fact, adaptive. It's surprising that you're not intelligent enough to see this. You've already lost this debate (i.e., the Portuguese moment has come and gone), but you keep fighting it anyway.

                  BTW, try to keep track of who you're responding to, Dave. That was a quote from me, not Incorygible.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It matters because I am in the process of systematically picking apart many details of ToE and showing how bankrupt it is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But you're not doing any such thing, Dave. You haven't managed to find a single serious problem with the Theory of Evolution in its generality, and you don't have the specialized knowledge necessary to criticize it in its particulars. And one thing you have totally failed to do is show the "reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins." You've been avoiding that subject like the plague! You haven't even discussed your hypothesis since the demolition of your "genetic richness" claims over a month ago.

                  So if you think you're getting anywhere here, well, you're lying to yourself, as well as to the rest of us.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,13:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [from Kimura reference:] Note that in this formulation*, we disregard beneficial mutants, and restrict our consideration only to deleterious and neutral mutations.
                  Admittedly, this is an oversimplification**...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (emphases mine)

                  *"this formulation" being the equation with which he's modeling the real-life situation.

                  **"an oversimplification", obviously, because it ignores favorable mutations.

                  But don't stop now dave! Let's see if you can dig even deeper!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,13:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,08:56)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFD I'm surprised you came back.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Many people here at ATBC have encountered a lot of surprises in the last 6 months. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  We sure have, Dave. To paraphrase Spike from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (on of those evil "Darwinist" TV shows):

                  "I'm sorry. I just had no idea creationists could be such prancing lightweights."

                  The truth of the matter is, Dave, virtually every day you give us fresh insight into just how utterly delusional young-earth creationists can be. And, how utterly ignorant they have to be of basic, well-established, utterly-beyond-argument science, just in order to maintain their staggeringly high-maintenance worldview.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,14:11

                  This comment will land  pages from the one that prompted it, so I should probably figure out how to quote here.  Hmmm:

                  Naw, that doesn't work when you're trying to go back to another page...

                  Anyway, I'll just point out that--in case Dave forgot to--that, while the Republic survived Teddy R's non-use of a Bible at his swearing-in, Teddy did not!

                  Dave, I sure hope you didn't overlook this obvious comeback, which surely illustrates the wrath of dog in action--or at least the continuing degeneration of the genome since the Fall...
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 01 2006,14:18

                  So, when can we expect to see "Dr." Don Batten debating the merits of his claims here, Davey-Ditz?

                  I'm only asking because you're really, REALLY boring and I'd like to actually have a real debate, not just you  vomiting fallacies and oozing intellectual dishonesty from your many new Portuguese orifices.



                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 30 2006,18:41)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not going to even ask him to show up until you answer his article here < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 > that I presented to you many weeks ago.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Many weeks ago," Dave? Can you point to where you posted this? I expect a link to where you cited it, Dave.

                  Moreover, this appears to be nothing more than a rehash of what I already dealt with ( < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp > ) ...he mentions the Pinus radiata claim of his, along with his claims that two whole studies out of tens of thousands were redone due to procedural problems. I dealt with those months ago, and *I* can provide you with the exact links

                  in June of this year : < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22684 > ;
                  in July of this year  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24107 > ;
                  in August of this year < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27052 > ;  
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27219 >

                  The 14C issues have also already been dealt with, DimDave....so what part specifically did you need to go over again BEFORE you invite ol' "Dr." Don on over, snookums?

                  Oh, and as I said, you can start referring to me as "daddy" now...it's okay, I won't spank you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 01 2006,14:24

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 01 2006,13:00)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric-- Kimura's curve doesn't touch the vertical axis ... gets real close ... but doesn't touch it.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  davy, the graph is Kimura's model. If it doesn't actually touch the axis, that's because his equation for frequency asymptotically approaches infinity at the zero ("exactly neutral") point.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A frequency can't be greater than 1, which is a finite number.
                  But if it were an asymptote and if the model perfectly matched reality (what Dave thinks), it would mean that absolutely neutral mutations have an infinite relative frequency, i.e. all mutations are exactly neutral. But Dave argues the contrary. He can't understand/read his own graph correctly.
                  He is a infinite idiot, certified.  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,14:48

                  Oh, and since you've repeatedly brought up what you think is "speculation" on the part of "Darwinists," Dave, let me illustrate just one of the many, many, many speculations your "hypothesis" depends on:

                  You speculate that there's some mechanism by which you can get from several tens of thousands of "kinds" to several million currently-existing species in less than five thousand years.

                  Dave, I'm not making any "assumptions" about what that mechanism is. I don't "think" it's "mutations"; in fact I know for certain that it's not mutations. I also know for certain it's not pre-existing "variability" in the genomes of those few thousand "created kinds."

                  You think "Darwinists" are speculating that random mutation coupled with natural selection can drive evolution forward. Well let me ask you this, Dave:

                  WHAT IS YOUR "SPECULATION" AS TO THE MECHANISM BY WHICH YOU CAN GET FROM TEN THOUSAND TO TEN MILLION SPECIES IN 5 THOUSAND YEARS?

                  God, Dave, what does it take to even get you to even talk about your supposedly-superior "hypothesis"?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 01 2006,15:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It matters because I am in the process of systematically picking apart many details of ToE and showing how bankrupt it is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.

                  This is just the latest avenue for doing so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Haha suuure, dave. Like in this reversion issue:

                  You "systematically picked apart" this detail, by going from "YOU DON'T KNOW IT'S A REVERSION!" to " it's a reversion but YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A FRAMESHIFT THAT CAUSED THE REVERTION!", to "it's a reversion caused by a frameshift but YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SAME POINT MUTATION THAT CAUSED THE FRAMESHIFT!", to "it's a reversion caused by a frameshift caused by the same mutation but YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT MUTATION THAT CAUSED THE FRAMESHIFT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT YOURSELF!"

                  Jeez.

                  I'm really wondering- Can't you SEE how PATHETIC that is? Don't you even have a CLUE?

                  Because, I assure you, everyone else does. Including any YEC friends of yours that might be reading this right now.

                  Keep "picking the details apart," dave. It provides great entertainment.

                  Oh and:

                  Dave, did you claim that all mutations reduce information? Yes or no?

                  Dave, did you claim that near-neutral mutations cannot be selected? Yes or no?


                  Are you gonna run away again?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,15:37

                  Gosh, Dave.  Now that I've caught up to the last several pages, I'm astonished to see that you committed completely unnecessary hari-kari (get up out of nice safe trench and walk slowly into machine gun crossfire stupid) on all these other points--

                  --while completely missing the opportunity to make the nice, safe Teddy R-got-HIS-comeuppance point.

                  Needless to say, that point would've been debatable and utterly irrelevant, but at least it wasn't deliberate suicide.

                  Dude, how many times did you get dropped on your head as a baby?

                  And from how high?

                  We won't report your "caretakers" for child abuse, Dave, honest.  Heck, the statute's probably run, so they're in no danger whatsoever (well, except from sue-happy "tort reform" types like yourself...).
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 01 2006,15:43

                  Man, are you guys ever blind ...

                  I feed you the truth on a spoon with sugar and you still spit it out ...

                  Just 'splain me this (as Ricky used to say) ...

                  How in the world can you wake up in the morning, look yourself in the mirror, remember all those quotes from prominent geneticists I gave you courtesy of Dr. John Sanford, listen to Allen MacNeill say that the Modern Synthesis is dead ...

                  ... and yet turn on your computer again and start typing out your allegiance to such a failed world view?

                  Carlson, I haven't forgotten about you ... but you know I'm going to ask for proof that there was no debate on the Jay vs. Catholics topic, right?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 01 2006,15:58

                  Running away again, dave?

                  Tell me, have you actually read McNeil's article?

                  Have you actually read Crow's paper?

                  Have you actually read Kimura's paper?

                  Of course not. Because, if you did, you wouldn't say such howlers as the one above.

                  Seems to me like, after being taken to school again, you're looking for an escape route. Fine, I'll offer one to you.

                  Read Crow's paper, and then tell me, in your own words, what Crow says, where you agree with him, where you disagree, and why. As in, provide reasoning.

                  Maybe then I'll forget your blatant dishonesty on your previous claims.

                  Or maybe not.

                  (oh and, if you get the time, explain why you snipped that last bit off Crow's quote...  :D  :D  :D  )
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,16:00

                  Dave,

                  Why don't you explain what you think MacNeill means when he says the modern synthesis is dead?  I've answered every single one of your questions, so I think this one is fair game.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,16:07

                  That's it?! That's all you got?!
                  After being pulverized over mutation/reversion/information loss, and making a total fool of yourself over Kimura's graph? You're not going to either admit the absurdity of your position, or try to backpedal, "re-phrase", or otherwise excuse it? All you got in response to all those specific points that were raised, is this sort of grade-school "how can you be so blind?"

                  Really. You are about to out yourself as a prankster, aren't you? I mean, what's left?

                  On the off-chance that you're still serious, your interpretation of Kimura was completely dismantled. Did you not notice that? You want to go through the same exercise with the rest of your mined quotes?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,16:08

                  Actually, davey, it was, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

                  Which, lucy-girl, you certainly do.

                  So quit garbling old TV quotes and redirect your nose to the grindstone.

                  It's getting a little long, Pinocchio-wise.

                  Let me give you a little help: whether perfectly-neutral mutations are many or few, if not-quite-neutral mutations (whether slightly deleterious or slightly beneficial) are indeed exposed to selection--as you seem to have conceded--then they either spread within the gene pool (beneficial) or get eliminated (deleterious).  The only difference between "slightly" and "whole lot" in this regard is how many generations it takes.

                  The good 'uns still get spread and the bad ones still get shed.  And the neutral ones still just sit there.

                  That you can still be dancing around the far outskirts of this achingly simple process, rather than just coming into the fire and warming up, must get very hard on the shoe leather.

                  But that's your look-out, and none of my own.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,16:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,15:43)
                  Man, are you guys ever blind ...

                  I feed you the truth on a spoon with sugar and you still spit it out ...

                  Just 'splain me this (as Ricky used to say) ...

                  How in the world can you wake up in the morning, look yourself in the mirror, remember all those quotes from prominent geneticists I gave you courtesy of Dr. John Sanford, listen to Allen MacNeill say that the Modern Synthesis is dead ...

                  ... and yet turn on your computer again and start typing out your allegiance to such a failed world view?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you find out what McNeill means by the "modern synthesis," how it's distinct from the current Theory of Evolution, and how both are distinct from "Random Mutation and Natural Selection," then you'll see why you're not "feeding" anyone the "truth."

                  I and others have warned you a million times about relying on quote-mines from AiG and ICR, because those organizations have a known history of dishonesty, Dave. But you keep ignoring us, and as a result, you keep ending up tripping over your own penis.

                  You simply do not understand the theory of evolution in nearly enough detail to actually assemble a coherent criticism of it, and the evidence that this is so accumulates with every post you make on the subject. In the meantime, imagine Noah's ark looking sort of like the Titanic, having struck an iceberg the size of Belgium, tilting down towards the bow and about to break in half.

                  Actually, picture it lying broken in half under two miles of water at the bottom of the Atlantic, except it's been down there for a hundred and fifty years, not ninety-four years.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,17:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, when you find out what McNeill means by the "modern synthesis," how it's distinct from the current Theory of Evolution, and how both are distinct from "Random Mutation and Natural Selection," then you'll see why you're not "feeding" anyone the "truth."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave's inability to grasp this point, despite my - and I don't know how many others' -pointing it out many times, is downright pathological.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 01 2006,17:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,15:43)
                  Carlson, I haven't forgotten about you ... but you know I'm going to ask for proof that there was no debate on the Jay vs. Catholics topic, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, whether there was debate or not is quite irrelevant.  There is debate on every subject under the sun and the constitutional conventions were no exception.  What is relevant was what came out of the convention.  And the movement to ban Catholics from holding office was stillborn.  There is nothing left to discuss.

                  So, let's move on.  And I'd like to step away from the Founders for a moment. I am really curious about your plan to eliminate the Fed and why you think we can trust politicians can do a better job of setting monetary policy than a independent central banker (and your thoughts on why the Fed charges interest.)

                  I am also interested in your answer to the question I posed at the end of my post last night.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  EDIT: Cleaned up spelling and grammatical errors.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 01 2006,17:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 01 2006,15:43)
                  Man, are you guys ever blind ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, to try to nudge (or shove, or bludgeon) you back on topic, Dave, let me try my question one more (but certainly not for the last) time:

                  What mechanism do you propose that will get you from ten thousand "kinds" to ten million species in less than five thousand years?

                  —While, at the same time, deleterious mutations are driving everything to extinction.

                  We know it's not mutations (and it's certainly not deleterious mutations, which despite your admissions seems to be the only kind you really believe exists), and we know it's not inherent variability in the population. So what is it?

                  In Dave's worldview, there's no contradiction implied by a "hypothesis" that implies biodiversity and genetic diversity are both simultaneously increasing and decreasing.

                  And while you're pondering that (assuming you ever actually ponder anything), maybe you'd like, as a bonus, to come up with a mechanism that prevents humans from radiating out into, say, a thousand species of hominids over the past five thousand years, along with all the other "kinds." I don't think "genetic richness" will do it, Dave.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 01 2006,18:17

                  It's almost too easy to point out that there are now two discernible 'kinds" of hominids:

                  The "dave" kind--

                  --and the "rest of us" kind.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,18:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And while you're pondering that (assuming you ever actually ponder anything), maybe you'd like, as a bonus, to come up with a mechanism that prevents humans from radiating out into, say, a thousand species of hominids over the past five thousand years, along with all the other "kinds." I don't think "genetic richness" will do it, Dave.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, don't be ridiculous.  The Rapture is coming within the next 10 years, quite possibly the next 10 weeks!  We don't have to worry about that kind of stuff.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2006,20:57

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 01 2006,14:14)
                  And one thing you have totally failed to do is show the "reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins." You've been avoiding that subject like the plague! You haven't even discussed your hypothesis since the demolition of your "genetic richness" claims over a month ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's not really much point in asking AFDave to develop his hypothesis instead of trashing science. Even if he were to do so, the diversion would be brief. Any 'scientific' notion he dreamed up to support the bible's stories would contradict a dozen well-established bits of science, y'all would instantly point that out, and he would take off down the road of trashing the science. Trashing the science you're trying to tutor him in, is really all he can do.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,21:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It matters because I am in the process of systematically picking apart many details of ToE and showing how bankrupt it is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.

                  This is just the latest avenue for doing so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thats a bold statement AFD

                  Because all the others failed....right?


                  You're lies are going round in circles AFD,

                  ...... while at the same time showing showing how bankrupt CREATIONISM is to explain the Origin of Life, while at the same time showing the UN-reasonableness of the Biblical explanation of Origins.

                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,21:24

                  carlsonjok said:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW, I'm feeling a little unloved here.  After I spent all that time on the post and this is the only response I get out of you?  Would it help if I was more provocative?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I for one appreciate your fisking of AFD's theocratic revisionism.

                  Yes a little spice may make the bait a little more tempting for AFD.

                  I'm assuming he's white and so is his g$d, so I have  a generic  example provocation below.

                  Please note: Insulting his integrity doesn't work, he is a bible whore, neither does insulting his sexuality ....hmmm maybe there is a connection.

                  .....generic provocotive insult coming up....

                  The 'Xtian Nation' mantra he and his ilk keep repeating indicates a deep insecurity on their part, it almost seems as if they would like to bring back slavery and then they could purge football teams of people with big dicks.

                  (I'm saving the non-generic for later)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2006,21:29

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 01 2006,22:24)
                  carlsonjok said:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW, I'm feeling a little unloved here.  After I spent all that time on the post and this is the only response I get out of you?  Would it help if I was more provocative?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I for one appreciate your fisking of AFD's theocratic revisionism.

                  Yes a little spice may make the bait a little more tempting for AFD.

                  I'm assuming he's white and so is his g$d, so I have  a generic  example provocation below.

                  Please note: Insulting his integrity doesn't work, he is a bible whore, neither does insulting his sexuality ....hmmm maybe there is a connection.

                  .....generic provocotive insult coming up....

                  The 'Xtian Nation' mantra he and his ilk keep repeating indicates a deep insecurity on their part, it almost seems as if they would like to bring back slavery and then they could purge football teams of people with big dicks.

                  (I'm saving the non-generic for later)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  KE, I love your posts, but you might want to adjust the dignity upwards a bit in the name of posterity.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 01 2006,21:37

                  You know, the more I think about it, the more astonishing it seems.

                  afdave was an "electrical engineer", but he's clueless on how to interpret a pretty simple graph.

                  Either his skills must have faded since his electrical engineering days, or I must have an inflated idea of what it means to be an electrical engineer.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 01 2006,21:48

                  I graduated from NCSU, which is nothing if not an engineering school. I knew engineers, I lived with engineers, I worked with engineers. Engineers are pretty much regular people. 10% of them are bright, 80% of them are ordinary, and 10% are AFDave.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 01 2006,21:59

                  stevestory admonishes



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  KE, I love your posts, but you might want to adjust the dignity upwards a bit in the name of posterity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Just my Lenny Bruce muse coming through, AFD makes me indignant.

                  It's true though that penis size envy is behind a lot of the Fundy claptrap.

                  They're worried their wimin folk will catch the first boat to Africa if they give in on their white g$d not being behind the curtain.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 01 2006,22:00

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 01 2006,19:37)
                  You know, the more I think about it, the more astonishing it seems.

                  afdave was an "electrical engineer", but he's clueless on how to interpret a pretty simple graph.

                  Either his skills must have faded since his electrical engineering days, or I must have an inflated idea of what it means to be an electrical engineer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Bah, he graduated with Honors (I can't say that for myself).  It's the arrogance leading to the miscomprehension if you ask me.  The funditude is a symptom, not the cause.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 01 2006,22:08

                  At this point, I'm not sure if it can get any worse for dave.

                  He keeps jumping, in a state of frenzy, from one issue
                  to another, from one "argument" to another in the same issue, from one claim to another in the same "agrument"...
                  He keeps quotemining the same articles he's never even read, insisting on what he thinks they say, in spite of us correcting him again and again...
                  he keeps switching definitions and terms for things he doesn't even understand, going from one to the other when they get demolished, and back to the old ones when he runs out...
                  he tries to divert the discussion jumping from one ridiculous assertion to another, even contradicting ones, without admiting he ever said otherwise...
                  he denies even having said his previous contradicting posts, ignores the answers to his worn-out claims, runs away when he's cornered, only to frantically search AiG for any other irrelevant (but equally silly) quote he can use to divert the discussion (at least temporarily) from his dishonesty.

                  And, of course, when he has nothing else to cling to, he switches into denial mode.
                  He stops answering in any meaningful way (like now), falls back into his "happy place" (that fantasy world where it's exactly the other way round, with him triumphantly winning this debate, with us gasping in awe at his grandeur like the little kids he teaches- Poor guy!;), and starts to gloat vainly...

                  And, when the wounds to his pride start to heal with all the ego-stroking, he majestically (in his deluded mind)returns with another re-heated serving of the same old, refuted to oblivion zombies of "arguments", in another *SUMMARY*.

                  And the circle starts again.

                  I suppose dave's behavior might be interesting to a psychologist; I, however, am beginning to feel sorry for him.
                  Oh, he is entertaining still, there's no arguing that: His latest (willing, almost) displays of dishonesty, where he shamelessly denied what he previously claimed in two different statements, were quite amusing to track down and display.
                  However, an ever-growing feeling of pity keeps getting mixed up in the amusement lately, giving it a bitter feel.

                  How much lower will dave sink? What will he lie about next? What will he distort to suit his views, at what overwhelming evidence will he willingly close his eyes to, What blatant falsehood from his mentors will he cling to, defending it against all reason? In what unfathomed depths of oblivion and ignorance can religious fanatism lead an otherwise normal mind?

                  I dunno, I think it's a little sad. The only comfort is that people like dave (and despite his delusions of grandeur) will become more and more rare as time goes by. As long as (and if) humanity and civilization advances, the shadows of superstition that dave (unfortunately) represents will creep back into the realm of the unreal- where they always belonged.

                  (hmm. Speaking of the possible downfall of civilization, it seems that nearly half the internet is down, from where I am. What's wrong guys? Is it the RAAPTURE?)
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 02 2006,07:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much lower will dave sink? What will he lie about next? What will he distort to suit his views, at what overwhelming evidence will he willingly close his eyes to, What blatant falsehood from his mentors will he cling to, defending it against all reason? In what unfathomed depths of oblivion and ignorance can religious fanatism lead an otherwise normal mind?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Since AFD had his brain hard wired for anti-truths (note small 't' truths) by the age of 7 years old and permission given to live the Noble Lie, falsehood for him is second nature.

                  The mental sphincter he calls his mind asks just one question each time a new fact arises...'does it fit the Noble Lie?' if not, then make the fact a 'lie' and everything fits.

                  Most religions that have a low ability to adapt to new ideas, stand firm on the "One True Lie".

                  The power brokers sensing their positions threatened, react with the old 'bonfire of the vanities'* routine.

                  History is rewritten without inconvenient facts, culture cleansed of sky emperors decloaked, the putative apple trees of knowledge  chopped down to make way for stone castles celebrating men in funny outfits pontificating on angels.

                  It happened in the 9th century with Islam when the flourishing ideas of science were seen as a threat to the authority of the Suna, the clergy appointed by the prophet Mohamed himself. That threat was naturally reprojected as a threat to g$d and it is arguable Islam has never recovered. It certainly happened when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the Pagan schools in Athens around 300-400 CE and  ushered in a 1000 years of scientific darkness in Europe.

                  AFD's sphincter will never pass a decent scientific movement, it's backed up the yin yang right now with no chance of a breakthrough.

                  His mental constipation requires a bypass and that is neatly supplied by the precious needle. That ancient wonder drug distilled by sheep herders and snake oil salesmen , pure unadulterated pride, injected raw into the ego, nothing is more addictive. Crystal Meth probably is the only serious competitor. However religion, as Karl Marx once said ( paraphrasing), "has been the only hope for some in a cold hard world", its a pity that it contributes directly to ignorance or makes that world cold and hard, when in the hands of the wrong people.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I dunno, I think it's a little sad. The only comfort is that people like dave (and despite his delusions of grandeur) will become more and more rare as time goes by. As long as (and if) humanity and civilization advances, the shadows of superstition that dave (unfortunately) represents will creep back into the realm of the unreal- where they always belonged.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Emptiness is carried from pot to pot, often filled with desire and obscurantism both the products of 'the realm of the unreal' the collective subconscious... fear, pride and the uncertainty of death , to destroy it would require every pot to be destroyed.

                  Edit: Added link for a 'good old book burning', I'm sure you can think of others.
                  < Bonfire of the Vanities >
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,08:18

                  k.e:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It certainly happened when the Christian Emperor Justinian closed the Pagan schools in Athens around 300-400 CE and  ushered in a 1000 years of scientific darkness in Europe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Justinian > reigned from 527 to 565. Are you thinking of another emperor (Constantine? Constantius?), or a different time?

                  Faid? Are you there?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,09:05

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  davy, the graph is Kimura's model. If it doesn't actually touch the axis, that's because his equation for frequency asymptotically approaches infinity at the zero ("exactly neutral") point. Are you trying to tell us it doesn't touch because it goes to zero?!  Or perhaps your point is that every point on the graph, being a "point" has zero horizontal width, the definite integral from point x... to itself being zero, and that therefore there is no degree of selective disadvantage that has any frequency at all?! I think you'd better stick with Jack Chick comic books.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You might be surprised to know that I resent Jack Chick comic books.  He builds straw men "evilutionists" which is unfair and not effective in combatting the real problems in science today.  

                  Let me tell you about Kumura's chart.

                  You are right in some of what you say.  You are right that Kimura disregarded "beneficial" mutations.  I believe there is a reason for that ... that is, I personally believe from my own study that the quantity of truly beneficial mutations is ZERO.  And I also believe what I said yesterday that there truly are NO exactly neutral mutations.  I think Kimura himself would admit that the number of beneficials is extremely low and is severely, severely outnumbered by the nearly neutrals and harmfuls.

                  Just think of this ... have you ever done a literature search of all the "beneficials"?  How many do you come up with?  A creationist has done this (Bergman 2004) and came up with 186 that mentioned the word "beneficial."  He reviewed all 186 of those and found that they were beneficial only in a very narrow sense - but consistently involved the LOSS of function.  Now, I'm sure you won't believe me since this was a Creationist study, but if it's truth you are really after, then I challenge you to do your own study.  Why is it that whenever a creationist asks for an example of a beneficial, he's given a mere handful of them and when they are investigated, they are equivocal at best?

                  Now after you've done that search, do a search of the harmful mutations and the "nearly-neutrals" or VSDMs.  Then explain to me why Kondrashov asks, "Why have we not died 100 times over?" You cannot because we should have if we've been around for 200,000 years.  And explain to me why Crow says we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors.  

                  If you do all this, you come away from Kimura's 1979 paper (and graph) saying "Wow ... look at all those VSLDM's that cannot be selected out! (grey shaded area)  I agree with Kondrashov and Crow that this is a big problem.  (Crow called it a "bomb" with a long fuse) Then, if you are Eric, you can get out your Electron Microscope, focus it somewhere near the origin of Kimura's graph, set it on about 100,000 magnification and say "Gee, if I squint real hard, I think I see some beneficials on the left side of the vertical axis!" and "Gee, that vertical axis sure is narrow, but I think I see one or two "exactly neutrals" precisely sitting on that line!" and "Gee, ain't Darwinism great to have taken those few little beneficials (that no ones even really sure even exist) and magically created all life on earth!"

                  *************************************************

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sometimes it turns out that you revert back to the exact sequence you started with; sometimes all you have to do is add any of several bases where one was "missing". What difference does it make?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK fine.  So what we are essentially saying is that any sequence, like "AGTCGGTACCAAAT" for example, can have a change happen as a result of various intelligent or non-intelligent causes.  Fine.  I agree.  And I think the only way you can tell if information is increasing or not is if you ASSUME that there is a reference standard by which to judge the information.  And of course, I assume there is a standard and you apparently do not.  Also, I obviously don't know what the standard IS completely because we cannot reconstruct a "perfect" human being.  And I don't have Adam's genome.  All I am hypothesizing is that there was one at one time in the past.  Now if we run with this hypothesis, then anyone can see that MOST of the single nucleotide changes are going to be a change AWAY FROM the original, created sequences.  Yes, an "A" substituted above for the "T" at the end could get changed back to a "T" by another mutation.  But how likely is this?  1 in 4 right?  Now if you have all these 1 in 4 probabilities going on throughout the entire genome of 3.2 bbp, then how much havoc will that wreak?  A lot.  And we haven't yet even talked about how do you IMPROVE upon the plan.  Do you see where I am coming from here?

                  ***********************************

                  Stevie-- You need to go back to school on A-Bombs and "I Love Lucy."  :-)
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 02 2006,09:20

                  Hey 200 years out of 13.5 billion ...is that close or what?

                  That's the trouble when you try and do history from memory. The correct date seems to be 529 AD.

                  Now I could have gone into full denial AFD mode and twisted the words and meanings to make it look like I was not wrong...but hey where would the honor, respect and integrity be in  that?

                  You see AFD to win those things you must show them to others, didn't they tell you that in 'officers school' or did you have your head up your arse?

                  Thankyou for the correction Russell

                  Has anyone seen the Nature article on the < Antikythera mechanism? >
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 02 2006,09:40

                  Adam is a Myth AFD, just like Santa, didn't someone tell you?

                  You have as much chance of convincing people that you can prove the existance of Santa with science as #### freezing over.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,09:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me tell you about Kumura's chart.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You can't. I have Kimura's paper, I read it myself. You can try to tell me how you torture the logic of that paper to suit your preconceptions, but, no, you can't really tell me about Kimura's chart.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are right that Kimura disregarded "beneficial" mutations.  I believe there is a reason for that ... that is, I personally believe from my own study that the quantity of truly beneficial mutations is ZERO
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Kimura didn't disregard beneficial mutations because of what you personally believe from your own "study". He gives his reasons in the paper, thank you very much, and it's not because they don't exist.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Then explain to me why Kondrashov asks
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It is abundantly clear that there is no point in explaining to you anything. Again, I can read Kondrashov myself, and obviously he doesn't think he's identified insurmountable obstacles to evolution. His work is a theoretical exploration of the interaction between population size and genetic drift.

                  There is, incidentally, no sensible reason to assume, or predict, or assume that anyone else is assuming or predicting, that beneficial mutations would ever be anything more than a tiny fraction of the total. But, as anyone without blinders can see, the Ames test is an irrefutable illustration that even at a frequency of one in 100 billion, mutation PLUS SELECTION are perfectly adequate to drive evolution.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Then, if you are Eric, you can get out your Electron Microscope, focus it somewhere near the origin of Kimura's graph, set it on about 100,000 magnification and say "Gee, if I squint real hard, I think I see some beneficials on the left side of the vertical axis!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, eric didn't say that. He didn't say anything that could be paraphrased that way, either. Are you "misremembering", or intentionally recounting the exchange in an inaccurate way*? He pointed out that - according to Kimura's model - the more benign the mutation, the greater it's probability, and that the probability rises so dramatically as you approach ZERO on the X-axis (i.e. exactly neutral), that the model predicts that that is, far and away, the most probable kind of mutation. All you can honestly say, in your feeble defense, is that it's just a model, and there really is not an infinite chance that a given mutation will be exactly neutral, but you can not say there's anything in Kimura's graph or article that supports your position.

                  *"Lying"


                  On the Ames test, you are floundering and sputtering. I gave you some realistic numbers to work with. Do you want to stick with Salmonella, and try to prove that the Ames test really doesn't make sense? Or do you want to show us how the Ames test somehow involves injection of "intelligent choice"? Or do you want to switch the subject and talk about numbers as they apply to a 3.2 bbp organism? Your choice. But don't try to fog up the issues by tapdancing from one dodge to another to another in the space of one paragraph. That's just not a sincere effort to understand.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do you see where I am coming from here?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  All too well, davy; all too well.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 02 2006,09:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,10:05)
                  If you do all this, you come away from Kimura's 1979 paper (and graph) saying "Wow ... look at all those VSLDM's that cannot be selected out! (grey shaded area)  I agree with Kondrashov and Crow that this is a big problem.  (Crow called it a "bomb" with a long fuse) Then, if you are Eric, you can get out your Electron Microscope, focus it somewhere near the origin of Kimura's graph, set it on about 100,000 magnification and say "Gee, if I squint real hard, I think I see some beneficials on the left side of the vertical axis!" and "Gee, that vertical axis sure is narrow, but I think I see one or two "exactly neutrals" precisely sitting on that line!" and "Gee, ain't Darwinism great to have taken those few little beneficials (that no ones even really sure even exist) and magically created all life on earth!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  With this argument I'm reminded of the 1900's in physics with Bohr, Rutherford, Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and many others.

                  Within thirty years these researchers and theorists redefined what constitutes matter.  From the "plum pudding model at 10^-9m to the Bohr model at 10^-10m to the Schrodinger distribution at 10^-11m and further down (in the next thirty years) to quarks, bosons, mesons, and all the other colorful characters at 10^-14m.

                  Every discovery was an improvement not only of explanatory power but also of discrimenatory classification.  And the resolution of the information has improved by orders of magnitude (not just multiples).

                  Your argument above only reinforces that point.  The recent discovories in genetics, genomes, alleles, protiens, etc. have only EXPANDED our understanding of what is occurring in real life.  Your just trying to fit your "God of the Gaps" argument into smaller and smaller resolutions of information.  And your using a microscope that doesn't have the resolution power that you need to interpret the data in todays world.  In physics, all you have left is 6.625x10^-34 to find your Gawd.  After every paper in biology over time your gap is less and less in this field too.

                  Dave,  Go back to the flud or genetic richness or barimonology.  Your argument space with your present subject is smaller and smaller.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2006,10:19

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,09:05)
                  You might be surprised to know that I resent Jack Chick comic books.  He builds straw men "evilutionists" which is unfair and not effective in combatting the real problems in science today.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How is this different from you, Dave? You don't understand evolutionary theory well enough to do anything but construct strawman arguments.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   I believe there is a reason for that ... that is, I personally believe from my own study that the quantity of truly beneficial mutations is ZERO.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Too late, Dave. You've already admitted on numerous occasions that beneficial mutations exist. "Truly beneficial" is just more weasel words from you. If a mutation has an adaptive advantage, then it's beneficial. Such mutations exist, as the Ames test demonstrates. End Of Story.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I also believe what I said yesterday that there truly are NO exactly neutral mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you also believe in Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, talking snakes, burning bushes, and Noah's ark. Your "belief" is an extraordinarily poor guide for inquiry.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think Kimura himself would admit that the number of beneficials is extremely low and is severely, severely outnumbered by the nearly neutrals and harmfuls.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you have zero evidence for this. What evidence you have demonstrates that the most numerous mutations are exactly neutral. It doesn't matter if harmful mutations are more numerous than beneficial mutations. Can you figure out why? No? Could that be because you simply do not understand how natural selection works? That would be my guess.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just think of this ... have you ever done a literature search of all the "beneficials"?  How many do you come up with?  A creationist has done this (Bergman 2004) and came up with 186 that mentioned the word "beneficial."  He reviewed all 186 of those and found that they were beneficial only in a very narrow sense - but consistently involved the LOSS of function.  Now, I'm sure you won't believe me since this was a Creationist study, but if it's truth you are really after, then I challenge you to do your own study.  Why is it that whenever a creationist asks for an example of a beneficial, he's given a mere handful of them and when they are investigated, they are equivocal at best?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Would you say that the series of mutations that resulted in, say, the mammalian immune system were "equivocal"? Well, of course, you believe that the immune system was born fully-developed from the hand of God, but given that you've got no evidence whatsoever for that "hypothesis," and evidence for the evolution of the immune system is abundant, I'd have to say you lose on that one too. Again.


                  In the meantime, Dave: WHAT'S YOUR PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR THE EXPLOSIVE INCREASE IN BIODIVERSITY OVER THE PAST FIVE THOUSAND YEARS YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" DEMANDS?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,10:21

                  So Russell, I guess you will go on through life thinking that lucky beneficial mutations created all life on earth in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

                  Meanwhile, I have achieved my goal of finding out what evolutionary scientists really believe.

                  And it's even more unbelievable than I had even imagined.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 02 2006,10:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,11:21)
                  So Russell, I guess you will go on through life thinking that lucky beneficial mutations created all life on earth in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

                  Meanwhile, I have achieved my goal of finding out what evolutionary scientists really believe.

                  And it's even more unbelievable than I had even imagined.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd........

                  The AFDave version of the Gish Gallop continues on its ride into the nether regions.

                  (Waves at Dave as he disappears on his White Charger)

                  "See you at the next round-up Dave" I yell.

                  The sun glints off the silver spurs as the Charger disappears over the next hill.

                  We hear a voice on the wind....  "Suckers!!"

                  And then twilight sets in.

                  Turning to the bar we notice something on the ground.  A pair of formerly whitey tighties, heavily yellow-stained and skid-marked.  In black marker on the label is written 'DAVEY'.

                  We chuckle, and think about our next encounter.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,10:57

                  That's it?! Again?!

                  You're not going to try to show how any of the specific points I ran through in my last post is wrong? You're just going to pretend that it's obvious to any clear thinking objective third party that there is "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" (that you can't be bothered to cite), or that what evolutionary scientists believe unimaginably unbelievable things?

                  You're going to ignore the fact that it has been clearly shown by at least four different people that your grip on Kimura's paper is unambiguously, ludicrously, backwards?

                  You're going to continue to pretend that Kondrashov - and the rest of your quote-mining victims - disprove evolution, but if only they were brave/smart/saved enough (like you) to see it?

                  You're not going to explain how your inaccurate recounting of our explanations of Kimura's graph is - contrary to all appearances - arguably honest?

                  You're not going to show how - contrary to all appearances - an understanding of how the Ames test works, all by itself, is all it takes to blow your cartoon objections to evolution out of the water?

                  You're not going to explain how your cartoon objections to evolution entitle you to "resent" Jack Chick's?

                  Just, "La-la-la-I-can't-hear-you"? That's all you got?

                  Maybe it's time we moved from this endless game of supplying evidence that up is in fact up, and onto a more interesting meta-analysis of Davism.

                  Who here thinks that dave really believes that his Sunday-school vision of reality is absolutely correct, and that all of science is wrong? Among those, who thinks that he actually believes he's made a case for his view, and who thinks that, basically, he knows he hasn't, but it doesn't really matter; that however ineffectively he may have made his case, God is on his side and  he can't be wrong, by definition?

                  Who, on the other hand, thinks that davy actually harbors doubts - that he at least suspects that his arguments here have only highlighted the absurdity of his world-view?

                  Who, on the third hand*, suspects that davy is laughing himself silly every time we actually fall for his trolling act, and that he's not really a creationist at all?

                  *Don't laugh. I just evolved one. It was a beneficial mutation!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,11:05

                  What more can I say on this particular topic?  I showed you a duck.  You think its a fox.  It's not like I can make you believe it's a duck.  I don't know how anyone gets any more clear evidence--that the Biblical account of life's origin and subsequent degredation is probably true--than what I have given you.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,11:05

                  What more can I say on this particular topic?  I showed you a duck.  You think its a fox.  It's not like I can make you believe it's a duck.  I don't know how anyone gets any more clear evidence--that the Biblical account of life's origin and subsequent degredation is probably true--than what I have given you.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,11:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You're not going to show how - contrary to all appearances - an understanding of how the Ames test works, all by itself, is all it takes to blow your cartoon objections to evolution out of the water?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now there's a bold claim I missed earlier.  Walk me through this one if you like.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,11:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What more can I say on this particular topic?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What particular topic? The whole "creator god hypothesis"? Or the Ames test? Or Kimura?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't know how anyone gets any more clear evidence--that the Biblical account of life's origin and subsequent degredation is probably true--than what I have given you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If you've given us the best evidence there is for that proposition, you have greatly solidified the confidence with which any objective reader of this thread can conclude that that proposition is batsh!t crazy.

                  But I'm still curious as to whether the "clear evidence" of this brief summary/farewell statement refers to the whole trainwreck of a thread, or just the Ames/Kimura/Kondrashov boxcar?

                  And I'm still curious to know what the rest of us - feel free to pitch in, Lurkers! - think about davy's level of confidence/insecurity in his anti-science position.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 02 2006,11:32

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 02 2006,11:57)
                  Who here thinks that dave really believes that his Sunday-school vision of reality is absolutely correct, and that all of science is wrong?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Me.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Among those, who thinks that he actually believes he's made a case for his view, and who thinks that, basically, he knows he hasn't, but it doesn't really matter; that however ineffectively he may have made his case, God is on his side and  he can't be wrong, by definition?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I think he believes he has destroyed you.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Who, on the other hand, thinks that davy actually harbors doubts - that he at least suspects that his arguments here have only highlighted the absurdity of his world-view?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave has no doubt. Doubt is for secular humanists and women. Davie-doodles has The Truth™.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Who, on the third hand*, suspects that davy is laughing himself silly every time we actually fall for his trolling act, and that he's not really a creationist at all?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't know. It's possible that Dave is a troll, but trolls like GoP have a hard time hiding their intelligence. Recall how even though GoP was deliberately taking lots of a55-backwards positions contrary to reality, according to the poll basically nobody thought he was as dumb as AFDave. If AFDave is only pretending to be a clueless fundy, it's an Oscar-worthy performance.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 02 2006,11:57

                  I have no problem with Dave believing any BS he wants to believe.
                  But he shouldn't claim to be ready to accept any evidence again his *cough* hypothesis.

                  In fact, he's unable to even imagine an evidence that he would find acceptable.

                  That's really sad.  ???
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,12:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You're not going to show how - contrary to all appearances - an understanding of how the Ames test works, all by itself, is all it takes to blow your cartoon objections to evolution out of the water?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Now there's a bold claim I missed earlier.  Walk me through this one if you like.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, it might be easier for you to walk me through how you think it doesn't, but I'll have a go at it.

                  First, of course, I have to fairly represent your objections to evolution, don't I? You will, of course, claim that I'm misrepresenting your position (that when you say ALL, for instance, of course that really means "nearly all", etc.) Then you will assert that, however I claim the Ames test renders your objections invalid, my claims fail because I got your position wrong.

                  Am I right?

                  So. Here goes. You claim that evolution can't work because beneficial mutations never happen; their frequency is ZERO; mutations can never add, only subtract useful biological information. (Though, in subsequent discussions, it turns out that NEVER is maybe, "very very rarely" - so rarely that it is "effectively never"). But the Ames test wouldn't work if the mutation didn't transform a nonfunctional gene into a "life-saving" one (from Salmonella's perspective), would it?

                  And the Ames test shows that your approximation:
                  "very very rarely" ~ "NEVER"
                  is fatally flawed.

                  OK. Now you will say that you have 998 other reasons why evolution can't work, and go on about Shannon information, 14C in diamonds, Kondrashov, and on and on and on. Each one of these objections will be shown to be nonsense, and eventually you'll cycle back to "there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation", and we'll start all over again.

                  (I never saw the movie "Groundhog Day", but I understand it might be relevant.)

                  So, I'm proposing that we stick to just these questions for the meantime, settle them one way or the other, and then not endlessly resurrect disproven answers to them:

                  "Are beneficial mutations possible, or impossible?"

                  "If beneficial mutations are possible, are they so rare that they are effectively nonexistent? Are they so rare that SELECTION cannot rescue them from oblivion?"

                  And I'm proposing that the Ames test provides the answers to these questions.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,12:06

                  You've represented my view accurately -- I think beneficial mutations are effectively non-existent.

                  Now, tell me how the Ames test saves ToE ...

                  Keep in mind ... I had never heard of it until Argy mentioned it, so walk me through it as elementarily (?) as possible.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 02 2006,12:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,12:06)
                  You've represented my view accurately -- I think beneficial mutations are effectively non-existent.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But science doesn't care what you think.

                  Especially since you don't know what "beneficial" means.
                  ???
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,13:00

                  OK.  So ... figuring this Ames test out on my own, I guess what you are saying is that every substitution has a 1 in 4 chance of substituting the "right" nucleotide back again.  And a frameshift caused by a deletion has a 1 in 4 chance of reverting to the "right" sequence if a nucleotide gets inserted at the deletion point, right?  And so on ...  

                  Is this what you are saying?
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 02 2006,13:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,10:21)
                  Meanwhile, I have achieved my goal of finding out what evolutionary scientists really believe.

                  And it's even more unbelievable than I had even imagined.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's the problem Dave.  It's not important what scientists really believe, it's what explanation they accept for a natural occurrence that's best explained by the evidence presented today.  Maybe tomorrow another scientist will present evidence that turns things completely upside-down, that's always a possibility.  But the practice of science marches on.

                  On the other hand you have your magic book, literal, inerrant, unchanging since it was dictated by G*d Almighty.  You believe, evidence not required.  

                  This entire thread is a monument to your Kurt Wise moment.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (Kurt Wise, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, New Holland Publishers, (August 2000))

                  That you have so little imagination is not our problem.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,13:32

                  Bing...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There's the problem Dave.  It's not important what scientists really believe,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually it is.  But if you have not caught WHY it is by this time, then I'm not going to explain it again.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand you have your magic book, literal, inerrant, unchanging since it was dictated by G*d Almighty.  You believe, evidence not required.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not even close to an accurate representation of what I believe.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,13:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK.  So ... figuring this Ames test out on my own,...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Really? You have to invent it all over again? My explanation didn't help you? Daamn. I fancied myself a decent teacher.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...I guess what you are saying is that every substitution has a 1 in 4 chance of substituting the "right" nucleotide back again.  And a frameshift caused by a deletion has a 1 in 4 chance of reverting to the "right" sequence if a nucleotide gets inserted at the deletion point, right?  And so on ...  

                  Is this what you are saying?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, no; not exactly. It sort of depends on what you mean by "right". Do you mean "same as original", or do you mean "functional"? Not always, or necessarily even usually, the same thing.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,13:42

                  And Bing, that's DR. Kurt Wise to you, buddy.

                  Dr Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America.

                  In Six Days
                  [10-2-117] $14.00
                  In Six Days

                  Fifty Ph.D. scientists each wrote a chapter, without collaboration, telling why they hold to literal creation. Features fields as wide-ranging as geology, cosmology, zoology, botany, geophysics, biochemistry and more. Will have a powerful effect on the unbeliever who reads it, and be immensely encouraging to believers. (High School–Adult) 360 pages.

                  **********************************

                  Just another little refutation of the idea that creationists are dumb.

                  (Oh, yes, I'm sure ... Dr. Wise must have got into Harvard  by luck or privileged birth or something, right?)

                  *********************************

                  Russell-- I'm jumping into your worldview for a moment so I think I mean "same as original"
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 02 2006,14:09

                  And Dave, that's DR. Russell Durbin to you, buddy. *rolls eyes*
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 02 2006,14:14

                  [quote=Russell,Dec. 02 2006,11:57][/quote]
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who here thinks that dave really believes that his Sunday-school vision of reality is absolutely correct, and that all of science is wrong?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *Raises hand*

                  If I remember correctly, a number of lurkers uncloaked specifically to tell Dave that he was nuts and they didn't believe him. In fact, the number of uncloaked lurkers in total rivals anything else I've ever seen on a forum. And not ONE agreed with Dave.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Among those, who thinks that he actually believes he's made a case for his view
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *Raises hand*
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and who thinks that, basically, he knows he hasn't, but it doesn't really matter; that however ineffectively he may have made his case, God is on his side and  he can't be wrong, by definition?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He not only thinks he's been effective, he thinks that he'll use his "winning arguments" on other sites and show the puppet masters at AiG how "great" he is at proving evilutionists don't know how to interpret science.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who, on the other hand, thinks that davy actually harbors doubts - that he at least suspects that his arguments here have only highlighted the absurdity of his world-view?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not I. I believe as strongly that Dave has no doubts as much as he believes he's "won" every argument.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who, on the third hand*, suspects that davy is laughing himself silly every time we actually fall for his trolling act, and that he's not really a creationist at all?

                  *Don't laugh. I just evolved one. It was a beneficial mutation!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As with GOP, a troll exhibits much higher intelligence. Even when GOP was spewing the most outrageous comments, you could at least tell he put some thought into what he was claiming. You can't say the same for Dave. And his reliance on outdated scientific journal articles, EB, AiG, and Wikipedia clearly demonstrate his low reading comprehension and low level of intelligence.

                  As far as being an electrical engineer goes, I met one last year who worked for NASA. He found out I taught biology, and said, "Why don't you guys teach about how God created the universe? Seems like a logical process to me!" - cementing my ideas about how little critical thinking it takes to deal with electricity and math all day.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,14:23

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 01 2006,14:18)
                  So, when can we expect to see "Dr." Don Batten debating the merits of his claims here, Davey-Ditz?

                  I'm only asking because you're really, REALLY boring and I'd like to actually have a real debate, not just you  vomiting fallacies and oozing intellectual dishonesty from your many new Portuguese orifices.

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 30 2006,18:41)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not going to even ask him to show up until you answer his article here < http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 > that I presented to you many weeks ago.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Many weeks ago," Dave? Can you point to where you posted this? I expect a link to where you cited it, Dave.

                  Moreover, this appears to be nothing more than a rehash of what I already dealt with ( < http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp > ) ...he mentions the Pinus radiata claim of his, along with his claims that two whole studies out of tens of thousands were redone due to procedural problems. I dealt with those months ago, and *I* can provide you with the exact links

                  in June of this year : < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22684 > ;
                  in July of this year  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24107 > ;
                  in August of this year < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27052 > ;  
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27219 >

                  The 14C issues have also already been dealt with, DimDave....so what part specifically did you need to go over again BEFORE you invite ol' "Dr." Don on over, snookums?

                  Oh, and as I said, you can start referring to me as "daddy" now...it's okay, I won't spank you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ahem. Looks like "Dr." Don isn't going to make an appearance.

                  This says quite a bit about the willingness of creationists to engage in direct, exacting debate about their claims.

                  Gosh, am *I* surprised.
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 02 2006,14:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,13:42)
                  Just another little refutation of the idea that creationists are dumb.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where did I ever say that creationists were dumb?  Find me the explicit quote.

                  But why don't you go ahead and read what Wise wrote about his decision.  

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

                     ". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Did you get that Dave?  He rejected all the evidence that would ever counter the WoG.  He chose to use the bible-filter to eliminate contrary evidence.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dr. Wise must have got into Harvard by luck or privileged birth or something, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Nope, never said that either, you must be thinking of somebody else (George W. Bush's and his Yale entrance perhaps, or the admission to Harvard MBA with C's?)
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,14:51

                  [RE: Kurt Wise, excuse me DR. Kurt wise, Harvard and Gould]

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just another little refutation of the idea that creationists are dumb.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A little sensitive, are we? I believe the comment you're responding to makes a point about Wise's precommitment to creationism, and how no amount of data and logic to the contrary, no matter how much sense it makes to him, is going to change that precommitment. (Not my idea of "Wise", if you'll pardon the expression.) But rather different, and importantly different from a simple accusation of "dumb".



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Oh, yes, I'm sure ... Dr. Wise must have got into Harvard  by luck or privileged birth or something, right?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You think so?
                  In any case, it does sort of take some of the wind out of the sails of the vintage whine that academia is unfair to fundies, doesn't it? (Or are you going to suggest he only revealed his fundiness after getting his degree?)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell-- I'm jumping into your worldview for a moment so I think I mean "same as original"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not sure why the answer, or the question, depends on one's worldview, but yes, almost: a point mutation has a 1/3* (not 1/4) chance of restoring the original sequence of a point mutant; and a frameshift caused by a deletion has a 1/4* chance of reverting to the parental sequence if a nucleotide gets inserted at the deletion point.

                  *Approximately. In fact, in each case insertion of all three or four, as the case may be, non-templated bases is not likely to be exactly equiprobable.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,14:57

                  Bing...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand you have your magic book, literal, inerrant, unchanging since it was dictated by G*d Almighty.  You believe, evidence not required.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is what you said about me and you used Kurt Wise as an example of how I am.  The truth is, I  really don't know Kurt Wise's thought processes.  I do know mine and I can tell you that I, at least, and many others I have read, would not be a Bible believing Christian were it not for the overwhelming evidences that I have seen confirming the accounts found there.  Now you may not believe me when I say that, and that's fine, but it is the truth.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 02 2006,15:04

                  Quote (notta_skeptic @ Dec. 02 2006,15:14)
                  As with GOP, a troll exhibits much higher intelligence. Even when GOP was spewing the most outrageous comments, you could at least tell he put some thought into what he was claiming. You can't say the same for Dave. And his reliance on outdated scientific journal articles, EB, AiG, and Wikipedia clearly demonstrate his low reading comprehension and low level of intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  GoP appeared much smarter than dave, despite taking absurd and impossible positions, for good reason. He was behaving essentially scientifically. He was taking the data and trying to fit them to models. They were absurd and unworkable models, but he knew he would look like a fool if he just tried to disregard the mountains of data. Because dave doesn't understand that, or doesn't see that's what he's doing, whichever, he comes out looking much worse.

                  Also, you got the sense that GoP was at least familiar with science, maybe had read a bunch of popular science books or magazines. You don't get the sense with Davie's posts that he has any familiarity with science at all.

                  A third thing is, GoP didn't rely on groups like Answers in Genesis. Even many creationists know those guys are loopy frauds.

                  A fourth thing is, GoP never did anything as stupid as take a book of uncertain origin and make outlandish claims about its history.

                  A fifth thing is, when GoP was confronted with research, he would read it and understand where weak points might be. Davie can't even read the research he's given, and can't seem to tell the weaker parts from the ironclad ones.

                  There are definitely reasons why essentially no one voted that GoP was dumber than AFDave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If I remember correctly, a number of lurkers uncloaked specifically to tell Dave that he was nuts and they didn't believe him. In fact, the number of uncloaked lurkers in total rivals anything else I've ever seen on a forum. And not ONE agreed with Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I've been a little shocked by that too. I've never seen anything like it. Dave is exceptionally resistant to science, and several people--a new one this week, even--can't resist saying "Wow."
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,15:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I, at least, and many others I have read, would not be a Bible believing Christian were it not for the overwhelming evidences that I have seen confirming the accounts found there.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's not the issue, Dave. You believe in the Bible...fine, but it's much more than that, you believe selectively and exclusively. When confronted with errors and falsehoods found in the Bible, you waive them away and proceed on blithely with literalism. When confronted with modern findings contrary to Biblical inerrant literalism, you ignore them. This puts you in much the same situation as Kurt Wise, particularly since you cannot and have not shown a means by which your own hypothesis can be falsified.
                  I have no doubts you're sincere, but many deluded and irrational people are "sincere." What counts is what YOU can bring to the table in support of your claims--and you are found lacking there. You are lacking in any means of dissuading you from your preconceptions. You are lacking in rational support for your rejection of data that you have NOT refuted or found faulty.

                  Let's take one instance--astronomy...rather than deal with the ages of stars, the remnants of supernovae, etc., you prefer to claim that they were all created to please man visually...even if the supernovae were invisible to man millenia ago.

                  This alone shows your willingness to evoke miracles to justify your preconceived position.

                  You have systematically rejected wide swaths of current science in favor of a faith-based claim that you cannot even show falsifiable in principle. Of course I laugh at you, Dave...you entered into your "hypothesis that is better than any other " with arrogance and a willingness to "explain" facts contrary to it...by "miracles" that are again articles of faith.

                  You have built an ideological house of cards resting on an ever-shifting base of air. Hot air, I might add.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,15:34

                  Russell ... er ... DR. Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not sure why the answer, or the question, depends on one's worldview, but yes, almost: a point mutation has a 1/3* (not 1/4) chance of restoring the original sequence of a point mutant; and a frameshift caused by a deletion has a 1/4* chance of reverting to the parental sequence if a nucleotide gets inserted at the deletion point.

                  *Approximately. In fact, in each case insertion of all three or four, as the case may be, non-templated bases is not likely to be exactly equiprobable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Cool. OK.  Take a picture folks.  Russell and I are momentarily on the same page!

                  Deadman ... You keep thinking that because I haven't delved into stars or whatever else that this means I have a dogmatic opinion about them that happens to coincide with something you've heard from other creationists.  Not necessarily so.

                  Also, your rejection of powerful evidence does not equate to my not presenting any.

                  Also, have you not read Meyer's piece on 'falsifiability'?  Maybe, but rejected it I presume?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 02 2006,15:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,15:34)
                  Deadman ... You keep thinking that because I haven't delved into stars or whatever else that this means I have a dogmatic opinion about them that happens to coincide with something you've heard from other creationists.  Not necessarily so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  davey,
                  I originally asked you way back how old the sun was. You said, with no supporting references or really any reason at all, that it was 6000 years old. So, I take this to mean that if we asked you the age of object N (where, N=any object) you'd say 6000 years old. In fact, you can hardly say otherwise can you? Or you'd disprove your own "hypothesis".

                  Since then, what I've wanted to know is when does the universe have it's birthday? When will it be 6001?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 02 2006,16:37

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 01 2006,00:33)
                  So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him.  And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

                  Mike,
                  Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sorry for the tardy Argy.  

                  I was on the road when this comment came and (finally) remembered.

                  No such research for me on this one.  Bar talk on a trip in October set this one off.

                  I see k.e stated "Dorothy Parker".  I'll fix the sig for proper source, and then change the sig next month I'm sure.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,16:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman ... You keep thinking that because I haven't delved into stars or whatever else that this means I have a dogmatic opinion about them that happens to coincide with something you've heard from other creationists.  Not necessarily so.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, you DID say back in the middle of this year that you thought God created the stars for man's pleasure, Dave.
                  So, if that's not your "dogmatic" view...how DO you explain it otherwise?  



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, your rejection of powerful evidence does not equate to my not presenting any.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Quite true, Dave, however, when you are questioned on things...let's take the global flood for example...you refuse to support your claims.
                  You make a claim that "dead things buried all over the earth in sediments" = "proof" of a flood, but when you are questioned on things like differential sorting of fossils, why there are meteor craters penetrating sediments that you say are no more than 6000 years old....you run.

                  Even a simple request, like me asking you about PRE-flood, Flood-deposited and POST-flood layers...gets NO answer.

                  If I dig a hole anywhere in the world ( your choice) I'd like you to point out WHERE your alleged flood sediments begin. This would in turn mean that the layers below that are PRE-flood. I'd like you to do that with ANY spot on Earth. You can't.

                  It's like you pointing to the stars and saying " those millions of stars are proof of god creating them" yet never supporting that with actual evidence that explains the facts found contrary to your claim.

                  Sure, YOU believe that sort of thing is "powerful" but it's fallacy...in specific, the "natural" fallacy... ME pointing to a tree or a star and saying " this is proof of elves" is a precise analogy.

                  This leads me to some very basic logic. If you choose to claim Popper's later revised version of falsification is untenable, that falsification is flawed, fine.

                  I will merely say this: the fact that evidence is CONSISTENT with a hypothesis can almost never be taken as **conclusive **grounds for accepting it....

                  BUT evidence that is INCONSISTENT with a hypothesis such as "the Earth is 6000 years old" or " A global flood wiped out 99.99% of all life on this planet 2300 years ago" ...evidence that is INCONSISTENT with that...provides solid grounds for REJECTING the hypothesis.  

                  What I will say is that there is no way you have shown of even theoretically rejecting your hypothesis. This removes it into the realm of the metaphysical. It reduces logic to meaninglessness and tosses out epistemic consistency.

                  We set up experiments and search for data to DISCONFIRM our hypotheses....YOU seek ways to justify your preconceptions by any means neccessary, even invoking miracles...which you have many times.

                  Any data disconfirming your hypothesis is ignored, never to be addressed.

                  You don't have a scientific hypothesis, you have blind faith that is a caricature of logic and reason, yet you insist it should be accepted as logical and reasonable--even as you invoke miracles and the threat of hellfire and damnation to those who call your ideas shoddy and pathetic.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,17:23

                  Saying that the sun is 6000 years old with no supporting references is not the same thing as having a dogmatic opinion on how all the stars were formed.  I know that Humphreys has delved into this and I have not studied his position.  What I do know is that it is foolish and arrogant to say we know that the stars have to be more than 6000 years old.  Before Einstein, there were many statements made that seemed true ... but they ended up not being true after all.  This is what I predict will happen with our understanding of stars as well.  And I wouldn't be surprised if Humphreys is the one who figures it out.  Might be 50 years after he dies before anyone appreciates it, but that's my bet.

                  Deadman...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you DID say back in the middle of this year that you thought God created the stars for man's pleasure, Dave. So, if that's not your "dogmatic" view...how DO you explain it otherwise?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Saying "I think such and such" is not dogmatic to me.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote
                  Also, your rejection of powerful evidence does not equate to my not presenting any.

                  Quite true, Dave, however, when you are questioned on things...let's take the global flood for example...you refuse to support your claims.
                  You make a claim that "dead things buried all over the earth in sediments" = "proof" of a flood, but when you are questioned on things like differential sorting of fossils, why there are meteor craters penetrating sediments that you say are no more than 6000 years old....you run.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I answered the fossil sorting question ages ago.  Sorry, don't have a permalink.  I would answer the meteor question if I could be shown why it is a problem for YEC.  It seems pretty simple to me.  Why could a meteor not hit the earth after the Flood and penetrate all those layers?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Even a simple request, like me asking you about PRE-flood, Flood-deposited and POST-flood layers...gets NO answer.

                  If I dig a hole anywhere in the world ( your choice) I'd like you to point out WHERE your alleged flood sediments begin. This would in turn mean that the layers below that are PRE-flood. I'd like you to do that with ANY spot on Earth. You can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not being able to definitely nail down where flood sediments begin does not negate the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record.  To say that thousands of feet of water laid sediment all over the earth complete with zillions of fossils is definitely not evidence for a Global Flood seems closed minded in the extreme to me.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's like you pointing to the stars and saying " those millions of stars are proof of god creating them" yet never supporting that with actual evidence that explains the facts found contrary to your claim.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't point to the stars and say "those millions of stars are proof of god creating them."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure, YOU believe that sort of thing is "powerful" but it's fallacy...in specific, the "natural" fallacy... ME pointing to a tree or a star and saying " this is proof of elves" is a precise analogy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't commit these types of fallacies.  Some creationists do.  I don't ... or at least I try very hard not to ... if I do, slap me.  I simply look at things like train wrecks and say "Gee, this looks like a train wreck."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This leads me to some very basic logic. If you choose to claim Popper's later revised version of falsification is untenable, that falsification is flawed, fine.

                  I will merely say this: the fact that evidence is CONSISTENT with a hypothesis can almost never be taken as **conclusive **grounds for accepting it....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True enough.  Evidence only takes you so far.  That's where faith kicks in.  You and I both are exercising faith.  Just in different things.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BUT evidence that is INCONSISTENT with a hypothesis such as "the Earth is 6000 years old" or " A global flood wiped out 99.99% of all life on this planet 2300 years ago" ...evidence that is INCONSISTENT with that...provides solid grounds for REJECTING the hypothesis.  

                  What I will say is that there is no way you have shown of even theoretically rejecting your hypothesis. This removes it into the realm of the metaphysical. It reduces logic to meaninglessness and tosses out epistemic consistency.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would agree that there is no way I have shown of even theoretically rejecting my hypothesis.  But I would say that this also applies to the historical aspects of ToE.  Not the observable aspect, mind you.  Only the historical aspects.  IOW, we can observe that organisms change, micro-evolve, whatever.  No problem.  But we cannot go back in time and test whether life really evolved into higher forms or not.  Just as we cannot go back in time and test my God Hypothesis.  It appears to me that both theories are "plowing the same epistemic fields."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We set up experiments and search for data to DISCONFIRM our hypotheses
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes and this works well for experiments in the present.  But when delving into history, it doesn't work.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  YOU seek ways to justify your preconceptions by any means neccessary, even invoking miracles...which you have many times.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  There is no doubt I allow miracles in my world view.  To me it would be intellectually arrogant not to, just as the fire ants in my back yard would be intellectually arrogant if they were to say "there is no such thing as humans."  They would be in for a surprise when I come and pour poison on their anthill.  But if you are reading what I write carefully, you will see that I only invoke miracles tentatively and only where appropriate. (this could be a long discussion in itself to explain what I mean)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Any data disconfirming your hypothesis is ignored, never to be addressed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  I am addressing it constantly.  How many hours have I spent addressing data which supposedly disconfirms my hypothesis?  To my knowledge, I'm the only creationist on the planet who has spent an average of 4 hours per day for 7 months on addressing data which supposedly disconfirms my hypothesis.  (OK, maybe not the only one.  But there can't be many)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You don't have a scientific hypothesis, you have blind faith that is a caricature of logic and reason, yet you insist it should be accepted as logical and reasonable--even as you invoke miracles and the threat of hellfire and damnation to those who call your ideas shoddy and pathetic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If by scientific you mean it's not like other hypotheses, I would agree.  It is unique.  And it needs some polishing to be sure which is partly why I am here.  You can call my faith blind if you like, but I assure you it is not blind.  I believe because of what I have seen.  I mention hellfire and damnation occasionally because I feel obligated to warn people of a message which I do not like but I am convinced is true.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,17:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just as we cannot go back in time and test my God Hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Just as I can't go back in time and test my hypothesis that the American Civil War actually occurred. But, unlike your hypothesis, there are a whole lot of independent sources of evidence that lead me to believe that it did.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2006,17:44

                  Dave, the thing that really points out how intellectually dishonest you are is your nitpicking on arcane subjects you don't have a prayer of understanding anyway, like Kimura's graph, the Ames test, Shannon information, basic genetics, geology, astronomy, etc. (I'll stop now, but I could go on for a while).

                  Meanwhile, YOUR hypothesis has huge, GAPING holes any nine year old could see, that you've been urged to account for over and over and over again, that you simply will not deal with.

                  But for now, let's just deal with one: if you think your "hypothesis" is somehow a better explanation that the entirety of modern science, then please enlighten us with an explanation for this:

                  How can biodiversity be simultaneously increasing and increasing?

                  Very simple question, Dave. I'm not even, for the moment, going to hold your feet to the fire on the other very simple question, how it can be that without lethally-high levels of mutation or mathematically-impossible amounts of genetic variability, you get from 10,000 "kinds" to ten millions species in 4,500 years?

                  I've been asking you these questions for at least two months, Dave, and you've never even attempted a rational answer. That's because you have no answer. That's because your "hypothesis" is a laughable joke that cannot account for even the simplest phenomena in the natural world.

                  I could care less what you think about the Theory of Evolution, Dave. You've satisfied everyone here that you don't know enough about it even to frame a rational objection to it.

                  I WANT TO KNOW HOW YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" ACCOUNTS FOR EVEN THE SIMPLEST PHENOMENA IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 02 2006,17:58

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 02 2006,17:44)
                  how it can be that without lethally-high levels of mutation or mathematically-impossible amounts of genetic variability, you get from 10,000 "kinds" to ten millions species in 4,500 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  From the few incoherent assertions Dave has made so far, I think it has something to do with recombination and plasticity (although Dave didn't use the latter term).

                  Of course it's not supported by any kind of evidence, but don't expect a better explanation from him.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,18:20

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just as I can't go back in time and test my hypothesis that the American Civil War actually occurred. But, unlike your hypothesis, there are a whole lot of independent sources of evidence that lead me to believe that it did.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, but there are many independent sources of evidence that lead me to believe that God created all things, that man was created perfect and is now degenerating, that there was a Flood, etc.  I am walking you through them one by one.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2006,18:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,17:23)
                  Saying that the sun is 6000 years old with no supporting references is not the same thing as having a dogmatic opinion on how all the stars were formed.  I know that Humphreys has delved into this and I have not studied his position.  What I do know is that it is foolish and arrogant to say we know that the stars have to be more than 6000 years old.  Before Einstein, there were many statements made that seemed true ... but they ended up not being true after all.  This is what I predict will happen with our understanding of stars as well.  And I wouldn't be surprised if Humphreys is the one who figures it out.  Might be 50 years after he dies before anyone appreciates it, but that's my bet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, science has developed a detailed, coherent description of how stars form, starting with giant clouds of hydrogen gas, continuing on through gravitational collapse, the onset of nucleosynthesis, what happens when stars of different masses run through their nuclear fuel, and what happens when they die. This description is precise, detailed, backed up with tons of evidence, and is consistent with observation.

                  Meanwhile, your "hypothesis"—you know, the one that's supposed to be a "better explanation" for observation?—has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY about stellar evolution. Whether it can be known that current theories of stellar evolution are accurate or not is irrelevant, because YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A GUESS as to how they form and evolve. So in what conceivable way is your "hypothesis" a better explanation?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you DID say back in the middle of this year that you thought God created the stars for man's pleasure, Dave. So, if that's not your "dogmatic" view...how DO you explain it otherwise?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Saying "I think such and such" is not dogmatic to me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's based on dogma. It's not based on the merest smidgen of evidence. It's based on your belief that the universe was created six thousand years ago, and on nothing else.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quite true, Dave, however, when you are questioned on things...let's take the global flood for example...you refuse to support your claims.
                  You make a claim that "dead things buried all over the earth in sediments" = "proof" of a flood, but when you are questioned on things like differential sorting of fossils, why there are meteor craters penetrating sediments that you say are no more than 6000 years old....you run.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I answered the fossil sorting question ages ago.  Sorry, don't have a permalink.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No you didn't Dave, and that's why you don't have a permalink. I've read every single page of this thread, and I know for a FACT that you have never presented a remotely plausible method by which every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, and nowhere near where your "hypothesis" claims it should be. You know how to search this thread, Dave, and you know how to post a permalink. You don't, because you can't.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   I would answer the meteor question if I could be shown why it is a problem for YEC.  It seems pretty simple to me.  Why could a meteor not hit the earth after the Flood and penetrate all those layers?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, for your "flood" to be consistent with the Berringer Crater, every single one of a dozen or more radiometric dating techniques would have to be not only wrong, but wildly discordant, and you haven't been able to prove that even one of them is wrong.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Even a simple request, like me asking you about PRE-flood, Flood-deposited and POST-flood layers...gets NO answer.

                  If I dig a hole anywhere in the world ( your choice) I'd like you to point out WHERE your alleged flood sediments begin. This would in turn mean that the layers below that are PRE-flood. I'd like you to do that with ANY spot on Earth. You can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not being able to definitely nail down where flood sediments begin does not negate the overwhelming testimony of the fossil record.  To say that thousands of feet of water laid sediment all over the earth complete with zillions of fossils is definitely not evidence for a Global Flood seems closed minded in the extreme to me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Definitively nail down"? Dave, you can't even hazard a guess as to where the transition between pre- and post-flood sediments is. For your "hypothesis" to be a better explanation for observation, being able to do so would be a minimal requirement. You somehow think that stuff buried all at once is more plausible than the same stuff buried over billions of years, and despite my having asked you at least a dozen times, you've NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED AN ANSWER.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's like you pointing to the stars and saying " those millions of stars are proof of god creating them" yet never supporting that with actual evidence that explains the facts found contrary to your claim.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't point to the stars and say "those millions of stars are proof of god creating them."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's the problem, Dave. Your "hypothesis" CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THEM. How is your "hypothesis" a better explanation for something it doesn't have an explanation for at all?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure, YOU believe that sort of thing is "powerful" but it's fallacy...in specific, the "natural" fallacy... ME pointing to a tree or a star and saying " this is proof of elves" is a precise analogy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't commit these types of fallacies.  Some creationists do.  I don't ... or at least I try very hard not to ... if I do, slap me.  I simply look at things like train wrecks and say "Gee, this looks like a train wreck."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Jesus, Dave, what do you think we've been doing for the past seven months, other than slapping you around? You can't even recognize a train wreck. Here you are, trying to criticize evolutionary theory, when you didn't even know what an allele was until a month ago!


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I would agree that there is no way I have shown of even theoretically rejecting my hypothesis.  But I would say that this also applies to the historical aspects of ToE.  Not the observable aspect, mind you.  Only the historical aspects.  IOW, we can observe that organisms change, micro-evolve, whatever.  No problem.  But we cannot go back in time and test whether life really evolved into higher forms or not.  Just as we cannot go back in time and test my God Hypothesis.  It appears to me that both theories are "plowing the same epistemic fields."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  We don't need to, Dave. Huge swaths of your "hypothesis" are ruled out by observation. It is ruled out by predicting things that are a logical impossibility, like predicting that biodiversity can increase and decrease simultaneously.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no doubt I allow miracles in my world view.  To me it would be intellectually arrogant not to, just as the fire ants in my back yard would be intellectually arrogant if they were to say "there is no such thing as humans."  They would be in for a surprise when I come and pour poison on their anthill.  But if you are reading what I write carefully, you will see that I only invoke miracles tentatively and only where appropriate. (this could be a long discussion in itself to explain what I mean)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the existence of humans doesn't require a miracle. A mile-deep layer of water that appears and then disappears requires multiple miracles. 6,000-year-old Main Sequence stars require multiple miracles. Going from 10,000 to 10,000,000 species requires multiple miracles. Your "hypothesis" requires nothing but miracles.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Any data disconfirming your hypothesis is ignored, never to be addressed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  I am addressing it constantly.  How many hours have I spent addressing data which supposedly disconfirms my hypothesis?  To my knowledge, I'm the only creationist on the planet who has spent an average of 4 hours per day for 7 months on addressing data which supposedly disconfirms my hypothesis.  (OK, maybe not the only one.  But there can't be many)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You never address it, Dave, and as proof of that I need merely point out the dozens of questions, each one of which points out a FATAL flaw in your "hypothesis" that you have never addressed.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If by scientific you mean it's not like other hypotheses, I would agree.  It is unique.  And it needs some polishing to be sure which is partly why I am here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I nominate this for the single greatest understatement in the history of Internet discussion groups.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   You can call my faith blind if you like, but I assure you it is not blind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's certainly not based on any actual evidence.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,19:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, but there are many independent sources of evidence that lead me to believe that God created all things, that man was created perfect and is now degenerating, that there was a Flood, etc.  I am walking you through them one by one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  None of them are holding up very well, or haven't you noticed?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,19:20

                  I asked you THIS, DAVE: "you DID say back in the middle of this year that you thought God created the stars for man's pleasure, Dave. So, if that's not your "dogmatic" view...how DO you explain it otherwise? "

                  And got no answer.

                  If you cannot support your belief at ALL, then be honest and say so. If you cannot show that the stars are IN FACT OR LIKELY 6000 years old, then you have the problem of showing that evidence that we DO have is somehow fraudulent or erroneous.

                  You have not done that. In fact, I can say confidently that you cannot do that, given the state of science on the matter.

                  I have given you the data on the Barringer Crater at least 4 times, Dave, and I am absolutely sure I can cite each time...and you have failed to respond each time.

                  The meteor WENT RIGHT THROUGH THE  Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone.THE METEOR IS DATED at 50,000 years old by several methods, and I gave you the citations

                  THIS MEANS THE LAYERS ARE AT LEAST 50,000 YEARS OLD...and YOU have not shown ANY radiometric method used to date the Barringer to be false or flawed in any way. This is a problem for your claim that all the GC layers were laid down 2300 years ago by a flood.

                  ERIC dealt with all your other nonsense before me, so I won't bother to repeat his objections to your fallacious, avoidance-ridden special pleading.

                  By the way, thanks, eric -- you really deserve it for your willingness to confront and expose Dave's sheer charlatanism.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2006,19:59

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 02 2006,19:20)
                  ERIC dealt with all your other nonsense before me, so I won't bother to repeat his objections to your fallacious, avoidance-ridden special pleading.

                  By the way, thanks, eric -- you really deserve it for your willingness to confront and expose Dave's sheer charlatanism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey, no problem. It's not like it's hard, or anything.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,20:15

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  None of them are holding up very well, or haven't you noticed?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  They are holding up very well.  A Dr. like you should be perceptive enough to know that 100 skeptics shouting in unison doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

                  Was the "People's Republic of China" truly the people's because Chairman Mao and his thousands of henchmen said it was over and over again?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,20:21

                  "I think such and such" is not a dogmatic statement.  And I will discuss stars on my own schedule.

                  Your "several dating methods" for your "50,000 year old meteor" are based upon flawed assumptions.

                  As are most of the other radiometric dating methods, as I have clearly shown.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 02 2006,20:24

                  When Dave can't even get the simple, verifiable things right, you wonder why he'd ever have the temerity to venture into things that might actually require the application of logic to evidence.  Today's lesson:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Stevie-- You need to go back to school on A-Bombs and "I Love Lucy."  :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                    (from Dave's post of Dec. 02 2006,09:05, on p. 109).

                  Here's the reference, Davey: < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043208/quotes. >
                  And here's the actual quote:
                  "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do."

                  You got the Ricky Ricardo quote wrong:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just 'splain me this (as Ricky used to say) ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (from Dave's post of Dec. 01 2006,15:43, on p. 108);

                  And I got it right:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Actually, davey, it was, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (from Stevie's post of Dec. 01 2006,16:08, further down the same page).

                  I'll take you to school on the A-Bomb, too (actually, my service of you on that topic stands unrefuted...), but I think this example of your lack of knowledge on something this easy to check and get correct, combined with your overweening confidence--despite all evidence--that your knowledge is correct anyway, is probably sufficient for today's lesson in Dave-dumbitude.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 02 2006,20:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,20:21)
                  "I think such and such" is not a dogmatic statement.  And I will discuss stars on my own schedule.

                  Your "several dating methods" for your "50,000 year old meteor" are based upon flawed assumptions.

                  As are most of the other radiometric dating methods, as I have clearly shown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Permalink, Dave. Oh wait—you can't post a permalink, because there isn't one. You haven't even discussed more than a tiny fraction of the almost four dozen radiometric dating techniques, and you know it, so when you say you've "clearly shown" that they're based on flawed assumptions, you're lying in a way that a seven year old would be able to detect.

                  Your statement that "I think such and such" may not be dogma itself, Dave, but it's based on dogma. Or did you miss my post on that subject?

                  You think your "evidence" is holding up? Are you insane? They've been shot through with more holes than the Alamo. They're mostly hole. In fact, if you removed the holes, there would be nothing left of your "hypothesis." Every single statement you have ever made in support of your "hypothesis" has been obliterated in a matter of hours. Nothing's left standing.

                  And one more time, everybody: HOW CAN BIODIVERSITY BE SIMULTANEOUSLY INCREASING AND DECLINING, DAVE?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,20:45

                  Whoops, Stevie.  Misread you.  Thought you said it was Lucy that said 'splain.  Really thought you had two screws loose.   Now I only think you have one :-)

                  Russell--  Here's a classic example of a guy thinking I haven't presented evidence for my hypothesis while at the same time thinking the same evidence supports his.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I've read every single page of this thread, and I know for a FACT that you have never presented a remotely plausible method by which every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, and nowhere near where your "hypothesis" claims it should be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is classic ludicrosity. (Is that a word?).  

                  This guy says that every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be ...

                  Oh really?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT GRADUAL EVOLUTION
                  Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
                  p. 132
                  “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"  (thanks DM for filling in this quote ... not that it makes any difference ... did you contact infidels.org about their error yet?)
                  p. 132
                  “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
                  p. 133
                  “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

                  Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
                  p. 6
                  “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

                  Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
                  p. 360
                  “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmmm ... every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, huh?

                  I don't think so.

                  The truth is that the strata conform to creationist predictions, not evolutionist predictions.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,21:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that the strata conform to creationist predictions, not evolutionist predictions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Then surely you can answer this same question that I have asked four times now...and never gotten an answer to: WHY ARE THERE NO MODERN MAMMALS IN THE MORRISON FORMATION?
                  If you cannot answer that, then your claim to better explanatory value is false. Don't prevaricate, don't dissemble, don't avoid, don't lie. Just answer it honestly.

                  And I note you still didn't address what I asked, Dave...if you are not dogmatically attached to the idea of the stars being 6000 years old, HOW do you explain their apparent ages?  

                  If you don't know, just say you don't know...and why didn't you respond to the Barringer question?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 02 2006,21:16



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (ericmurphy): I've read every single page of this thread, and I know for a FACT that you have never presented a remotely plausible method by which every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, and nowhere near where your "hypothesis" claims it should be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Liar Dave): (snip non sequitur quotes)

                  Hmmmm ... every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, huh?

                  I don't think so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Psst, hey Liar Dave - are you too stupid to realize that not a single one of those quotes addressed eric's point about where in the geologic column fossils are predicted to be found?  Seems that way.   The ToE has made thousands of such successful predictions (see Tiktaalik), while your CHG has made ZERO.  Remember when you tried to defend that old Creationist lie "hydrodynamic sorting", and you ended up looking like an idiot?  I do.  As I recall, you cut and ran after someone asked you how the clams outran the trilobites to the tops of the mountains. :D

                  And speaking of the geologic column and the tops of mountains – are you ever going to tell us about the Flood and what high ground the modern animals (but no others) in Missouri ran to? :p
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,21:24

                  Per Occam's reminder, here's a few of the questions about evidence that weighs against your flood scenario for geologic strata, Dave. Questions that you have consistently failed to address and will continue to fail to address. This evidence all suggests I should reject your hypothesis, Dave.
                  (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
                  (13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
                  (14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
                  (15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
                  (16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
                  (41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
                  (42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this
                  (46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
                  (47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, previous part of thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
                  (48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
                  (49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
                  Those are just SOME of the dozens of questions that you have refused to directly address, Dave.
                  Now, I'd like you to cite ANY positive evidence that you have given **for** your model that has never been addressed by people here.

                  Name it, Dave. Put it out one by one and let's see what you got, baby boy. Either that or continue your little game of avoidance and fallacy-spewing. Care to take me up on that, DimDave?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 02 2006,21:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They are holding up very well.  A Dr. like you should be perceptive enough to know that 100 skeptics shouting in unison doesn't necessarily equate to truth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Um... Davy? Have you been drinking? Do you have any reason at all to suggest my opinions are based on "100 skeptics shouting in unison?" Your taunts seem unusually puerile today; particularly regressive; even less concerned with a pretense of content than usual.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, but there are many independent sources of evidence that lead me to believe that God created all things, that man was created perfect and is now degenerating, that there was a Flood, etc.  I am walking you through them one by one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have to confess that, if you have presented any evidence for any of these things, independent of your precious bible, I missed it. But that's OK. I'll take your word for it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,21:33

                  Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 02 2006,21:37

                  Davey, you wad'o'slime, you're so insecure you can't admit you're wrong even when you get totally nailed in public--it's always gotta be a "misunderstanding."

                  But you couldn't have misunderstood my initial correction as Lucy being the speaker, because (a) I never claimed that Lucy rather than Ricky was the speaker, (b) my quote clearly contained different wording from your garbled version, and © Lucy" was named inside the quotation as the subject of the remark, not outside the quotation as the speaker.  It's right there in black and white, Davey:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Actually, davey, it was, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Either you're a moronically inept reader--well, come to think of it, you've basically admitted that too, although we all know that you won't admit having admitted it--or you're a totally insecure jackass.

                  Or, parsimony suggests, both.

                  Didn't you just see the example in the thread above of someone's graciously admitting they were in error (about the dates of Justinian's reign), rather than ineptly trying to blame it on a "misunderstanding"?

                  But water off a duck's back, huh?

                  You got served on the A-Bomb, you got served on Lucy, and you've been getting served every moment of every minute, day, and month of your time here.

                  You could've had many cool learning moments here, Davey, if you'd opened your mental blinds one tiny crack.  Instead, you choose to insecurely cling to your fantasy of *never being wrong,* while all the while you're serving as a national--nay, global--example of just how ineducable one stubbornly irrational person can be.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 02 2006,21:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Liar Dave:) Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So how about it Davie - you willing to discuss in detail the geological column and the relative positions of the fossils contained therein?  
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,21:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Reminder them?" That's your response to what I asked, Dave? "Reminder them?" This is why I was actually hoping you'd convince "Dr." Don Batten to scuttle on over here, Dave --you're inane and boring, besides being intellectually dishonest. I ask direct questions and you run. You ask direct questions and you get direct responses immediately.
                  You hold others up to standards you can't even begin to achieve yourself.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 02 2006,21:53

                  AFD ALL your previous FALSE CLAIMS have been debunked
                  why are you bringing them up again?

                  You do realize that is crackpot behavior ...don't you?

                  Your assertions would be credible IF you HAD INTEGRITY.

                  Unfortunately for you, you have proven yourself to be an unreliable witness.

                  You have been caught red handed on multiple occasions distorting the truth, you have quote mined sources and falsely claimed support for your position.

                  By your own admission quote mining is dishonest and ANTI CHRISTIAN. (tho shalt not bear false witness remember?)

                  You COMPLETELY DISCREDIT your own opinions (which is all your assertions are) by lying sometimes IN THE SAME sentence.

                  If you were to carry on like that in a court, you would damage your case.

                  ...oh that's right Creationists already did that, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, that is why they have NEVER SUCCEEDED.

                  Think about it AFD why do creationists lose every single court case, why are they a tiny tiny miniscule group of crackpots?

                  Why have NOT ONE OF THEM won a Nobel prize for proving a 6000 year old earth.

                  AND AFD they NEVER WILL.

                  Never.

                  Creationism is a dead end FUNDY CULT based on Mythology and identity politics.

                  EVERYONE including your deluded cultists KNOWS IT.

                  So AFD carry on with your CRACKPOT CLAIMS, but jazz it up a bit, how about offering free steak knives with it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,22:04

                  Sorry to stir up such a hornet's nest right before you go to bed!  Here's a final quote for you to go to bed with about about what Eric brought up again, k.e, not me ... he thinks the fossil record is exactly what ToE predicted ... Oops!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAWKINS ADMITS THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY BIG GAPS -- CREATIONISTS DELIGHTED
                  Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
                  p. 229-230
                  Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, Richard, I continue to be delighted. :-)

                  Good night all!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,22:09

                  Yeah, real "hornet's nest." People ask you questions, you avoid, then run off. But you think you "stirred 'em up"...
                  Compensating ego, insecurity and delusion. Great combo you got there, Dave.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 02 2006,22:19

                  Who wants to answer 15 questions at 10:00 on Saturday night?  Get a life.  If you want questions answered, try answering some yourself of those posed about genetics ... you know all those like Kondrashov asking why we haven't died 100 times over and why did Crow say we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors.

                  Oh and Russell--  I am interested in how the Ames test saves ToE.

                  Thank ya kindly!
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 02 2006,22:21

                  Like a fat lady going after the last Oreo, AFDave just can't resist telling one last lie about what ericmurphy said, and C&Ping one last dishonest quotemine before slinking off to bed.

                  Nighty night Davie - dream wet dreams of how your lies and dishonesty make Jesus happy, and manage to vanquish all those evil atheist scientists and their Satan planted ToE evidence.

                  Because that's the only place it will happen.  :D

                  I'll ask again Dave - you willing to discuss in detail the geological column and the relative positions of the fossils contained therein?  Or will I have to start posting the big pussy pictures of you again?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 02 2006,22:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who wants to answer 15 questions at 10:00 on Saturday night?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oddly enough, the first ( unanswered ) question I asked was 4 hours ago.
                  In all that time, DimDave couldn't manage an answer, and now he throws up more diversions to avoid doing so. Surprised? Nah.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 02 2006,22:35

                  Dave,
                  Take this from another perspective.  Imagine if you will that the only item in your hypothesis you have gotton wrong is the age of the earth.  I know it requires some mild adjustments to your world view but this 6000 year thing turns out to be your major stumbling block with getting your hypothesis to have any meaning.

                  Imagine if you got the age wrong.  Then go back through all your other hypothesis statements and you will start to notice something interesting.  That you can actually make clear, concise, and factual predictions from the data that is available to everyone.  And these predictions can be made to fit your hypothesis without the age/time stumbling block that ALWAYS trips you up.  If you didn't stick to your time argument then the whole genetic richness and HLA-B allele points would be FAR DIFFERENT and the discussions would be far more interesting.

                  Your dogmatic hold on 6000 years is ONLY based upon biblical interpretation by someone else.  Read a few other interpretations that DON'T HOLD THAT DOGMA but keep the rest of your hypothesis.

                  Time is your killer right now Dave.

                  Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock the seconds go by.  Repeat another 1.7x10^17 times and you have the present age of the earth.  Not 1.9x10^11 like you presently claim.

                  The earth and everything around us is O-o-o-o-o-o-ld.  Very, very, very, very, very O-o-o-o-o-o-ld.  Our solar system may be the second or third incarnation of stars within the Milky Way since the beginning of the universe.  Thinking on these time scales requires far more insight to understand than what you have presented so far.

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  Dave, you keep bringing up the catastrophism claim like it is "owned" by creationists.  I know of no scientific claim that doesn't recognize that catastrophies have occurred in the past.  From ice ages to hurricanes to meteors to volcanoes to earthquakes to plate tectonics to.....  every type of natural disaster imanginable these (and others not yet discovered or imagined yet) have occured on the earth.  And that these occurrances result in changes to the earth and biosphere in local, regional, continental, or total earth impact is not a surprise.  The whole Uniformitarian versus Catastophism "problem" you have identified is a red herring.  I call shenanigans.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,00:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,20:45)
                  Russell--  Here's a classic example of a guy thinking I haven't presented evidence for my hypothesis while at the same time thinking the same evidence supports his.        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I've read every single page of this thread, and I know for a FACT that you have never presented a remotely plausible method by which every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, and nowhere near where your "hypothesis" claims it should be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is classic ludicrosity. (Is that a word?).  

                  This guy says that every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be ...

                  Oh really?        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT GRADUAL EVOLUTION
                  Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
                  p. 132
                  “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"  (thanks DM for filling in this quote ... not that it makes any difference ... did you contact infidels.org about their error yet?)
                  p. 132
                  “We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
                  p. 133
                  “The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

                  Eldredge, Niles, “Did Darwin Get It Wrong?”  Nova (November 1, 1981), 22 pp.
                  p. 6
                  “It is, indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. It’s the only reason why they can correlate rocks with their fossils, for instance. They’ve ignored the question completely.”

                  Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1953), 434 pp.
                  p. 360
                  “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmmm ... every single fossil ever found has always been found exactly where in the geological column it is predicted by evolutionary theory to be, huh?

                  I don't think so.

                  The truth is that the strata conform to creationist predictions, not evolutionist predictions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're completely misconstruing the meaning of your quote-mines. My point is that no fossil has ever been found in a location in the geological column where evolutionary theory predicts it could not be found. I.e., holocene fossils are never found in Triassic sediments, and Jurassic fossils are never found in Pre-Cambrian deposits.

                  This is a classic example of you having absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with gradualism vs. catastrophism, and everything to do with the impossibility of your "flood" sorting fossils in exactly the order predicted by evolution and not even close to the order predicted by "flood geology" if your "hypothesis" is true.

                  This is a classic example your posting "evidence" that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the point you're trying to make. Do you even understand why your quote-mines have nothing to do with my point, or are you lacking in the mental horsepower to do so?

                  I don't mean to get personal, Dave, but sometimes it's just impossible to believe that you're not a complete idiot. Although I suppose you could be a liar. But it's got to be one of the two.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,00:24

                  And Dave, you're going to get this question every single day until you answer it:

                  How does biodiversity increase and decrease at the same time?

                  Do you even understand why it is that your "hypothesis" predicts this? Or are you too much of a fucking idiot to even understand that?

                  And here's another chestnut from months ago you never answered:

                  How can the following statements both be true:

                  • 4,500,000,000 years isn't nearly enough time to evolve from a few thousand species to tens of millions of species.
                  • 4,500 years is plenty of time to evolve from a few thousand "kinds" to tens of millions of species.


                  That you have failed and refused to even acknowledge these questions is proof of the utter, abysmal intellectual bankruptcy of your pathetic "hypothesis."
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,00:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 02 2006,22:04)
                  Sorry to stir up such a hornet's nest right before you go to bed!  Here's a final quote for you to go to bed with about about what Eric brought up again, k.e, not me ... he thinks the fossil record is exactly what ToE predicted ... Oops!      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAWKINS ADMITS THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS VERY BIG GAPS -- CREATIONISTS DELIGHTED
                  Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).
                  p. 229-230
                  Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, Richard, I continue to be delighted. :-)

                  Good night all!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, my point has nothing whatsoever to do with whether new taxa appear suddenly or gradually in the fossil record. I find it almost impossible to believe that you don't understand this, so the only remaining possibility is that you're just frantically C&P'ing anything that remotely has to do with fossils.

                  My point is very simple, Dave: YOU DON'T FIND HOLOCENE FOSSILS IN CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTS. YOU DON'T FIND PLEISTOCENE FOSSILS IN CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTS. YOU DON'T FIND CRETACEOUS FOSSILS IN JURASSIC SEDIMENTS. YOU DON'T FIND JURASSIC FOSSILS IN CAMBRIAN SEDIMENTS. YOU DON'T FIND CAMBRIAN FOSSILS IN ARCHAEAN DEPOSITS.

                  Is it now clear why your quote-mines have absolutely nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with my point? And, therefore, why you have never dealt in a remotely plausible way with the difficulty (I should say "impossibility") your "flood hypothesis" has with fossil sorting in the geological column? If you can't understand this simple argument, it's perfectly okay to say so, and then we'll just move on to something else you don't have a prayer of understanding.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 03 2006,00:39

                  Ok, this week got away from me. I just sat down to write a crushing critique of all your posts about the founders. After assembling a google notebook of all your blabbering posts and unquotable scans about the xian America that never was, I pondered the best way to play the tease a fundy game tonight. I highlighted some of the stupider things you said (a rich vein if ever there was one) and began the process of ridiculing them. "Ha ha" I said as I read      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The following is a favorite quote of skeptics ... the Tripoli Treaty of 1797 which stated ...    
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Skeptics, of course, love this quote and pounce on it while disregarding hundreds of other quotes which support the fact that America is most definitely a Christian nation.
                  The key to understanding this is context.  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.  So the context of this treaty is the "Christianity" of Europe which attacked Muslims (Musselmen) during the Crusades and other times.  The treaty was worded in such a way as to give the Muslims great assurance that America is not like those European nations who called themselves "Christian" yet attacked you mercilessly.  The American founders detested government control by "Christian institutions," yet most of them were strong, Protestant Christians themselves (they were far more "fundy" than me), showing their Christian committment in numerous ways--from founding colleges at Harvard, Princeton and Yale for the express purpose of training Christian preachers to go throughout all the land, to forming Bible Societies to help get Bible distributed everywhere, to having prayer meetings in Congress, to carving Bible verses in stone, etc, etc, etc.
                  So this treaty could really be worded ...    
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.


                  Yes you are.


                  And finding quotes that dispute this idea is hard. How do you choose? They all say it.

                  Your stupid idea is so fundementally flawed that I can't do it. You really don't have the background knowledge to engage in any thinking at all. Very sad in some ways. You are of course quotemining, lying, making unfounded statements, missing the point, moving the goalposts, being stupid, ridiculous and comical all wrapped up in one but the sheer immensity of the void that is your knowledge of the world boggles the most ardent believer in America and the idea of personal freedom.

                  Your responses fell below the level that even I set for you.
                  Mike PSS, I humbly aknowledge that you were right when you said I was giving Dave too much credit.
                  Dave, you walked right by God and bowed down to the street hustler with the white robe and long beard. Discovering the universe might just be too much for you. I'm so sorry. I hope at least that ignorance is bliss in your case.

                  **And, to top it off, I just noticed the Lucy Ricky thing. Fuckin_a_christ. A million monkeys in a million years couldn't do what you do.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 03 2006,00:49

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 03 2006,01:14)
                  I don't mean to get personal, Dave, but sometimes it's just impossible to believe that you're not a ************ idiot. Although I suppose you could be a liar. But it's got to be one of the two.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I know you want to believe people aren't like that, I know you want to have more faith in humanity, but resist the urge to overestimate his intelligence. Remember what that magazine guy said about Dave's CAPITAL LETTERS. Dave Hawkins is the real deal.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 03 2006,00:55

                  Is it time to close this thread?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 03 2006,01:22

                  Steve, I think the time to close the thread will be when everyone loses interest in talking with Dave.  I mean, there is a whole lot of science learning going on here, just not by our resident Air Force vet.
                  __
                  Earlier I suggested that Dave's behavior is due to his arrogance rather than his funditude.  Now I think I might be wrong.  Perhaps he believes that our words are directly from Satan, and thus must be lies, even when they're technically true.  That would explain his inability to admit he's wrong on subjects not related to his CGH.  It would also explain why he insists he "answered his own question"* of why Adam couldn't have hundreds of alleles at a locus, and he "figured out the Ames test on his own"* after beautiful explanations by Stephen Wells and Russell.  It's not that he can't be wrong, it's that we can't be right.  Maybe I should start up a fight with Russell on internal ribosomal entry sites, and force Dave to take a side.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,01:25

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 03 2006,00:55)
                  Is it time to close this thread?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Put up or shut up time, Dave. I move that if Dave cannot either actually try to support his "hypothesis" (as distinct from just trying to discredit current consensus scientific theories), or to actually attempt to answer some of the almost four dozen questions about and objections to his "hypothesis," then it's probably time to put a fork in it.

                  Dave has spent almost the entire last month merely reprising his earlier failed attempts to find something, anything, fatally wrong with current scientific theories, without saying a single new thing or posting anything that remotely resembles actual affirmative evidence for his "hypothesis."

                  Understand that I'm making this motion entirely against my self-interest, since I find Dave's ineffectual efforts while staggering around with his head wedged into a milk bucket to be comic entertainment of the first rank. But perhaps threatening him with the equivalent of banishment will concentrate his mind as to the task of either supporting his "hypothesis," or admitting that he cannot do so.

                  Which will it be, Dave?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 03 2006,01:50

                  I can think of good reasons for turning out the lights on this thread, and good reasons for letting it go on for months. I just want to solicit opinions either way to assist my thinking.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 03 2006,02:07

                  Personally, I have no problem in simply ignoring Dave if he can't back his claims or engage in direct, honest debate on any other topics his ferret-like "brain" finds significant.

                  It's clear that he's simply bringing up ICR & AiG claims without knowing anything himself about the subjects --  he essentially expects people to tutor him on various topics. IF he believes he's got some major "wins" on anything significant--great. He'll use them, and it just makes it easier for the kids he's screwing over to discern his b-s.

                  Dave's claims on geology, biology, etc. have been dealt with, irrespective of his Black Knight squeals of victory. This effectively negates his hypothesis. I've been bored by him for a while, but maybe there's some value to be had at kicking the corpse. I just can't muster any great preference either way.

                  His act outlasted his purpose, which was merely to illustrate the vacuity of literalist-creationist views. That part is basically done--you folks created a fair primer on how to deal with his claims. Beyond that, he really has no "purpose."

                  I'll just watch, unless I see another weeping Portuguese wound to pour salt in. I like making fun of him at times, and he's definitely a motherlode of stupid, but because I find the guy utterly without redeeming qualities here -- regardless of what his mental issues are or are not -- I don't feel sorry for him or any compassion and I won't be sad to see him go.

                  Edit: My vote is "I don't care either way."
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 03 2006,05:44

                  I think the only way to keep this tread going is to ask one question at a time to Dave, and wait until he answers.
                  We wouldn't have to ask him anything if he did what he claimed to, i.e. provide some positive evidence for his hypothesis. But he's obviously unable to do this, let alone argue for his CGH in any coherent way.

                  Therefore, I propose we stop every currently open "debate" and begin with the first question that Dave should have adressed from the start : HOW DO YOU FALSIFY YOUR HYPOTHESIS ?"

                  Maybe we should start a new thread dedicated to questions to AFDave: one question, one answer, then another question (on the incoherent answer) and so on...
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 03 2006,05:46

                  Steve Story ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is it time to close this thread?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Steve never dreamed my thread would be so popular.  :-)

                  Argy...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Steve, I think the time to close the thread will be when everyone loses interest in talking with Dave.  I mean, there is a whole lot of science learning going on here, just not by our resident Air Force vet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Don't forget the advantage that Steve Story himself mentioned that ToE is being bolstered by having my stupidity on display to the entire world.
                  __
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Earlier I suggested that Dave's behavior is due to his arrogance rather than his funditude.  Now I think I might be wrong.  Perhaps he believes that our words are directly from Satan, and thus must be lies, even when they're technically true.  That would explain his inability to admit he's wrong on subjects not related to his CGH.  It would also explain why he insists he "answered his own question"* of why Adam couldn't have hundreds of alleles at a locus, and he "figured out the Ames test on his own"* after beautiful explanations by Stephen Wells and Russell.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh come on, I've admitted many of you have been right on many points.  No, I don't think your words are directly from Satan.  Gimme a break.

                  Eric ... OK, so I missed your point.  I thought you were making the point that the fossil record is as ToE predicted it would be, which is most definitely not the case.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 03 2006,07:04

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 03 2006,00:55)
                  Is it time to close this thread?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No.

                  What it is time to do (and this will be much more work for you as a moderator, and I suggested it a while back) is to make Davey defend his "hypothesis".

                  Davey has broken many rules for posting here while crying like a 6 YO when others have done the same.

                  Davey is here to be crucified but he hasn't exhibited the type of insanity required for that to happen.

                  When his posts don't support his "theory", move them to the BW where they belong.

                  Davey NEEDS a Goliath for a conscience and rigorous training in what constitutes science, not sciency.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If by scientific you mean it's not like other hypotheses, I would agree.  It is unique.  And it needs some polishing to be sure which is partly why I am here.  You can call my faith blind if you like, but I assure you it is not blind.  I believe because of what I have seen.  I mention hellfire and damnation occasionally because I feel obligated to warn people of a message which I do not like but I am convinced is true.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Davey has been busy polishing coprolites. He is the Baboon Dog boy, the Portuguese messenger, the antipathy of the scientific method. How much can you reduce the stupidity and still take it seriously?

                  It's time to reminder Davey of his illogicalness (sic) and watch him go bonkers!

                  It's time to put his blind faith to the test for what it's worth.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 03 2006,07:43

                  Crabby...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey has broken many rules for posting here while crying like a 6 YO when others have done the same.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What rules have I broken?  Or better ... what rules have I broken that many others also break regularly and no one on either side says anything about it?
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 03 2006,07:55

                  Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 03 2006,05:44)
                  I think the only way to keep this tread going is to ask one question at a time to Dave, and wait until he answers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think it probably is time for something like this, but I seem to recall that someone suggested similar oh-so-long ago when Dave was only here about a month.  I am not sure how exactly to enforce it. This forum is, by its nature, free-wheeling and chaotic.  Both sides pull the discussion off on tangents.  

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Therefore, I propose we stop every currently open "debate" and begin with the first question that Dave should have adressed from the start : HOW DO YOU FALSIFY YOUR HYPOTHESIS ?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Fine by me.  I suppose I will miss the debates on Amerian History, the one area where I can actually contribute.  But, I suppose I can go back to lurking.  After all, it is in the name of science!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 03 2006,08:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What it is time to do (and this will be much more work for you as a moderator, and I suggested it a while back) is to make Davey defend his "hypothesis".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But why would Steve want to do that? What would be the potential payoff that would make any, let alone "much more" work, worth it?

                  Yeah, I think it would be fun to watch davy's feet held to the fire, and actually follow each and every aspect of his "hypothesis" being systematically filleted. But you'll have to find a moderator with nothing else to do.

                  Meanwhile, the thread as it is has pros and cons. On pro side, it does pretty effectively display the inanity of the creationist position. Sure, it's frustrating that davy never recognizes how thoroughly he's discrediting not only his "hypothesis", but his reputation for integrity, even his[version of] Jesus.  But, as has been noted many times, not one single lurker has "decloaked" to say "Wait... maybe davy does have a point there." Also on the plus side, it's a surprisingly rich source of interesting science that comes up in the course of flaying the pink mist that used to be the dead horse that used to be davy's "hypothesis" (for which image I credit stevestory). F'rinstance, I've seen a lot of geology and archeology tidbits I didn't know about.

                  On the con side, of course, davy - like all creationists - makes liberal use of the Gish Gallop and, as a result, the thread is massively untidy. Also, davy manages to be so annoying in the course of being atomized that many of us are provoked to frothing profanity. Could be a source of embarrassment for real-world science, especially if excerpts are lovingly extracted for the benefit of an audience of, say, church ladies.

                  Finally, on the con side: a year ago the christian right posed more of a political threat. For a variety of reasons, their star is now fading. Fast. So davy's relevance, which never existed in the science world, has now pretty much ceased to be, even as a punching-bag training tool for public debate.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 03 2006,09:15

                  Just flipping back through the thread (part 2 only for now) and I thought I would change my sig to some AFDave inanity I found.

                  I think I'll change my sig every week to a new AFDaveism.  That means I need to be on this board for....  say....   two thousand years?

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 03 2006,09:21

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 03 2006,01:39)
                  Your responses fell below the level that even I set for you.
                  Mike PSS, I humbly aknowledge that you were right when you said I was giving Dave too much credit.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HaHA.  Point for me.


                  Soon you will owe me a foot massage.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 03 2006,09:23

                  This is an oldy but a goldy

                  AFD (playing Mr Spiggott by Dudley Moore) applies for a position as a scientist.

                  One Leg Too Few
                  Peter Cook
                  The scene is a theatrical producer's office

                   
                  Peter:Miss Rigby! Stella, my love! Would you please send in the next auditioner, please. Mr. Spigott, I believe it is.
                  Enter Dudley, hopping energetically on one leg

                  Peter:Mr. Spigott, I believe?
                  Dudley:Yes — Spigott by name, Spigott by nature. (keeps hopping)
                  Peter:Yes... if you'd like to remain motionless for a moment, Mr. Spigott. Please be stood. Now, Mr. Spigott you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan?
                  Dudley:Right.
                  Peter:Now, Mr. Spigott, I couldn't help noticing almost at once that you are a one-legged person.
                  Dudley:You noticed that?
                  Peter:I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.
                  Dudley:Correct.
                  Peter:And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.
                  Dudley:Right.
                  Peter:A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.
                  Dudley:Very true.
                  Peter:Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?
                  Dudley:Yes, I think you ought to.
                  Peter:Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.
                  Dudley:The leg division?
                  Peter:Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.
                  Dudley:You mean it's inadequate?
                  Peter:Yes, it's inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.
                  Dudley:I see.
                  Peter:However, don't despair. After all, you score over a man with no legs at all. Should a legless man come in here demanding the role, I should have no hesitation in saying ‘Get out. Run away’.
                  Dudley:So there's still a chance?
                  Peter:There is still a very good chance. If we get no two-legged actors in here within the next two months, there is still a very good chance that you'll land this vital role. Failing two-legged actors, you, a unidexter, are just the sort of person we shall be attempting to contact telephonically.
                  Dudley:Well... thank you very much.
                  Peter:So my advice is, to hop on a bus, go home, and sit by your telephone in the hope that we will be getting in touch with you.
                  He shows Dudley out

                  Peter:I'm sorry I can't be more definite, but as you realise, it's really a two-legged man we're after. Good morning Mr. Spigott.

                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 03 2006,09:54



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and Russell--  I am interested in how the Ames test saves ToE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, first of all, if you leaf through the pages of any academic journal, you'll notice that ToE doesn't need "saving"; it's thriving quite exuberantly as it is, thank you.

                  And, of course, creationists like to announce that everything from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the failure of the Third Reich spells the imminent doom, the crumbling of the last pillar, of ToE. So it's not always easy to know which pillar the dust-mites of creationism think they are about to fell.

                  But the Ames test pretty much lays to rest the canards that "ALL mutations are deleterious", and that selection can't effectively nurture beneficial mutations whose frequency is on the order of 1 in a billion.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 03 2006,10:27

                  This morning PZ Myers links to a < List of 281 Ways to Irritate an Atheist >. See how many you can count that remind you of Davey.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 03 2006,10:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh come on, I've admitted many of you have been right on many points.  No, I don't think your words are directly from Satan.  Gimme a break.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Righto.  I'll stick with the arrogance hypothesis.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,10:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 03 2006,05:46)
                  Eric ... OK, so I missed your point.  I thought you were making the point that the fossil record is as ToE predicted it would be, which is most definitely not the case.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the worst thing you can say about the ToE's predictions with respect to the fossil record is that that record is not as complete as one would have hoped. There is nothing in the fossil record that flat-out contradicts the theory of evolution, while that same fossil record rules your "hypothesis" out of contention by rendering its predictions impossible.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,11:00

                  Something I've always wondered about when it comes to "hydraulic sorting" of fossils proposed by creationists. As I understand it, the floodwaters were in the form of rain, were they not? 40 days and 40 nights of rain? If we accept Dave's estimate of a bit more than a mile of floodwaters, that means rain fell at the rate of five feet an hour for forty days, or roughly the rate that a bathtub fills up.

                  Now, if the floodwaters appeared in the form of rain, where would any motile organism run to avoid those floodwaters? Dave says the pre-flood topography was flat to gently rolling, so presumably it would be difficult for, say, a rabbit, or a deer, or even a wolf, (and to say nothing of of a clam, or a blade of grass, or a tree) to even figure out in which direction to run in order to avoid floodwaters which were accumulating at the rate of a bathtub filling up with water. On flat terrain, any organism shorter than five feet tall would have drowned in the first hour of the flood, and hence would be found in the lowest strata of "flood"-laid sediments. Why don't we find Precambrian rabbits, Dave?

                  So I fail to see where the "hydraulic sorting" mechanism can even work, Dave. Since you're well into gallop mode, I'm sure you can find time to elucidate this little problem for your "hypothesis."

                  But before you do that, why don't you honor Jean's request for an answer you should have given back in May: what evidence would you accept as falsifying your "hypothesis"?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 03 2006,11:11

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 03 2006,12:00)
                  Something I've always wondered about when it comes to "hydraulic sorting" of fossils proposed by creationists. As I understand it, the floodwaters were in the form of rain, were they not? 40 days and 40 nights of rain? If we accept Dave's estimate of a bit more than a mile of floodwaters, that means rain fell at the rate of five feet an hour for forty days, or roughly the rate that a bathtub fills up.

                  Now, if the floodwaters appeared in the form of rain, where would any motile organism run to avoid those floodwaters? Dave says the pre-flood topography was flat to gently rolling, so presumably it would be difficult for, say, a rabbit, or a deer, or even a wolf, (and to say nothing of of a clam, or a blade of grass, or a tree) to even figure out in which direction to run in order to avoid floodwaters which were accumulating at the rate of a bathtub filling up with water. On flat terrain, any organism shorter than five feet tall would have drowned in the first hour of the flood, and hence would be found in the lowest strata of "flood"-laid sediments. Why don't we find Precambrian rabbits, Dave?

                  So I fail to see where the "hydraulic sorting" mechanism can even work, Dave. Since you're well into gallop mode, I'm sure you can find time to elucidate this little problem for your "hypothesis."

                  But before you do that, why don't you honor Jean's request for an answer you should have given back in May: what evidence would you accept as falsifying your "hypothesis"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave has claimed the "breaking up of the waters of the deep" as an additional source.  Which means not only the bathtub filling rain but the tsunami sized upwellings also.

                  Maybe we can make a smash hit disaster movie from this.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 03 2006,11:17

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 03 2006,10:44)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 03 2006,05:46)
                  Eric ... OK, so I missed your point.  I thought you were making the point that the fossil record is as ToE predicted it would be, which is most definitely not the case.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the worst thing you can say about the ToE's predictions with respect to the fossil record is that that record is not as complete as one would have hoped.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This objection isn't supported by facts, as shown by Wesley in one of his articles.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 03 2006,11:24

                  The public and private responses I've gotten have convinced me that the thread should remain open. Continue wailing on the pink mist which used to be the dead horse which used to be AFDave's UPDATED All Of Science Is Wrong 'Hypothesis'.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 03 2006,14:21

                  Man, things move fast around here. Dave, dija catch my last post?

                  The entire premise upon which your hypothesis rests is false. The founders weren't intending a xian nation. The reason fundies get such a bad rap is that they say things like the things you say. Dave, your iq is lower than the number of testicles on a gelding. Your ideas hold water worse than a seive. Your statements raise the army to march against fundies.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,15:49

                  I was thinking about the falsification of Dave's "hypothesis" while taking a post-ride shower (I do some of my best thinking in there), when I realized Dave already knows how to falsify his "hypothesis." But he daren't go there, because he already knows not only how easily his "hypothesis" can be falsified, but that it's already been falsified.

                  Evidence that the universe is more than (oh, pick a figure) 6,000, 10,000, 15,000 years old—tops—obliterates Dave's "hypothesis."

                  Done. Next?

                  Actually, before we move on: you do admit that evidence that the earth is more than a few tens of thousands of years old falsifies your "hypothesis," right, Dave? Forget about whether the evidence is there for a minute. Is there some way your "hypothesis" could survive evidence that the earth is, e.g., twenty million years old?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 03 2006,17:53

                  In addition to Eric's summary.  Astrononmy and astrophysics are another item that wholly invalidates the 6000 year old earth myth.

                  Dave,
                  Here's the deal.  The speed of light and the Doppler shift (actually a small piece of general relativity) can invalidate the 6000 year old earth very easy.  Astronomers (and I'm lumping in astrophysicists and cosmologists in this case) have observed supernovae and noted centuries old observations of such events.  From these observations they have created mathamatecal models of these events and the consequences.  Over time, more supernovae detritus observations have occurred and the measured consequences of these later events have fit very well with the constructed models.  In fact many astronomers predict the measured effects of a new supernovae using the models and their predictions end up very close (1% or less) to actual measurements.

                  Now, how does this invalidate a 6000 year old earth?  The measured consequences of a supernovae (gas ejecta velocity, Doppler shift of detritus, spectrum of detritus, etc.) are given over hundreds of millions of years timeframe.  And ALL observations fit into the hypothesis put forward by the astronomers (and others mentionsed).

                  The sixteenth century Catholic church realized that the telescope would shatter the geocentric claims taught as truth to the masses.  The catholic church silenced Copernicus and muffled Galileo.  But the new truth was out and the Catholic archbishops just wanted some time to re-teach the masses instead of shock them with new truths.

                  The twentieth century astronomers have done the same type of discovery that has shattered past held beliefs.  The difference this time is that no central body of control has succeeded in silencing the data.  But the data and interpretations have stood the test of time and challenge.  A new truth is upon us and we have only to look into the details and facts to understand that this truth (a vast and old universe) is created to match ALL the evidence out there.

                  Sorry to pop your 6000 year old bubble.  Ask Santa for a telescope for christmas and learn something new.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 03 2006,19:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The twentieth century astronomers have done the same type of discovery that has shattered past held beliefs.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah, I guess. But once you've accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe, and not even the sun has a particularly special place, anthropocentric cosmogonies are pretty much finished.

                  I guess the fundies are right to be more distressed about biological science since Darwin than about astronomy since Copernicus.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2006,19:51

                  Re "twenty million years old? "

                  Isn't that about how long somebody (before discovery of radioactivity) calculated that it would take Earth to cool to its current temperature after forming?

                  Henry
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 03 2006,20:02

                  Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2006,19:51)
                  Re "twenty million years old? "

                  Isn't that about how long somebody (before discovery of radioactivity) calculated that it would take Earth to cool to its current temperature after forming?

                  Henry
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Lord Kelvin. I believe his figure was around 75 million years, but either way, you're looking at around four orders of magnitude older than it can be for Dave's "hypothesis" to be correct.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 03 2006,22:27

                  ice cores
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 04 2006,11:35

                  ARROGANT?  NOT TRYING TO BE ... I'M JUST A BEGGAR WHO HAS FOUND BREAD.

                  If I ever am momentarily arrogant (we all are sometimes), God humbles me with bloopers like this ... "Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!"

                  "Reminder them?"  Pretty funny ... boy, I do get to typing fast sometimes!

                  Seriously, though, I think what comes across as arrogance to you is really just confidence in my mind.  And I'm sure I should try to be more humble, but the fact is that I am an extremely confident (some would say cocky) guy.  Now why do I say I'm a beggar who has found bread?  Well, I mean that I was just a guy like you who is going through life looking for answers to all the various questions of life, when it gradully dawned on me that all the answers were right under my nose!  This beggar had found bread!  I had finally found the truth that makes sense of everything!  This is exciting stuff, guys. Now why would I not want to share that with everyone?

                  IF THEY EVER CLOSE MY THREAD HERE AT ATBC, I WILL OPEN COMMENTS AT MY BLOG

                  < http://airdave.blogspot.com/ >  You are all invited.

                  HOW TO SEARCH MY THREADS EASILY
                  I have not had good luck with Permalinks on this forum.  The Search feature does not work well for me ... not sure why.  For instance, I tried searching "Hydrodynamic sorting" which definitely does exist in my first thread and got 1 result which landed me at the start of my "AFD CGH 1" thread, not the post where these terms occurred.  My hope was that I could do several searches, then save some Permalinks to those posts.  Maybe I'm just technologically challenged.  Anyway, what does work for me is to keep text files of both threads on my desktop computer.  Then I can open them in Notepad and search them easily with 'Ctrl-F'.  

                  You can download both of my threads here if you like ...

                  < Download AFD_CGH1.txt (13.9 MB) >
                  < Download AFD_CGH2.txt (5.5 MB as of 12/4/06) >

                  The first one has paragraph breaks at the end of every line which I cannot get rid of.  If anyone has a trick, let me know.  I tried using Find & Replace in Word, but the tool does not recognize the paragraph symbol.

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  If you are feeling ignored, the reason I have not answered your question could be one of several ...
                  1) I am trying to work through my points systematically
                  2) I already answered your question when someone else asked it
                  3) I don't know the answer at the moment
                  4) Your question takes a lot of effort to answer either because I have not researched the topic yet or my sources for the answers are in book form and I have to type out my quotes (Carlson ... this is why I have not given you more yet about American history, but I hope to as time allows.)

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and Russell--  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am interested in how the Ames test saves ToE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, first of all, if you leaf through the pages of any academic journal, you'll notice that ToE doesn't need "saving"; it's thriving quite exuberantly as it is, thank you.

                  And, of course, creationists like to announce that everything from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the failure of the Third Reich spells the imminent doom, the crumbling of the last pillar, of ToE. So it's not always easy to know which pillar the dust-mites of creationism think they are about to fell.

                  But the Ames test pretty much lays to rest the canards that "ALL mutations are deleterious", and that selection can't effectively nurture beneficial mutations whose frequency is on the order of 1 in a billion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK. SO ToE doesn't need saving.  I'll play along with that. "But the Ames test pretty much lays to rest the canards that "ALL mutations are deleterious", and that selection can't effectively nurture beneficial mutations whose frequency is on the order of 1 in a billion."  

                  HOW?  How does this lay those canards to rest?  Are you saying that just because a nucleotide has a 1 in 4 (or 1 in 3) chance at reverting back to its "correct" state that this means that it is pretty likely that many of them will?  Hence ToE is likely?  Or inevitable?  

                  BWE ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.

                  HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING
                  Here's what I posted in my first thread ... "TGF" refers to "The Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb ....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave



                                               Posts: 897
                                               Joined: April 2006
                                                 (Permalink)Posted: July 03 2006,09:32  


                                               Q3) Fossil Order.  
                                               A3) The fossil order we find is exactly what we
                                               would expect to find if they were deposited by a
                                               Global Flood.

                                               Early Burial of Marine Creatures.  The Biblical
                                               Record says that the "fountains of the great deep
                                               were broken up."  If the record is correct, we
                                               would expect that marine organisms would be
                                               fossilized first and appear lowest in the geologic
                                               column.  This is exactly what we do find.

                                               Hydrodynamic Selectivity of Moving Water.      
                                                 Quote
                                                 The settling velocity of large particles in
                                                 independent of fluid viscosity; it is directly
                                                 proportional to the square root of particle
                                                 diameter, directly proportional to the square
                                                 root of particle diameter, directly proportional
                                                 to particle sphericity, and directly
                                                 proportional to the difference between particle
                                                 and fluid density divided by fluid density.
                                                 (W.C. Krumbein and L.L. Sloss: Stratigraphy and
                                                 Sedimentation, San Fransisco, W.H. Freeman and
                                                 Co., 1951, p. 156, quoted in TGF, p. 273)
                                               "It is significant that the organisms found in the
                                               lowest strata, such as the trilobites,
                                               brachiopods, etc. are very "streamlined" and are
                                               quite dense ... of course, these very pronounced
                                               "sorting" powers of hydraulic action are really
                                               only valid statistically, rather than universally.
                                                Local peculiarities of turbulence, habitat,
                                               sediment composition, etc., would be expected to
                                               cause local variations in organic assemblages ...
                                               But, on the average, the sorting action is quite
                                               efficient and would definitely have separated the
                                               shells and other fossils in just such a fashion as
                                               they are found, with certain fossils predominant
                                               in certain horizons, the complexity of such "index
                                               fossils" increasing with increasing elevation in
                                               the column, in at least a general way." (TGF, p.
                                               274)

                                               Higher Mobility of the Vertebrates "It is
                                               reasonable also, in the light of the Flood record,
                                               to expect that vertebrates would be found higher
                                               in the geologic column than the first
                                               invertebrates.  Vertebrates in general possess
                                               much greater mobility, and this factor, together
                                               with their pelagic habitats, [pelagic - Refers to
                                               living in the water of the ocean above the bottom]
                                               would normally prevent their being entrapped and
                                               deposited in the deepest sediments.  The simplest
                                               vertebrates, the ostracoderms [Ostracoderms
                                               ("bone-skinned") are any of several groups of
                                               extinct, primitive, jawless fishes that were
                                               covered in an armor of bony plates.], are first
                                               found, and only sparingly then, in Ordovician
                                               strata.  Fishes are found in profusion in the
                                               Devonian, often in great sedimentary "graveyards,"
                                               indicating violent deposition, and often in
                                               fresh-water deposits.  It is obvious that fish do
                                               not normally die and become fossilized in such
                                               conditions as these but usually are either
                                               destroyed by scavengers or float on the surface
                                               until decomposed.  The whole aspect of the fossil
                                               fish beds bespeaks violent burial in rapidly
                                               moving deltaic sediments." ... In other
                                               localities, and perhaps somewhat later in the
                                               period of the rising waters of the Flood, in
                                               general, land animals and plants would be expected
                                               to be caught in the sediments and buried; and
                                               this, of course, is exactly what the strata
                                               show."(TGF, p. 275)  ... "In general though, as a
                                               statistical average, beds would tend to be
                                               deposited in just the order that has been ascribed
                                               to them in terms of the standard geologic column.  
                                               That is, on top of the beds of marine vertebrates
                                               would be found amphibians, then reptiles and
                                               finally birds and mammals.  This is in the order:
                                               (1) of increasing mobility and therefore
                                               increasing ability to postpone inundation; (2) of
                                               decreasing density and other hydrodynamic factors
                                               tending to promote earlier and deeper
                                               sedimentation, and (3) of increasing elevation of
                                               habitat and therefore time required for the Flood
                                               to attain stages sufficient to overtake them.  The
                                               order is exactly what is to be expected in light
                                               of the Flood account and, therefore, gives further
                                               circumstantial evidence of the truthfulness of
                                               that account;" (TGF, p. 276)

                                               TGF then covers formation of coal beds, the
                                               "Mesozoic" strata and the dinosaurs, and
                                               "Tertiary" stratigraphy.

                                               Are you getting the idea that you should go out
                                               and buy a copy of The Genesis Flood??  It would
                                               save me a lot of typing!!

                                               Here a good ICR article on fossils and in
                                               particular the Nautiloid fossils found in the
                                               Grand Canyon.

                                               http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=508
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2006,12:11

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING
                  Here's what I posted in my first thread ... "TGF" refers to "The Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb ....    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave



                                               Posts: 897
                                               Joined: April 2006
                                                 (Permalink)Posted: July 03 2006,09:32  


                                              [snip]

                                               TGF then covers formation of coal beds, the
                                               "Mesozoic" strata and the dinosaurs, and
                                               "Tertiary" stratigraphy.

                                               Are you getting the idea that you should go out
                                               and buy a copy of The Genesis Flood??  It would
                                               save me a lot of typing!!

                                               Here a good ICR article on fossils and in
                                               particular the Nautiloid fossils found in the
                                               Grand Canyon.

                                               http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=508
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, here's the problem with your (and with Morris's) reasoning. Yes, it's true that some fossils sort where "flood geology" would expect them to appear in the fossil record. But many, many, many fossils do not.

                  Why do grasses only appear in the last one percent of the geological column, Dave? Were blades of grass able to outrun the floodwaters? Why is it that not a single rabbit was trapped in low-lying areas with no way to get to higher land with floodwaters accumulating at almost two meters an hour? There are no rabbit fossils anywhere in the geological column below the top one percent. That's a statistical impossibility. Not a single modern (i.e., Holocene) fossil has ever been found anywhere other than in Holocene deposits. Holocene fossil shellfish are found in Holocene deposits, Cambrian fossil shells that have the same hydrodynamic characteristics are found in Cambrian deposits. Your quote from Morris simply fails to account for this fact. No fossil has ever, ever been found other than where evolutionary theory has expected to find it. Countless fossils have been found in places far from where "flood geology" predicts they should be.

                  So no, Dave, you have not provided a satisfactory explanation for the the location of fossils in the geological column. And you haven't answered this simple, basic question: why is it that fossils are never, ever found anywhere except where evolutionary theory expects them to be found?

                  This problem trips you up again and again and again, Dave. You can't just look for evidence that supports your "hypothesis" and ignore the entire cities of evidence that contradict it.

                  You're not a beggar who's found bread, Dave. You're a beggar who's found a papier-maché model of what looks like bread.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 04 2006,12:42

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why do grasses only appear in the last one percent of the geological column, Dave? Were blades of grass able to outrun the floodwaters? Why is it that not a single rabbit was trapped in low-lying areas with no way to get to higher land with floodwaters accumulating at almost two meters an hour? There are no rabbit fossils anywhere in the geological column below the top one percent. That's a statistical impossibility. Not a single modern (i.e., Holocene) fossil has ever been found anywhere other than in Holocene deposits. Holocene fossil shellfish are found in Holocene deposits, Cambrian fossil shells that have the same hydrodynamic characteristics are found in Cambrian deposits. Your quote from Morris simply fails to account for this fact. No fossil has ever, ever been found other than where evolutionary theory has expected to find it. Countless fossils have been found in places far from where "flood geology" predicts they should be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If you are willing to explain and support some of these assertions with reliable sources one at a time, I'm happy to address them.  Which do you want to discuss first?  Rabbits?  Blades of grass?  Holocene fossils?  As always, I prefer that you describe the phenomenon in question in your own words, then give a link where I can learn more if I don't understand your description.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 04 2006,12:54

                  davey, how about you tell me when it is exactly that you celebrate the earths (and now we know, the universe too) birthday? When will the earth be 6001?

                  And Erics point is quite simple. I find it hard to believe that you can fly a plane and yet not understand a concept like "you only find ford motorcars being assembled in ford factory's and you only find Daiwoo cars in the process of assembly in Daiwoo factory's"

                  You can't answer this point so you dissemble.

                  Im my own words then

                  If you get all fossils and mix them up with water, and dry them out, they'll be sorted according to size and shape.
                  But this is not how we find them.

                  ericmurphy   Posted on Dec. 04 2006,12:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Holocene fossil shellfish are found in Holocene deposits, Cambrian fossil shells that have the same hydrodynamic characteristics are found in Cambrian deposits. Your quote from Morris simply fails to account for this fact. No fossil has ever, ever been found other than where evolutionary theory has expected to find it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 04 2006,12:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < How amazingly generous of you. I'm sure you'll find a lot of common ground with atheists there >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2006,13:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  BWE ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So in other words, Dave, non-Christians need not apply. Jews do not accept the teachings of Christ, Dave, nor do they accept his divinity. Should Joe Lieberman be barred from serving in the U.S. Senate? (Lieberman shouldn't be in the Senate, but for reasons that have nothing to do with his religion.) What about Henry Waxman in the House? He doesn't accept the divinity of Christ.

                  What about Muslims? They should be barred from public service? How about Hindus, or Buddhists? What makes Christians so special, Dave? Why can't gay people get married? (Oh, wait, that's for Thordaddy to try to answer.) Why do I have to accept that your god is also my god? What makes your god so special (other than that he doesn't exist)? I can't take your god's name in vain? Why not? Given that he doesn't exist, what possible difference can it make?

                  You claim you don't think someone has to be Christian to be in government, but then your requirements completely undermine that statement. Okay, you don't have to really, actually be a Christian; you just have to be indistinguishable from one.

                  Like all fundamentalist Christians, you've got this totally wrong belief that when it comes to matters of faith, you cannot possibly be wrong. Well, you're wrong.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 04 2006,13:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  [BWE ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, it is certainly gracious of you to allow non-Christians to hold office.  Very gracious, indeed.  But, I am confused by something. How exactly is a non-Christian supposed to adhere to the first commandment?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To pose the question again (hopefully, the third time is the charm), would you say that any politician that does not swear the oath on a Christian Bible should not be able to hold office?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 04 2006,13:31



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK. SO ToE doesn't need saving.  I'll play along with that. "But the Ames test pretty much lays to rest the canards that "ALL mutations are deleterious", and that selection can't effectively nurture beneficial mutations whose frequency is on the order of 1 in a billion."  

                  HOW?  How does this lay those canards to rest?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Huh? How does it NOT? The mutations that the Ames test detects are reversions of a defective gene to a functional gene. Pretty hard to argue that those are "deleterious", isn't it? And they can be pretty darn rare, like 1 in a billion, and selection can still find them. That's how evolution works.  QED



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You may have to amend the U.S. Constitution:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Article VI, clause 3:
                  no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2006,13:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,12:42)
                  If you are willing to explain and support some of these assertions with reliable sources one at a time, I'm happy to address them.  Which do you want to discuss first?  Rabbits?  Blades of grass?  Holocene fossils?  As always, I prefer that you describe the phenomenon in question in your own words, then give a link where I can learn more if I don't understand your description.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, it's very simple. Explain, using Morris's "hydraulic sorting," why fossil grasses are never found in Cambrian sediments.

                  Okay, you know what a blade of grass is, right? And you're familar with rabbits. You know what the Holocene epoch is, right? No? It's about the last ten thousand years of geological time. If you're unfamiliar with the names of various geological periods (i.e., Jurassic, Triassic, Proterozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic), I suggest you do a little research.

                  There's nothing complicated about what I'm trying to talk about here, and I suspect you know exactly what I'm talking about. Stop feigning ignorance, Dave, and find some evidence for fossils that appear out of chronological order, but in the order "flood geology appears." "Precambrian rabbits" would be a good example. "Rabbits" and "grass" are both examples of Holocene fossils. You can start with either one.

                  This isn't a new question. Deadman asked you months ago why no fossils of modern (i.e., Cenozoic) organisms are found in the Morrison formation. This is one of the dozens of questions you've never answered, or even acknowledged. If you didn't understand the question then, why didn't you ask for clarification, instead of just blowing it off.

                  I can't prove a negative, Dave. If you can come up with some evidence that Holocene fossils are found in Precambrian deposits, or a similarly unlikely pairing of fossil and geological period, then you've got a case to make. Otherwise, your "hypothesis" fails yet another observational test.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 04 2006,13:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  If you are feeling ignored, the reason I have not answered your question could be one of several ...
                  1) I am trying to work through my points systematically
                  2) I already answered your question when someone else asked it
                  3) I don't know the answer at the moment
                  4) Your question takes a lot of effort to answer either because I have not researched the topic yet or my sources for the answers are in book form and I have to type out my quotes (Carlson ... this is why I have not given you more yet about American history, but I hope to as time allows.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank you for nicely summing up one of the many reasons why I and many others here consider you to be intellectually dishonest, Dave. Let's work through these reasons that you ignore our questions, keeping in mind that we are (for the most part) talking about questions that arise IN RESPONSE to material that you post. Those questions usually quote or link to your own material, and reference some particular aspect of it that the questioner has found necessary to challenge.

                  So, you don't answer most of the questions posed to you because:

                  1. You are trying to work through your points systematically. Well bully for you. In science, as in any other forum for rational discussion, sooner or later you have to leave the soapbox and field questions from the floor. You've been lecturing us from your pulpit for months now and, after patiently waiting for the floor mic to be turned on, we've realized you're too chickenshit to field questions. So we've responded in kind -- either ignoring the crazy street preacher, pointing and laughing, or lobbing the odd rotten tomato.

                  2. You've supposedly already answered the question. Hmmm. When the rest of us make that claim, we tend to back it up with a quote from or link to our previous answer. That way, we avoid repeating ourselves while still satisfying the questioner with an answer we stand behind. The fact that you never do this, but instead seem satisfied to just wave the question away and claim an answer that none of us reading this thread is ever able to find, is very poor form, Davey.

                  3. You don't know the answer. In which case, an honest respondent admits as much, as opposed to ignoring the question and hoping it will go away before one is forced to reveal ignorance. But I guess all those idunnos would have really added up and looked bad for you and your CGH, eh Dave? Which brings us to a further point, addressed again below. If you don't know the answer to a question, and that question goes right to the heart of some aspect of your argument, intellectual honesty demands resolving it before moving on to subsequent aspects of your argument. It is particularly dishonest to move on anyway, then pretend that the topic with the hanging question has previously been resolved (see 2).

                  4. Our questions are hard and demand research into areas that you aren't yet familiar with. This might be a fair excuse, although again it should be admitted rather than ignored. The problem is, the questions are often directly relevant to (and directly refute) a point you have made despite lacking the relevant knowledge. Take the latest example of hydrodynamic sorting. You make the claim that hydrodynamic sorting explains fossil strata. Someone then points out that it does not at all explain the stratification of many fossils (grass, rabbits, etc.). You then ask to have the question spelled out for you in detail, reflecting the fact that you do not know where rabbit, grass and other fossils are actually found. Shouldn't you know where fossils are found before claiming that you can explain why they are found where they are found, Davey?

                  Add to this the fact that you like to pompously and hypocritically remind us when one of your questions has been left hanging, even when it has been answered. For example, way back when, I took you through a little thought experiment in the genetic distance between humans, chimps and gorillas. You repeatedly demanded that I answer your question about where I got my data, and pretended it was unanswered even after I had reproduced text and data from a number of sources and explicitly explained the rationale for every value I used. Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered. You eventually told me you you did not know and had not yet adequately researched baraminology (simultaneously using escape hatches 3 and 4 above, although at least -- after much prompting -- you admitted as much, rather than just ignoring the question). Lately, you have treated that topic as resolved.

                  Dishonest, Dave. Pure and simple.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,14:44

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)
                  Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave did answer this....

                  Ahem.....

                  A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
                  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 04 2006,14:57

                  Just a reminder Dave, since you now seem willing to discuss hydrodynamic sorting.  A few weeks ago you wrote this

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02))

                  Notta ...    
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

                  1. Modern humans
                  2. Modern cats
                  3. Modern dogs
                  4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

                  Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

                  Where are all the people??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I asked you many questions about these curious claims, but you totally ignored them

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (OA:) Dave, you’ve really got me curious.  I want to know more about the scavengers that ate all those drowned Flood carcasses you told us about.  I can’t find anything about them in my Bible at all.

                  The Bible says the Flood killed every living thing save those on the Ark, so I assume the scavengers were on the Ark too.  Is that right?  What kind of creatures were they Dave?  Vultures?  Hyenas?  Sharks?  T-Rex?

                  How did the scavengers make it from Ararat to the whole rest of the world while the flood waters were still receding, and the land was covered with thousands of feet of soft sediment?

                  How many scavengers were there Dave?  Must have been a pretty high number to clean up the whole planet and not miss a single carcass of a modern animal. How did they multiply from the two on the Ark to such high numbers so quickly?   Not only that, but the scavengers must have eaten the bones of the dead animals too, not just the decaying flesh.  What kind of scavengers do you know that eat the skeletons of Elephants?

                  Another thing – you live in Missouri, right?  That’s a pretty flat state, the highest point of elevation is only 1700 ft.  When the Flood began, where did all the local modern fauna run to in order to escape the water and not get buried in sediment?  Did they run all the way to the Rocky Mountains in Colorado?  Nah, can’t be that because we know that area was covered by 5000’ of soft sediment from which the Grand Canyon was carved – you told us so, right?  Even going to Mt Everest wouldn’t help because the top there is full of fossils which means they were buried by Flood sediment.

                  Help me out here Dave – share some of your scientific knowledge on these post-Flood scavengers and the modern animals they dined on.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please address these very important questions about your Flood claims.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 04 2006,15:12

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,14:44)
                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)
                  Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave did answer this....

                  Ahem.....

                  A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
                  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  lol  :D

                  Nope, that was actually a different one. It was Dave's "lousy one-and-a-half percent" Portuguese moment regarding overall genetic difference that made me try a different tactic by showing him the distribtuion of distance trees for specific genes/regions. In that case, 60% show (CH)G, 20% (CG)H and 20% (GH)C -- so there was no getting off with the 1% bluster. I showed Davey, point by point, why this could have actually been predicted (and how/why) from what was known prior to detailed genetic work, but certainly not by his CGH, which would obviously predict a much higher proportion of...well...(CG)H.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,15:28

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,16:12)
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,14:44)
                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)
                  Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave did answer this....

                  Ahem.....

                  A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
                  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  lol  :D

                  Nope, that was actually a different one. It was Dave's "lousy one-and-a-half percent" Portuguese moment regarding overall genetic difference that made me try a different tactic by showing him the distribtuion of distance trees for specific genes/regions. In that case, 60% show (CH)G, 20% (CG)H and 20% (GH)C -- so there was no getting off with the 1% bluster. I showed Davey, point by point, why this could have actually been predicted (and how/why) from what was known prior to detailed genetic work, but certainly not by his CGH, which would obviously predict a much higher proportion of...well...(CG)H.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How anyone can spend 8 years in school and get a PhD in biology nowadays and not recognize that similarities in genes and sequences between animals is evidence for common design is beyond me.  I mean...  really... get your head examined or something.

                  IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!!

                  **************************

                  Is that better?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2006,15:38

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  ARROGANT?  NOT TRYING TO BE ... I'M JUST A BEGGAR WHO HAS FOUND BREAD.

                  If I ever am momentarily arrogant (we all are sometimes), God humbles me with bloopers like this ... "Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!"

                  Seriously, though, I think what comes across as arrogance to you is really just confidence in my mind.  And I'm sure I should try to be more humble, but the fact is that I am an extremely confident (some would say cocky) guy.  Now why do I say I'm a beggar who has found bread?  Well, I mean that I was just a guy like you who is going through life looking for answers to all the various questions of life, when it gradully dawned on me that all the answers were right under my nose!  This beggar had found bread!  I had finally found the truth that makes sense of everything!  This is exciting stuff, guys. Now why would I not want to share that with everyone?

                  BWE ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [/quote]

                  You utter cosmic moron. You have a hard time making friends outside of your church don't you? It's not because of your religion, it's because you're a idiot on the scale that reqires scientific notation to quantify.

                  Frankly I'm amazed. I've been amazed by your ignorance, stupidity, lunacy and pathetic appeals before but it just keeps getting better. Anyway, at least this freak show is free. Jebus, when you change your mind I hope you take the diaper out. My word Dave, you really left me stumbling over my tongue on that one.

                  Federalist 10. Plus all literature pertaining to liberal democracy. Actually, plus all literature relating to the founding of our country. Fuck. Add to that everything else in the universe. You couldn't be more stupid. You are dumber than the contents of an absolute vacuum. When you talk, your family appologizes. Or they blame the dog.

                  Dave, did you know that they have created life from inorganic material? Did you see the truman show? Also, scientists doggedly pursuing string theory have discovered a tiny wormhole into the distant past. It goes back to the garden of eden.! Just kidding. There was no garden of eden you stupid fucking moron.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 04 2006,15:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, Dave, you did post Morris previously. And you were immediately asked a slew of questions that you never addressed at all. Since you have chosen to bring this into your view again, maybe you can answer them now. If you need references for anything, let me know. If you can't answer things, say so. If you disagree, state why, concisely and thoroughly.

                  You claim others are illogical, Dave...so address these logically.

                  HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_law >

                  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with old sick modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.

                  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?

                  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

                  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

                  Which sediment layers were laid before the “flood,” Dave? Which were laid during the “flood”? Which were laid after the “flood”? Or do you still maintain that all sedimentary layers worldwide (all several kilometers of them) were laid during the flood?

                  How and why are evaporites found preferentially deposited UNDER layers with larger grains?

                  How are carbonates preferentially precipitated into layers hundreds of meters thick...while in a flood?

                  How did those spider and other insect and reptile tracks get in the Coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

                  Nautiloids have air chambers and even after death...float. Why don't we see the same-sized variant species mixed up? Why do we find them in a precise order? Why don't we find SOME of the same-species nautiloids in both devonian and cretaceous layers? Why don't we see ammonids in modern layers?

                  How did the oak and willow trees and all other angiosperms manage to get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? Why are there no flowering-plant fossils rooted in lower sediments covered by the flood?

                  Why do we find no flying reptiles like Pterosaurs and Rhamphorhynchus, Quetzalcoatlus etc...in "higher" sediments? Why are they always found in layers from the Mesozoic?

                  Why are there no juvenile or injured or OLD and crippled **modern** mammals in the Morrison formation or any other Mesozoic formation? Or Paleozoic?

                  Amphibians such as Eyrops are the same size as MOST dinosaurs, Dave...moreover, being amphibians, they should survive water better..why don't we at least find them with dinosaurs? Why are they only found in parts of the Permian Cutler formation of the GS?
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 04 2006,15:39

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,15:28)
                  Is that better?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *shudder* Eerily so. What's your secret?

                  AFDave-ese = Bluster + Hand-waving + other factors?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2006,16:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When someone sent me a permalink to this, I didn't know what had happened. Dave, has someone hacked your account? You didn't actually write those words, did you? And it was posted in the middle of the day


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Posted: Dec. 04 2006,12:35
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I could maybe, maybe understand if it was 2 am and you'd just had 15 jello shots, but it's the middle of the freaking day.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 04 2006,16:07

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,16:39)
                   
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,15:28)
                  Is that better?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *shudder* Eerily so. What's your secret?

                  AFDave-ese = Bluster + Hand-waving + other factors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I just picture AFDave as a modern day Col. Jack Ripper...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ripper:
                  Ah, naah. We're ok here. Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridated water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream?

                  Mandrake:
                  Good Lord.

                  Ripper:
                  You know when fluoridation first began?

                  Mandrake:
                  No. No, I don't, Jack. No.

                  Ripper:
                  Nineteen hundred and forty six. Nineteen fortysix, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.

                  Mandrake:
                  Jack... Jack, listen, tell me, ah... when did you first become, well, develop this theory.

                  Ripper:
                  Well, I ah, I I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

                  Mandrake:
                  (sighs fearfully)

                  Ripper:
                  Yes a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence.

                  Mandrake:
                  Yes...

                  Ripper:
                  I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women... women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

                  Mandrake:
                  Heh heh... yes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just replace commie with evolutionist (or Darwinist) and it sounds eerily familiar.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2006,16:15

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2006,16:38)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  ARROGANT?  NOT TRYING TO BE ... I'M JUST A BEGGAR WHO HAS FOUND BREAD.

                  If I ever am momentarily arrogant (we all are sometimes), God humbles me with bloopers like this ... "Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!"

                  Seriously, though, I think what comes across as arrogance to you is really just confidence in my mind.  And I'm sure I should try to be more humble, but the fact is that I am an extremely confident (some would say cocky) guy.  Now why do I say I'm a beggar who has found bread?  Well, I mean that I was just a guy like you who is going through life looking for answers to all the various questions of life, when it gradully dawned on me that all the answers were right under my nose!  This beggar had found bread!  I had finally found the truth that makes sense of everything!  This is exciting stuff, guys. Now why would I not want to share that with everyone?

                  BWE ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [/quote]

                  You utter cosmic moron. You have a hard time making friends outside of your church don't you? It's not because of your religion, it's because you're a idiot on the scale that reqires scientific notation to quantify.

                  Frankly I'm amazed. I've been amazed by your ignorance, stupidity, lunacy and pathetic appeals before but it just keeps getting better. Anyway, at least this freak show is free. Jebus, when you change your mind I hope you take the diaper out. My word Dave, you really left me stumbling over my tongue on that one.

                  Federalist 10. Plus all literature pertaining to liberal democracy. Actually, plus all literature relating to the founding of our country. Fuck. Add to that everything else in the universe. You couldn't be more stupid. You are dumber than the contents of an absolute vacuum. When you talk, your family appologizes. Or they blame the dog.

                  Dave, did you know that they have created life from inorganic material? Did you see the truman show? Also, scientists doggedly pursuing string theory have discovered a tiny wormhole into the distant past. It goes back to the garden of eden.! Just kidding. There was no garden of eden you stupid fucking moron.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I've had some success toning people down in private, but posts like BWE's are what lead me to consider shutting down this thread. It's nearly impossible to resist making those statements about AFDave. The things he says can make you just hold your head in your hands. But be more civil about it.
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 04 2006,16:15

                  Dave, as a Christian, let me break down the arrogance revealed in your post and offer possible alternatives:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  ARROGANT?  NOT TRYING TO BE ... I'M JUST A BEGGAR WHO HAS FOUND BREAD.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Using a meaningless cliche to excuse arrogance is, well, arrogant.

                  Possible alternative:  Gee, I'm sorry.  I do act arrogantly and I apologize for my offensive behavior. (Please note the lack of bolding and caps.)

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)

                  If I ever am momentarily arrogant (we all are sometimes)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When you offend someone, take responsibility rather than excusing offensive behavior as "something eveyone does but I might do only momentarily."

                  Try this instead:  "You know, many people tell me I'm arrogant.  I guess I must be.  Sorry.  I really need to work on that."

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)

                  God humbles me with bloopers like this ... "Reminder them of their illogicalness and they go bonkers!"

                  "Reminder them?"  Pretty funny ... boy, I do get to typing fast sometimes!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Arrogant:  When confronted with your arrogance, claim it is God working a "greater good" in you.  You didn't type something stupid, it was the Hand of God working with you, his precious child.

                  Humble:  "I type stupid things all the time--just look at this thread.  I appreciate you guys being willing to put up with me."

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)
                  Seriously, though, I think what comes across as arrogance to you is really just confidence in my mind.  And I'm sure I should try to be more humble, but the fact is that I am an extremely confident (some would say cocky) guy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When many people tell you you are arrogant, you are.  Try being humble and accepting that you are far from confident and are overcompensating with cockiness.  

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 04 2006,11:35)

                  Now why do I say I'm a beggar who has found bread?  Well, I mean that I was just a guy like you who is going through life looking for answers to all the various questions of life, when it gradully dawned on me that all the answers were right under my nose!  This beggar had found bread!  I had finally found the truth that makes sense of everything!  This is exciting stuff, guys. Now why would I not want to share that with everyone?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is the height of arrogance.  It's akin to telling someone "I was just like you until I became 'enlightened.'  Poor you, you're still a beggar who can't see the bread all around him."

                  Instead, try this:  "You guys demonstrate day after day you are intelligent thoughtful people.  I have found my faith explains many things for me and here's why..." then actually give reasoned logical arguments to support your belief while humbly considering the positions of others.

                  Hope this helps.

                  Edit:  Steve, didn't catch your post before I posted this.  Hope it is civil.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2006,16:20

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 04 2006,16:01)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  When someone sent me a permalink to this, I didn't know what had happened. Dave, has someone hacked your account? You didn't actually write those words, did you? And it was posted in the middle of the day


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Posted: Dec. 04 2006,12:35
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I could maybe, maybe understand if it was 2 am and you'd just had 15 jello shots, but it's the middle of the freaking day.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I gotta say, that one takes the cake. All the cake. Here I am, set out to prove that dorky dimwit can't defend any point on any topic, thinking that my bookshelf might get some dusting as I prepare for some devastating argument proving the founders and fundies are different animals when it occurs to me to ask the question:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, the rest, as they say, is history. Wow. Just wow. I wonder if there are other fundies out there like dave? Could you imagine what he might do < with a brick? >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 04 2006,16:24

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 04 2006,15:39)
                  Yes, Dave, you did post Morris previously. And you were immediately asked a slew of questions that you never addressed at all. Since you have chosen to bring this into your view again, maybe you can answer them now. If you need references for anything, let me know. If you can't answer things, say so. If you disagree, state why, concisely and thoroughly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gee, Deadman, you've already asked all these questions. Can't you come up with something new? You sound like a broken record.

                  Also, Dave: you never said whether or not you agreed with the statement that evidence that the universe is more than 6,000 (or 10,000, or a million) years old would falsify your "hypothesis." Is that because you're afraid?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2006,16:32

                  Sorry Steve. It's just that my head ruptured and my brains started leaking out. It was a medical emergency and that message was the only way I could survive. I'l try to keep my epi pen close to my desk when I peruse this thread to try to avoid that kind of emergency medicine.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 04 2006,16:36

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2006,15:38)
                  Federalist 10.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Federalist 10 - An extensive republic a remedy for mischiefs of faction

                  Dang it.  I'm only up through 6.  Now, I'm going to have to ignore my wife in order to catch up. Oh, wait:
                               

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  BWE continues....
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Plus all literature pertaining to liberal democracy.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Scanning Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" I find this:
                             

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Another more secret evil, but more dangerous to the commonwealth, is when men arrogate to themselves, and to those of their own sect, some peculiar prerogative, covered over with a specious show of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the civil rights of the community.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  More BWE....
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually,plus all literature relating to the founding of our country.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Akhil Amar has some interesting things to say about oaths of office in his book "America's Constitution: A Biography."  But, we can save that one for later.   ;)

                  And a parting shot....
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Fuck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Careful now. Remember the lurkers.

                  Won't somebody please think of the lurkers!  
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 04 2006,18:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Seriously, though, I think what comes across as arrogance to you is really just confidence in my mind.  And I'm sure I should try to be more humble, but the fact is that I am an extremely confident (some would say cocky) guy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ...

                  ...You gotta be ****ing  kidding me.

                  It's when you type stuff like that that I understand those who still think you are a troll.

                  Tell me, dave: Is saying "I just answered my own question!" after a dozen people explain to you what an amazing load of nonsense you had posted, CONFIDENCE?

                  Is saying stuff like "I'm no expert in genetics YET" CONFIDENCE? (Seriously, what the He11 WERE you thinking?)

                  No, dave. It's sheer, blatant arrogance. Hollow arrogance too, since you got nothing to back it up.

                  Dave, what do confident people do when they are faced with questions? Do they avoid or ignore them, giving silly excuses (like the ones you gave above), or none at all, and pretend their arguments were never addressed?
                  No dave. It's only people whose huge ARROGANCE never lets them admit being wrong, or ever risk of being shown wrong.
                  Confident people actually enjoy debating, answering questions, providing arguments and examining the ones the opposition has. They do not RUN AWAY from them.
                  You, on the other hand... Look at the Portuguese issue: A shining example of your arrogance. you never even debated it; you just gloated a little beforehand, offering bets here and there, and then posted a silly made-up story (the same one you've been posting since) and said "there you go, I win". and ever since, you have closed your ears and eyes, refusing to even acknowledge the existence of dozens of arguments and quotes and links that we gave you, that completely pulverize your P=S+F tale.
                  Not only do you refuse to address them; you pretend they don't exist. Where a "confident" debater would enjoy supporting his views against a mountain of contrary arguments (and, perhaps, emerge victorious), you deny reality and live in a make-believe world where noone has answered your stupid claims. And you don't even feel obliged to prove it.

                  Sorry, dave, but that is not the sign of a confident person; it,s the sign of someone who has serious issues.
                  It shows you have such a fragile ego, that you have to resort to a massive amount of arrogance to overcompensate; your "cocky" attitude is just a thin veil to hide your insecurity.

                  <Is there another explanation for your behavior? I honestly don't know. Your last post, about how you think that non-christians should swear ON THE BIBLE (and ADMIT there is no other god but the christian one) to claim public office, gave me some other thoughts that might explain your arrogance- but I won't go into them, as they would make you look much worse than simply insecure (at least to a sane person). So I'll stop here. I'll explain if you want me too, but I'm not sure I'm right- and you won't like what you'll hear.>

                  But, remember: You are always free to prove me wrong, by FINALLY doing what me and others have been asking you to do since day 1: Actually answer questions, instead of running away from them. Or, if you (say you) can't answer them at the time (for all the "reasons" you gave above), then simply ADMIT it, and don't repeat the same old assertions after awhile, pretending you have actually "proven" or "demonstrated" or "shown" them, as if noone ever challenged you about that.

                  Are you feeling "confident" enough to do it?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2006,18:22

                  Carlsonjok,

                  I was looking forward to the debate. In hindsight, I entertained unfounded optimism regarding our very nice AFDave. It appears he and I have quite different approaches to the idea of "debate". Although I am sure that he means well and is a very nice person, I think that I may be harboring negative emotions toward him. This factor, among others, is inhibiting our relationship. I take full responsibility.

                  Going over enlightenment philosophy and the people and conditions leading to the US Constitution sounded like fun. I am sorry that Dave and I won't be able to continue.

                  Dave,

                  I am sorry. It appears the differences between our universes are too great to bridge with a respectful debate. Please stay away from children and school board meetings.

                  Sincerely,
                  BWE
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 04 2006,18:25

                  All right, afdave.  You've had a few jokes at the expense of my pinheadedness.

                  I hope now that you can see for yourself what this terrible affliction really looks like, that you'll manage to be a little bit more civil!

                  But don't you dare appropriate my affliction as just one more factoid in your unrelenting effort to prove that all those mutations are deleterious--after all, as we can tell from your family photos, you have a propellor on your head, but you seem to have reproduced just fine (although your family seems to be quite, ahem, spaced out--who is that older fellow hugging the kids?).

                  I would be interested to know, though, how you seem to type so well with those outstretched rectanguloid airfoil-thingies where your upper extremeties should be?  

                  Thanks to Mike PSS and Arden Chatfield for encouraging me in my, er, "debut."
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 04 2006,18:54

                  Damm, stevie, I didn't know you were Peruvian! I love those skulls-- others that come close are from Kow Swamp, your Australian cousins:  
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 04 2006,19:02

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2006,18:22)
                  Carlsonjok,

                  I was looking forward to the debate. In hindsight, I entertained unfounded optimism regarding our very nice AFDave. It appears he and I have quite different approaches to the idea of "debate". Although I am sure that he means well and is a very nice person, I think that I may be harboring negative emotions toward him. This factor, among others, is inhibiting our relationship. I take full responsibility.

                  Going over enlightenment philosophy and the people and conditions leading to the US Constitution sounded like fun. I am sorry that Dave and I won't be able to continue.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, to be perfectly truthful, I was pretty much struck dumb by Dave's comment.  Most folks in the Christian nation crowd have enough understanding of the controversial nature of their position to make sure that their statements, as Locke so eloquently put it, are "covered over with a specious show of deceitful words."  For Dave to come out and say what he did was, to put it as gently as I can, ill-advised.

                  I am pretty much at the same place you are.  It is not possible to have a meaningful exchange with Dave on the topic.  Much like the sciency topics, he found his holy book in David Barton and has no interest in any of the 200 years of scholarship that contradicts it. The phrase that keeps coming up in my mind is that he is quite comfortable in the reconstructionist ghetto that Barton and others have created for him. Nothing, but nothing, will budge him from it.  

                  It is a shame really.  He writes well enough that, liberated from his shackles, I really think he could contribute to a rollicking debate.  As it is, he'll just continue to fall back on his Francis Scott Key banner graphic, cut-and-pastes from Barton and avoid any tough questions.  I may respond here and there if he comes up with any new material or actually responds to any of the questions I've thrown out there. But, be assured that has more to do with my own ego than any notion that there is resolution in the future. ;)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2006,22:54

                  On the other hand, I'm getting some email saying "shut down the thread, because it's driving the pro-science folks to look like jerks." so maybe there's something to the idea.

                  As a side note, the thread has reached a global maximum and has nowhere to go but down. Because there's nothing AFDave could possibly say which would top "Politicians can be Hindoos or Atheists, I don't care, as long as they believe christianity." That was better than his 'god is like Hitler' bit, which I thought sealed the deal on his Worst Advocate for Anything Ever trophy.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 04 2006,23:09

                  Steve--

                  You were going to shut down my thread because of BWE??!!

                  Come on!  He's one of my favorite posters.

                  I think I have laughed out loud at every last one of his posts.  He is the most creative insulter I have ever known.

                  You can tone down the people with no sense of humor if you like, but don't tone down BWE.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 04 2006,23:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,00:09)
                  Steve--

                  You were going to shut down my thread because of BWE??!!

                  Come on!  He's one of my favorite posters.

                  I think I have laughed out loud at every last one of his posts.  He is the most creative insulter I have ever known.

                  You can tone down the people with no sense of humor if you like, but don't tone down BWE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If it were just BWE, I would have said, "BWE, knock it off". You inspire angry fulminations in anyone who cares about learning and knowledge. It's a reasonable response to your behavior. But it looks ugly and people unfamiliar with the last 7 months would get the wrong impression.

                  That said, it hardly seems fair to tell you to leave because you inspire the worst in other people, it should be their responsibility to maintain some dignity. On the other hand, fairness isn't everything, I have to consider the outcomes of different scenarios. Any action I would take has its pros and cons. Right now I'm leaning towards just deleting flames or moving them to the bathroom wall.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 04 2006,23:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As a side note, the thread has reached a global maximum and has nowhere to go but down. Because there's nothing AFDave could possibly say which would top "Politicians can be Hindoos or Atheists, I don't care, as long as they believe christianity." That was better than his 'god is like Hitler' bit, which I thought sealed the deal on his Worst Advocate for Anything Ever trophy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't worry, Davie hasn't jumped the shark yet.

                  Dave Hawkins has untapped reservoirs of stupidity and dishonesty that can entertain us for years.  Even if he's just regurgitating and C&Ping crap that he doesn't understand, or denying things he posted that are right there for all to see, or ignoring all data that blows holes in his claims, or quote mining a famous scientist in one breath while telling us out-of-context quoting is lying with the next.  It's how he manages to look like such an arrogant d*ckhead on such a consistent basis that sets him apart from the Creto crowd.

                  Our Davie Boy's got Tard staying power - just wait and see!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,01:13

                  Oops—I almost forgot. Would you care to elucidate for us, Dave, how:

                  Biodiversity and genetic diversity can both be increasing and decreasing simultaneously?

                  Do I need to remind you why your "hypothesis" makes both of these predictions?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2006,02:13

                  Whatever happens Dave, know this: Steve is correct. You inspire a wide range of emotional responses and none of them are good. I enjoy taking pot shots now and then at you because you are so pathetic but at some point it does start to be like making fun of a cripple. I don't know.
                  I want to keep it going but you really laid out your whole hand on that last one. I can't imagine how you could possibly top that. The funny thing is, you don't even get what you said. I started the debate in good faith and giving you so much leeway that you darn near couldn't lose. But you did. I wondered what would happen if you tried to engage in rational debate on a topic you could actually learn something about. Now I know. I feel a little bit dirty. I'll keep it up I guess, but you lost more than you know with that comment.

                  I wish your mind would open up just a little because the fundy phenomenon saddens me some but you are of course entitled to live in any fantasyland you choose. The level of wrong that you rise to is frightening to those of us who are likely to collect social security. It is enraging to those of us who aren't. I don't know if I could possibly speak for this diverse community but if you could come back with some real humility and try out your ideas again, you just might learn something. Once you have, you just might be able to teach something to us.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 05 2006,02:39

                  Davey, you posted it, did you not vet it before doing so?

                  Baboon dogs.

                  Reminder me when you can answer the question without asking your AiG/ICR etc, etc handlers.

                  How do they keep this breed alive if the dogs die before reaching maturity?

                  I'd like to apply your EE/Computer Science/Hydroponic Tomato Growin'/Phone Card Distribution bidness smarts knowledge to my own endeavours without all the Yeshua baggage if that's possible.

                  Thanks in advance buddy.

                  Crabby
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 05 2006,09:57

                  RELAX, DON'T BLOW ANY GASKETS ... I COULD NEVER GET ELECTED PRESIDENT ANYWAY.
                  It sounds as if I have committed the ultimate PC Crime of the Century ... Yesterday I responded to BWE who said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then, after chuckling over your oustanding effort, something dawned on me. You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Then I said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Now please explain to me how this opinion--and it is my opinion ... notice how many times I said "I think", please explain how this opinion is significantly different from the clear statement by the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay when he said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

                  William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p.376, to John Murray, Jr. on October 12, 1816. OI-334.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... and ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation."

                  John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.52, to Lindley Murray on August 22, 1794. OI-168.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And let me remind you of John Jay's prominence among the Founders ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  John Jay
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search
                  John Jay

                  1st Chief Justice of the United States
                  In office
                  October 19, 1789 – June 29, 1795
                  Preceded by None
                  Succeeded by John Rutledge
                  Born December 12, 1745
                  New York, New York
                  Died May 17, 1829
                  Westchester County, New York

                  John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, writer, and a jurist. Considered one of the "founding fathers" of the United States, Jay served in the Continental Congress, and was elected President of that body in 1778. During and after the American Revolution, he was a minister (ambassador) to Spain and France, helping to fashion American foreign policy and to secure favorable peace terms from the British and French. He co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Jay served on the U.S. Supreme Court as the first Chief Justice of the United States from 1789 to 1795. In 1794 he negotiated the Jay Treaty with the British. A leader of the new Federalist party, Jay was elected Governor of New York state, 1795-1801. As a political leader, he supported the attempted gradual emancipation of New York's slaves in 1785, and the eventual gradual emancipation begun in 1799, and completed not long before Jay's death, thirty years later.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  1st Chief Justice? President of the Continental Congress? Ambassador to France and Spain? Co-wrote the Federalist papers?  Governor of NY?  Tried to free the slaves?  

                  How is this not a good guy?  And how is my statement much different from his?  Did not most of the Founders--even the ones who were Deists-- believe that the God of the Christian Bible created the world?  Why did they speak of the "laws of nature and of nature's God" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence?  How is it that Moses gained the central location in the House Chamber toward whose bust all others are turned?  See airdave.blogspot.com for a picture.  How is it that a Bible Verse from Leviticus is inscribed on the Liberty Bell?  Were the Founders not in favor of the 10 Commandments?  And so many other things I could mention ...

                  Please also read this highly-documented-from-original-sources affidavit showing the influence of the Ten Commandments on America.
                  < http://www.lc.org/hotissu....ary.pdf >

                  Here's a good one from Washington ...

                  George Washington: Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on June 12, 1779
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

                  George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55. OI-270.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So AFDave is an idiot but Washington and Jay are not?

                  *************************************************

                  THE AMES TEST - WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
                  I think we are zeroing in on the real issues with the Ames Test.  It sounds like what is going on is that an "A" or other nucleotide gets deleted or inserted causing a frame shift mutation.  Then another mutagen may cause a reversion (goes back just like it was before) in about 1/3 of the cases.  Russell says that this invalidates my contention that mutations do not add information.  I think the reason that we creationists (or at least this one) say that it does not add information is because of what we see going on in the whole organism (in this case a single celled organism-a bacterium).  While it is true that an "A" that gets deleted, then reverts back to an "A" is "beneficial" or is a mutation in the "right" direction, the fact remains that this only happens in 1/3 of the cases.  Simultaneously, what else is going on?  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.  Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works.  The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.  Sanford talks about this by saying something like "mutations occur at the level of the genome, but selection occurs at the level of the phenome."

                  So while you are technically correct that an individual mutation can be favorable, the net direction of all mutations in any individual is always DOWN.  Fine.  I can revise my language.  I never said I am perfect in my descriptions of this stuff and I value everyone's input to force me to get it right.  

                  I am teaching kids and will be on a wider scale as time goes on.  So it is important to me to get this stuff right.

                  But teaching them that single celled organisms can evolve into higher organisms doesn't square with any reality that I have ever seen.

                  How about you?

                  *********************************************************

                  If I have time, I will answer more of your old questions.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 05 2006,10:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,10:57)
                  I am teaching kids and will be on a wider scale as time goes on.  So it is important to me to get this stuff right.

                  But teaching them that single celled organisms can evolve into higher organisms doesn't square with any reality that I have ever seen.

                  How about you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Egads Dave,
                  What ARE you teaching these kids.

                  Rhetoric?  Obfuscation?  Quote Mining?  Selective Reading?  Statistical Manipulation?  Blissful Ignorance?

                  All these subjects you have shown your worth.  

                  But it seems you want to teach them other subjects like:

                  Biology?  History (non-Theological)?  Geology?  Physics?

                  It is these items you have shown a lack of understanding.  And you have YET to get things 'right' in your brain about how these things work.

                  Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....

                  How about you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,10:45

                  Dave, this is the kind of profound ignorance that makes people laugh at you and think you're an idiot.

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,09:57)
                  THE AMES TEST - WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
                  I think we are zeroing in on the real issues with the Ames Test.  It sounds like what is going on is that an "A" or other nucleotide gets deleted or inserted causing a frame shift mutation.  Then another mutagen may cause a reversion (goes back just like it was before) in about 1/3 of the cases.  Russell says that this invalidates my contention that mutations do not add information.  I think the reason that we creationists (or at least this one) say that it does not add information is because of what we see going on in the whole organism (in this case a single celled organism-a bacterium).  While it is true that an "A" that gets deleted, then reverts back to an "A" is "beneficial" or is a mutation in the "right" direction, the fact remains that this only happens in 1/3 of the cases.  Simultaneously, what else is going on?  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.  Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works.  The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.  Sanford talks about this by saying something like "mutations occur at the level of the genome, but selection occurs at the level of the phenome."

                  So while you are technically correct that an individual mutation can be favorable, the net direction of all mutations in any individual is always DOWN.  Fine.  I can revise my language.  I never said I am perfect in my descriptions of this stuff and I value everyone's input to force me to get it right.  

                  I am teaching kids and will be on a wider scale as time goes on.  So it is important to me to get this stuff right.

                  But teaching them that single celled organisms can evolve into higher organisms doesn't square with any reality that I have ever seen.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, when you don't understand how deleterious mutations can be "discarded," it's pretty clear you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever how evolution works, and aren't remotely competent to even have an opinion on it.

                  Let's take an example. You've got a bacterium that, when it divides, introduces a mutation that is absolutely fatal to metabolism. What happens? That bacterium's descendants immediately perish. Are you saying that mutation isn't "discarded"?

                  Now, let's take another example. You've got a bacterium that suffers from a mutation that slows its growth slightly. What you might refer to as a "VSLDM." That bacterium, and all its descendants, are at a competitive disadvantage compared to other bacteria that do not have this mutation. Now, let it compete against other bacteria for resources for a couple of weeks (say, a thousand generations). What do you think is going to happen to the number of descendants of this mutated bacterium, compared to other bacteria that did not have this mutation? In what way has this very slightly deleterious mutation not been "discarded"?

                  That I had to explain this simple fact to you that any 12 year old junior high school student should know demonstrates exactly why you shouldn't even be worrying your pretty little head about complex topics like "science" until you've learned a little about it.

                  Additionally, Dave, your statements about "information" are conclusive proof that your Portuguese moment with information theory taught you nothing. A "bad" mutation does not decrease the amount of information in the genome. Even if it did, what difference does it make? We already know there are multiple methods that can increase the information content (by your, Crick's, or Shannon's definition) of the genome. We also know, despite your bleated denials, that beneficial mutations exist—you've already admitted that they exist. So all this crap about "good" mutations not existing, and "bad" mutations decreasing information, is a dead issue. Dead and buried. Bringing it up once more just really demonstrates for everyone the depth of your intellectual dishonesty.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If I have time, I will answer more of your old questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Actually, Dave, it would be better if you concentrated on answering any, let alone more, of those old questions before you go off on any more wild goose chases, since any one of those questions, which you haven't addressed, is sufficient to sink your entire "hypothesis."

                  Oh, and by the way, Russell: I think at one point you wanted to know if AF Dave was actually teaching his crap to kids? Well, here's your answer.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2006,10:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Um, Dave, I don't know how to break this to you but you are scary. Delusional is fine. Scary... I dunno. If you can't understand why I was so taken aback by this comment, I can't debate this topic with you. I would truly enjoy a point by point debate regarding the historical context of the founding of our country. I have read a lot of enlightenment philosophy and founders' writings and I love the subject. But you can't do it without your own understanding. And, Dave, I hate to break this to you but you don't have understanding.

                  You are a highly entertaining freak show but nothing more. The things you hold as truths are the window dressings on a political ideology. I wouldn't make such a sweeping generalization ordinarily but you are a special case. Where you seem to think you are talking to a cohesive group of people who all think roughly similar thoughts, you are actually talking to a broad cross-section of people from all walks of life. The one thing that seems to be common is that there is, as SteveStory put it, a "love of learning and knowledge". You don't know what that is. You confuse indoctrination with learning and dogma with knowledge. It is quite depressing to those of us who try not to do that.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 05 2006,11:10

                  Mike ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I AM trying you ... We are on Points C & D of my Hypothesis and I feel we had a fruitful discussion on HLA-B alleles.  We didn't wind up agreeing, but I think we both learned a thing or two, don't you?  So jump back in with the Ames Test or something else related to Points C & D.

                  BWE ... I realize you have all these opinions of me and that's fine.  As I said yesterday, I actually get a great kick out of some of your creative insults.  My favorite was this one ... BWE  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can jump higher and screw better than you!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But I guess Steve wants us to spar less and talk about issues more.  I've been guilty of being quite combative as well.  To me it's just good fun, but I guess Steve wants us to calm down.  

                  That being said, what are your specific objections to the points I made this morning?  How is my statement so different than John Jay's?  If I am a green-eyed monster from he11, why is Jay not also a green-eyed monster?

                  Eric ... I understand this stuff better than you think.  There are some good biology people here and I have been reading lots.  Of course I know about lethal and harmful mutations.  For quite some time time now, I have been talking about VSDMs -- you know--the ones in Kimura's shaded box that CANNOT be selected for, thus get passed on?

                  Now, how do you propose that bacterial species overcome this obstacle?  And how do a few good mutations save the species from extinction over time, much less transform the species into a higher organism?  

                  Let me also remind you that the "goose chases" were not started by me.  The latest one about America came as a result of BWE asking me to debate him.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 05 2006,11:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.  Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works.  The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You haven't thought this through, and/or you are "innumerate".

                  Remember the genome size is 5,000,000 base pairs. The mutation frequency is around  10^-8 per base pair per replication. So you tell me: what fraction of the revertants in which the "correct" basepair is inserted in the right place have any other mutation at all, deleterious or not?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 05 2006,11:52

                  I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.

                  How definite is this 10^-8 number in bacteria?  If we are sure of this number, then of course, I can see what you are saying.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,12:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:10)
                  Eric ... I understand this stuff better than you think.  There are some good biology people here and I have been reading lots.  Of course I know about lethal and harmful mutations.  For quite some time time now, I have been talking about VSDMs -- you know--the ones in Kimura's shaded box that CANNOT be selected for, thus get passed on?

                  Now, how do you propose that bacterial species overcome this obstacle?  And how do a few good mutations save the species from extinction over time, much less transform the species into a higher organism?  

                  Let me also remind you that the "goose chases" were not started by me.  The latest one about America came as a result of BWE asking me to debate him.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Dave, it turns out that you've consistently surprised me with how little you know about evolution. And about geology, genetics, information theory, linguistics, astronomy, etc.

                  An example: deleterious mutations do not get selected for, they get selected against. Normally, I'd just ascribe something like this to a typo, but in your case I can't make that assumption. I think you probably really did think that deleterious mutations in some sense get selected "for."

                  In any case, it is absolutely untrue that very slightly deleterious mutations cannot be selected against. Of course they can. Any mutation that places an organism at a competitive disadvantage to unmutated organisms is going to be selected against. This is self-evident. And, Dave, if a mutation does not place an organism at a competitive disadvantage, than by what definition of "deleterious" is the mutation even "very very very slightly deleterious"?

                  And one more time, Dave: 99% of all species that have ever lived is now extinct. What part of this do you not understand? Organisms being driven to extinction because beneficial mutations were insufficient to overcome environmental change is simply not a problem for evolutionary theory. It's a MASSIVE problem for your "hypothesis," because your "hypothesis" demands explosive increases in biodiversity that cannot have happened with high extinction rates.

                  Dave, many of these goose chases were started by you. Your current claim, that bad mutations cannot be selected against, absolutely was started by you. Your "hypothesis" has much, much bigger problems accounting for observation than any of your wrong, broken ideas about evolution actually pose for evolutionary theory. I suggest you start addressing them. That is, after all, what this thread is supposed to be about.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 05 2006,12:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:52)
                  I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.

                  How definite is this 10^-8 number in bacteria?  If we are sure of this number, then of course, I can see what you are saying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs (as opposed to 5 million in this bacterium). Do the math and tell us whether 10^-8 is actually around the right order of magnitude for your 100-300 per individual per generation estimate.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 05 2006,12:06



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Permalink)   Posted: Sep. 10 2006,13:27    
                  Okay, here's how Black Knight Dave "won" his "Tyre prophesy" argument. Votes as to whether he's right when he says he "won" it.:

                  Initial Post, Seven Popes:

                  Seven Popes

                  Seven Popes explains the prophesy

                  Dave's pathetic appeal to authority, without explaining how the prophesy was "correct."

                  Seven Pope's refutation of Dave's claim, with link to supporting evidence.

                  GoP's link to a completely wrong argument, that tries to weasel out of the fact that Tyre has been continuously inhabited since Nebuchadnezzar's assault. One might as well say that a prophesy that Rome would be destroyed and never rebuilt has been fulfilled, because Rome is a different city now than it was 2,000 years ago.

                  Dave complains that Seven Popes' refutation is wrong because it's from an
                  infidel site. But neglects to mention what's wrong about it. He just says it's wrong.

                  Faid's completely dismantles GoP's attempt to prove the prophesy was fulfilled.

                  Deadman states the obvious: "Forever" means "Forever."

                  On a side note, Deadman points out another, different biblical prophesy never fulfilled.

                  Seven Popes drives in the final nail.

                  But not to be outdone in the stupidity department, Dave once again tries to claim he's right because the ancient city of Tyre is gone. Duh. Every ancient city is gone, Dave. Is Tyre an uninhabitable rock? No. So in what way have you not lost this argument?

                  Once again, someone has to point out the obvious to Dave; this time it's Faid. The city that was Tyre is not a "bare rock." It's part of the modern city of Tyre. There is no portion of the old city of Tyre that is currently uninhabitable. But will we get Dave to admit he was wrong? Of course not.

                  Deadman piles on.

                  Seven Popes posts the pictures to prove Dave's wrong. Will that get Dave to admit he's wrong? Automatic self-answering question, gentlemen.

                  Just in case we're still not convinced how wrong Dave is, Deadman posts a map.

                  To avoid Dave's scattershot attempt to answer every objection to his theory ever given in one post, I'll just quote the relevant bits:

                  Quote
                  JOSH McDOWELL ON TYRE
                  Subtitle: You can pretty much justify anything you want to believe.

                  Ezekiel 26:8 - Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland city.  FULFILLED in 573, although the island city (where the inhabitants moved to) remained for several hundred years.

                  26:3 - Many nations against Tyre.  FULFILLED.  In waves:  Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Antigonus, and Moslems.

                  26:4,5 - bare and flat, like the top of a rock.  Fishermen will spread their nets on the site to dry.  FULFILLED. The secular historian Philip Myers said, “Alexander the Great ... Reduced it (the island city) to ruins (332 BC) ... The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock -- a place where fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry.”

                  Hmmmm ... secular historian ... not even a 'christofreakazoid' !!

                  26:14, 21 - never be rebuilt or found.  FULFILLED. Nina Jidejian in “Tyre through the Ages,” Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969. --  
                  She relates that all the wealth of Tyre disappeared to Alexandria and elsewhere” and she concludes, “Tyre's stones may be found as far away as Acre and Beirut ... Looking down into the water one can see a mass of granite columns and stone blocks strewn all over the sea bottom.  Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few.”

                  Now if you guys want to weasel and squirm, I'm sure you can find a way to justify your skepticism, but you cannot avoid the fact that ...

                  Tyre was a great, powerful, proud city ... And it got destroyed in the exactly detailed way that Ezekiel said it would.  The city that is there now is not the same city.  It's about as similar to ancient Tyre as Microsoft Corporation headquarters is to Feldman's Farm Supply headquarters.  The ancient Tyre of world renown is GONE!

                  But again, why the fascination with Tyre?  There are more interesting Bible prophecies than this one.  Someone mentioned Nostradamus ... please, now ... How can anyone even compare Nostradamus to Bible prophecy?

                  Oh, and Deadman ... you are wrong about Nechadnezzar and Babylon ... and I gave you the evidence to prove it.  Go back and re-read it. See also my answer to your question at the end of this post.


                  As you'll note, Dave was completely unable to get around the fact that Tyre is, in fact, inhabited, and always has been. He conveniently neglects to note that "forever" means "forever." And he fails to explain how modern Tyre is different from ancient Tyre in a way that is completely different from how modern Rome is different from ancient Rome. If the Bible prophesied that Rome would be destroyed, and would be uninhabited forever, would Dave now be arguing that Rome is no longer inhabited because it's a different city?

                  And that's about it, folks. Dave claims the biblical prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed, and left uninhabited forever, has been fulfilled, despite the fact that Tyre is now, and always has been, inhabited. Show of hands for those who think Dave "won" this argument?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  SOOO Dave, You said:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Tyre prophecy admittedly has some points that can be construed one way or the other, and the Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt prophecy does not have much in the way of historical verification.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How can the clearly failed Tyre prophecy be "construed one way or the other"  when the prophecy states that it should be bare forever and is not?  I have been extraordinarily patient, but you have ignored this simple question since June 29.
                   < Permalink proof. >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,12:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:52)
                  I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 05 2006,12:11

                  We'll move on to humans soon enough.

                  For the meantime, yes, 10^-8 is a typical number for bacterial. So in light of what we've learned, evolution is not only possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be avoided in bacteria like Salmonella, isn't it?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2006,12:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I guess Steve wants us to spar less and talk about issues more.  I've been guilty of being quite combative as well.  To me it's just good fun, but I guess Steve wants us to calm down.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No dave, Steve doesn't mind the sparring. He minds the one-sided sparring.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That being said, what are your specific objections to the points I made this morning?  How is my statement so different than John Jay's?  If I am a green-eyed monster from he11, why is Jay not also a green-eyed monster?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because Jay could also write this:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,12:33

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 05 2006,12:11)
                  So in light of what we've learned, evolution is not only possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be avoided in bacteria like Salmonella, isn't it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And that's really the crux of it. I find it hard to imagine that evolution doesn't happen. I mean, what would stop it? Dave's objections have already been shown, decades ago, to be hollow.

                  I think the only reason (other than ideological unwillingness) why Dave has such a hard time with evolution is because he simply cannot get his mind around large numbers. Whether those numbers are years, or base pairs, or numbers of organisms, or numbers of species, I think Dave's kind of imagination-challenged when it comes to numbers with more than three or four zeros to the left of the decimal point.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 05 2006,12:40

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:52)
                  I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave made a typo. It's not per individual, its per genome. Or he should have added "inherited".

                  But I think the rate he mentionned is correct. Don't forget that each gamete has undergone several mitosis in an individual. I don't know the number, but he may be more than 10.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 05 2006,13:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
                  Mike ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I AM trying you ... We are on Points C & D of my Hypothesis and I feel we had a fruitful discussion on HLA-B alleles.  We didn't wind up agreeing, but I think we both learned a thing or two, don't you?  So jump back in with the Ames Test or something else related to Points C & D.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Your whole argument is about biologic information.  And it's all semantics at this point.  The Ames Test is only one more example of you butcherring the evidence with your world view.  I can parse your latest post with some comments but I think I can predict the answers already.

                  So... Here we go....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE AMES TEST - WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
                  I think we are zeroing in on the real issues with the Ames Test.  It sounds like what is going on is that an "A" or other nucleotide gets deleted or inserted causing a frame shift mutation.  Then another mutagen may cause a reversion (goes back just like it was before) in about 1/3 of the cases.  Russell says that this invalidates my contention that mutations do not add information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Fairly good summary of the position as you understand it.  Let's look how you (re)define information though.  Next....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the reason that we creationists (or at least this one) say that it does not add information is because of what we see going on in the whole organism (in this case a single celled organism-a bacterium).  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good statement of your objection to the summary position.  You equate information as how it affects the 'whole organism' in the singular sense.  Next....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  While it is true that an "A" that gets deleted, then reverts back to an "A" is "beneficial" or is a mutation in the "right" direction, the fact remains that this only happens in 1/3 of the cases.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  STOP RIGHT THERE!  You have now (re)defined that 'beneficial' means "mutation in the "right" direction".  This is certainly a nonsense phrase meant to mislead.  Also, your restatement of the 'fact' has no counter-point; why bring it up in your rebuttal to sound like a problem?  Next...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Simultaneously, what else is going on?  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  GO TO JAIL, GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO!
                  Where in he!! did you find out that other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction and how in he!! did you measure this and where in the Ames Test information did you reference this?  This is the semantic mumbo-jumbo you keep spouting at every piece of evidence presented.  Next....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works. The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You just contradicted yourself here.  See it?  It's the bolded parts.  Let me quickly explain how you confused yourself in this matter.
                  You started off discussing only ONE bacteria and how the Ames Test mutation reversion is a "good" thing.  But in the above statement you are comparing this ONE bacteria to the WHOLE POPULATION by bringing up selection.  My simple question to you is.....
                  How many bacteria that had the "good" mutation present died?
                  The Ames Test doesn't answer that question because they don't test the dead bacteria.  And there are probably a lot of bacteria that had the correct histidine mutation BUT had another mutation present that killed them off.  Selection happens all the time and LIMITS the bad mutations in a population.
                  If you want to attach your flag to a single bacterium and follow its path through each and every generation and comment on each and every mutation after each duplication then go right ahead.  But the fact that ONE bacteria with the "good mutation" survives through ITS OWN LIFETIME while carrying what you consider "bad mutations", even though those baddies don't kill or limit that ONE bacteria from surviving or reproducing kills your statement above.  I thought you were arguing about the information contained in a single bacterium here.
                  Your semantics are duly noted in this phrase.  Next....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sanford talks about this by saying something like "mutations occur at the level of the genome, but selection occurs at the level of the phenome."
                  So while you are technically correct that an individual mutation can be favorable, the net direction of all mutations in any individual is always DOWN.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This only reinforces my point that your using semantic games to bolster your case by conflating your singular definition of information to argue against a totally seperate subject (population of organisms).  Also you never supplied a link to Sanford's quote.

                  Play semantic games all you want.  Unfortunately you can't teach it to the kids because your doing it all the time without even knowing it.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,13:08

                  Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 05 2006,12:40)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,11:52)
                  I have heard very low mutation rates for humans also, but these have lately been revised upward dramatically ... I think I posted a reference to something like 100-300 per individual per generation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave made a typo. It's not per individual, its per genome. Or he should have added "inherited".

                  But I think the rate he mentionned is correct. Don't forget that each gamete has undergone several mitosis in an individual. I don't know the number, but he may be more than 10.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's certainly in the ballpark of one in 10^-8.

                  But I've found that you can never assume Dave's made a "typo." His understanding of almost anything remotely scientific is so broken and flawed that he's constantly getting tripped up on very simple concepts. His question as to why Adam could not have had 500 alleles for some genes is a perfect example.

                  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it had escaped Dave's notice that mutations in somatic cells don't get inherited.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2006,13:09

                  Responding to SteveStory's concern over this thread.

                  I agree, it should not be shut down. But, I also think it's like cocaine in that a little is ok but a lot can hurt you. (Remember, I did my late 20's in the early seventies). We shouldn't legislate that dave should be illegal, but we should be aware of the trap. He's merely feeding his ego at this point and the sport is getting kind of sick.  I've been mocking an invalid as sport. I sort of excuse myself by saying that I thought that rational arguments could win anyone over but, I suppose I never expected him to make a coherent argument nor to understand one.  

                  If I continue I fear that intolerance will grow in me more than I am comfortable with. After all, the world has no shortage of idiots. Teaching myself to engage them is like teaching a dog to bite.

                  And, although it may not make much sense, I have altered the experiment by inserting myself.
                  /soapbox
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 05 2006,13:16

                  Cory--  Yes, if I do the math, I get 30 mutations per individual in humans, within an order of magnitude of the 100-300 numbers I posted.

                  Russell...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We'll move on to humans soon enough.

                  For the meantime, yes, 10^-8 is a typical number for bacterial. So in light of what we've learned, evolution is not only possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be avoided in bacteria like Salmonella, isn't it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If by "evolution" you  mean change, then yes, I agree.

                  So it is clear that I and all creationists are not accurate if we say "all mutations are deleterious" at least if we are including bacteria (which I wasn't, mind you when I was discussing Sanford's book ... I was focusing on humans).  

                  Now you may come along later and convince me I'm wrong about human mutations, we'll see, but for the moment, I can see that "good mutations" in bacteria are inevitable if what we mean by "good" is "the correct pattern was restored."

                  Of course "correct pattern" carries some assumptions and I suppose you would say there is no correct pattern, right?  And I would say that there is a correct pattern.

                  Fine.  We've made some good progress.   It is obvious that there are some dramatic differences in analyzing mutations in bacteria, compared to analyzing them in higher organisms as I have done prior to this discussion.

                  Now, at this point, I have to ask the question, "How does this little bacteria add complexity to itself?  IOW what would be the next developmental step for this bacterium to evolve into a higher organism of some type?"  I mean, I can see how the "correct" pattern can be restored, but how can increased complexity be added?

                  It seems that there is a vast gulf between "restoring the correct pattern" and adding complexity.


                  Eric--  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do me a favor and search my threads that I provided links for before you say things like that.  Yes, I understand this and have for several months and have talked about this during the Sanford discussion.   I hope you understand if I don't address every one of your typically voluminous posts which often contain a lot of rehash.  As long as Cory and Russell are willing to discuss biology, I prefer addressing their posts since they are experts in this area.  No offense.

                  BWE-  How does that quote help your objection to my (and Jay's) clear statements about Christianity and America.  Why am I an idiot to say what I did which is very similar to what John Jay said?  Was John Jay an idiot too?  Also, could you please provide documentation from an original source in the Founding Era when you quote a Founder?  I always do.  Thanks.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 05 2006,13:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If I continue I fear that intolerance will grow in me more than I am comfortable with. After all, the world has no shortage of idiots. Teaching myself to engage them is like teaching a dog to bite.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Among the several reasons why 99% of the time I'm a spectator and not a combatant is, it brings out a lot of negativity in me. I don't see much benefit in spending a large fraction of my time spitting mad.

                  The people here are awfully capable people, and the balance of factors leads me not to shut the thread down. Overly intemperate posts will just be moved to the Bathroom Wall.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,13:19

                  Another point, Mike. How would Dave justify his apparent position that "good" mutations "might be selected for," but that "bad" mutations cannot be selected against?

                  Let's look at two different situations. Let's compare a bacterium with "good" mutation (which, lest it be forgotten, Dave has already admitted exist) to a bacterium without that mutation. Over time, there will be more descendants of the bacterium with the "good" mutation than there will be descendants of the bacterium without it (for clarification, I'm using "good" here as shorthand for "confers a competitive advantage").

                  Now, let's look at a situation where you have a bacterium with a "bad" mutation, and compare it with a bacterium without that mutation. This situation is exactly analogous to the one with a "good" mutation compared to no mutation. In both cases, one bacterium has a competitive advantage against the other bacterium, and in both cases the bacterium with the competitive advantage will, over time, leave more descendants than the one without it. And in both cases, in a world of limited resources, the bacteria with the competitive disadvantage will eventually be out-competed to extinction.

                  So can you explain to us, once again, Dave, how it is possible that "bad" mutations cannot be selected against?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,13:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,13:16)
                  Eric--    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you do realize that mutations in somatic cells don't get passed on, don't you? You don't? Well, imagine my surprise.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do me a favor and search my threads that I provided links for before you say things like that.  Yes, I understand this and have for several months and have talked about this during the Sanford discussion.   I hope you understand if I don't address every one of your typically voluminous posts which often contain a lot of rehash.  As long as Cory and Russell are willing to discuss biology, I prefer addressing their posts since they are experts in this area.  No offense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, no one here needs to be an "expert" on any topic to defeat your arguments. Your level of ignorance on any topic I have ever seen you try to discuss evidently knows no bounds. Your comment about Adam's impossible hyper-heterozygosity is, again, a perfect example. As far as I can tell, most high school students probably know more about genetics than you do.

                  It's true that my posts contain a lot of rehash. Why do you suppose that is, Dave? Why is it we were discussing "hydrodynamic sorting" this week, when the objections to the "hypothesis" were raised months ago? Could it be that you have never addressed those issues, and if someone doesn't raise them again, you will claim you've already dealt with them?

                  You deal with a lot of "rehash" on this thread, Dave, because you've never dealt with the hundreds of gaping inconsistencies, errors, misunderstandings, and conflicts with reality your "hypothesis" suffers from.

                  And if you think I'm going to give up raising these questions before you get tired of hearing about them, you're dreaming.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2006,13:55

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2006,13:18)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If I continue I fear that intolerance will grow in me more than I am comfortable with. After all, the world has no shortage of idiots. Teaching myself to engage them is like teaching a dog to bite.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Among the several reasons why 99% of the time I'm a spectator and not a combatant is, it brings out a lot of negativity in me. I don't see much benefit in spending a large fraction of my time spitting mad.

                  The people here are awfully capable people, and the balance of factors leads me not to shut the thread down. Overly intemperate posts will just be moved to the Bathroom Wall.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That works for me. The darn thing of it is that 99.9% of the time they are richly deserved. I mean, how do  you respond to the swearing on the bible thing? The portuguese thing? The Vitamin C deficiency? The "millions of dead things"? The oh my goodness, Just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber... thing. The natural response is to hurl insults.

                  But the part that gets you roped is that all the sudden, you've got something to think about. I mean, I called up a friend of mine who has worked on ice cores from the Andes and asked her for a bunch of info on methodology. It was fascinating. Or the founders. I would have loved to have had a debate with even a fundy. I was assuming that a fundy might be abnle to debate of course. Dave at least, has not proven that particular talent. It just ends in frustration.

                  Dave,
                  I have used an original source for maybe every single quote I have used? If this is not the case, it is by far the exception rather than the rule. You however, have actually scanned pages from a book written recently. (Shakes head and begins ohhhhmmmmm)

                  :)
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 05 2006,14:00

                  Dave, the problem is that you're still thinking of "good" and "bad" mutations relative to some 'perfect' template. I understand why you believe this, but (as you've acknowledged) we evolutionists see it much differently, which seriously inhibits any meaningful discussion. I understand your position. For the sake of discussion, I would ask that you shift your perspective a bit, via a good enough (though far from perfect) analogy, in order to understand mine.

                  Do you play chess, Dave? If so, can you give me the 'perfect' intelligently designed chess strategy? The guaranteed, god-granted checkmate?

                  Of course there isn't one. There are any number of effective strategies, some generally better than others, but all are dependent on the current state of the board and your opponent (i.e., the environment).

                  Now, you want to talk about complexity and organism phenotypes -- the whole chess game, from opening to checkmate (optimally successful reproduction, let's say). That's fine, but let's start with the basics -- selection of a single, good mutation -- and work our way up.

                  Suppose we were to set up the board in some mid-game arrangement. You are playing against my evolutionary program. It's my move. Now, what is the perfect move for me to make?

                  Obviously, that depends on both the state of the board and on you (my opponent). There may be just one really "good" move, but (far more likely) there may be several that could turn the tide in my favour. Of course, there are far more nearly-neutral (i.e., ineffective) moves, and there are probably also far more really bad moves (e.g., ones that will lead to you capturing a piece or control of the board with no gain for me). If my program makes a purely random move -- but one that is allowed (illegal moves "die" as soon as they are made) -- more often than not it's going to be a nearly-neutral or a bad one.

                  Luckily, I get to make it a million times. Then a million more at the next move. And so on. You play against millions and millions of these 'random' moves until the billions of games are over. Obviously, you are going to checkmate the VAST majority of my little players. Those games end when you've mated them, and you are left with the ones who have made not just one, but a series of good moves. By the end of the game, the players I have left are the ones that have built on many, many "good" moves and are still making new "random" decisions against you.

                  The relevant question is: how many of my program strategies beat you? Of the ones that od, are they all the same? Are they all even similar? Is there only one 'perfect' strategy that works against you (the environment)? If we were to redo the "experiment", but change the environment -- let's say we substitute BWE as the opponent -- would the same strategies come out on top? Or would they fail whereas different ones win?

                  For the time being, think of it like a chess game, Dave. Run with the (imperfect) analogy for a bit, and see if you don't understand our perspective on mutations and selection a bit better.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 05 2006,14:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In asexual organims like bacteria, selection operates at the individual (or genome) level. Even if several mutations occurred in the same bacterium before its division, what only matters in terms of selection is the overall fitness (reproduction rate) of the organism.
                  In other terms, we don't give a #### whether 0, 10 or 100 bad mutations use genetic "hitch-hiking" and are selected with one linked beneficial mutations. Mutants that reproduce faster invade the population. End of story.

                  In sexual populations, it's different. Since genomes can recombine, selection operates at the mutation (nucleotide) level. So beneficial mutation can be selected for while bad mutations that occured in the same genome can be selected against.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,14:50

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 05 2006,14:00)
                  Dave, the problem is that you're still thinking of "good" and "bad" mutations relative to some 'perfect' template. I understand why you believe this, but (as you've acknowledged) we evolutionists see it much differently, which seriously inhibits any meaningful discussion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You might note, Dave, that I specifically defined "good" mutations as "mutations that confer a selective advantage." This should have been a clue to you. Again, your ideology is blinding you. You have this idea, as Incoygible is pointing out, that a "good" mutation somehow "restores" a genome to its original, perfect state. That's not what "good" means in this context.

                  The problem with a religious perspective on reality is that it makes you think in an unjustifiably teleological way. I've < pointed >  < this >  < out > to you several times already.

                  The only thing that matters is whether a given mutation is selected for or against; i.e., whether it confers a competitive advantage or a competitive disadvantage. If it does neither, i.e., it is a "neutral" mutation, then it doesn't matter.

                  This is where selective pressure comes in, Dave, and it's the part (i.e., the "NS" of the RM + NS) of the mechanism of evolution that creationists such as yourself simply don't get.

                  As Incorygible pointed out, all life is trying to do is "win the chessgame," i.e., reproduce. An organism with a mutation that increases reproductive success by a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent will eventually out-compete those organisms lacking in that mutation. Conversely, an organism with the unfortunate luck to have a mutation that decreases reproductive success by a tiny, tiny fraction will eventually be out-competed and driven to extinction.

                  There is no "perfect" genome out there that organisms can "aspire" to, Dave. One genome, hence a phenotype, might be a spectacular success in one environment, but be an abject failure when the environment changes. What might be perfect today could suck a thousand years from now, and vice versa.

                  So your argument that all mutations are a "corruption" of an otherwise "perfect" genome simply doesn't make sense in the real world. Until you can let go of your religiously-based prejudices on this subject, you're never really going to get evolutionary theory, you're never going to be able to construct a coherent argument against it, and you're never going to be able to see why it's a far better explanation for observation than your "hypothesis" is.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 05 2006,14:54

                  *sigh*

                  Dave, I won't trouble you with another long post. I know you never really read them, after all (although this time might be different- your last posts seemed less arrogant and nearsighted, and more prone to actual debate... Could it be? ). Others have explained the issues you raise, in a way more eloquent than I would use.
                  I'd just like to point out two things, to prevent this discussion from going round in circles (if it actually ever starts):

                  Dave, since you say you have read Kimura, and you accept his model as valid, can you tell us what Kimura says about beneficial mutations? He does deal with them, briefly, it's true, but he does. Do you agree?

                  Since you say you have also read Crow, and since you keep saying that you focus on the human genome, can you tell us, in your own words, what Crow says about the human genome, the accumulation of deleterious mutations, and, mostly, the role natural selection plays in all that? Sanford never quoted that important part in Crow's paper...
                  (He also left out that other bit, about the 100 generations, to fool you and all others who buy into his story, and make you believe we are becoming extinct "FAST"- but that was just because it's his job to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre...)

                  Once you answer these questions, I think that we will be able to talk in a fruitful manner, without having to return again and again to rebutting the same, worn-out "references" you point us to.

                  Thanks.


                  Oh, one more thing: There is something that most of the sites you (Sanford?) have quoted or referred, agree on:
                  That the danger of extinction due to accumulation of deleterious mutations is greater, the smaller the population is.

                  For which side in this debate, do you think this poses a problem?
                  Think about it.





                  PS. Steve: I, too, think that this thread should stay open. It gives us an opportunity to remember much science we had forgotten, and learn a lot more we never knew (like I do with population genetics now- amazing stuff! )...
                  And have fun in the process.
                  It's true people can easily get irritated when faced with dave's usual debate tactics... I think, however, that the trick is not to take him much seriously, and focus on the incentive he (unwillingly) provides for us, to learn more on a variety of scientific fields- and then, enjoy demolishing his ridiculous claims using that knowledge. :)
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 05 2006,17:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... for the moment, I can see that "good mutations" in bacteria are inevitable if what we mean by "good" is "the correct pattern was restored."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, there really is no "correct" pattern. There are patterns that lead to a functional enzyme, and therefore survival, and there are patterns that lead to a nonfunctional enzyme, and therefore extinction under the circumstances of this test. The test is rigged so that survival/extinction is pretty much all or none. But in real life, you're going to have a lot of situations where the difference is more subtle, like giving a mutant a 10% faster doubling time. In a few hundred generations, the non-mutant version will be completely replaced in such a case.

                  So it's not the "correct" pattern; it's the one that reproduces most efficiently - and that depends on the circumstances. (I like the chess analogy; I've always used it in teaching).

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course "correct pattern" carries some assumptions and I suppose you would say there is no correct pattern, right?  And I would say that there is a correct pattern.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You would, however, have no basis for saying so. And you'll have a hard time finding any biologist to agree with you.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Fine.  We've made some good progress.   It is obvious that there are some dramatic differences in analyzing mutations in bacteria, compared to analyzing them in higher organisms as I have done prior to this discussion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK. So we all agree that bacteria can evolve; in fact, that there's no way they can not evolve, given a mutation probability, µ, between zero and G^-1 (where µ is probability mutatation per base pair per generation, and G = genome size in base pairs) PLUS the existence of selection.

                  Now your task is to show why evolution is impossible for other creatures, such as ourselves. In doing that, you're going to have to account, mathematically, for the effects of diploidy, sex, and recombination - phenomena that don't complicate the Ames test.

                  Good luck.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,17:50

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 05 2006,17:32)
                  Now your task is to show why evolution is impossible for other creatures, such as ourselves. In doing that, you're going to have to account, mathematically, for the effects of diploidy, sex, and recombination - phenomena that don't complicate the Ames test.

                  Good luck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And, just to make things even more interesting, Dave, you're going to need to explain the impossibility of evolution in eukaryotes while at the same time showing how you can get from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark to a few million species today. Baraminology simply isn't going to get you there. There are too many organisms with too many body plans to shoehorn into a few thousand "kinds," and most of those species could not possibly have survived on an ark for a year anyway.

                  So, in Dave's world, macroevolution both happens and doesn't happen at the same time. Interesting.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 05 2006,18:21

                  One thing you might want to keep in mind, Dave, while your "hypothesis" is busy dodging the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (or, in this case, facts). When the writers of Genesis dreamed up the Noahchian flood, they had very little idea of the scope of biodiversity in the world. They came from a region of relatively low biodiversity (compared to, say, Amazonian rainforest or your average coral reef). It probably seemed plausible at the time, in a region of the world where there were probably a few dozen species of megafauna, to think they could all be crammed on an ark. But once you've got elephants, tree sloths, tigers, penguins, kangaroos, vultures, Komodo dragons, gorillas, moose, grizzly bears, new-world monkeys, iguanas,   and ten million or so species of tiny little creepy crawlies, suddenly it doesn't seem so plausible anymore.

                  So why do you still find this little fable more plausible than that there never was an actual flood, and life has evolved on earth for the last few billion years? Any particular reason, other than ideological blindness?

                  No need to answer this, Dave. Others can draw their own conclusions from your failure to respond.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 05 2006,20:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When the writers of Genesis dreamed up the Noahchian flood, they had very little idea of the scope of biodiversity in the world. They came from a region of relatively low biodiversity (compared to, say, Amazonian rainforest or your average coral reef). It probably seemed plausible at the time, in a region of the world where there were probably a few dozen species of megafauna, to think they could all be crammed on an ark. But once you've got elephants, tree sloths, tigers, penguins, kangaroos, vultures, Komodo dragons, gorillas, moose, grizzly bears, new-world monkeys, iguanas,   and ten million or so species of tiny little creepy crawlies, suddenly it doesn't seem so plausible anymore.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Don't forget that species the 'crackpot creationist' with the Fred Flintstone version of Genesis.

                  They claim there were Dinosaurs on board.

                  Well they have  to say that, don't they?

                  Because they found the bones.

                  So they can't deny they exist.

                  So what must they do...... lie, lie, lie.

                  I call it the 'used car salesman version of the world history'.

                  Look at this brochure for our super turbo Ark, see how many dinosaurs we can fit in it

                  The scale is wrong is this a mock up?

                  No, it was real

                  So you mean yes?

                  No, really that is what it looked like

                  That is just a drawing

                  Thats how big it had to be

                  OK still not enough room but heck,  I'll take it

                  Oh you can't buy it

                  Why not?

                  It's not available

                  Why not?

                  It's physically impossible to build and there are no more dinosaurs
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 05 2006,21:37

                  AFD you may want to check this out and explain to everyone the time scale for these creatures.

                  < Top 10 Missing Links >
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 06 2006,10:50

                  THE CHESS ANALOGY IS A GOOD ONE, BUT WILL THE "RANDOMS" EVER WIN?
                  I DON'T THINK SO


                  Cory...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, the problem is that you're still thinking of "good" and "bad" mutations relative to some 'perfect' template. I understand why you believe this, but (as you've acknowledged) we evolutionists see it much differently, which seriously inhibits any meaningful discussion. I understand your position. For the sake of discussion, I would ask that you shift your perspective a bit, via a good enough (though far from perfect) analogy, in order to understand mine.

                  Do you play chess, Dave? If so, can you give me the 'perfect' intelligently designed chess strategy? The guaranteed, god-granted checkmate?

                  Of course there isn't one. There are any number of effective strategies, some generally better than others, but all are dependent on the current state of the board and your opponent (i.e., the environment).

                  Now, you want to talk about complexity and organism phenotypes -- the whole chess game, from opening to checkmate (optimally successful reproduction, let's say). That's fine, but let's start with the basics -- selection of a single, good mutation -- and work our way up.

                  Suppose we were to set up the board in some mid-game arrangement. You are playing against my evolutionary program. It's my move. Now, what is the perfect move for me to make?

                  Obviously, that depends on both the state of the board and on you (my opponent). There may be just one really "good" move, but (far more likely) there may be several that could turn the tide in my favour. Of course, there are far more nearly-neutral (i.e., ineffective) moves, and there are probably also far more really bad moves (e.g., ones that will lead to you capturing a piece or control of the board with no gain for me). If my program makes a purely random move -- but one that is allowed (illegal moves "die" as soon as they are made) -- more often than not it's going to be a nearly-neutral or a bad one.

                  Luckily, I get to make it a million times. Then a million more at the next move. And so on. You play against millions and millions of these 'random' moves until the billions of games are over. Obviously, you are going to checkmate the VAST majority of my little players. Those games end when you've mated them, and you are left with the ones who have made not just one, but a series of good moves. By the end of the game, the players I have left are the ones that have built on many, many "good" moves and are still making new "random" decisions against you.

                  The relevant question is: how many of my program strategies beat you? Of the ones that do, are they all the same? Are they all even similar? Is there only one 'perfect' strategy that works against you (the environment)? If we were to redo the "experiment", but change the environment -- let's say we substitute BWE as the opponent -- would the same strategies come out on top? Or would they fail whereas different ones win?

                  For the time being, think of it like a chess game, Dave. Run with the (imperfect) analogy for a bit, and see if you don't understand our perspective on mutations and selection a bit better.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  For once, I like your analogy.  However, there are several things about the analogy to point out.

                  1) In chess, it is possible to achieve checkmate with only a few moves. Not so in biology.
                  2) In spite of this, I would guess that no "Team Random" could ever win against a good computer chess program.

                  Yes, there are many paths that "Team Random" could take, but there is no foresight, no knowledge of the game, no planning, no 'program strategies' (to use your words).

                  All that "Team Random" has is ... just random moves.

                  Has anyone ever tested this computer simulation thing?  It should be fairly easy to set up I would think.  In fact, you could go through zillions of generations in a very short time.

                  If this were ever tested, my guess would be that the "Randoms" would NEVER win.  

                  But feel free to do the experiment and prove me wrong.

                  ***********************************************

                  Jeannot...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In asexual organims like bacteria, selection operates at the individual (or genome) level. Even if several mutations occurred in the same bacterium before its division, what only matters in terms of selection is the overall fitness (reproduction rate) of the organism.
                  In other terms, we don't give a #### whether 0, 10 or 100 bad mutations use genetic "hitch-hiking" and are selected with one linked beneficial mutations. Mutants that reproduce faster invade the population. End of story.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Agreed.  When I was talking about what you call "genetic hitch hiking", my frame of reference was humans because this was the frame of reference of Crow, Kondrashov and the others I quoted.  I do understand the situation now with bacteria and agree with you.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In sexual populations, it's different. Since genomes can recombine, selection operates at the mutation (nucleotide) level. So beneficial mutation can be selected for while bad mutations that occured in the same genome can be selected against.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is not correct.  Natural selecton acts on the phenotype.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Natural selection acts on the phenotype. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, since you say you have read Kimura, and you accept his model as valid, can you tell us what Kimura says about beneficial mutations? He does deal with them, briefly, it's true, but he does. Do you agree?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I think we covered this already.  Russell pointed this out to me.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Kimura] ... Note that in this formulation, we disregard beneficial mutants, and restrict our consideration only to deleterious and neutral mutations. Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, but as I shall show later, a model assuming that beneficial mutations also arise at a constant rate independent of environmental changes leads to unrealistic results. < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/76/7/3440 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since you say you have also read Crow, and since you keep saying that you focus on the human genome, can you tell us, in your own words, what Crow says about the human genome, the accumulation of deleterious mutations, and, mostly, the role natural selection plays in all that? Sanford never quoted that important part in Crow's paper...
                  (He also left out that other bit, about the 100 generations, to fool you and all others who buy into his story, and make you believe we are becoming extinct "FAST"- but that was just because it's his job to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre...)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why use my own words when Crow's are very clear?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. But this is a problem with a long time scale; the characteristic time is some 50-100 generations, which cautions us against advocating any precipitate action. We can take time to learn more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... and ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So we are genetically inferior to our stonge age ancestors?  

                  Wow!  

                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 >

                  Of course, all authors I have quoted propose fanciful solutions to these problems, but they are not based in fact.  It is conjecture.  (See below)

                  Faid...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, one more thing: There is something that most of the sites you (Sanford?) have quoted or referred, agree on:
                  That the danger of extinction due to accumulation of deleterious mutations is greater, the smaller the population is.

                  For which side in this debate, do you think this poses a problem?
                  Think about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  From reading geneticists in the literature, it appears that population size considerations fall far short of salvaging the Primary Axiom.

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course "correct pattern" carries some assumptions and I suppose you would say there is no correct pattern, right?  And I would say that there is a correct pattern.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You would, however, have no basis for saying so. And you'll have a hard time finding any biologist to agree with you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  Actually there is much basis for saying so.  The truth is that there is no basis for saying that there is NOT such a thing as correct patterns.  All our experience with complex, functional, man-made systems shows overwhelmingly that highly specific--that is, correct--patterns are required for function. *(See note below) Moreover, without a continuous input of intelligent activity, these man made systems degrade and ultimately fail.  We have no reason whatsoever to believe that complex, functional biological systems are any different, i.e they also require correct patterns and require intelligent input to maintain.  The key differences between man made systems and biological systems is not that biological systems are somehow special (some voodoo life force situation) and thus are exempt from these constraints.  No.  The key difference is that biological systems are far, far more complex and sophisticated.  They are light years ahead of man's 21st century technology.

                  *NOTE: There are also many variations of correct patterns, e.g. Cytochrome C is different in all the organisms, just as there are Fords, Chevys, Toyotas, etc. but there are still "correct' patterns.  IOW, a Suburban with no engine would not be correct.  A Mazda B2300 with no wheels would not be correct, etc.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And you'll have a hard time finding any biologist to agree with you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, as I have admitted many times, the science establishment overwhelmingly supports your view at the present time.  I predict that this will not last.  And even if it does last, this does not mean that it is correct.

                  Russell..  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK. So we all agree that bacteria can evolve; in fact, that there's no way they can not evolve, given a mutation probability, µ, between zero and G^-1 (where µ is probability mutatation per base pair per generation, and G = genome size in base pairs) PLUS the existence of selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would use the word 'mutate,' not 'evolve,' since 'evolve' connotes in my mind some sort of upward evolution from a single celled organism to a higher organism.  But we all agree that bacteria mutate ... or I could say change, yes ... we agree on that.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now your task is to show why evolution is impossible for other creatures, such as ourselves. In doing that, you're going to have to account, mathematically, for the effects of diploidy, sex, and recombination - phenomena that don't complicate the Ames test.

                  Good luck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The present discussion began with my quotes from Crow, Kondrashov and others which raise great (in my opinion, insurmountable) challenges to the Primary Axiom and our focus was on human populations.  Somebody then challenged my statement that mutations always reduce information and then you and Argystokes offered the Ames test to support this challenge.  And I have conceded that you are correct.  

                  So where do we stand?

                  Where we stand is that I cannot say that ALL mutations decrease information.  And I cannot say that ALL mutations are deleterious if even only slightly so.  That's fine.  I'm not interested in refuting ToE on faulty bases.  And of course, I will stop trying to refute it completely and become a promoter of it if I can be shown that it is true.

                  But to go from ...

                  "Yes, mutations can increase information in the cases where a pattern reverts to it's original state."

                  to ...

                  "Therefore RM + NS is a viable mechansim for creating all life on earth."

                  is a leap so enormous that it boggles the mind.

                  So ... going back to your statement that ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now your task is to show why evolution is impossible for other creatures, such as ourselves. In doing that, you're going to have to account, mathematically, for the effects of diploidy, sex, and recombination - phenomena that don't complicate the Ames test.

                  Good luck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... I think I have already done this.  But since you don't think I have, and it is true that I did not have a complete understanding of mutations in bacteria, maybe we should walk through it again.  I should clarify, though.  I have not shown exactly as you say "why evolution is impossible for other creatures, such as ourselves."  Of course what you are calling 'evolution' is possible, IOW it is possible that an "A" that gets deleted could be restored and so on.  What I have shown, though, is that Kimura's shaded area is a serious (I say insurmountable) problem which prominent geneticists are acknowledging (Crow quote for example).  This shaded area represents VSDMs that cannot be selected against because their effect is so small and thus they have no impact on fitness or reproduction.  These get passed on to the offspring and thus are accumulating in the population.  This is why Crow calls this problem a 'bomb with a long fuse' and why he says we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors.  This is why Kondrashov asks "Why have we not died out 100X over?"

                  Of course they try to provide answers to these questions with some very hopeful talk about everything from 'truncation selection' (which I dealt with) to 'synergistic epistasis' (which means 'interactive interaction';).

                  These are NON-answers in my humble opinion.

                  So it appears to me that I have already shown why ToE is impossible genetically and the Primary Axiom is false.  I have asked for alternatives to the Primary Axiom and received 8 from Chris Hyland.  It seemed to me that the refutation of these 8 that I gave was particularly easy.

                  Finally, how does this support the AFD Creator God Hypothesis?  Quite simply, if the Primary Axiom is false, then the only alternative is Intelligent Design.  Then the only question remaining is "What is this Intelligent Designer like?"  To which, of course, I propose the God of the Bible.  At which point the discussion moves on to other areas.

                  *************************************************

                  BWE ... "Davey, please, please, please debate me on Christianity and the Founding of America."
                  AFD ... "OK. Here. (Makes statement)"
                  BWE ... (Blows a gasket) (Your an idiot, etc.) (Carlson and Steve agree)
                  AFD ... (Cites similar statement from John Jay) "If I'm an idiot, is John Jay also an idiot?"
                  BWE ... (Cites nebulous statement from Jay)
                  AFD ... "How does this make me an idiot, but not him?"
                  BWE ... (Deafening silence)

                  Is this your idea of fair debate?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2006,11:03

                  Dave, if VSDM have no effect on fitness or reproductive ability, i.e., they confer no competitive disadvantage at all, then by definition they are not VSDMs! They are neutral mutations, by definition.

                  Any mutation that cannot be selected for or against is by definition a neutral mutation. Do you see why this presents a huge problem for your argument? It's why you think Natural Selection cannot work, and it's why you're wrong when you think Natural Selection cannot work.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 06 2006,11:06



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):But to go from ...

                  "Yes, mutations can increase information in the cases where a pattern reverts to it's original state."

                  to ...

                  "Therefore RM + NS is a viable mechansim for creating all life on earth."

                  is a leap so enormous that it boggles the mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're being intellectually dishonest again.

                  You have been shown evidence and have admitted that mutations can increase information and produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions.  Your addition of 'in the cases where a pattern reverts to it's original state' is pure equivocation.  It's one more dishonest attempt on your part to wiggle out of the corner you painted yourself into.

                  BTW, I notice that you are completely ignoring the questions on the placement of fossils in the geological column.  I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part, that you can't defend your asinine statements are hoping the whole embarrassing (for you) topic goes away. Right?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 06 2006,11:36

                  When this subject first came up, I suspected someone would have to give Dave basics on evolution, such as how selection operates ( directional, stabilizing, diversifying, etc.) -- how it is informed by the environment at multiple levels, how these factors weigh in on survival and most importantly, survival to reproduction.

                  Dave has also failed to apprehend the chess analogy...no surprise there, since Dave apparently can't manage to google "chess genetic algorithm" < http://www.google.com/search?....=Search >  This grows tedious when you won't/can't do your own homework, Dave. Deep Blue beat Kasparov by examining 200 million moves a second --selecting for and against moves in a "brute force" approach using a genetic algorithm.
                  Selection is a filter. Bad moves don't survive and reproduce. Successful moves reproduce and spread their success hither and yon.
                  As was said, the chess analogy isn't PERFECT, but it SHOULD illustrate how selection acts as a filter, even if the moves were evaluated one by one in an utterly random manner...from all possible moves (look up search spaces while you're at it).
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 06 2006,11:58

                  Here, allow me to say this in a different way. It seems to me that humans have a tendency to think of "selection" in positive terms...as when they go to a closet and "pick" a shirt to wear.
                  What they fail to note is that they have selected against all other choices, too. Selection involves at least four inter-related but distinguishable concepts:
                  1) differential elimination of individuals
                  2) differential SURVIVAL of individuals which may result from or accompany differential elimination, but is not the same thing.
                  3) differential reproduction
                  4) alteration of gene frequencies, preferred by most biologists and mathematical evolutionists.
                  Darwin ( Origins, p. 81) says this: " This preservation of favorable variations and rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." Later people like Dobzhansky (1970, "Genetics of the Evolutionary Process") emphasized "differential reproduction." Further refinements continue to this day, as new examples of sexual selection, inter- and INTRAspecies competition emerge, etc., etc. You may want to investigate these matters on your own before arriving at a preconceived answer, Dave.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 06 2006,12:42

                  Eric ... you must have forgotten this quote I posted from the same Kimura article ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Finally, there is one biological problem that we have to consider. Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Kimura equates 'effectively neutrals' with VSDMs.

                  Also remember ...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  KONDRASHOV'S QUESTION
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How can this be a problem for Dr. Kondrashov, but not for 'Dr.' Murphy?

                  OA...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you're being intellectually dishonest again.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.  You'll have to show that or retract it, please.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have been shown evidence and have admitted that mutations can increase information
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.

                  Please show me where I admitted the last half of your sentence.  If you cannot, please retract this.

                  Deadman ... I am quite aware of Deep Blue beating Kasparov.  This is not the same thing.  In Deep Blue, we have an Intelligence which experiences learning.  In Cory's "Team Random" (and in nature) we do not.

                  Now ... let's see if you are intellectually honest and can admit that you made an invalid comparison.

                  *****************************

                  OA ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW, I notice that you are completely ignoring the questions on the placement of fossils in the geological column.  I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part, that you can't defend your asinine statements are hoping the whole embarrassing (for you) topic goes away. Right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. It seems that members here would prefer for me to focus on a limited number of topics at a time.  The main topic now is Points C & D of my CGH under which the current discussion falls nicely.  At some point we will move on, or as I have time, I am willing to re-address old issues.  As I have said many times, putting off answering certain questions is NEVER an admission of defeat on my part.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 06 2006,12:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,10:50)
                  BWE ... "Davey, please, please, please debate me on Christianity and the Founding of America."
                  AFD ... "OK. Here. (Makes statement)"
                  BWE ... (Blows a gasket) (Your an idiot, etc.) (Carlson and Steve agree)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I said no such thing. In fact, I have implied the exact opposite publicly and stated it more explicitly in private messages to other forum participants.  My statement had nothing to do with my opinion of your intellectual skills. It did have to do with my perception of your apparent unwillingness to approach any of the material here with any semblance of curiousity.  You only emerge from your worldview to do battle, not to test your assumptions and, perhaps, learn things that challenge that worldview.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  AFD ... (Cites similar statement from John Jay) "If I'm an idiot, is John Jay also an idiot?"
                  BWE ... (Cites nebulous statement from Jay)
                  AFD ... "How does this make me an idiot, but not him?"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.  You are trying to conflate that into the entire basis of American government.  The fact of the matter is, regardless of what John Jay felt, he did not convince either the 1787 Constitutional Convention or the New York state constitutional convention of the "truth" of his opinion.  Indeed, the output of both conventions, which were enshrined, respectively, as the US Constitution and the New York State Constitution are clear repudiations of Jay's opinion.  Both guaranteed freedom of religion and no religious tests for public office.  

                  So, no, Jay wasn't an idiot.  But on this issue, he was wrong and the two aforementioned documents are living testament to the differing wisdom of the age.  So the only response to the evidence offered by the Jay statements is "so what."  It has no force of law.  It is meaningless historical trivia.

                  Your Washington quote is similarly dismissed. Washington was speaking to the Delaware Indians about thier need to assimilate into the predominant culture.  It says nothing about the basis of our government.  Again, so what?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  BWE ... (Deafening silence)

                  Is this your idea of fair debate?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, no it isn't, but not for the reasons you think.  American history is so much richer than you can possibly believe.  I have done extensive reading about the Founding Fathers and, every book I read leads me to new areas to explore.  Reading about them has made me want to read their own writings.  Those writings are leading me to Enlightenment philosophy.  There is fertile ground to read about Oliver Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution, Epicurius and other ancient Greek philosophers, and so much more.  In short, serious scholarship on the subject of American democracy opens up worlds unimagined to the initiate.

                  But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.   It isn't that you can't, it is that you won't.  I'll understand if you'd rather focus on overthrowing modern science.  No hard feelings.  But, if you ever want to debate American democracy you gotta do more than phone it in with your mouse poised over Wallbuilders.  Sorry.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 06 2006,12:56

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 06 2006,11:03)
                  Dave, if VSDM have no effect on fitness or reproductive ability, i.e., they confer no competitive disadvantage at all, then by definition they are not VSDMs! They are neutral mutations, by definition.

                  Any mutation that cannot be selected for or against is by definition a neutral mutation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  For AFDave, a mutation is by definition deleterious.

                  Go figure.  ???
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 06 2006,13:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In Deep Blue, we have an Intelligence which experiences learning.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Deep Blue used brute force, Dave. Aspects allowed it to "learn" what moves were better as it selected out less favored moves. This doesn't constitute AI -- for example, Kasparov found that he could change HIS pattern of play and Deep Blue couldn't "learn" to adapt to it. < http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/learn/html/e.html > . The amount of number crunching was huge, much larger than the database of chess that Deep Blue proceeded from...in other words, the search tree size far outweighed it.

                  The ANALOGY between chess and evolution was stated to be imperfect, Dave. You were told that more than once.

                  However, the relevant point here was about selection...both for and against.

                  As to your constant quotes about Crow and Kondrashov, etc., yeah, mutation load and how it is handled in populations ( the unit of evolution) is the subject of investigation...in fact, Crow and Kimura and others have proposed tentative "solutions" -- Crow and Kimura's "quasi-truncation" and "synergistic epistasis" < http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667 > , so? (you'll find that article is cited by 100 subsequent articles in major journals over the past few years, indicating the interest in the subject)

                  To conclude that if science doesn't have ALL the answers PERFECTLY TODAY, that your "Creator God Hypothesis" is the ONLY viable alternative...is a fallacy. False dichotomy, Dave. Try again.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 06 2006,13:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, all authors I have quoted propose fanciful solutions to these problems, but they are not based in fact.  It is conjecture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  These authors are all talking about models of evolution. You seem really anxious to take the "problem" part as "fact", and the "solution" part as "fanciful conjecture".  Why do you suppose that is?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  From reading geneticists in the literature, it appears that population size considerations fall far short of salvaging the Primary Axiom.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  With all due respect - which is not much - your ability to understand what you're reading in this area has been demonstrated to be woefully inadequate. You're going to have to C&P the author in question, or I'm going to dismiss this claim out of hand.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that there is no basis for saying that there is NOT such a thing as correct patterns.  All our experience with complex, functional, man-made systems shows overwhelmingly that highly specific--that is, correct--patterns are required for function.
                  *NOTE: There are also many variations of correct patterns, e.g. Cytochrome C is different in all the organisms, just as there are Fords, Chevys, Toyotas, etc. but there are still "correct' patterns.  IOW, a Suburban with no engine would not be correct.  A Mazda B2300 with no wheels would not be correct, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You've just rephrased what I wrote. There's "functional" and there's "nonfunctional". You seem to equate "correct" and "functional", which I  think is misleading.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I would use the word 'mutate,' not 'evolve,' since 'evolve' connotes in my mind some sort of upward evolution from a single celled organism to a higher organism.  But we all agree that bacteria mutate ... or I could say change, yes ... we agree on that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Your whole post is riddled with the same old mistake. Yes, mutation is change. Mutations are a dime a dozen. The Ames test illustrates the power of:

                  [[[mutation ***PLUS SELECTION***]]]

                  and that's what evolution is all about.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But to go from ...

                  "Yes, mutations can increase information in the cases where a pattern reverts to it's original state."
                  to ...
                  "Therefore RM + NS is a viable mechansim for creating all life on earth."
                  is a leap so enormous that it boggles the mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, who said that? Isn't your post long and rambling enough without throwing in this out-of-the-blue strawman?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course they try to provide answers to these questions with some very hopeful talk about everything from 'truncation selection' (which I dealt with)...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I must have missed that part.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  to 'synergistic epistasis' (which means 'interactive interaction';)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Your helpful translation does not help explain what value the concept has, or doesn't have, in the argument at hand. And frankly, your patently wrong take on Kimura's relatively simple point leaves me with very little confidence that you're going to get the more complicated stuff right.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  These are NON-answers in my humble opinion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think you understand just how humble your opinion is.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So it appears to me that I have already shown why ToE is impossible genetically and the Primary Axiom is false.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What? Didn't we just lay this claim to rest? Or are you now claiming that evolution is possible for bacteria, but not for eukaryotes?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 06 2006,13:36

                  Carlson ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  And I was too.  Did you note how many times I said "I think" in my statement?

                  Carlson...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It is not a "cardboard" version as I will show you unless you are too afraid even to look at the evidence.  My opinion is that you rely on revisionist sources for your version of American history.  I believe David Barton is one of the few writers who corrects those revisionists by going back to the writings of the Founders themselves.

                  If you are afraid to hear quotes from the Founders themselves dated in their lifetimes, or very near their lifetimes by sources very close to them (which is what Barton provides), then you are very close minded.

                  You have been given several such quotes already.  One of them--the Franklin quote--you chided me (and Barton) as follows ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... you later admitted you were wrong, but now you want to try to say that I am somehow close minded simply because I rely on him to supply me with some excellent documented quotes, of which the one above is an excellent example which you yourself admit.

                  How can you consider yourself to be open-minded when I allow you to use any source you want to, but you disallow Barton?

                  What kind of fairness is that?  Why would you not at least hear the quotes that Barton provides, then refute them on the merits of your objections?  I have demonstrated many times at this forum that I am willing to publicly retract my statements when shown that they are wrong.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 06 2006,13:39

                  Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 06 2006,12:50)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,10:50)
                  BWE ... "Davey, please, please, please debate me on Christianity and the Founding of America."
                  AFD ... "OK. Here. (Makes statement)"
                  BWE ... (Blows a gasket) (Your an idiot, etc.) (Carlson and Steve agree)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I said no such thing. In fact, I have implied the exact opposite publicly and stated it more explicitly in private messages to other forum participants.  My statement had nothing to do with my opinion of your intellectual skills. It did have to do with my perception of your apparent unwillingness to approach any of the material here with any semblance of curiousity.  You only emerge from your worldview to do battle, not to test your assumptions and, perhaps, learn things that challenge that worldview.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  AFD ... (Cites similar statement from John Jay) "If I'm an idiot, is John Jay also an idiot?"
                  BWE ... (Cites nebulous statement from Jay)
                  AFD ... "How does this make me an idiot, but not him?"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.  You are trying to conflate that into the entire basis of American government.  The fact of the matter is, regardless of what John Jay felt, he did not convince either the 1787 Constitutional Convention or the New York state constitutional convention of the "truth" of his opinion.  Indeed, the output of both conventions, which were enshrined, respectively, as the US Constitution and the New York State Constitution are clear repudiations of Jay's opinion.  Both guaranteed freedom of religion and no religious tests for public office.  

                  So, no, Jay wasn't an idiot.  But on this issue, he was wrong and the two aforementioned documents are living testament to the differing wisdom of the age.  So the only response to the evidence offered by the Jay statements is "so what."  It has no force of law.  It is meaningless historical trivia.

                  Your Washington quote is similarly dismissed. Washington was speaking to the Delaware Indians about thier need to assimilate into the predominant culture.  It says nothing about the basis of our government.  Again, so what?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  BWE ... (Deafening silence)

                  Is this your idea of fair debate?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, no it isn't, but not for the reasons you think.  American history is so much richer than you can possibly believe.  I have done extensive reading about the Founding Fathers and, every book I read leads me to new areas to explore.  Reading about them has made me want to read their own writings.  Those writings are leading me to Enlightenment philosophy.  There is fertile ground to read about Oliver Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution, Epicurius and other ancient Greek philosophers, and so much more.  In short, serious scholarship on the subject of American democracy opens up worlds unimagined to the initiate.

                  But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.   It isn't that you can't, it is that you won't.  I'll understand if you'd rather focus on overthrowing modern science.  No hard feelings.  But, if you ever want to debate American democracy you gotta do more than phone it in with your mouse poised over Wallbuilders.  Sorry.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Carlsonjok,

                  The history of the enlightenment is fascinating and has threads reaching into most other western philosophical thought. My current reading includes "On Liberty" By John Stuart Mill which I highly recommend if you're into it. I do appologize for, as Dave puts it, "Blowing a gasket" earlier but after the scanned pages with sources not available etc. and then the statement that america was designed to be run by one group, the reply wrote itself.

                  Dave,
                  < federalist 10 > by Madison, clearly and explicitely points out that this is what they were trying to avoid.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

                  By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Note the parts I bolded. Dave, this is probably the most important document written by anyone concerning the adoption of the constitution. They were exactly doing not what you say.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 06 2006,13:42

                  Another way of looking at your "mutation load" problem is simply to say this:
                  You have not shown that deep time as revealed by radiometric dating methods (among many other things) is invalid. Therefore, I am entitled to point out that numerous species other than man have differential mutation rates and have survived over millions of years. Sharks. Cockroaches. Sea Turtles, Tuataras, Crocodiles, ants, etc. The extinction of the human species doesn't mean all life will vanish on this planet, nor does deleterious mutation load invalidate evolutionary theory automatically.
                  This chapter in the illumination of genetics is only beginning, and I'd think a wise observer would withold conclusive claims -- lest religious dogma get yet another slap in the face from harsh reality -- but then, I never accused you of wisdom, Dave.
                  This isn't MY personal arena, so I'll leave it to the biology wonks to deal with.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2006,13:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,10:50)
                  So it appears to me that I have already shown why ToE is impossible genetically and the Primary Axiom is false.  I have asked for alternatives to the Primary Axiom and received 8 from Chris Hyland.  It seemed to me that the refutation of these 8 that I gave was particularly easy.

                  Finally, how does this support the AFD Creator God Hypothesis?  Quite simply, if the Primary Axiom is false, then the only alternative is Intelligent Design.  Then the only question remaining is "What is this Intelligent Designer like?"  To which, of course, I propose the God of the Bible.  At which point the discussion moves on to other areas.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're still going to have to explain how you have shown the "primary axiom" is impossible, because I guarantee you haven't done it yet. I've read every post you've written on this thread, and nowhere have you ever demonstrated that "RM + NS" cannot drive evolution. You didn't "refute" even one of the eight possible mechanisms for random mutation (none of them had anything to do with selection), let alone all eight. The only thing you had to go on was your own personal incredulity, which is worthless given the things you do believe in.

                  And where is your proof that showing the "primary axiom" is impossible leaves nothing but intelligent design as an alternative? You're stating that as if it's been demonstrated, and it hasn't. The fact that you can't think of another mechanism is hardly proof that no such mechanism can exist.

                  But even if you could prove that evolution is impossible, Dave, that would present just as many problems for you as it would for evolutionary theory. You would still have to explain the same thing you've never been able to explain, which is how to get from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark to a few million (or possibly a billion) species today without any sort of evolution. Have you given any thought to how that would happen without invoking yet more "miracles"?

                  And that doesn't even begin to be a list of all the other problems your "hypothesis" has, from the age of the earth to the age of the universe to the abundant evidence that the flood never happened to your inability to explain what "genetic richness" is.

                  So once again, we find Dave haplessly floundering about in field he doesn't understand, desperately trying to find a way to show evolution is impossible (while at the same time failing to realize that his own "hypothesis" requires "evolution" at rates far beyond anything required by standard theories), while his own "hypothesis," the ostensible subject of this thread, languishes in the corner, starved of attention and suffering the effects of long-term neglect.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 06 2006,14:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,13:36)
                  Carlson ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  And I was too.  Did you note how many times I said "I think" in my statement?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ah, but Jay apparently knew when he was licked. He didn't persist in trying to engrain his opinions regarding who was fit to govern upon the nation.  You are not similarly chagrined.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Carlson...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It is not a "cardboard" version as I will show you unless you are too afraid even to look at the evidence.  My opinion is that you rely on revisionist sources for your version of American history.  I believe David Barton is one of the few writers who corrects those revisionists by going back to the writings of the Founders themselves.

                  If you are afraid to hear quotes from the Founders themselves dated in their lifetimes, or very near their lifetimes by sources very close to them (which is what Barton provides), then you are very close minded.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Afraid, not hardly.  The word that comes to mind is bored.  Dave, American history cannot be encapsulated by trolling around for quotes to offer up triumphantly sans context.  It is so much more complex.  If you want to discuss the influence of Locke and Montesqui on Madison, I'm your man.  If you want to dicuss the Presidential oath of office in the shadow of Englands 1689 Act Establishing the Coronation Oath, I'm in. Heck, if you want to talk about the differences between the republicans and federalists and who, ultimately, influenced the nation more,  I'll bite (if for no other reason that it would get us back to the central bank question.)
                        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You have been given several such quotes already.  One of them--the Franklin quote--you chided me (and Barton) as follows ...              

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... you later admitted you were wrong, but now you want to try to say that I am somehow close minded simply because I rely on him to supply me with some excellent documented quotes, of which the one above is an excellent example which you yourself admit.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I admitted that I was incorrect regarding the attribution. I did not admit that it was an excellent example. In fact, I seem to recall telling you that Franklin's entreaty was not acted upon by the convention. I also seem to recall dredging up a few Franklin quotes to throw back at you that I chose to drop since it wasn't contributing to a substantive discussion.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How can you consider yourself to be open-minded when I allow you to use any source you want to, but you disallow Barton?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I didn't disallow it. I just don't fetishize it like you seem to do.  You see, there is a clear asymmetry here that can't be solved.  Until you are willing to tackle The Federalist, Locke, and other foundational documents, you aren't bringing enough to the table to hold my interest. If that opens me up to charges of being fickle, so be it.  Guilty as charged.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What kind of fairness is that?  Why would you not at least hear the quotes that Barton provides, then refute them on the merits of your objections?  I have demonstrated many times at this forum that I am willing to publicly retract my statements when shown that they are wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That isn't debate, that is whack-a-mole.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 06 2006,14:20

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 06 2006,13:39)
                  The history of the enlightenment is fascinating and has threads reaching into most other western philosophical thought. My current reading includes "On Liberty" By John Stuart Mill which I highly recommend if you're into it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Getting into philosophy is new to me.  I suspect I will move through Locke fairly slowly, but I'll definitely add it to the list.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I do appologize for, as Dave puts it, "Blowing a gasket" earlier but after the scanned pages with sources not available etc. and then the statement that america was designed to be run by one group, the reply wrote itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sort of like an artist liberating the sculpture from the stone?  ;)

                  EDIT:  Fixed a grammatical error.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 06 2006,14:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,12:42)
                  Eric ... you must have forgotten this quote I posted from the same Kimura article ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Finally, there is one biological problem that we have to consider. Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Kimura equates 'effectively neutrals' with VSDMs.

                  Also remember ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  KONDRASHOV'S QUESTION
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How can this be a problem for Dr. Kondrashov, but not for 'Dr.' Murphy?art.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you've failed to explain how mutations which, in your own words, have no impact on fitness or reproduction are "very slightly deleterious." Regardless of what you think Kimura is saying, if a mutation has no impact on fitness or reproduction, then it is neutral. There's simply no getting around that.

                  And where's your explanation for how extinction doesn't get rid of deleterious mutations when they pile up beyond a certain point? It's pointed out to you to the point of exhaustion that 99% of everything that's ever lived is now extinct. So what's your point, Dave?

                  Also, look at the dates on your sources, Dave. 1979 for Kimura, 1995 for Kondrashov. You might want to look at more recent papers to see if these problems have been resolved. But even if they haven't, that doesn't even BEGIN to mean it's time to toss the ToE in the trash. It merely means more research is required. It most certainly doesn't mean, "Well then God musta did it."

                  And I'm growing weary of your impuging my education, Dave. My education is what it is, and given your status (undergrad EE with no training whatsoever in any science), you might want to think twice before impugning someone else's education.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,15:05

                  Crap. the stupid software vanished a long reply I had almost ready... And now I'm too irritatred to start again.

                  I just want to explain my points in brief:

                  KIMURA: I'm glad you agree that he has dealt with beneficial mutations (not denied them), and that he didn't include them in the same model, because that would give abnormally HIGH evolution rates. Now, what do you have to say about what Kimura says in his conclusions about the accumulation of mutations? You cannot call this "wild speculation", since he is evaluating the same data you accept...



                  CROW: Also glad that you decided to include the "100 generations" bit this time (any ideas why Sanford left it out? :)  ). But you tapdance around my question: Here, I'll help you.
                  This is what Crow says, and both you and Sanford keep ignoring:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So, Crow is saying that his concerns come from the fact that natural selection does not work the way it used to in the human genome. Few could disagree with that; But it seems that many would be willing to twist his words into supporting that "all higher genomes are naturally headed for extinction- FAST" or something. Hmm.

                  KONDRASHOV'S QUOTE: Seriously, stop it. Either give us the actual paper (you have read it, right?), or, at least, the quote the way it stands in the text, not in this hideously butchered state. Then we can talk. Forgive me for not trusting your precious authority Sanford, but I think I have good reasons to. And anyway, the way this quote is presented is laughable. Link?

                  QUASI-TRUNCATION AND SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS:
                  Dave, you have miserably failed to "deal" with those, as you say you have. Claiming that makes you a demonstratable liar. You have only handwaived them away as "Alladin's lamps", and "Magic wands", hiding your own ignorance on these issues. Your greatest (your ONLY) "argument" against them was that SE actually means "interactive interaction" (!!!! ), and even that is totally wrong, as I told you. I'm Greek, in case you forgot.

                  Oh and, you have NOT answered my question. I'd very much like to see all the papers you read that made it clear that the "primary axiom" is void, but that is moot; I asked you: Since small populations seem to have a greater danger of becoming extinct due to accumulation of deleterious mutations, for which theory do you think this presents the most problems?

                  In short: Please construct a coherent argument, instead of appealing to misquotes and distortions of scientists' words, and we might talk.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 06 2006,16:19

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 06 2006,13:42)
                  Another way of looking at your "mutation load" problem is simply to say this:
                  You have not shown that deep time as revealed by radiometric dating methods (among many other things) is invalid. Therefore, I am entitled to point out that numerous species other than man have differential mutation rates and have survived over millions of years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In the case of "mutation loads", on don't see why the relevant unit should be the species. Is speciation supposed to "reset" the alleged mutation load? All extant lineages have the exact same age, more than 3 billion years.

                  And I like to remind Dave that the evidence for a very old universe and biosphere is beyound doubt. Conversely, the hypothesis that mutation rates should have killed us hundreds of times is not verified at all. In fact, it's proven wrong by our existence.

                  Taking conjectures as facts and discarding possible explanations only prove you are intellectually dishonnest.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,16:41

                  Also, if I remember correctly, dave had said something before about species "becoming extinct in 300 generations" or something. Now he never provided any actual links for that, just asserted that someone (a YEC, I believe, since a non-YEC paper he referred to said nothing of the sort) figured it out... But the issue is: If he accepts that, does he not understand the huge, insurmountable problem this poses for HIS "theory", above all others?
                  And we're talking about initial populations of 2... Talk about small!
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 06 2006,16:45

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 06 2006,16:41)
                  Also, if I remember correctly, dave had said something before about species "becoming extinct in 300 generations" or something. Now he never provided any actual links for that, just asserted that someone (a YEC, I believe, since a non-YEC paper he referred to said nothing of the sort) figured it out... But the issue is: If he accepts that, does he not understand the huge, insurmountable problem this poses for HIS "theory", above all others?
                  And we're talking about initial populations of 2... Talk about small!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think you're confusing with mutation rates of 100-300/genome/generation in humans. That number is an estimation by Kondrashov, who certainly isn't a YEC.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 06 2006,16:58

                  re "Dave, you're still going to have to explain how you have shown the "primary axiom" is impossible, because I guarantee you haven't done it yet. I've read every post you've written on this thread, and nowhere have you ever demonstrated that "RM + NS" cannot drive evolution."

                  Ah - is "RM + NS" what's being referred to here as the "primary axiom"? I was starting to wonder. Or wander, whichever.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,16:59

                  Nono, I'm pretty sure he said something like that, when he was talking about Crow's solutions and how they were wrong. But he never felt like he should substanciate it, and dropped it soonafter. I remember it because I had looked for the non-YEC article, and it said something about loss of viability of preserved crops in agriculture, due to accumulated mutations... Certainly not a rebuttal of Crow.
                  But I'm kinda bored to look for a permalink now... Maybe dave can help?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,17:17

                  Henry, I think dave is (still) talking about McNeill's quote, the one he obviously never actually read- otherwise he'd know that McNeil does NOT say that RM and NS "don't work"- on the contrary. He just says that the theory claiming those two factors ALONE were enough to explain biological diversity is no longer valid, and that other mechanisms (such as genetic drift) need to be accounted for.
                  What dave is saying is as stupid as claiming that, since diesel can't be used to fuel a Formula 1, and high-octane gas is necessary, that means internal combustion engines "don't work".
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 06 2006,17:18

                  Faid:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Maybe dave can help?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And maybe that guy'll show up on my doorstep with the million-dollar check...
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 06 2006,19:14

                  As long as we seem to just be treading water for the moment--

                  Has anybody seen my cervical vertebrae?

                  I'm sure I just had them on me.  There were about seven of them, as best I recall...
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 06 2006,19:56

                  edit duplicate post
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 06 2006,20:00

                  Jeff Sharlet's article "Through a Glass Darkly" is now in Harper's Magazine on the newstands. I mentioned this earlier; it may shed some light on DaveThink, as it applies to American History. It's not available online yet, but I did find this excerpt:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The Christian nation of which the movement dreams, a government of those chosen by God but democratically elected by a people who freely accept His will as their own, is a far country.  The nation they seek does not, at the moment, exist; perhaps it could in the future.  More important to fundamentalism is the belief that it did exist in the American past, not in the history we learn in public school and from PBS and in newsmagazine cover stories on the Founders but in another story, one more biblical, one more mythic and more true.  Secularism hides this story, killed the Christian nation, and tried to dispose of the body.  Fundamentalism wants to resurrect it, and in doing so requires revision: fundamentalists, looking backward, see a different history, remade in the image of the seductive but strict logic of a prime mover that sets things in motion.  The cause behind every effect, says fundamentalist science, is God.  Even the inexorable facts of math are subject to His decrees, as explained in homeschooling texts such as Mathematics: Is God silent?  Two plus two is four because God says so.  If He chose, it could just as easily be five."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 06 2006,20:17

                  Haha Russel, I can imagine dave's next post:

                  "Russell... The picture you posted was AMAZING! I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! I'm gonna print it and hang it above my class, so my little students will always see the TRUTH! It was the only valuable thing you have presented in this thread! :-) "

                  :p
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 06 2006,21:04

                  Good graphic Russell.

                  It's a requiem for a failed theocracy.

                  Maybe GWB is praying for the 1/2 million dead Iraqis?

                  Spot the odd man out, imperialist USA and government reducing privacy are the clues.

                  If you look a bit closer and peer over the edge to see what GWB is looking at, you can see the millions of fundy votes he pissed into the bowl before he pulled the chain.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 06 2006,22:14

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 06 2006,21:04)
                  Good graphic Russell.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ironically, I was thinking it was a pretty bad graphic.  Washington, on the right, was generally inscrutable politically, but tended to act per the federalist orthodoxy.  Lincoln, on the left, was a truly great man, but his Republican Party was drawn and quartered by Nixon's southern strategy of the late 1960s.

                  That someone would think that either Washington or Lincoln would find common cause with George Bush is a bit of a stretch.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 06 2006,23:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ironically, I was thinking it was a pretty bad graphic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well I did say 'spot the odd man out'.

                  GWB may yet go down as the worst President of yousa yet.

                  The good oil boys of Texas nasty little adventure will have an impact lasting a century at least.

                  As they Iraqi-ize their proxy army against an enemy they created out of nothing. Who knows how much blow back they will get from the genie they uncorked. Its sleep under the barren sands created by the stone throwing tribes born in the cradle of civilisation and its 6000 years of religious wars has potential to outlast earth itself.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 06 2006,23:53

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 06 2006,23:30)
                  As they Iraqi-ize their proxy army against an enemy they created out of nothing. Who knows how much blow back they will get from the genie they uncorked. Its sleep under the barren sands created by the stone throwing tribes born in the cradle of civilisation and its 6000 years of religious wars has potential to outlast earth itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just as technically there is no sound in the forest if no one is there to hear it (I wonder if Dave jumps in here to dispute this?) it is doubtful the genie would survive in the vacuum.

                  On a side note:

                  Note the 3 fellows they name on the cover.  Hmmmm. Dave? Do you play?
                  It's most of the way down < This page >. It's a little way past Bibleman: A Fight for Faith
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In Bibleman: A Fight for Faith, players can now help Bibleman, Biblegirl and Cypher battle the arch villain Wacky Protestor and his henchmen! Using educational Bible verses, exciting battle sequences and puzzles, kids can move through nine challenging and educational levels as they join the Bibleteam in fighting the good fight of faith! Features original music by the Rock and Roll Worship Circus. Developed by Covenant Studios. $30 {retail $39.95)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 07 2006,00:11

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,13:36)
                  Carlson ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Context, Dave, context.  Jay was stating his personal opinion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  And I was too.  Did you note how many times I said "I think" in my statement?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We also noted how many times you demonstrated thinking.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Carlson...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But, Dave, all you are coming to the table with is, for lack of a better word, a cardboard version of American history served up to you by David Barton.  I honestly believe that you could understand all the aforementioned topics and more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It is not a "cardboard" version as I will show you unless you are too afraid even to look at the evidence.  My opinion is that you rely on revisionist sources for your version of American history.  I believe David Barton is one of the few writers who corrects those revisionists by going back to the writings of the Founders themselves.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually Dave, Both Carlson and I quoted original sources without relying on "revisionist" sources. You, on the other hand... Well, maybe we should be talking about whether the US was founded on the principle that one group should be in control. Hmmm. Federalist 10.  Hmmm. The entire concept of < Liberal Democracy >.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you are afraid to hear quotes from the Founders themselves dated in their lifetimes, or very near their lifetimes by sources very close to them (which is what Barton provides), then you are very close minded.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The irony. Oh the irony. Dave, do you think you have done this and that Carlson has not? Or me?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You have been given several such quotes already.  One of them--the Franklin quote--you chided me (and Barton) as follows ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Franklin or Madison, Dave?  If you insist on cutting and pasting, at least have enough care to actually proofread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... you later admitted you were wrong, but now you want to try to say that I am somehow close minded simply because I rely on him to supply me with some excellent documented quotes, of which the one above is an excellent example which you yourself admit.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The reason he admitted he was wrong is that he was wrong. That's how this whole "Quest for Knowledge" thing works. It is unrelated to the fact that you rely on a single author for your entire view of US history, which is where the closed minded thing comes in.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can you consider yourself to be open-minded when I allow you to use any source you want to, but you disallow Barton?

                  What kind of fairness is that?  Why would you not at least hear the quotes that Barton provides, then refute them on the merits of your objections?  I have demonstrated many times at this forum that I am willing to publicly retract my statements when shown that they are wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Go ahead Dave, use the quotes that Barton uses. They are out there in the public domain. But be prepared to back them up. For example, ...[/quote]
                  < Liberal Democracy >
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 07 2006,10:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,12:42)
                  OA ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW, I notice that you are completely ignoring the questions on the placement of fossils in the geological column.  I'll take that as an admission of defeat on your part, that you can't defend your asinine statements are hoping the whole embarrassing (for you) topic goes away. Right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. It seems that members here would prefer for me to focus on a limited number of topics at a time.  The main topic now is Points C & D of my CGH under which the current discussion falls nicely.  At some point we will move on, or as I have time, I am willing to re-address old issues.  As I have said many times, putting off answering certain questions is NEVER an admission of defeat on my part.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave I understand that you are tying to limit the lines of inquiry that you will address, but I have waited patiently for over 160 days for you to address a simple question:

                  How can the clearly failed Tyre prophecy be "construed one way or the other"  when the prophecy states that it should be bare forever and is not?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,10:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2006,12:42)
                  It seems that members here would prefer for me to focus on a limited number of topics at a time.  The main topic now is Points C & D of my CGH under which the current discussion falls nicely.  At some point we will move on, or as I have time, I am willing to re-address old issues.  As I have said many times, putting off answering certain questions is NEVER an admission of defeat on my part.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm wondering why Dave's still covering points C and D of his "hypothesis."

                  His "genetically rich" argument has already been annihilated, blasted down to the bedrock. His "continents zooming around at hundreds of miles an hour" has similarly been disposed of. (I'm not sure why his "plate tectonics" argument is in the same section as his "genetically rich" argument, but whatever.)

                  And how Dave thinks he's ever going to find evidence to support his claims about Adam's supposed genetic perfection is beyond me. How he can make any claims about Adam, even about the poor bastard's existence (okay, the Bible mentioned him, so he must exist) is beyond me. In any event, Dave is in the process of discovering that mutations are not "corruptions" of an otherwise perfect genome, and that there's no such thing as a perfect genome. So it looks like part D of his "hypothesis" is circling the drain, too.

                  And Dave thinks evolutionary theory is "speculative."

                  But so much for Dave's "systematic" approach to demonstrating the explanatory power of his "hypothesis." Since parts A and B of his "hypothesis" are conclusory statements that depend on his demonstration of parts C through P anyway, I'd say that after seven months, Dave has gotten exactly nowhere with his "hypothesis." Not that that's exactly news.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 07 2006,12:04

                  THE CHESS ANALOGY IS BROKEN ... WILL OUR OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR ADMIT IT?

                  Incorygible has given us an analogy of evolution in which "Team Random" plays "Team Environment" in a chess game.  "Team Environment" gets to use intelligence.  "Team Random" does not ... only random moves are allowed.

                  Dr. Russell Durbin of Ohio State University has stated that he uses the "chess analogy" in his classes often.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell
                  Posts: 897 Joined: April 2005
                  Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:32  
                  ...
                  So it's not the "correct" pattern; it's the one that reproduces most efficiently - and that depends on the circumstances. (I like the chess analogy; I've always used it in teaching).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I responded as follows ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For once, I like your analogy.  However, there are several things about the analogy to point out.

                  1) In chess, it is possible to achieve checkmate with only a few moves. Not so in biology.
                  2) In spite of this, I would guess that no "Team Random" could ever win against a good computer chess program.

                  Yes, there are many paths that "Team Random" could take, but there is no foresight, no knowledge of the game, no planning, no 'program strategies' (to use your words).

                  All that "Team Random" has is ... just random moves.

                  Has anyone ever tested this computer simulation thing?  It should be fairly easy to set up I would think.  In fact, you could go through zillions of generations in a very short time.

                  If this were ever tested, my guess would be that the "Randoms" would NEVER win.  

                  But feel free to do the experiment and prove me wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... to which Russell and Incorygible have not responded.

                  Deadman jumped in and said I don't do my homework ... "Just look at Kasparov vs. Deep Blue!"

                  Of course, this is NOT the same thing for what should be a very obvious reason ...

                  Deep Blue used Artificial Intelligence ... "Team Random" does not.

                  Again, I challenge Incorygible and Russell to defend their analogy and show a convincing case that Team Random would EVER win a single game even after zillions of iterations.

                  I contend that they would not and could not.

                  It is my opinion that Dr. Durbin is teaching erroneous notions to his college students in the name of science.  Will he admit it and stop doing so?

                  *************************************************

                  NOTE:  Deadman made this statement ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deep Blue used brute force, Dave. Aspects allowed it to "learn" what moves were better as it selected out less favored moves. This doesn't constitute AI -- for example, Kasparov found that he could change HIS pattern of play and Deep Blue couldn't "learn" to adapt to it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and gave this link < http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/learn/html/e.html >.

                  One would think that this link is supposed to support his statement, but it does not ... here's what it says ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure, Deep Blue plays a mean game of chess. But what else can it do?

                  Deep Blue is at heart a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP-based computer system that was designed to play chess at the grandmaster level. But the underlying RS/6000 technology is being used to tackle complex "real world" problems like:

                     * Cleaning up toxic waste sites
                     * Forecasting the weather
                     * Modeling financial data
                     * Designing cars
                     * Developing innovative drug therapies

                  Not to mention running the occasional high-volume scalable WWW server like - you guessed it - this one.

                  Guest Essays
                  The end of an era, the beginning of another? HAL, Deep Blue and Kasparov :
                  by Dr. David G. Stork.From the Chief Scientist at Ricoh Silicon Valley, a paper that explores the relationship between humans and computers.

                  Quarantine :
                  by Arthur C.Clarke. In response to the challenge of creating a short story that to fit on the back of a postcard, the author of 2001 and 3001 came up with a mind-bender.

                  With Deep Blue technology, we all win :
                  By Dr. Mark F. Bregman.IBM's RS/6000 Division general manager discusses his thoughts about who ultimately benefits from the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue rematch.

                  History at the Chess Table :
                  by Monty Newborn. An exploration of the rematch's historical value from the Chairman of the ACM Chess Committee.

                  The Chess Mentality :
                  by William H. Calvin Calvin, a neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, delves into the cognition behind playing chess.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Toxic waste site cleaup?  Weather forecasting?  Modeling financial data?

                  How in the world does this link support your statment that Deep Blue does not use AI?

                  *************************************************

                  NOT CONVINCED I NEED TO SPEND $58 TO DISCERN KONDRASHOV'S MEANING
                  I gave this quote ...

                  A.S. Kondrashov. 1995.  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations [VSDMs]: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "accumulation of VSDMs in a lineage ... acts like a timebomb ... the existence of vertebrate lineages ... should be limited to 10^6-10^7 generations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... and Faid challenged me ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  KONDRASHOV'S QUOTE: Seriously, stop it. Either give us the actual paper (you have read it, right?), or, at least, the quote the way it stands in the text, not in this hideously butchered state. Then we can talk. Forgive me for not trusting your precious authority Sanford, but I think I have good reasons to. And anyway, the way this quote is presented is laughable. Link?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It is not hideously butchered and you have no factual basis for saying so.  Deadman has tried to accuse me of dishonest quote mining in the past and he was soundly refuted on all but a very few which frankly, I didn't take the time to research and subsequently defend.  I will gladly retract those few.  The vast majority of my quotes have not been quote mines at all and many are defended here
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=35365 >

                  But let's not start another flame war here about that.  Deadman thinks I'm a quote miner.  I don't think I am. We will likely never agree.  Enough said.

                  Here's the abstract for the Kondrashov article ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?

                  Author: Kondrashov A.S.

                  Source: Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 175, Number 4, 1995, pp. 583-594(12)

                  Publisher: Academic Press

                  Abstract:

                  It is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below ~ 1/4 N e , where N e is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ~ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the N e of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/ G < s < 1/4 N e . Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates N e ~ 10 , while G ~ 10 , so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10 , an average individual carries ~ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies to high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations. < http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00167 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... which of course is available to anyone through Google Scholar.

                  Note several things ...

                  1)  His question in the title ... "why have we not died 100 times over?"
                  2)  VSDMs accumulate almost freely  (take note, Eric)
                  3)  Their accumulation makes an impact at the level of the whole genome
                  4)  Beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations don't solve it

                  The author is basically scratching his head at the end and proposing fuzzy ideas like "soft selection" and "synergistic epistasis".  

                  Will someone please explain to me how these are anything different that Fancy Sounding Nonsense?

                  So, Faid, nothing here indicates that anything in the quote I gave gives a false sense.  Can anyone get the paper for free?  Faid would thank you.

                  **************************************************

                  FAID IS NOT HAPPY WITH MY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROW PAPER

                  He says ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CROW: Also glad that you decided to include the "100 generations" bit this time (any ideas why Sanford left it out? :)  ). But you tapdance around my question: Here, I'll help you.
                  This is what Crow says, and both you and Sanford keep ignoring:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, Crow is saying that his concerns come from the fact that natural selection does not work the way it used to in the human genome. Few could disagree with that; But it seems that many would be willing to twist his words into supporting that "all higher genomes are naturally headed for extinction- FAST" or something. Hmm.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, that's right.  100 generations IS fast.  How many years is that?  2500?  3000?  That's close anyway.  Think of that small number compared to your supposed 200,000 years that H. sapiens has supposedly been on earth.

                  Here's what you should glean from Crow ...

                  1) He implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors ... this is a shocking admission!
                  2) If our species is headed for mutational load troubles within the next 3000 years, then how in the world did we survive for the last 200,000? (Kondrashov's question paraphrased)

                  There is only one answer, friends.

                  We have NOT been around for 200,000 years ... in reality only about 6000.

                  Written history supports this.

                  Genome deterioration supports this.

                  When will you accept this?

                  ************************************************
                  CHRISTIANITY AND AMERICA
                  Carlson ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Until you are willing to tackle The Federalist, Locke, and other foundational documents, you aren't bringing enough to the table to hold my interest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did you get the erroneous notion that I would not be willing to tackle these documents?  Bring them on.  Everything is fair game.

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jeff Sharlet's article "Through a Glass Darkly" is now in Harper's Magazine on the newstands. I mentioned this earlier; it may shed some light on DaveThink, as it applies to American History. It's not available online yet, but I did find this excerpt:  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "The Christian nation of which the movement dreams, a government of those chosen by God but democratically elected by a people who freely accept His will as their own, is a far country.  The nation they seek does not, at the moment, exist; perhaps it could in the future.  More important to fundamentalism is the belief that it did exist in the American past, not in the history we learn in public school and from PBS and in newsmagazine cover stories on the Founders but in another story, one more biblical, one more mythic and more true.  Secularism hides this story, killed the Christian nation, and tried to dispose of the body.  Fundamentalism wants to resurrect it, and in doing so requires revision: fundamentalists, looking backward, see a different history, remade in the image of the seductive but strict logic of a prime mover that sets things in motion.  The cause behind every effect, says fundamentalist science, is God.  Even the inexorable facts of math are subject to His decrees, as explained in homeschooling texts such as Mathematics: Is God silent?  Two plus two is four because God says so.  If He chose, it could just as easily be five."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wild claims by Mr. Sharlet.  Can he back them up?  You wouldn't want to mislead people here with unsupported claims, would you?  Original sources from the era in question, please.  Footnotes from 20th century revisionists won't quite cut it for me, thanks.

                  Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?

                  ***********************************************

                  More on MacNeill, RM+NS, the Ames Test and the Primary Axiom tomorrow.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 07 2006,12:06

                  Speaking of the official statement of the (U)CG"H":

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans. Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws  prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm... interesting to juxtapose this with one of davy's favorite quote-mine victims:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I conclude that for a number of diseases the mutation rate increases with age and at a rate much faster than linear. This suggests that the greatest mutational health hazard in the human population at present is fertile old males. If males reproduced shortly after puberty ... the mutation rate could be greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 07 2006,12:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I challenge Incorygible and Russell to defend their analogy and show a convincing case that Team Random would EVER win a single game even after zillions of iterations.

                  I contend that they would not and could not.

                  It is my opinion that Dr. Durbin is teaching erroneous notions to his college students in the name of science.  Will he admit it and stop doing so?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It is my opinion, on the other hand, that you're a moron. Here's why.

                  I never told you what I use the chess analogy for, did I? You seem to be making a number of wild assumptions. Are you assuming that I'm telling students "evolution works exactly like a chess game!"? Are you assuming that, whatever I'm using it for, students don't know what an "analogy" is? Are you assuming that I teach anything "in the name of science"? I really wonder why you say such stupid things. Are you really that clueless, or are you just trying to live up to that "go forth and be annoying" commandment that seems to be a prominent feature of your translation of the bible?

                  Perhaps I should set the record straight.

                  "Biology actually is not a chess game. One of the key differences is that winning a chess game does not automatically increase the number of the the winning player's genomes. This leads to some important differences between chess and biology".



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Will someone please explain to me how [soft selection and synergistic epistasis] are anything different that Fancy Sounding Nonsense?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll make a deal with you. You tell me what you think these terms mean, and I'll try to help you. But these reading materials, being mainstream science, are a heck of a lot more available to you than your fringy RATE books are to me. I'm sure as he11 not going to be paying a bunch of charlatans for the privilege of reading crackpot science.
                  On another topic:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wild claims by Mr. Sharlet.  Can he back them up?  You wouldn't want to mislead people here with unsupported claims, would you?  Original sources from the era in question, please.  Footnotes from 20th century revisionists won't quite cut it for me, thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  As I said, I found that excerpt. The full article is available in Harper's Magazine, if you want to find the answers to your questions.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Is that a statement, or a question, or a typographical error?
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 07 2006,12:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey Dave, do you REALLY want to go there?  Because you have a track record of doing the same.
                  Hypocrite.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 07 2006,12:52

                  "Artificial Intelligence" means a lot of different things to different people. Like Wittgenstein said ...language is messy. Big deal. Yes, you can call Deep Blue an AI, and you can call your home computer an AI, too, or you can call an abacus "AI" if you want, or Babbage's calculator. Again, big deal. The point is that you are choosing a wider definition than I am, and Deep Blue was/is still nothing more than a bunch of processors hooked in parallel using a genetic algorithm that was inflexible enough to fail when Kasparov changed his approach.

                  If you want to call that AI, great, I don't care. The larger points are still valid; (1) you were told the analogy was imperfect (2) evolutionary theory incorporates ideas that are employed in genetic algorithms...such as selection for and against. This was the point of the analogy that you seem intent on dismissing via trivial objections.

                  It's a genetic algorithm, Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) If our species is headed for mutational load troubles within the next 3000 years, then how in the world did we survive for the last 200,000? (Kondrashov's question paraphrased)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, Dave, how did we? That IS the question, and given that you have not shown deep time to be wrong ---the question remains open.
                  Given that we know that all organisms, as Jeannot points out, not just species--have a billion-years-long history on this planet -- the issue is simply finding out what mechanisms mitigate mutation load.

                  Here's the crux of the matter...for you to claim you already HAVE the "correct" answer...requires that you show deep time invalid...and you have not done that, not with any method you have been presented with.

                  In fact, the best you can do is post up spurious "math" from cranks that say " IF WE ASSUME" and "PERHAPS" and "MAYBE"...while ignoring the fact that all the data is currently against them in regards to radiometric dating and astronomy and physics and geology. Maybe this will change, but it hasn't changed yet and I personally doubt it ever will. For carbon dating to be wrong, the carbon has to be in the atmosphere and no current data shows that it ever was in the amounts required by YECs. For all the various other georadiometric methods, you have to evoke "accellerated decay" which has never been shown to have a basis in fact. To wave away supernovae and distant aged stars and galaxies, you have to evoke other miracles...again, with no basis in fact.

                  The mere fact that you have NOT shown deep time to be invalid...means that it is logical to assume that the organisms alive on this planet have survived billions of years ...which in turn implies mechanisms for mitigating Kondrashov's "problem."

                  Until you deal with this chain of logic, you are not entitled to claim you have any YEC answer at all.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 07 2006,13:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  Deadman has tried to accuse me of dishonest quote mining in the past and he was soundly refuted on all but a very few which frankly, I didn't take the time to research and subsequently defend.  I will gladly retract those few.  The vast majority of my quotes have not been quote mines at all and many are defended here
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=35365 >
                  But let's not start another flame war here about that.  Deadman thinks I'm a quote miner.  I don't think I am. We will likely never agree.  Enough said.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This seems like an issue that can be empirically tested and probably should be. Accusations like these should end up with an inquiry, an apology and maybe a retraction or two. I get quote mines occasionally from people who want me to present data in one way or another and when I catch them at it, I unleash some serious whupass. They get a paper in a file in a computer somewhere in washington with a note that they have dishonestly tried to misrepresent official data. Hmmm. I wonder who reads those files? Anyway Dave, these are serious allegations involving intellectual honesty and have yes or no answers. I wouldn't accept deadman's accusations lightly with an "agree to disagree" toss off. Nothing other than plagerism or lying could hurt your credibility more. I encourage you to defend yourself vigorously in this regard.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here, I'll help you.
                  [snip]
                  Here's what you should glean from Crow ...
                  1) He implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors ... this is a shocking admission!
                  2) If our species is headed for mutational load troubles within the next 3000 years, then how in the world did we survive for the last 200,000? (Kondrashov's question paraphrased)

                  There is only one answer, friends.
                  We have NOT been around for 200,000 years ... in reality only about 6000.
                  Written history supports this.
                  Genome deterioration supports this.
                  When will you accept this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmm. The recent (100-300 years) development of technology that allows us to live outside the niche that we evolved to exploit somehow invalidates the fact that we are adapted to fit it? I think we could be sciency and use this data to make a new set of predictions regarding the future but I'm not sure how it relates to the past and the different conditions that existed. How does saying that environmental conditions have changed thus a species will change refute the idea of evolution?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CHRISTIANITY AND AMERICA
                  Carlson ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Until you are willing to tackle The Federalist, Locke, and other foundational documents, you aren't bringing enough to the table to hold my interest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did you get the erroneous notion that I would not be willing to tackle these documents?  Bring them on.  Everything is fair game.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < fabulous resource for historical documents regarding the founding of america. >

                  But this one seems especially relevant: < here >
                  Dave, I am throwing you a bone here. The document gives a clear though complex view of the Christianity of Madison. It includes the quote:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which would appear to support -Barton's- your hypothesis. Your hypothesis either does or does not include the definition of fundy as "believing in the divinity and ressurection of Jesus; believing a literal interpretation of genesis; and believing a literal interpretation of revelations"

                  If it does, you are wrong and I can demonstrate that. If it does not, you have no point and I can demonstrate that. Can we clarify?
                  Also, You are including this quote      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BWE ...
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... You are arguing that the US was founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  in your thesis but I need a more specific answer. Was the US founded on the notion that one group should be in control over others.. Not whether you think one group should be in control but whether that was a founding principle.

                  And you are right Dave, we shouldn't ridicule your typography or silly mistakes. It's just that you are sooooo arrogant that occasionally you elicit the smackdown response.

                  Intellectual honesty is the ONLY way to gain credibility in an academic format. You are not demonstrating the highest levels of such.  ???
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,14:01

                  Dave, you're making the same mistake every single creationist who's ever discussed evolutionary theory has ever made: you think that "random mutation" is the end of the evolutionary process. You've forgotten the other half of the theory entirely.

                  Deep Blue "learned" which moves work and which don't in the same way the evolution "learns": natural selection. Mutation is driven forward through the sieve of natural selection. I don't understand why you don't get this. It's a concept simple enough to be taught to a child. Actually, it's pretty clear why you don't get it: you can't get it, or your entire worldview comes tumbling down.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,14:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)

                  I responded as follows ...    For once, I like your analogy.  However, there are several things about the analogy to point out.

                  1) In chess, it is possible to achieve checkmate with only a few moves. Not so in biology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really, Dave? And you know this how? What, in the biological world, would you analogize to "checkmate"? Successful reproduction, perhaps? And what is a "few moves," in the biological world? This sounds like another one of those claims you've just yanked out of your ass.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) In spite of this, I would guess that no "Team Random" could ever win against a good computer chess program.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What does that have to do with biology, Dave? Only half of the "RM+NS" algorithm is random, as you so conveniently neglect to mention. Natural selection is far from random. "Team Random" provides only the seed for evolution, just as it does for a chess program. Bad moves get weeded out of a chess program by losing just as bad mutations get weeded out by natural selection. So where is this mythical problem you think you've found, Dave?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, there are many paths that "Team Random" could take, but there is no foresight, no knowledge of the game, no planning, no 'program strategies' (to use your words).

                  All that "Team Random" has is ... just random moves.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Completely untrue. Any "team random" chess game is going to learn through losing. Same as with evolution. Random mutations don't need any foresight, planning, knowledge of the game. Natural selection takes care of the bad moves, just as losing game after game takes care of the bad moves in a chess program.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Has anyone ever tested this computer simulation thing?  It should be fairly easy to set up I would think.  In fact, you could go through zillions of generations in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course it has, Dave. Are you familiar with the term "genetic algorithms"? They're used in circuit design, so I'd think you'd have some familiarity with the term.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If this were ever tested, my guess would be that the "Randoms" would NEVER win.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But it has been tested, Dave, and "randoms" (coupled with some sort of selection mechanism) do often "win." Genetic algorithms come up with circuit design that are like nothing humans would come up with, and often work better than human-derived designs.

                  Once again, your "intuition," your "guesses," lead you astray





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman jumped in and said I don't do my homework ... "Just look at Kasparov vs. Deep Blue!"

                  Of course, this is NOT the same thing for what should be a very obvious reason ...

                  Deep Blue used Artificial Intelligence ... "Team Random" does not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They both "learn" the same way, Dave: through failure. Deep Blu "learns" which moves suck, because they don't win games, and evolution "learns" which mutations suck, because they aren't adaptive. What's the difference between the two?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Again, I challenge Incorygible and Russell to defend their analogy and show a convincing case that Team Random would EVER win a single game even after zillions of iterations.

                  I contend that they would not and could not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wrong again, Dave. Do a google search on "genetic algorithm."





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NOTE:  Deadman made this statement ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deep Blue used brute force, Dave. Aspects allowed it to "learn" what moves were better as it selected out less favored moves. This doesn't constitute AI -- for example, Kasparov found that he could change HIS pattern of play and Deep Blue couldn't "learn" to adapt to it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and gave this link < http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/learn/html/e.html >.

                  One would think that this link is supposed to support his statement, but it does not ... here's what it says ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure, Deep Blue plays a mean game of chess. But what else can it do?

                  Deep Blue is at heart a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP-based computer system that was designed to play chess at the grandmaster level. But the underlying RS/6000 technology is being used to tackle complex "real world" problems like:

                     * Cleaning up toxic waste sites
                     * Forecasting the weather
                     * Modeling financial data
                     * Designing cars
                     * Developing innovative drug therapies

                  Not to mention running the occasional high-volume scalable WWW server like - you guessed it - this one.

                  Guest Essays
                  The end of an era, the beginning of another? HAL, Deep Blue and Kasparov :
                  by Dr. David G. Stork.From the Chief Scientist at Ricoh Silicon Valley, a paper that explores the relationship between humans and computers.

                  Quarantine :
                  by Arthur C.Clarke. In response to the challenge of creating a short story that to fit on the back of a postcard, the author of 2001 and 3001 came up with a mind-bender.

                  With Deep Blue technology, we all win :
                  By Dr. Mark F. Bregman.IBM's RS/6000 Division general manager discusses his thoughts about who ultimately benefits from the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue rematch.

                  History at the Chess Table :
                  by Monty Newborn. An exploration of the rematch's historical value from the Chairman of the ACM Chess Committee.

                  The Chess Mentality :
                  by William H. Calvin Calvin, a neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, delves into the cognition behind playing chess.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Toxic waste site cleaup?  Weather forecasting?  Modeling financial data?

                  How in the world does this link support your statement that Deep Blue does not use AI?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How do you support your statement that natural selection cannot "learn" in the same way that an AI program "learns"?

                  Once again, Dave, you're claiming that something is "impossible" without in any way demonstrating that it's impossible.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,14:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  We have NOT been around for 200,000 years ... in reality only about 6000.

                  Written history supports this.

                  Genome deterioration supports this.

                  When will you accept this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, your belief the the lifetime of the universe is coextensive with the existence of written language is definitely one of your dumber beliefs. As at least two people have pointed out to you in the last day, the evidence that the universe, and the earth, are billions of years old is unassailable, and you haven't made the tiniest scratch in the paint of that evidence.

                  In the meantime, you continue to avoid addressing the issue of how the explosive increase in biodiversity over the past 5,000 years required by your "hypothesis" squares with your claim that genomes are deteriorating.

                  I've asked you this question at least a dozen times, and will continue to ask it until you stop cowering and attempt an answer.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 07 2006,15:08

                  IT'S OFFICIAL: AFDAVE ADMITS NEVER HAVING READ KONDRASHOV'S PAPER
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  NOT CONVINCED I NEED TO SPEND $58 TO DISCERN KONDRASHOV'S MEANING
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ooooohkay dave. So, since you have NOT read what Kondrashov actually says, and only rely on the HIDEOUSLY BUTCHERED quote by Sanford (and don't tell me "I have no basis for saying so"- just LOOK at it, for crying out loud! ) Then kindly do so, or STFU. Because dismissing what a prominent scientist actually says, and relying on a creationist interpretation, is NOT how HONEST scientific debate is conducted.
                  Dave, the fact that you are too ignorant and uneducated to understand what Synergistic Epistasis MEANS, let alone conduct a coherent argument against it, does not make it "a fuzzy idea"; it just makes you look ignorant and uneducated.
                  If you want to assert that Kondrashov "scratches his head" on this, ans says "Fancy Sounding Nonsence" (a person who has a substantial record of research in deleterious mutations -it's his field, dave), then you have to use his actual words, not a second-hand creationist interpretation of them. You have to read about it YOURSELF. And actually ADDRESS IT.
                  If you really cannot understand how CRUCIAL this is in a honest debate around science, then I'm afraid there's really no hope for you.

                  THIS IS SO BEAUTIFUL, I'LL SAVE IT INTACT FOR PROSPERITY:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)

                  FAID IS NOT HAPPY WITH MY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROW PAPER

                  He says ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CROW: Also glad that you decided to include the "100 generations" bit this time (any ideas why Sanford left it out? :)  ). But you tapdance around my question: Here, I'll help you.
                  This is what Crow says, and both you and Sanford keep ignoring:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, Crow is saying that his concerns come from the fact that natural selection does not work the way it used to in the human genome. Few could disagree with that; But it seems that many would be willing to twist his words into supporting that "all higher genomes are naturally headed for extinction- FAST" or something. Hmm.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, that's right.  100 generations IS fast.  How many years is that?  2500?  3000?  That's close anyway.  Think of that small number compared to your supposed 200,000 years that H. sapiens has supposedly been on earth.

                  Here's what you should glean from Crow ...

                  1) He implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors ... this is a shocking admission!
                  2) If our species is headed for mutational load troubles within the next 3000 years, then how in the world did we survive for the last 200,000? (Kondrashov's question paraphrased)

                  There is only one answer, friends.

                  We have NOT been around for 200,000 years ... in reality only about 6000.

                  Written history supports this.

                  Genome deterioration supports this.

                  When will you accept this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Notice the context of my question to dave.

                  Notice what he is answering to.

                  :D

                  And, of course, completely ignoring me, he babbles on about how impossible it is that we are "genetically inferior" to our ancestors, or how we couldn't have survived for 200000 years" and so on, and so on. Life's easy when you ignore all the hard questions... :p

                  Dave, I could ask you why, always according to your and Sanford's "theory", the human race has not dwindled to a few scattered families of degenerate mutants by now...
                  ...But I won't give you an escape route this time. Answer my question, dave:

                  How do a scientist's concerns for the human genome pose a problem for the functionality of natural selection, when those concerns derive from the fact that natural selection does not work anymore for the human genome?

                  I wonder if you can even understand what I'm saying... Oh well. :)

                  DAVE'S QUOTE-MINING, OR "E'S NOT DEAD, E'S JUST RESTING -THERE, HE MOVED"

                  I'm glad you finally learned to use permalinks, dave. Now, let's see what this permalink of yours says about a little issue that concerns both of us...
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,02:46)
                  No quote mine.  Here is the full quote and it supports my point the same with or without the context ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Portuguese  Português.   Romance language spoken in Portugal, Brazil, and Portuguese colonial and formerly colonial territories. Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain, is a dialect of Portuguese. Written materials in Portuguese date from a property agreement of the late 12th century, and literary works appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries.
                  Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation within the country is not great, but Brazilian Portuguese varies from European Portuguese in several respects, including several sound changes and some differences in verb conjugation and syntax; for example, object pronouns occur before the verb in Brazilian Portuguese, as in Spanish, but after the verb in standard Portuguese. The four major dialect groups of Portuguese are Northern Portuguese, or Galician, Central Portuguese, Southern Portuguese (including the dialect of Lisbon), and Insular Portuguese (including Brazilian and Madeiran). Portuguese is often mutually intelligible with Spanish despite differences in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.
                  Portuguese language. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You gotta be fucking kidding me.  :O

                  Dave, EVERYONE can see in that quote that it has NOTHING to do with the HISTORY of Portuguese- it speaks of EXISTING PORTUGUESE DIALECTS, and about how the Lisbon one defines standard Portuguese.
                  You have deliberately snipped a single phrase from that ("Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon"). And presented it alone, implying that it refers to the ROOTS of Portuguese, and a supposed descent from an imaginary medieval dialect in Lisbon. As DISHONEST a quote mine as one can be.
                  I have been telling you this for MONTHS now. I had told you this many times after this post of yours, the last one being only a few weeks ago, as a matter of fact.
                  Do you deny this?
                  I have ALSO given you the link to what EB ACTUALLY says about the history of Portuguese- that it was developed into a separate language from Vulgar Latin, along with all other Romance languages, from the 5th to 9th century.
                  Do you deny this?
                  You have RUN AWAY from this EVERY TIME, completely refusing to address it.
                  Do you deny this?
                  Dave, this issue has been a monument to your insincerity so far. The fact that you have the nerve to still claim that you were right, pretending my posts don't exist, either implies that you are unbelievably stupid, or that you are entirely unfamilliar with the concept of honesty.
                  Frankly, I don't know which is worse.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 07 2006,15:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I've asked you this question at least a dozen times, and will continue to ask it until you stop cowering and attempt an answer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yep. This is precisely what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. I'm willing, you're willing, heck, everyone here is willing to answer Dave's questions, even those which require an answer of "I don't know" or " Yep, you're right"...

                  But Dave will not respond to anything difficult to his hypothesis, except as he did with "fossil assortment" and mobile mammals  "explaining" the ordered structure of the fossil record.

                  He pastes up an unsupported claim, then runs off when he is presented with all the same questions ABOUT this alleged explanation --he runs off, as quick as he can , to avoid any actual discussion of his fake "explanation."

                  Another illustration...in the last few days, I've asked Dave three separate times "if you are not dogmatically attached to the idea of the stars being 6000 years old, HOW do you explain their apparent ages? and no answer at all ...nor will I get one, I suppose.

                  Just as I will not get a response to the question I asked multiple times just in the last few pages: "How do you explain the Barringer meteor strike dated at 50 k years...penetrating the layers you claim were laid only 6000 years ago?"

                  Just as I don't ever expect Dave to respond to any difficult question in any meaningful way, except to post hit-and-run pastes from YEC sites and claim " that settles it."

                  Like I said, Dave...you bore me because you are so totally intellectually dishonest. I'm quite willing to say " I don't KNOW the PRECISE answer to Kondrashov" ( but then, I'm not a biologist, either) and yet ...you can't even give a coherent answer to direct questions. You're just playing games.

                  Feel free to claim to children  that you have the answer to Kondrashov...but to be intellectually consistent and honest, you'd better tell the same kids that you cannot say the Earth is 6000 years old at all. Because you have failed miserably in trying to show that...and in fact, you've only run from any real questioning of your claims.

                  Oh, and to your private message to me about taking up my questions later: I think you can answer things here, now, today (if only to say "I don't know") IF you were intellectually honest...but that's not the case, thus far.

                  Here's the current status of your claim about Kondrashov, Crow et al.: You are simply using a God of the Gaps ploy...but you have NOT been able to show an Old Earth view incorrect.

                  Furthermore..and here's the fun part -- even if, IF you were able to show this -- to claim that YOUR "answer" is the ONLY or even most likely answer would require you backing your claims by answering questions, as we have here....and you have failed to do.

                  Personally, as I have said before, I'm quite happy if you slime a trail on out of this forum and try to use this...the fake "math" you posted about radiocarbon dating, etc...that suits me just fine.

                  It's all easy to refute and **SOME** of  the kids you try to lie to will see that, eventually...placing you in the unenviable position of having used lies of omission and fallacies and rhetorical games...on little kids. All for a dogmatic, literalist, inerrantist, intellectually stunted Bronze-Age view of religion.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 07 2006,15:39

                  Because it's obvious you won't address issues and that this is simply an extended one-sided Q&A session, I'm not going to deal with you, Dave.

                  I despise the kind of dishonesty you wallow in and I'm unwilling to continue tutoring you in science.

                  I have better things to do, and I'll be happy if you try to use the claims you've pasted here. If/when you can answer the questions posed to you directly, honestly and in depth that counts, that may change, but for now, your Young Earth hypothesis has been decapitated by the evidence shown.

                  All of this one-sided discussion of mutation load is just the twitching of the corpse.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,15:41

                  Here's another question for you, Dave, that is directly on topic. So you can't dodge it by saying it's not on-topic.

                  You claim that the human genome is "degenerating" so quickly we should be heading for extinction after a hundred generations. Is the human genome somehow more prone to "degeneration" (despite the fact that humans have managed not to radiate into any new species in the last 5,000 years, while according to your "hypothesis" the average "kind" on the ark has radiated into a thousand species) than other large mammals?

                  A house-cat generation is approximately a year. So is a domestic dog. Most birds can reproduce after approximately a year. A hundred years after the "flood," shouldn't most of these species have been headed for extinction, according to your "hypothesis"? Doesn't this present a problem for your "hypothesis," in the form of yet another misprediction? If not, why not?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 07 2006,15:56

                  +1 for the times this has been pointed out to dave, Eric.

                  And remember: The smaller a population, the more prone it is to extinction due to mutational load... And them populations have a N of 2.

                  Any bets on whether dave will ever address this?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 07 2006,16:05

                  I'd personaly like to know what kind of a God would condemned all living beings to death.
                  What do you think Dave? Is it Sadism?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,16:18

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 07 2006,15:56)
                  +1 for the times this has been pointed out to dave, Eric.

                  And remember: The smaller a population, the more prone it is to extinction due to mutational load... And them populations have a N of 2.

                  Any bets on whether dave will ever address this?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which just points up how intellectually-dishonest Dave really is.

                  He's happy to swagger around with his quote-mines about perceived difficulties with evolutionary theory, while at the same time avoiding any discussion of the gigantic, looming difficulties for his own "hypothesis," which is contradicted by just about all the evidence from every branch of science there is.

                  I mean, when he can't even answer simple, basic questions like how the earth managed to get repopulated with millions of species of organisms after a slate-wiping catastrophe like a global flood, how seriously does he expect anyone to take him? When he cannot account for the universe being more than 12,000 light-years wide, i.e., smaller than the milky way galaxy, how seriously does he expect anyone to take him? When he can't even identify a source for the waters of his "flood," or a sink for them after the flood, how seriously does he expect anyone to take him? When he cannot even account for the existence of stars, how seriously does he expect anyone to take him?

                  I think it was Mike PSS who pointed out that the majority of Dave's problems arise from his insistence on this absurdly young age for the universe. If Dave at least accepted a universe a thousand times older than he claims to think it is, he'd have a much easier time here. But hey; it's his funeral.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 07 2006,16:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  THE CHESS ANALOGY IS BROKEN ... WILL OUR OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR ADMIT IT?

                  Incorygible has given us an analogy of evolution in which "Team Random" plays "Team Environment" in a chess game.  "Team Environment" gets to use intelligence.  "Team Random" does not ... only random moves are allowed.

                  Dr. Russell Durbin of Ohio State University has stated that he uses the "chess analogy" in his classes often.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell
                  Posts: 897 Joined: April 2005
                  Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:32  
                  ...
                  So it's not the "correct" pattern; it's the one that reproduces most efficiently - and that depends on the circumstances. (I like the chess analogy; I've always used it in teaching).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I responded as follows ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For once, I like your analogy.  However, there are several things about the analogy to point out.

                  1) In chess, it is possible to achieve checkmate with only a few moves. Not so in biology.
                  2) In spite of this, I would guess that no "Team Random" could ever win against a good computer chess program.

                  Yes, there are many paths that "Team Random" could take, but there is no foresight, no knowledge of the game, no planning, no 'program strategies' (to use your words).

                  All that "Team Random" has is ... just random moves.

                  Has anyone ever tested this computer simulation thing?  It should be fairly easy to set up I would think.  In fact, you could go through zillions of generations in a very short time.

                  If this were ever tested, my guess would be that the "Randoms" would NEVER win.  

                  But feel free to do the experiment and prove me wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... to which Russell and Incorygible have not responded.

                  Deadman jumped in and said I don't do my homework ... "Just look at Kasparov vs. Deep Blue!"

                  Of course, this is NOT the same thing for what should be a very obvious reason ...

                  Deep Blue used Artificial Intelligence ... "Team Random" does not.

                  Again, I challenge Incorygible and Russell to defend their analogy and show a convincing case that Team Random would EVER win a single game even after zillions of iterations.

                  I contend that they would not and could not.

                  It is my opinion that Dr. Durbin is teaching erroneous notions to his college students in the name of science.  Will he admit it and stop doing so?

                  *************************************************
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I have very little time to post this week, which is why I asked you to meditate on the analogy for a while. In the meantime, here are a few things to consider:

                  1. The purpose and real-life analogues of the analogy. I brought up the analogy as a direct, specific response to your assumption that there is only one 'perfect' design. I'll echo Russel's disclaimer, though it should not be necessary (especially since I telegraphed it in my original post): there are many, many important differences between biology and chess -- so many so that, if we are to use chess as an analogy for biology in any fashion whatsoever, we should only do so with clearly defined purpose and analogues. I'll try to address this a little further below.

                  1a. Above you state that "Team Environment" is "intelligent". Yes, in our analogy, perhaps (although I did specify that you were the opponent, so...), but did you even think about its real-life analogue? Or are you actually arguing that the environment -- by which we are referring to the events and forces that determine an organism's success or failure in survival and reproduction -- is "intelligent"? I know you are trying to work in the importance of "intelligence" in biology, but you can't do it here: you seem to be naively confusing purported intelligence in the analogue with intelligence in the real-world process it aims to represent, which even you would admit is not intelligent. (And before you make the argument that God is intelligently guiding the reproductive success of every organism on the planet, try to remember the whole "sin = shit happens and God allows it" thing, okay? Otherwise, your theology has bigger problems than evolution.)

                  1b. What exactly is the real-life analogue you are trying to suggest with "checkmate with only a few moves"? I don't understand your actual point here, so spell it out for me. But to pursue the analogy further than I would have liked, if you're talking about the complexity of the strategy employed, I would imagine that our biological analogue for the ol' "four-move mate" might be a virus. A simple strategy for evolutionary success that is absolutely dependent upon a favourable environment (e.g., host). Viruses can't do too well on their own, and no real chess player loses in four moves. The really simple parasites might be similar "gambit players" (although some parasites have an evolutionary complexity that would give Kasparov a run for his money).

                  2. You guess that 'Team Random', making a million random moves per turn with every game proceeding until checkmate would never beat you? Or at least, would never win against a good player? Er...okay...exactly how good is our "intelligent environment"? Because Dave, for any given turn there are far, far fewer legal moves than our million. If you're saying 'Team Random' couldn't win in a million games TOTAL, you're probably right (I've never played you). But every 'Random' who isn't mated on the previous move gets to make a million more its next turn. In other words, 'Team Random' has an astounding number of iterations. So, for a vanishingly small number of the total games played, winning is inevitable. And the numbers hardly need to be so obscene, but I was trying, unsuccessfully, to make it obvious to you that, despite your ego, you would lose more than a few games. For example, a hundred new moves per turn for each surviving 'random' player would also beat you more than a few times. (If you don't believe me, set up a board in whatever arrangement you wish and count the number of legal moves versus the number of "good" and "passable" and just plain "not immediately bad" moves (not to mention all the bad moves that don't result in immediate checkmate on the next turn and could potentially be atoned for). Then pick just ONE of those good or passable moves to keep things simple (before invoking intelligent selection, remember that EVERY unmated player gets to make a hundred more moves) and make your move in response. Then count up the number of possible moves from that new position vs. the hundred that will be made, and so on. Note that if you keep doing this, you'll likely get a decent chess game -- you'll probably end up playing yourself, which is perhaps the most obvious identifiable "decent" game among all the random ones -- and that's just ONE of the many, many good chess games, although these are just a tiny, tiny fraction of the bad games played by Team Random in the analogy.)

                  3. Yes, there is no planning, no knowledge, no foresight to the moves themselves. That's where selection comes in, killing off the vast majority of strategies with early mates. You can bet that, of the games that go more than fifty moves, all of 'Team Random's' surviving entries were decent enough strategies (and that's ignoring the ones that probably managed to mate you in less than fifty moves). Again, get a grip on the numbers here. At the fifty move mark, sure, the first million entries by Team Random are almost certainly done, and it's doubtful any managed to beat you. But by that time, we're up to a potential 1,000,000^50 games. Again, the number of a million was pulled out of my ass to slam home a mathematical point that was lost on you -- 100 random moves per turn for each player would more than suffice.

                  Anyhow, chess is a familiar yet complex enough game that we could run this analogy in so many different directions and make our heads spin. So let's summarize.

                  The point of the analogy, Dave, is the following:

                  [b]1. There is no one, perfectly designed solution, in chess or in life. There are many, many, many chess games that could beat you. If you looked at those winners overall, you would find that many of them are variations on a theme -- a general strategy, if you will. You might even classify them accordingly (e.g., winner a11111 made all the same moves as winner a111112 except for exchanging the order in which he advanced his pawns in one series of moves). Some of those ones that beat you could not beat another player of your calibre, and vice versa.

                  2. Given enough time and iterations, along with some mechanism of selection (which in real life is the environment, but in our analogy is the rules of the game and checkmate by an opponent: "intelligence" is a red herring), many, many, many of the possible solutions will be found.

                  3. Some of those solutions will be more complex than others. Whether or not those more complex solutions are better or not will depend on the opponent (i.e., the environment). (And in real-life, every organism is playing a different opponent.) Ever patiently established position on the board only to realize by mid-game that you probably could have won hours ago using that ol' 4-move mate? Bet you wished you were a "virus" instead of a "complex human" then, eh?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,16:41

                  This is an oldie but a goodie, Dave, and you would do well to ponder it a bit (assuming you ever do ponder anything), in the context of your confusion regarding the age of the universe:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Q: "I understand you claim to have written the works of Shakespeare."

                  A: "Yes, that is correct, I wrote the plays and my wife and I wrote the sonnets."

                  Q: "What year were you born?"

                  A: "1937."

                  Q: "You know that the plays of Shakespeare were performed in the reign of King James I, over 300 years before you were born?"

                  A: "Ah, that is where my claim falls to the ground. I was hoping you would not make that particular point."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  See where a little honesty will get you, Dave? Dignity in defeat, anyway.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 07 2006,16:58

                  Dave's arguments aren't dead, they're pinin' for the fjords.  :D
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 07 2006,17:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [7popes:] Hey Dave, do you REALLY want to go there?  Because you have a track record of doing the same.
                  Hypocrite.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave must be referring to my new "sig". Well, if if hurts your feelings, dave, perhaps I'll change it. When I get a moment.

                  Because, see, I'm not using it to be cruel. I'm using it because it is a humorous reminder (reminderer?) of how we need to be careful with words if we're accusing others of being illogical with words. This example is a sort of trivial emblem of your habit of shooting your mouth off without either doing the requisite background check, or even, it seems, reading what you've written. (Baboon dogs, anyone?)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,18:16

                  How's this, Dave? How about if I use my signature to ridicule my ideological opponents by pointing out their illogic?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 07 2006,18:33

                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 07 2006,18:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well Dave, what does it say about your character that you did the same to me?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 07 2006,18:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Ahem. >

                  Seems you weren't the only one, Seven Popes...

                  (also notice that Rilke's typo is obviously not a grammar flaw, just the slip of a key. Poor form, davesy.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 07 2006,19:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What is that parable about motes and beams, Dave?

                  And you might want to look at my signature before you reach for your bible.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 07 2006,19:44



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh well, then. If it doesn't hurt your feelings, I see no reason to change it. Because, as I pointed out, it does serve a purpose.

                  But please. Don't hold back. What questions does it raise in your mind about my character?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 08 2006,00:33

                  Team Intelligence can, for periods of time, in certain places, beat Team Random. Diflucan, for instance, plays for Team Intelligence, and it's currently kicking the ass of Yeast, which plays for Team Random. Vancomycin, of Team Intelligence, for a long time kicked the ass of powerful staph strains. But Team Random's Staph is starting to make a comeback.

                  The saddest thing about creationists is, they don't get to see the unexpected gorgeousness of evolution. Evolution is intellectually gorgeous, in the same way as a mechanical computing machine, or group theory.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 08 2006,00:38

                  AFDave has a similar problem to Paley though. When you try to create a model which is wrong a dozen different ways, it's hard to create anything even mildly interesting which conforms to any real fraction of the data.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 08 2006,02:32

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 07 2006,17:35)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [7popes:] Hey Dave, do you REALLY want to go there?  Because you have a track record of doing the same.
                  Hypocrite.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave must be referring to my new "sig". Well, if if hurts your feelings, dave, perhaps I'll change it. When I get a moment.

                  Because, see, I'm not using it to be cruel. I'm using it because it is a humorous reminder (reminderer?) of how we need to be careful with words if we're accusing others of being illogical with words. This example is a sort of trivial emblem of your habit of shooting your mouth off without either doing the requisite background check, or even, it seems, reading what you've written. (Baboon dogs, anyone?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heehee, baboon dogs.

                  It seems enquiring minds want to know just what these mysterious, mythical, fantabulous beasts are and how the breed is kept alive, compared to the merits of a new breed like the Labradoodle. We'll ignore all the other misinformation in your (in)famous dog post for now.

                  < http://www.googlefight.com/index.p....doodles >

                  Come on Davey,



                  Goliath NEEDS to know why AiG is so slow to respond on this subject.

                  Goliath would also like to know how his webbed toes, otter tail and abilty to point make him a degenerate mutant or demonstrate that all mutations involve a loss of information or are degenerative? He seems to think he's the bees knees of hunting dogs and I'd have to agree.

                  He's a pretty good companion in every other respect too Davey (he sheds a bit much but I forgive him for that since he's subjected to MY lighting schedule.)

                  Davey, don't prove you're the Mayor of Simpleton by failing to answer these simple questions

                  Thanks buddy.
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 08 2006,07:27

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 07 2006,15:41)
                  Here's another question for you, Dave, that is directly on topic. So you can't dodge it by saying it's not on-topic.

                  You claim that the human genome is "degenerating" so quickly we should be heading for extinction after a hundred generations. Is the human genome somehow more prone to "degeneration" (despite the fact that humans have managed not to radiate into any new species in the last 5,000 years, while according to your "hypothesis" the average "kind" on the ark has radiated into a thousand species) than other large mammals?

                  A house-cat generation is approximately a year. So is a domestic dog. Most birds can reproduce after approximately a year. A hundred years after the "flood," shouldn't most of these species have been headed for extinction, according to your "hypothesis"? Doesn't this present a problem for your "hypothesis," in the form of yet another misprediction? If not, why not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  "...Is the human genome somehow more prone to "degeneration" (despite the fact that humans have managed not to radiate into any new species in the last 5,000 years, while according to your "hypothesis" the average "kind" on the ark has radiated into a thousand species) than other large mammals?"

                  Eric, that's a fantastic point!  And, one I'd love to see a YEC answer with out giving away the fact they are full of shit.[B]

                  Well, Dave???
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 08 2006,08:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A hundred years after the "flood," shouldn't most of these species have been headed for extinction, according to your "hypothesis"? Doesn't this present a problem for your "hypothesis," in the form of yet another misprediction? If not, why not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  hypothesis? ......what hypothesis?

                  They don't need no steenking hypothesis.

                  Creationists don't actually have an hypothesis.

                  IF THEY HAD ONE  it would have been shot to pieces long ago.

                  All they can do is say evolution is wrong and hope no one pins them down.

                  It's the old whack a mole game, as long as you put your money in the slot, the machine will play forever.

                  Their endless equivocation relies TOTALLY on the theory of evolution....without it, they would have no argument.

                  There is not an instrument on the planet that could measure time, space or matter the way they define it.

                  Talk is cheap AFD and your talk is the cheapest, tackiest, imitation of science second only to Ken Ham who as an Australian I can safely say can be regarded as a "drongo" *

                  *In Australian slang, the word drongo is a synonym for a total loser or idiot.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 08 2006,11:41

                  "TEAM RANDOM" LOSES THE CHESS GAME EVERY TIME
                  I agree with Russell and Cory that the Chess Game Analogy is a good one.  I have read their comments quite thoroughly, but they do not change my contention that "Team Random" will never win.  And I do hope that Russell or Cory will explain to Eric and others that don't get it that Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms are not the same as Cory's "Team Random." Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms learn.  Team Random (and Natural Selection) do not.

                  The reason that Team Random (and Natural Selection) do not learn is because there is no intelligence by which they may learn.  Team Random can have as many random moves as we want it to have and it does not change the fact that nothing is learned by Team Random.  We could make every legal (and illegal) move a million times over and this fact does not change.  Just step through a scenario in your mind and you will see.  Let's say Team Random first moves the pawn in front of his queen.  Now it is the Environment's move and for the analogy's sake we are pretending that the Environment knows how to play chess.  So it decides upon an initial strategy and makes its opening move.  Now it is Team Random's move and remember ... it's random.  No vision to see a clear shot at the Queen.  No algorithms to evaluate possible series of moves.  Not even the intelligence to send that rook the full 8 spaces to make the kill.  Might fall short at 7 spaces.  Or 6.  Remember ... it's random.  Back to Mr. Environment.  He evaluates TR's move and acts accordingly.  And so on back and forth.  Can anyone here honestly say that Team Random has even the remotest chance of ever winning?  It is quite clear that it will not.  As I said, I would like to see this modeled to prove it once and for all.  Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms don't count.

                  Now chess is not really what we are interested in.  Biology is.  You brought chess up so I analyzed it and it is clear to me that to use this to teach college students how evolution works is misleading.  And Russell's contention that I don't know HOW he is using it to teach them doesn't help.  What is he teaching besides what has been stated here?  The only concepts that have been brought up as analogous are both misleading ...

                  1) If you say that there are multiple evolutionary paths to a particular organism just as there are multiple paths to chess victory, this is misleading because you do not know this to be true in biology.  It is conjecture.
                  2) If you say that Team Random will win occasionally, you speculate, because you have never observed this ocurring.  Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real random mutation we have are fruit flies.  And we all know their fates.

                  DEADMAN'S FLAWED LOGIC OF DEEP TIME
                  Deadman says ...

                  1) Deep Time is proven.  
                  2) Life exists.
                  3) Therefore it evolved because "Look, here we are."

                  Sorry, but this does not cut it.  The fact that a crime was committed (to use an analogy) does not prove the identity or the method of the criminal.

                  Further, even if Deep Time were proven, it would not follow that we evolved.  Why?  Because the genetic evidence shows that we are headed for extinction, not "upward evolution."  Kondrashov's question still haunts.  "Why have we not died 100 times over?"

                  Someone says "Oh, but that bad news is old news (Kondrashov 1995 and Crow 1997).  Haven't we solved it by now?"

                  No, we have not.  

                  1999.  WALKER/KEIGHTLEY'S DEGENERATION
                  A. Eyre-Walker and P. Keightley.  1999.  High genomic deleterious mutation rates in Hominids. Nature 397:344-347.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "...deleterious mutations rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive ...."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  2000.  NACHMAN AND CROWELL'S PARADOX
                  M.W. Nachman and S.L. Crowell. 2000.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.  Genetics 156:297-304.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The human diploid genome ... about 175 new mutations per generation.  The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.  If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction ... for U=3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain populationsize.  This assumes that all mortality is due to selection ... so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  2002.  KONDRASHOV'S NUMBERS
                  A.S. Kondrashov. 2002. Direct estimates of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases.  Human Mutation 21:12-27.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "...the total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100 ... at least 10% of these are deleterious ... analysis of human variability suggests that a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles ..."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sanford says in his book that    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me, by way of personal communication, that 100 was just a lower estimate, and that 300 is his upper estimate.  He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious.  This means that from his perspective "U" (deleterious mutations per person per generation) would be 30-90.  This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible." (p. 168)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I see no way that anyone with the slightest understanding of genetics can read these clear statements by prominent geneticists (of which Sanford himself is a highly successful one), the latest being written a mere 4 years ago, can possibly miss the clear messages that ...

                  1) The Higher Genomes are deteriorating.
                  2) The evidence weighs heavily that they have always been deteriorating
                  3) The inevitable end of genome deterioration is extinction of species
                  4) Natural selection can only delay the end, not prevent it

                  What are the logical conclusions from these powerful truths?

                  1) Genomes were better in the past, IOW less deteriorated.
                  2) The source of variation in species is not the very thing (mutations) that causes their deterioration in spite of Ayala's wishful thinking
                  3) Rather, the source of variation is stored genetic variation (Ayala)
                  4) If humanity is in danger of genetic meltdown within the next 3000 years, it could not have survived for 200,000 in the past.
                  5) Therefore, the accepted deep time scale for the human species is wrong.
                  6) This conclusion is further strengthened by examining the details of radiometric dating
                  7) It is further strengthened by the reality of a 6000 year timescale of written history
                  8) It is further strengthened by the oral and written traditions of numerous people groups all over the world, the most prominent of which are the Hebrew records known to the Western world as the Book of Genesis.
                  9) This enigmatic "stored genetic variation" as Ayala calls it, this pre-existing variability, had to come from somewhere.  If not from mutations, then where?
                  10) Ayala's "stored genetic variation" can only come from one place: Intelligence.

                  I think Genesis 1:1 could be restated to say ...

                  IN THE BEGINNING, INTELLIGENCE ...


                  ********************************************
                  OK ... HOW ABOUT OUR FRIEND THE AMES TEST
                  Remember that the Ames Test was given as a refutation of my statement that "mutations always degrade information."  It was shown to me--and I agree now--that mutations in bacteria can often be reverted, which to me means that they are restored to their correct patterns.  The concept of "correctness" is of course disputed by evolutionists and creationists, but that's OK.  We can at least agree that patterns can change, then change back again.

                  Now what does this mean to the overall debate?

                  It appears to mean nothing more than that bacteria can experience mutations which do not harm them.  In fact, a mutation that might be mildly deleterious can even be reversed and the mildly deleterious effect eliminated.  All well and good.

                  But does this mean that a bacterium can evolve new function?  No.  It does not.  In theory, of course, one could envision a series of small single nucleotide steps by which a bacterium could evolve a new function, but the reality is that the odds are so staggering as to defy all reason.  You have all seen the mathematical calculations.

                  A given protein for a new function might have a sequence snippet of ...

                  Seq 1:  ATGATCATGATCGGTA  

                  A new function might look like ...

                  Seq 2:  TGCTAGCTTTAGCGAT  

                  Notice that for Seq 1 to evolve into Seq 2, 14 of the 16 given positions need to change with the following strict constraints ...

                  1) There is only a 1 in 4 chance that the change will be "correct" for each position
                  2) The original function is lost at some point and the new function begins at some point in the evolution
                  3) The organism must survive with this lost function

                  Alice in Wonderland, my friends!  

                  If you choose to believe this is possible, then that's your decision.  If you live in America, we let people believe whatever they want to believe.  But please don't teach this stuff to children and college students at taxpayer expense.

                  Feel free to convince me otherwise though if you like.

                  ********************************************************

                  WHAT IS THE PRIMARY AXIOM?
                  It is a termed used by Dr. John Sanford to describe the standard answer to the origin of biological information.  The Primary Axiom is that Mutation combined with Selection have created all biological information.

                  THE PRIMARY AXIOM UNDERGIRDS THE MODERN SYNTHESIS OF ToE
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, e.g. by geographic barriers.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  WHAT DOES DR. ALLEN MACNEILL SAY ABOUT THE MODERN SYNTHESIS?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm
                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

                  This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centenial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

                  However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  [END HISTORY LESSON]

                  [BEGIN WISHFUL THINKING / CAR SALESMAN SPEECH]

                  But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... and ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!
                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 16, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So if the modern synthesis is dead, what is left in the "evolving synthesis"?

                  Chris Hyland gave 8 mechanisms none of which are convincing ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Chris Hyland

                  Posts: 560
                  Joined: Jan. 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2006,10:44  
                  Dave if you don't think any new mechanisms have been discovered since the development of the modern synthesis I suggest you check out some of these links.

                  Epigenetic Inheritance
                  Developmental Reprogramming
                  Gene Duplication
                  Genome Duplication
                  Genetic Drift
                  Exaptation
                  Developmental Plasticity
                  Mobile genetic elements
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I looked at each and commented on them shortly after his post.  You may want to go back to those pages and review my comments.

                  CAN SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS SAVE ToE? IT SURE IS INVOKED ALOT NOWADAYS.
                  What does the term even mean?  Best I can tell, it is typically defined as the interaction of two expressed genes which together enhance fitness more than they would individually.

                  Will Faid be happy with this definition?

                  EPISTASIS
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Epistasis
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  Epistasis takes place when the action of one gene is modified by one or more others that assort independently. (The two genes may be quite tightly linked, but their effects must reside at different loci in the genome). The gene whose phenotype is expressed is said to be epistatic, while the phenotype altered or suppressed is said to be hypostatic.

                  Examples of tightly linked genes having epistatic effects on fitness are found in supergenes and the human major histocompatibility complex genes. The effect can occur directly at the genomic level, where one gene could code for a protein preventing transcription of the other gene. Alternatively, the effect can occur at the phenotypic level. For example, the gene causing albinism would hide the gene controlling color of a person's hair. In another example, a gene coding for a widow's peak would be hidden by a gene causing baldness. Fitness epistasis (where the affected trait is fitness) is one cause of linkage disequilibrium.

                  Epistasis and genetic interaction refer to the same phenomenon; however, epistasis is widely used in population genetics and refers especially to the statistical properties of the phenomenon.

                  Studying genetic interactions can reveal gene function, the nature of the mutations, functional redundancy, and protein interactions. Because protein complexes are responsible for most biological functions, genetic interactions are a powerful tool.

                  [SEE LINK FOR DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS]

                  Diagram illustrating different relationships between numbers of mutations and fitness. Synergistic epistasis is the red line - each mutation has a disproportionately large effect on the organism's fitness. Antagonistic epistasis is the blue line. See Evolution of Sex

                  Two-locus epistatic interactions can be either synergistic (positive) or antagonistic (negative). In the example of a haploid organism with genotypes (at two loci) AB, Ab, aB and ab, we can think of the following trait values where higher values suggest greater expression of the characteristic (the exact values are simply given as examples):
                  AB Ab aB ab
                  No epistasis (additive across loci)   2 1 1 0
                  Synergistic epistasis 3 1 1 0
                  Antagonistic epistasis 1 1 1 0

                  Hence, we can classify thus:
                  Trait values Type of epistasis
                  AB = Ab + aB - ab   No epistasis, additive inheritance
                  AB > Ab + aB - ab   Synergistic epistasis
                  AB < Ab + aB - ab   Antagonistic epistasis

                  Understanding whether the majority of genetic interactions are synergistic or antagonistic will help solve such problems as the evolution of sex.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  SYNERGISTIC
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Synergy or synergism (from the Greek synergos meaning working together, circa 1660) refers to the phenomenon in which two or more discrete influences or agents acting together create an effect greater than that predicted by knowing only the separate effects of the individual agents. It is originally a scientific term. Often (but not always, see Toxicologic synergy, below) the prediction is the sum of the effects each is able to create independently. The opposite of synergy is antagonism, the phenomenon where two agents in combination have an overall effect which is less than that predicted from their individual effects. Synergism stems from the 1657 theological doctrine that humans will cooperate with the divine grace in regeneration. The term began to be used in the broader, non-theological, sense by 1925.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Sanford's jibing description of Synergistic Epistasis as "Interactive Interaction" is technically correct.  I am sure he is aware of how geneticists use the term, but I think he is just having a little fun here at what appears to be a desperate attempt to come up with some solution to save ToE in the face of the seemingly insurmountable problems of mutation accumulation.

                  SOFT SELECTION
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Under soft selection, the selective deaths are substituted for non-selective background mortality. If all the mortality suffered by a population was selective, evolution could proceed at an immense speed.
                  < http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley....ion.asp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ***********************************************

                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I never told you what I use the chess analogy for, did I? You seem to be making a number of wild assumptions. Are you assuming that I'm telling students "evolution works exactly like a chess game!"? Are you assuming that, whatever I'm using it for, students don't know what an "analogy" is? Are you assuming that I teach anything "in the name of science"? I really wonder why you say such stupid things. Are you really that clueless, or are you just trying to live up to that "go forth and be annoying" commandment that seems to be a prominent feature of your translation of the bible?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "No" to all except the one about "you are teaching in the name of science."  I think you are teaching evolution in the name of science.  I believe you should either stop calling it science or else continue, but teach other "non-science" also such as ID/Creationism.

                  *************************************************

                  AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION, CHAPTER 2

                  John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity. (John Adams, Works, Vol X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. OI-32)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  SUPREME COURT DECISION:  HOLY TRINITY VS. UNITED STATES (1892)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people ... This is a Christian nation.

                  There is no dissonance in these declarations.  There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.  These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic [legal, governmental] utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. ... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

                  (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 143 U.S. 457, 458 (1892), 465, 470, 471.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 08 2006,11:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real random mutation we have are fruit flies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The Hitler quote has a new challenger.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,12:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

                  Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

                  Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

                  The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

                  Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Would be the full context of that quote dave. You cannot go on at this point without answering the two questions I posed in my last post:

                  1)Does fundy mean believing in the divinity of christ, literal interpretations of genesis and revelations and the beliefe in Jesus's literal corperal ressurection?
                  2)Did the founders intend to create an America with 1 group in charge? (I.E. Fundy as defined above)

                  If the answer is no to either of the above questions, then I can demonstrate your logical error. If yes to both then I can demonstrate your factual and interpretive error. But, at this point there are plenty of quotes ou there to establish a general understanding among us. We are either quoting to prove or disprove those 2 statements or this is pointless and you are wrong and misguided.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  nothing is learned by Team Random
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong. Evolution is an emergent system. It discardes losing moves. It also retaines memory of winning moves. And for every move you get, evolution gets millions.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,12:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,11:41)
                  DEADMAN'S FLAWED LOGIC OF DEEP TIME
                  Deadman says ...

                  1) Deep Time is proven.  
                  2) Life exists.
                  3) Therefore it evolved because "Look, here we are."

                  Sorry, but this does not cut it.  The fact that a crime was committed (to use an analogy) does not prove the identity or the method of the criminal.

                  Further, even if Deep Time were proven, it would not follow that we evolved.  Why?  Because the genetic evidence shows that we are headed for extinction, not "upward evolution."  Kondrashov's question still haunts.  "Why have we not died 100 times over?"

                  Someone says "Oh, but that bad news is old news (Kondrashov 1995 and Crow 1997).  Haven't we solved it by now?"

                  No, we have not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, "Deep Time" is proven. It's proven beyond any possibility of rational doubt. Your doubts, and the doubts of young-earth creationists, are not rational doubts. The age of the observable universe and the age of the earth have been confirmed eight ways from Tuesday. The dates of each might ultimately vary by a few percent, max, but not by the six orders of magnitude your "hypothesis" requires.

                  So. We know how old the earth is. We know that life in general has existed on earth for close to four billion years, and we know that eukaryotic life has existed on earth for at least a billion years. Therefore, regardless of what you, or Dr. Kondrashov, may think, mechanisms are in place to prevent deleterious mutations from overwhelming eukaryotic genomes.

                  It may be true (or it may not be, and you sure as he11 don't know which) that mechanisms are currently known that prevent this hypothetical catastrophe. How do we know that? Because we know it's not happening. So there's no "haunting," Dave. There's wishful thinking on your part.

                  And, of course, you have completely failed even to acknowledge my question, Dave, which is fatal not only to your "hypothesis" in general, but also to your more specific "hypothesis" that genomes are deteriorating.

                  How can it be that the human genome is "degenerating," when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years, while according to your hypothesis, the other "kinds" on the ark have radiated into an average of a thousand species each?

                  Furthermore, why is it that organisms with much shorter generation times, on the order of a year or less, have not already gone extinct?


                  Until you can answer these questions, Dave, your claim that genomes are "degenerating" is a non-starter. It doesn't go anywhere.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 08 2006,12:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I see no way that anyone with the slightest understanding of genetics can read these clear statements by prominent geneticists (of which Sanford himself is a highly successful one), the latest being written a mere 4 years ago, can possibly miss the clear messages that ...

                  1) The Higher Genomes are deteriorating.
                  2) The evidence weighs heavily that they have always been deteriorating
                  3) The inevitable end of genome deterioration is extinction of species
                  4) Natural selection can only delay the end, not prevent it
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A. Who regards Sanford as a "highly successful prominent geneticist"? Is that how he describes himself? Granted, back before he went YEC he made some clever mechanical contributions. But has he ever claimed to be a theoretician, at all?
                  B. You yourself do not have the slightest understanding of genetics. Your having opinions about the groundedness - or lack thereof - of people who have studied it all their lives would be offensively arrogant, if it weren't so side-splittingly hilarious.
                  C. None of the theoretical geneticists are saying what you seem to think they're saying. Have you gotten around to actually reading* any of them, or are you still taking other YECs' word for it?

                  *Briefly recapping your definition of reading: first you claimed to have read Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Dawkins... but then it turned out you never read any book they'd actually written (have you ever got all the way through at least a magazine article by any of them?). Then you assured us you had read the Kimura article, even after we pointed out that we had reason to be skeptical. Your virtuoso performance demonstrating a perfect lack of understanding of that article was truly impressive.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think you are teaching evolution in the name of science.  I believe you should either stop calling it science or else continue, but teach other "non-science" also such as ID/Creationism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You believe a lot of strange, unsupportable, and just plain wrong things. Fortunately, what you believe has no relevance to the progress or teaching of science, and there's absolutely no reason anyone should pay the slightest attention.

                  On Synergistic Epistasis, by the way, I believe that you managed to uphold your remarkable track-record by getting it 180° wrong.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,12:24

                  And Dave, the longer you ignore these absolutely critical questions about flaws in your "hypothesis," the less credibility you have.

                  Not that you have any credibility anyway.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 08 2006,12:36

                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real random mutation we have are fruit flies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Whoops!  What I meant to say was "Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real [upward evolution by] random mutation we have are fruit flies."  (Trying to point out, rather ineptly I might add, that they tried to speed up evolution on fruit flies and look what happened.)  Whew!  Gotta proofread better!

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can it be that the human genome is "degenerating," when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years, while according to your hypothesis, the other "kinds" on the ark have radiated into an average of a thousand species each?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not even going to address this until you limit the question to the kinds we know for certain had to be on the ark.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Furthermore, why is it that organisms with much shorter generation times, on the order of a year or less, have not already gone extinct?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Have not many gone extinct already?

                  Eric ... even if Deep Time were proven, which is impossible, you still have an insurmountable problem in genetic deterioration.

                  BWE ... I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth ... how does the balance of the quote change anything?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)Does fundy mean believing in the divinity of christ, literal interpretations of genesis and revelations and the beliefe in Jesus's literal corperal ressurection?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is probably a very common modern definition.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)Did the founders intend to create an America with 1 group in charge? (I.E. Fundy as defined above)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not sure about the extent of belief in those particular items in the Founders.  The Founders were composed of men who in general believed in and supported and encouraged the General Principles of Christianity.  In that sense, they were "Fundies."  I believe most of them were YECs also, as was Isaac Newton and most of the founders of modern science.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 08 2006,12:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Whoops!  What I meant to say was "Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real [upward evolution by] random mutation we have are fruit flies."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's still just as ridiculous.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Dec. 08 2006,13:13

                  Well, antiFactDave, the Bible is your book, and inerrant according to you.
                  So why don't you tell us just which "kinds" were represented on the Ark?
                  And for bonus credit,  how many of each?
                  I've even included below the relevant reference points -- surely you can tell us which of these verses is correct, and from that, which "kinds" and how many were present on the Ark.

                  GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

                  GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
                  GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,13:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)


                  BWE ... I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth ... how does the balance of the quote change anything?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  it says the exact opposite of what it meant in your truncated version and what it is you are trying to prove (I think). Unless you are using xianity in the same way Adams did in that letter. In which case I wholeheartedly agree with you. But then your answers to the following questions are both no. Plain and simple. No. Are they? I still don't get your answers. They are yes or no questions and they relate directly to your hypothesis.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1)Does fundy mean believing in the divinity of christ, literal interpretations of genesis and revelations and the beliefe in Jesus's literal corperal ressurection?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is probably a very common modern definition. Yes?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)Did the founders intend to create an America with 1 group in charge? (I.E. Fundy as defined above)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not sure about the extent of belief in those particular items in the Founders.  The Founders were composed of men who in general believed in and supported and encouraged the General Principles of Christianity.  In that sense, they were "Fundies."  I believe most of them were YECs also, as was Isaac Newton and most of the founders of modern science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Founders of modern Science:
                     * Norman Borlaug
                     * Francis Crick
                     * Richard Dawkins
                     * Theodosius Dobzhansky
                     * Paul Ehrlich
                     * Jane Goodall
                     * Stephen Jay Gould
                     * Konrad Lorenz
                     * Bronis&#322;aw Malinowski
                     * Ernst Mayr
                     * John Maynard Smith
                     * Albert Szent-Györgyi
                     * James Watson

                  Chemistry

                     * Elias Corey
                     * Maria Sk&#322;odowska-Curie
                     * Pierre Curie
                     * Albert Hofmann
                     * Fritz Haber
                     * Irving Langmuir
                     * Luis E. Miramontes
                     * Linus Pauling
                     * Ernest Rutherford

                  Computer Science

                     * John Backus
                     * Tim Berners-Lee
                     * E. F. (Ted) Codd
                     * Edsger Dijkstra
                     * William Gates III
                     * Grace Murray Hopper
                     * Donald Knuth
                     * John von Neumann
                     * Claude Shannon
                     * Richard Matthew Stallman
                     * Linus Torvalds
                     * Alan Turing
                     * Niklaus Wirth

                  Mathematics

                     * Nicolas Bourbaki
                     * Alonzo Church
                     * John Conway
                     * Paul Erd&#337;s
                     * Kurt Gödel
                     * G. H. Hardy
                     * David Hilbert
                     * Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov
                     * Hendrik Lorentz
                     * John von Neumann
                     * Henri Poincare
                     * Marian Rejewski
                     * Bertrand Russell
                     * Srinivasa Ramanujan
                     * Jean-Pierre Serre
                     * Alan Turing
                     * André Weil

                  Medicine and Pharmacy

                     * Carl Djerassi
                     * Alexander Fleming
                     * Howard Walter Florey
                     * Ma Haide (George Hatem)
                     * Jonas Salk

                  Physics and Astronomy

                     * Niels Bohr
                     * Paul Dirac
                     * Freeman Dyson
                     * Albert Einstein
                     * Enrico Fermi
                     * Richard Feynman
                     * Stephen Hawking
                     * Werner Karl Heisenberg
                     * Edwin Hubble
                     * Lev Davidovich Landau
                     * Wolfgang Pauli
                     * Max Planck
                     * Carl Sagan
                     * Erwin Schrödinger
                     * J.J. Thomson

                  Psychology and Psychoanalysis

                     * Aaron T. Beck
                     * Albert Ellis
                     * Hans Eysenck
                     * Sigmund Freud
                     * Carl Jung
                     * Alfred Kinsey
                     * Melanie Klein
                     * Jacques Lacan
                     * Stanley Milgram
                     * Ivan Pavlov
                     * Jean Piaget
                     * B.F. Skinner
                     * Lev Vygotsky
                     * John B. Watson
                  Which ones were fundy again?


                  If I didn't think you were honestly confused, I might suspect the quote of being mined. I mean, your quote says almost 180 degrees from the whole thing. He is actually using the letter to define the general principles of xianity as being the cultural background of western europe. Quite specifically pointing out that it is not the ideas of ANY specific interpretations or sects which constitute the general principles. He is eliminating your hypothesis I think. Maybe not. Maybe you are simply claiming that the universe is big and awesome and spirit is detectable through our sense of reverence and wonder and that holy texts are simply documents written by people and that the cultural heritage of western europe and the enlightenment was the heritage the founders drew upon. Is that the case? If so, why are you hung up on the idea of this silly tribal god you've adopted and nurtured?
                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 08 2006,13:30

                  Re "when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years,"

                  Hey, maybe the other species of primates are the radiated humans? ;) :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,13:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can it be that the human genome is "degenerating," when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years, while according to your hypothesis, the other "kinds" on the ark have radiated into an average of a thousand species each?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not even going to address this until you limit the question to the kinds we know for certain had to be on the ark.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I am limiting my question to the kinds we know for certain had to be on the ark! Which ones didn't have to be on the ark? Since you simply will not answer whether the "floodwaters" were freshwater or saltwater, we have no way of knowing exactly which ones were on the ark until you tell us which one you think it is!

                  So Dave, since this is your hypothesis, why don't you favor us with a list of those organisms you think could have survived a year's inundation with a mile-thick layer of water, fresh or salt, whichever it was, and that therefore didn't need to be on the ark to have survived the flood?

                  And once you favor us with an estimate within an order of magnitude of how many "kinds" were even on the ark, then we can come up with some estimate of how wrong your "hypothesis" is. You know, the one that's somehow supposed to be a "better" explanation of observation than the standard theories?

                  But you don't need to know the answers to any of these questions to answer my second question: how is that organisms with a generation time of a year or less are not yet extinct? Your own "hypothesis" predicts that they should all be extinct by now, and yet they are not. In fact, no matter how many "kinds" there were on the ark, it's inarguable that there is more biodiversity now than there would have been at the end of the flood! You yourself have claimed that biodiversity has increased!

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Furthermore, why is it that organisms with much shorter generation times, on the order of a year or less, have not already gone extinct?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Have not many gone extinct already?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You forgot the other question I've been asking you for weeks, and which I finally just put in my signature: sure, 99% of everything that's ever lived has gone extinct, Dave, but where's your evidence that biodiversity is decreasing? Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing! But at the same time it predicts it should be decreasing!

                  See, that's a hint, Dave. When a hypothesis makes two mutually-contradictory predictions, that's usually a sign of a fatal flaw in a hypothesis. I've pointed that out to you repeatedly with your own "hypothesis," but somehow it never sinks in with you.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... even if Deep Time were proven, which is impossible, you still have an insurmountable problem in genetic deterioration.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can we not quibble over the distinction between "proven" and "established beyond all possibility of rational doubt"? Because the age of the earth has been established beyond all possibility of rational doubt, Dave. Therefore, there is no insurmountable problem in genetic deterioration. Regardless of whether we know what prevents them from deteriorating (and the short answer is, of course, natural selection), we know that they are not, in fact, degenerating. You think they are, but what you're missing in all your quote-mines is that some models predict they should be deteriorating, but you don't have any evidence that they actually are deteriorating. For one thing, you might have missed all the articles about < Neanderthal DNA > about 29,000 years old that doesn't show evidence of degeneration of modern genomes. Furthermore, you're still not answering the question of why organisms with short generation times are not all extinct, regardless of who was or wasn't on the ark.

                  And one more point, Dave: how many times are you going to be need to be told that there is no such thing as "upward evolution"?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,13:38

                  Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 08 2006,13:30)
                  Re "when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years,"

                  Hey, maybe the other species of primates are the radiated humans? ;) :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  We could scientifically test your theory by looking for references to chimps and other great apes in the bible. If they aren't there, then this is very good evidence for your theory. I don't know about gibbons and etc though. That's stretching things a bit.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 08 2006,13:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Founders of modern Science:
                  *Norman Borlaug
                  *etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What? No Aristotle? No Galen? No Eratosthenes? No Archimedes?  
                  Who are all these punks?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,13:47

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 08 2006,13:43)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Founders of modern Science:
                  *Norman Borlaug
                  *etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What? No Aristotle? No Galen? No Eratosthenes? No Archimedes?  
                  Who are all these punks?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  My emphasis.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 08 2006,13:58

                  Russell--    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A. Who regards Sanford as a "highly successful prominent geneticist"? Is that how he describes himself? Granted, back before he went YEC he made some clever mechanical contributions. But has he ever claimed to be a theoretician, at all?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You don't think Cornell is prominent?  He invented the "gene gun" and is responsible for most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today.  Would you not be wise to at least consider what he has to say?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  B. You yourself do not have the slightest understanding of genetics. Your having opinions about the groundedness - or lack thereof - of people who have studied it all their lives would be offensively arrogant, if it weren't so side-splittingly hilarious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I disagree with your first statement.  I could cite many things ... like how I knew eye color is not controlled by different alleles of the same gene (someone here thought that), how I understand (like Ayala) that genetic variability can be achieved rapidly through stored genetic variation, whereas others here think it is caused by mutation and requires millions of years. I make no judgment on their groundedness.  I simply point out their clear statements.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  C. None of the theoretical geneticists are saying what you seem to think they're saying. Have you gotten around to actually reading* any of them, or are you still taking other YECs' word for it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes completely, except for the Kondrashov.  Tell me ... how am I missing the boat on Crow and his implication that we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors?  Which part of 'bomb with a long fuse' am I misinterpreting?  You're right ... Kimura's paper is a model ... but are you telling me that you wouldn't need a microscope to see the beneficial mutations on his chart if he had put them there?  Are you telling me I am misconstruing Kondrashov even after I showed that his abstract supports my snippet.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  *Briefly recapping your definition of reading: first you claimed to have read Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Dawkins... but then it turned out you never read any book they'd actually written (have you ever got all the way through at least a magazine article by any of them?). Then you assured us you had read the Kimura article, even after we pointed out that we had reason to be skeptical. Your virtuoso performance demonstrating a perfect lack of understanding of that article was truly impressive.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have never ridiculed you for not reading Henry Morris or other YECs in total.  I know you couldn't stomach it and that's fine because I can give you snippets.  I feel the same way about ToE writers and you can feel quite free to give me your choice snippets as well.  Fair, don't you think?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You believe a lot of strange, unsupportable, and just plain wrong things. Fortunately, what you believe has no relevance to the progress or teaching of science, and there's absolutely no reason anyone should pay the slightest attention.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would like you to demonstrate what wrong things I believe and why in detail.  This is what debate is all about.  I am doing you the courtesy of telling you in detail why I think you are wrong, not just saying "You're wrong!"  I think you should do the same.  Maybe start with Crow?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On Synergistic Epistasis, by the way, I believe that you managed to uphold your remarkable track-record by getting it 180° wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How's that?

                  And what about your chess model?  Are you just going to keep teaching it to students without answering the challenges for why it appears to be misleading?

                  And how does the fact that Ames test showed us reversion in bacteria help the big ToE picture?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,14:01

                  Russell,
                  Curious, have you met or corresponded with any of those on the list? There is a commonality to them. I turned off the link before I could post it and I'm too lazy to get it back.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,14:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,13:58)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  B. You yourself do not have the slightest understanding of genetics. Your having opinions about the groundedness - or lack thereof - of people who have studied it all their lives would be offensively arrogant, if it weren't so side-splittingly hilarious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I disagree with your first statement.  I could cite many things ... like how I knew eye color is not controlled by different alleles of the same gene (someone here thought that), how I understand (like Ayala) that genetic variability can be achieved rapidly through stored genetic variation, whereas others here think it is caused by mutation and requires millions of years. I make no judgment on their groundedness.  I simply point out their clear statements.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you didn't even know what an allele was until a few weeks ago. You think you can go head to head with people who have studied it for a career? And your continued misinterpretation of the geneticists you have posted quote-mines from gives us further evidence of your abysmal ignorance.

                  Genetic variability cannot be achieved rapidly through stored genetic variation under your "hypothesis," Dave, since you annihilated all that genetic variation with your ark. Don't you remember that part of this thread? Two organisms, four alleles. Seven organisms, fourteen alleles. Eight organisms, sixteen alleles. Those are all maximum theoretical figures. So where does your "stored genetic variation" come from, genius?

                  Edit: and besides, what does this mean: "genetic variability can be achieved rapidly through stored genetic variation"? Genetic variation can be achieved through stored genetic variation? That's a loop of circular logic so tight it's undergone gravitational collapse and left the universe entirely.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 08 2006,14:12

                  Reading material on the issues discussed:

                  Adam Eyre-Walker's work is available in PDF form at < http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/CSE....ete.htm >

                  Or see: Eyre-Walker, A. and Keightley, P. D.(1999) Terumi Mukai and the Riddle of Deleterious Mutation Rates < http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/153/2/515 >

                  Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD (1999) High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids. Nature 397: 344-347 < http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/CSE....e99.pdf >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Deleterious Amino Acid Mutations in Humans
                  Adam Eyre-Walker*,,1, Megan Woolfit and Ted Phelps Genetics, Vol. 173, 891-900, June 2006, Copyright © 2006
                  doi:10.1534/genetics.106.057570 < http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/173/2/891 >
                  1 Corresponding author: School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QG, United Kingdom.
                  E-mail: a.c.eyre-walker@sussex.ac.uk
                  The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is a fundamental parameter in genetics. Here we present a new method by which the distribution can be estimated. The method is fairly robust to changes in population size and admixture, and it can be corrected for any residual effects if a model of the demography is available. We apply the method to extensively sampled single-nucleotide polymorphism data from humans and estimate the distribution of fitness effects for amino acid changing mutations. We show that a gamma distribution with a shape parameter of 0.23 provides a good fit to the data and we estimate that >50% of mutations are likely to have mild effects, such that they reduce fitness by between one one-thousandth and one-tenth. We also infer that <15% of new mutations are likely to have strongly deleterious effects. We estimate that on average a nonsynonymous mutation reduces fitness by a few percent and that the average strength of selection acting against a nonsynonymous polymorphism is ~9 x 10-5. We argue that the relaxation of natural selection due to modern medicine and reduced variance in family size is not likely to lead to a rapid decline in genetic quality, but that it will be very difficult to locate most of the genes involved in complex genetic diseases.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Kryukov, Gregory V, Steffen Schmidt and Shamil Sunyaev (2005). Human Molecular Genetics.  14(15):2221-2229. Offer a discussion of synergistic epistasis and human mutation load. Available at : < http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/15/2221 > (also check links below article for full text versions of other related work)

                  Basically, in all such studies the authors are arguing that BECAUSE natural selection is NOT operating on humans as it had in the past ( selecting out deleterious mutations that are now conserved due to medical advances, etc.) ...that mutation load may pose some potential threat.

                  Any speculations about comparing current and ancient human populations should take this into account, but of course, Dave won't bother with that, nor with the gaping holes in his sieve of a claim. Ancient populations would have had people culled out that now survive...big deal. This may pose a problem for the future, but it says nothing of the sort that Dave wants it to say about the past.

                  Dave takes the current situation and says " see...this means humans couldn't have lived 200,000 years ago." while ignoring that the whole scenario TODAY is based on HUMANS thwarting natural selectionUNLIKE ANY OTHER TIME IN THE PAST.

                  The problem is certainly interesting and involves looking at mutation rates...what proportions are highly/slightly deleterious...what the plateau is for mutation load "collapse"...how mutations can interact to bring about the demise of an organism, etc. All very interesting and all a fine "God of the Gaps" opportunity for ethics-challenged creationists...no surprise, they rush right into that gap, like the Charge of the Light-Headed Brigade. Cardigan sweater, anyone?

                  And no, Dave, this post is not intended for you. You don't have a hypothesis.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 08 2006,14:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Close, but not correct.  Can you guess again?  Outta time today, but I'll give you the answer tomorrow, unless you think of it first.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you didn't even know what an allele was until a few weeks ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Agreed.  I am learning too.  No question.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You think you can go head to head with people who have studied it for a career?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Only in certain limited areas, i.e. the ones we are discussing.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,14:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:15)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Close, but not correct.  Can you guess again?  Outta time today, but I'll give you the answer tomorrow, unless you think of it first.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you didn't even know what an allele was until a few weeks ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Agreed.  I am learning too.  No question.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You think you can go head to head with people who have studied it for a career?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Only in certain limited areas, i.e. the ones we are discussing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,14:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:15)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Close, but not correct.  Can you guess again?  Outta time today, but I'll give you the answer tomorrow, unless you think of it first.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Or even worse, that it was increasing in the past, and then stopped. Worse for two reasons: 1) the mutation rates must have been even more lethally high than they would be if biodiversity were increasing at a steady rate throughout the last 5,000 years; and 2) what possible mechanism caused biodiversity to stop increasing? Couldn't be the onset of degeneration, because we would expect to see the decline in biodiversity that your "hypothesis" also predicts, and we see no such decline.

                  But thanks for running out of time on a question I've been asking you for weeks now. A question the answer to which is utterly critical for your "hypothesis," and has been directly on-topic for at least the last two months.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you didn't even know what an allele was until a few weeks ago.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Agreed.  I am learning too.  No question.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You think you can go head to head with people who have studied it for a career?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Only in certain limited areas, i.e. the ones we are discussing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Dave, if you didn't know until a few weeks ago what an allele was, you can't even begin to keep up with the people on this thread when it comes to genetics. You don't even know the fundamentals; how are you ever going to figure out the complicated stuff that you self-admittedly skim when you get to it, anyway?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 08 2006,14:30

                  My nomination for the "So stupid and deceitful it makes your jaw drop" statement of the week:

                       
                  Quote (AFDave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)
                     
                  I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth...how does the balance of the quote change anything?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So when Liar Dave (or his AIG buddies) dishonestly give only part of a quote out of context which totally changes the author's meaning, he's only doing it to save bandwidth.  :O

                  You can't make this sh*t up folks, you just can't.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 08 2006,14:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,11:41)
                  "TEAM RANDOM" LOSES THE CHESS GAME EVERY TIME
                  I agree with Russell and Cory that the Chess Game Analogy is a good one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You like the analogy only because you get it completely wrong.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have read their comments quite thoroughly,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And yet you seem to have missed most of them completely.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but they do not change my contention that "Team Random" will never win.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No doubt nothing will, so I will go back to laughing quietly at you. Your contention, while unchanging, is simply wrong, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see. Under the conditions I specified (a million -- or even a hundred -- random moves per turn for every surviving or un-mated "Team Random" player) , it is inevitable that more than few "Team Random" strategies will win, though a much, much larger percentage will lose.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I do hope that Russell or Cory will explain to Eric and others that don't get it that Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms are not the same as Cory's "Team Random."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It won't be me explaining this. See if you can guess why.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms learn.  Team Random (and Natural Selection) do not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, Team Random does not "learn". So?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The reason that Team Random (and Natural Selection) do not learn is because there is no intelligence by which they may learn.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Again, so? You seem to be, rather unsurprisingly, assuming what you are trying to prove. Selection does not require intelligence, Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Team Random can have as many random moves as we want it to have and it does not change the fact that nothing is learned by Team Random.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Okay, again, nothing is "learned". So what? Some still pull off checkmate without planning, thinking, learning or any of that stuff you think is so important.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We could make every legal (and illegal) move a million times over and this fact does not change.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Gotcha. No learning. Again, so what? DNA doesn't "learn" anything either -- or are you arguing that it's "intelligent" and does? Now, what about checkmating (that's what counts)? You said 'Team Random' could never win. Exactly how do you figure that making "every legal (and illegal) move" a million times over does not include any of the many ones that would checkmate you, Dave? Have you even thought about what you're saying?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just step through a scenario in your mind and you will see.  Let's say Team Random first moves the pawn in front of his queen.  Now it is the Environment's move and for the analogy's sake we are pretending that the Environment knows how to play chess.  So it decides upon an initial strategy and makes its opening move.  Now it is Team Random's move and remember ... it's random.  No vision to see a clear shot at the Queen.  No algorithms to evaluate possible series of moves.  Not even the intelligence to send that rook the full 8 spaces to make the kill.  Might fall short at 7 spaces.  Or 6.  Remember ... it's random.  Back to Mr. Environment.  He evaluates TR's move and acts accordingly.  And so on back and forth.  Can anyone here honestly say that Team Random has even the remotest chance of ever winning?  It is quite clear that it will not.  As I said, I would like to see this modeled to prove it once and for all.  Deep Blue and Genetic Algorithms don't count.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I thought you read my comments carefully, Dave? The opening pawn move is one of the million (or a hundred, take your pick -- let's go with a hundred) that Team Random gets to make. The Environment makes its move in response to all hundred moves by Team Random. Assuming no Random player is mated, each of the hundred Random players gets to make a hundred more moves. One of them is almost certainly the rook-queen capture (the only exception would be a very open board to allow more than a hundred legal moves). So let's say in just one of the hundred Random moves after the first (or one of the 10,000 - 100X100 - if the opening pawn move was not necessary for the queen capture), Environment loses its queen. In this one game, it makes a move to compensate. Now Random has 100 new (random) moves to begin going in for the kill on the queenless Environment. By the second move after capturing the queen, it has 10,000. By the third move after the capture, 1,000,000... And so on. Remember that these are just the "Random" players that were fortuitous enough to capture Environment's queen. You don't think if we progress like this that one of them is going to mate the opponent? Can you honestly say that it is not inevitable? Do you really think this needs to be modeled before you admit your not the "remotest chance of winning" is completely, utterly wrong? If so, you're even more innumerate -- or at least even more incapable of relating math to the scenario being defined -- than I thought (which is impressive, considering your prior gaffes). 1% anybody?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now chess is not really what we are interested in.  Biology is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Agreed.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You brought chess up so I analyzed it
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's what constitutes "analysis" in your books? Wow. I notice that, in all of this, you have not addressed the main reason I suggested the analogy (many potential winning strategies, but no one "perfect" strategy). In fact, you go on to continue using "correctness" as though there was only one "correct" strategy in the next section of your post (which I won't bother to reply to).

                  Furthermore, you have not answered our questions about what the #### you were talking about with your "mate in a short number of moves" question, which you believe "broke" the analogy. Dave, an analogy is not "broken" simply by pointing out any difference between the analogue and that which it represents (it's an analogy, dumbass -- of course there will be differences). If it was, I could respond to a certain silly animation I once saw with the reply that its analogy was "broken" because I don't have "Timex", "Rolex", "Quartz" or anything else stamped anywhere on my body! To "break" an analogy, you have to present and support a difference that is relevant to the point being made by the analogy. For example, watches don't reproduce themselves with slight modification. Are you really this dense?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and it is clear to me that to use this to teach college students how evolution works is misleading.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, apparently you are -- and brash, to boot. Dave, college students learn how evolution actually works. They get tough courses in the biological reality. An analogy is only helpful for those who have demonstrated that they cannot digest the actuality. You, on the other hand, demonstrate a failure to understand either. Which is why I'm giving up on you. You simply cannot or will not learn. Not my problem anymore.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Russell's contention that I don't know HOW he is using it to teach them doesn't help.  What is he teaching besides what has been stated here?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Actual evolutionary biology, I would guess. Or are you really going to contend that Russell (and presumably myself) do not have the necessary education and qualification in the disciplines we teach?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The only concepts that have been brought up as analogous are both misleading ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  They are only "misleading" to someone who snaps the reins and goes running headlong into ignorance, Dave. For someone who still (over a century after it was not only "broken" but ground into dust) thinks that a watch is a perfectly good analogy for life, you're making some pretty bold claims.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) If you say that there are multiple evolutionary paths to a particular organism just as there are multiple paths to chess victory, this is misleading because you do not know this to be true in biology.  It is conjecture.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wrong. It is observation. Maybe you should sit in on one of Russell's or my biology classes rather than claiming we are "lying to students", eh? You might learn something.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) If you say that Team Random will win occasionally, you speculate, because you have never observed this ocurring.  Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real random mutation we have are fruit flies.  And we all know their fates.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wrong again. See above. And what are the fates of those fruitflies, Davey? Across the hall from me is very large laboratory population of fruitflies founded years ago. It is very prolific and resilient. In fact, those little guys beat "Team Environment"  -- where team environment is all the pressures on the survival and reproduction of laboratory fruitflies -- far more often than the original population. True, they probably wouldn't do so well in the wild -- but that's not the opponent they are playing, now is it? Set those wild fruitflies up on this board and my Random flies will outperform them every time. You were saying?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,14:58

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:30)
                  My nomination for the "So stupid and deceitful it makes your jaw drop" statement of the week:

                         
                  Quote (AFDave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)
                     
                  I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth...how does the balance of the quote change anything?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So when Liar Dave (or his AIG buddies) dishonestly give only part of a quote out of context which totally changes the author's meaning, he's only doing it to save bandwidth.  :O

                  You can't make this sh*t up folks, you just can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh come on. Just because his snippet meant the exact opposite of the larger quote doesn't mean he understood the larger quote. I mean... Er... It is Dave y'know.

                  It is kind of amazing just how exactly the quote was misused though. Given enough leeway random coincidence can explain a lot ;)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 08 2006,15:02

                  Dave, honestly, do you have a diagnosed learning disability?  Why do simple things have to be repeated for you, time after time?

                  The chess-playing computers "learn" the same way that "evolution" learns.  Randomly-generated moves that are either illegal or that lead to losses (checkmate, heavy loss of material, sacrifice of key board positions, the details don't matter to our analogy, though fine-tuning and weighting these things probably matters to the success of the particular program...) in a given board position are discarded.  Moves that, by happenstance, lead to victory, gains in material, or better board position, are retained and "developed" or extended by further random moves on the next turn.  Most of those will turn out to be losers, too.

                  In the "universe" of possible moves from a given position--and with a given finite number of squares and pieces, and sufficient processing power, a random search will eventually generate all the possible moves, which however large, will not be infinite--they can't ALL be losers, Davey.  I mean, duh, how obvious can we get here: of the available moves, some will be better than others.  Of the available moves, a sufficiently-intense random search will eventually explore them all.

                  The massively-parallel chess players "explore" each line of play radiating out from each position.  They "play" the opposition's moves as well--by the simple expedient of crunching through every possible responsive move, rinse, repeat, until it becomes clear that a given line of play leads to a loss or other negative results.  Those lines are discarded; the crunching power is concentrated on the "surviving" lines of play.  Etc.  Eventually the "most competitive" next move is determined.  The real "intelligent" opponent--flipping rapidly through his own memorized lines of play and his own set of "weighted" factors--evaluates the computer's move and comes up with an actual real-world response.

                  The computer starts with the new board position, explores all the possible lines, responses, counter-response, etc., and <rinse and repeat>...

                  What exactly is it about this complex-appearing but ultimately brutally-simple process that you can't wrap your neurons around, Davey?

                  In a given finite environment, over a given finite period of time, with a given finite number of genes, and a sufficiently large number of phenotypes espressing those genes into real-world critters, random variation "explores" the available fitness space.  Unlike in the computer-human chess game, the massively-parallel search algorithm expends real critters.  The ones who drew a randomly-"winning" genome, which produced a surviving-reproducing "fit" phenotype, do just that--they survive and reproduce!  Their "line" survives to play for one more generation.

                  The few, many--it doesn't frickin' matter, davey, except in very small, threatened populations!--critters that "drew" losing variants of randonly-altered genotypes/phenotypes don't survive to reproduce with the same efficiency.

                  Rinse and repeat.

                  Davey, there's no "intelligence" involved (except for the irrelevant fact that the programmers of the computer were smart or lucky enough to eventually come up with a powerful-enough machine, and a program that mimicked evolution's shuffle-and-discard procedures sufficiently, that it was finally able to beat "master" human players, who themselves only attained their "mastery," ultimately, via evolution)--in both cases, the winning "line of play" results from the same algorithm of generating lots of variation and then testing the fitness against the existing environment/opponent.

                  In both cases, the APPARENT "learning" is the result of variation and selection, Davey, nothing more and nothing less.

                  Or, at some point along the line, did you come to believe that the day of true AI has already dawned, and our chess-playing computers are "intelligent" and "think"?

                  Doesn't it suggest anything to you, Davey, that--to develop successful chess-playing computers--the designers had to resort to essentially the same process as the ToE ascribes to the planet's biome?

                  Like, uh, evolution is a powerful and proven procedure.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 08 2006,15:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, honestly, do you have a diagnosed learning disability?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I believe he *likely* does, so did a friend of mine working at Berkeley ( protege of the Aaron Beck mentioned above -- he basically founded modern cognitive psych)...anyway, yeah, she looked through his posts and agreed. I know it's unorthodox, but given a large sample of written material, it's a valid tentative diagnosis. It's not intended as insult, just as a function of motivation. It also helps explain his compensatory grandiose claims. Nevertheless, I have to look at his claims objectively and he still fails miserably, whatever problems the boy has.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 08 2006,15:55

                  I agree, deadman.  My conjecture wasn't intended as an insult (this time, I've certainly intended to insult davey on other occasions...).  I just really have to wonder.

                  It's one things for davey's claims to stand or fall on the basis of their evidence and logic--or *lack thereof*--but it's another for him to need point after simple point pounded tediously and excruciatingly into his head.

                  And to still repeat his same mantras, as if none of the points had ever been made, over and over again.

                  And, of course, there are healthy and less healthy ways to compensate or work around one's limitations.  Which admittedly we all have.

                  But re-enacting the ritual of returning to square one, again and again, like a tiger (or a ligon) retracing the same route in a cage...even when the door's been left wide open!  Never admitting your wrong, even about minor and irrelevant (and clearly demonstrated) matters.  The grandiosity and convictions.

                  Eh.  Sad, really, on some level.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 08 2006,15:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,13:36)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can it be that the human genome is "degenerating," when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years, while according to your hypothesis, the other "kinds" on the ark have radiated into an average of a thousand species each?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not even going to address this until you limit the question to the kinds we know for certain had to be on the ark.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ####, I almost missed that one.  I wonder how Dave is going to limit anything to those "kinds" when he can't even define what a "kind" is - much less determine which of them were on the ark.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 08 2006,16:09

                  I personaly don't find the chess analogy to be a good one.
                  It has nothing to do with Dave's hypothesis either.

                  I want more fun. Dave, tell us about post-Flood ecology. What about sequoias, penguins and coral reefs?  :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 08 2006,16:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  it's another for him to need point after simple point pounded tediously and excruciatingly into his head.

                  And to still repeat his same mantras, as if none of the points had ever been made, over and over again
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Exactly. I'm sure many people can mention an instance of this behavior in Dave that sticks in their minds --

                  For me, it was when I stated clearly and concisely that sedimentary layers could be dated...and had to repeat that five times more, in increasingly detailed and irate tones.

                  This was while Dave kept insisting that he "didn't know" where I stood on dating Grand Staircase sediments. It was surreal and couldn't be solely attributed to Dave playing evasive games -- he appears not to be capable of accurately processing words/information.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 08 2006,16:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What is he teaching besides what has been stated here?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actual evolutionary biology, I would guess.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually, I've taught mainly microbiology / molecular biology. I'm no more expert, or specially trained, in evolutionary biology than any other competent microbiologist/ molecular biologist. But I've never met one who wasn't thoroughly "down with" evolution.

                  In fact the chess analogy comes up in a few contexts. But usually in the context of  host/parasite dynamics. A given virus "makes a move" - evolves a mechanism for subverting a host defense. In so doing, it's committed to a particular strategy, and forgoes a whole lot of other moves. The host population, if its survival is sufficiently dented by the virus's "move", will either succumb (checkmate! ), or evolve an effective countermove. For any parasite/host pair you can identify as currently extant, the game is still in progress. For a lot of them, it looks a lot like a stalemate.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:]....  Tell me ... how am I missing the boat on Crow and his implication that we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Pretty much the same way you miss the boat on all the science you cite: by assuming, before you ever read it, that the article in question can't possibly tell you something that you don't already know, and shoehorning any and all new data into your Sunday-school vision of reality.

                  In the case of Crow, he is concerned with the likelihood that in very recent human history - the past few centuries - the more prosperous human societies have largely relieved the purifying pressure of natural selection, largely by medical and environmental improvements. That, combined with people, especially males, being reproductively active at older and older ages, predicts an accumulation of mutations that would not have survived the more rigorous selection faced by our paleolithic ancestors. Here's the paragraph immediately before the one you so carefully extracted:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (my emphases)
                  What he's not talking about is an inherent tendency for all organisms, or "higher organisms" to deteriorate genetically over time.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but are you telling me that you wouldn't need a microscope to see the beneficial mutations on his chart if he had put them there?  Are you telling me I am misconstruing Kondrashov even after I showed that his abstract supports my snippet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Are you telling me you still don't understand that in Kimura's model, the most common mutations are the most neutral ones?
                  Wow.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have never ridiculed you for not reading Henry Morris or other YECs in total.  I know you couldn't stomach it and that's fine because I can give you snippets.  I feel the same way about ToE writers and you can feel quite free to give me your choice snippets as well.  Fair, don't you think?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You seem to assume the two perspectives are "symmetrical". They're not. This is a common tactic of the new, post-modern anti-intellectual. In science, you don't give any and all contending theories equal time (or equal respect) because that's the "fair" thing to do. They have to earn their respect by making a dent in the dialog of science.

                  In fact, I have read more creationist garbage than is good for me (Denton, Behe, Dembski, some chucklehead named Bird...), apparently a lot more than you've read of mainstream biologists. i wish I could have those hours of my life back.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And what about your chess model?  Are you just going to keep teaching it to students without answering the challenges for why it appears to be misleading?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll entertain any and all sensible challenges. You got one?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And how does the fact that Ames test showed us reversion in bacteria help the big ToE picture?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  By illustrating the concepts of "beneficial mutation" and "selection".  Thanks for asking.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 08 2006,16:30

                  < penguins >

                  < Scleractinia (Stony star corals) >
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 08 2006,16:35

                  Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 08 2006,16:30)
                  < penguins >

                  < Scleractinia (Stony star corals) >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  All I see here is one or two kinds + phenotypic plasticity (+ other factors).  :p
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 08 2006,16:36

                  Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 08 2006,17:09)
                  I personaly don't find the chess analogy to be a good one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think it works if you consider that each new set of moves that "Team Random" makes is actually a random modification of a previously successful set of moves.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 08 2006,16:57

                  Regarding the chess analogy, I don't think it's a particularly good one for evolution in general, either. Too many complexities and points of confusion regarding the biological reality, even for those who don't manage to confuse themselves with the chess analogue itself. I don't use it in teaching. Throughout this whole "Team Random" discussion, I've merely entertained Davey's (completely erroneous) flights of fancy while he completely avoids the very reason I brought up the analogy in the first place. Recall that the question posed to him was regarding his crazy notion that there is one 'perfect' design, independent of environmental context, from which we have all 'degenerated'. I therefore asked him to tell me what the perfect chess game or strategy was, and pointed out that there isn't one, as illustrated by how many potential strategies could beat him. He of course skipped this part, and went right back to claiming one 'correct' genotype. Some chess strategies and genotypes are generally better than others, of course, but all are effective only in the context of the opponent/environment. The random mutation plus selection was thrown in to kill two birds with one stone, as chess programs are a good example of apparent intelligence that arises from variation plus selection. Plus, it provided some fun when Davey showed he can't even comprehend the analogy, much less do the necessary math.

                  If that fun pales in comparison to post-Flood ecology, I apologize, but Davey hasn't seemed too willing to embrace that topic. I wonder why...
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 08 2006,17:24

                  Dave,
                  I'm afraid I don't have much time right now for a long post (and I actually mean that, I'm not using it as an excuse to run away from hard questions, like you often do). But I don't really need to make a long post- a few points will suffice:

                  About your new quotes (quotes you desperately needed, now that you got cornered on the other ones): It is obvious that you haven't read them either, dave. Shame.
                  Because they speak of the same thing Kondrashov does, SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS- the "fuzzy idea" that haunts your dreams.
                  The "fancy sounding nonsense" you were unable to muster the guts to actually address, except to butcher its name- probably because your new mentor Sanford wasn't able to either.
                  And you even failed miserably in doing that: You posted a quote that clearly showed "synergy" does NOT mean "interaction", and immediately concluded "therefore, Sanford's claim that it means 'interactive interaction' is technically correct"!
                  Posts like this (and the EB article, and previous blunders like your interpretation of the word "primary" -remember that? :) - make me wonder if Deadman has a point when he ponders about reading disabilities, dave.

                  Speaking of Deadman... now that he and Russel were patient enough to spoonfeed to you what Crow ACTUALLY SAYS, what are you going to do, dave?
                  Are you going to ignore their posts, the same way you did mine?

                  One wonders. :D

                  Oh and: No, I'm not satisfied by your "definition" of SE. In fact, you got it exactly backwards. Can you figure out where?

                  Let's see if you are capable of using analysis and reason for a change.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 08 2006,18:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Regarding the chess analogy, I don't think it's a particularly good one for evolution in general, either...  I therefore asked him to tell me what the perfect chess game or strategy was, and pointed out that there isn't one, as illustrated by how many potential strategies could beat him
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's an excellent analogy for the purposes for which and in the context in which  you used it. Leave it to dave to not understand what it's an analogy for, and to think its limitations are not obvious to any literate college student.

                  Now, if you want to talk about misleading analogies fed to an audience that might not be sophisticated enough to dissect them critically, I offer you < The Watchmaker >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 08 2006,19:14

                  Let's leave the analogies aside for a moment, Dave, and see if we can actually get some freaking answers out of you with respect to your "hypothesis"—you know, the one that's supposed to be an "explanation" for observation par excellence.

                  Let's start out with which organisms were on the ark, and which were not. The Bible is less than clear here, leaving it open to interpretation as to whether there were two individuals of every sort of organism (other than humans, of which there were eight), or two of some organisms and fourteen of others. The Bible does not say that specimens of some organisms were on the ark, but rather that specimens of all organisms were on the ark. You clearly dispute this, the result of which is to punch a huge hole below the waterline in your claims of biblical inerrancy, but let's ignore that for the moment.

                  You imply that not all organisms needed to be on the ark. Well, which ones were and which ones were not? One of the most important questions to be answered before we can answer that question is what I've been asking you for months: were the "floodwaters" freshwater, or seawater? What could have survived the "flood" not being on the ark is critically dependent on this one parameter, about which as far I know you haven't the foggiest idea (and, given the limited number of choices, let's just say that's sort of surprising).

                  Once you've decided which one it is, Dave, then we'll have some idea of which organisms could have survived a year under water (salt or fresh), and which couldn't. Of course, it would also be nice to have an estimate for how many "kinds" existed before the "flood," but I don't want to get to off-track here. What we really need to know is how many "kinds" survived the flood.

                  Then, once we know what we had for biodiversity at the end of the flood, we can see what must have happened post-flood to end up with the current biodiversity. We have a rough estimate (within a couple of orders of magnitude) of the current biodiversity, but you can't seem to tell us within four or five or six orders of magnitude how much biodiversity there was immediately post-flood.

                  Once you've finally been pinned down on one of these numbers (after more than seven months!), we can see how well your "hypothesis" successfully predicts the other one.

                  And before you beg off answering these questions, saying you'll get to them when you get to them, let me remind you that these questions are directly and critically important to part C of your "hypothesis." They really need to be answered before you go any further. If you don't know the answers to these questions, you cannot lay any claim to have established anything whatever about your "hypothesis," and if you don't already have answers to them, it's difficult to imagine how you could even have made any subsequent claims about your "hypothesis."

                  Given that parts A and B of your "hypothesis" are conclusory statements that depend on your being able to support part C through P, I think you really should concentrate on answers to these questions to the exclusion of all else that's going on in this thread. That is, if you want to retain the tiniest claim to any sort of intellectual honesty at this point, assuming you still have one.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 08 2006,19:16

                  The chess analogy is perfect the way you are using it. It is noting the emergent properties of the system. I know I post this link every month or so but this is really a great book:< Emergence by Steven Johnson >. Has anybody here read it?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 08 2006,19:48

                  AFDave, I found this list of STDs on the internets.

                     *  Amebiasis
                     * Bacterial Vaginosis
                     * Campylobacter Fetus
                     * Candidiasis
                     * Chancroid
                     * Chlamydia
                     * Condyloma Acuminata
                     * Cytomegalovirus
                     * Enteric Infections
                     * Genital Mycoplasmas
                     * Genital Warts (HPV)
                     * Giardiasis
                     * Gonorrhea
                     * Granuloma Inguinale
                     * Hepatitis
                     * Herpes
                     * HIV Disease
                     * Lymphogranuloma Venereum
                     * Molluscum Contagiosum
                     * Pediculosis Pubis
                     * Pubic Lice (Crabs)
                     * Salmonella
                     * Scabies
                     * Shingellosis
                     * Syphilis
                     * Trichomoniasis
                     * Yeast Infection
                     * Vaginitis

                  Since only the Ark's passengers could have carried them into the modern world, it seems fair to say that they were all represented on the boat. Do your records of the Flood indicate which Ark inhabitants had which diseases? Were any of the passengers skankier than the others, or did they just average 4-5 STDs apiece?

                  Musta been hard to feed the animals while scratching your business with both hands.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 08 2006,20:41

                  Re "One of the most important questions to be answered before we can answer that question is what I've been asking you for months: were the "floodwaters" freshwater, or seawater? What could have survived the "flood" not being on the ark is critically dependent on this one parameter,"

                  I'm not so sure that the salinity parameter would matter to all that many species in the long run - looks to me like most of them would be cut off from their food supply, or would depend on a food chain containing something else that would be cut off from its food supply.

                  Also anything that can't procreate in open water wouldn't have a next generation, food or no food, salt or no salt.

                  Btw, would a massive flood cause any change in the O2 or CO2 content of the water?
                  (This question is of course ignoring the temperature changes that I gather would most likely make chemical changes irrelevant anyway, but never mind that.)

                  Henry
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 08 2006,21:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [stevestory:] AFDave, I found this list of STDs on the internets....
                  Since only the Ark's passengers could have carried them into the modern world, it seems fair to say that they were all represented on the boat. Do your records of the Flood indicate which Ark inhabitants had which diseases? Were any of the passengers skankier than the others, or did they just average 4-5 STDs apiece?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  perhaps they've all diverged from the one ancestral STD "kind". [/little joke]


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [ericmurphy:] Given that parts A and B of your "hypothesis" are conclusory statements that depend on your being able to support part C through P, I think you really should concentrate on answers to these questions to the exclusion of all else that's going on in this thread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll gladly defer any ongoing discussions I'm engaged in. (Crow, Kimura, synergistic epistatis, chess analogy objections, watchmakers,  baboon dogs...)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,00:36

                  Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 08 2006,20:41)
                  I'm not so sure that the salinity parameter would matter to all that many species in the long run - looks to me like most of them would be cut off from their food supply, or would depend on a food chain containing something else that would be cut off from its food supply.

                  Also anything that can't procreate in open water wouldn't have a next generation, food or no food, salt or no salt.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm thinking if one diluted seawater by close to 30% with freshwater, most of the oceans would be dead in a matter of weeks if not months. If one converted all the freshwater bodies of water to seawater, you'd basically kill every freshwater organism in the world in matter of hours if not days. Osmotic pressure in one direction or another would probably be quickly fatal either way.

                  In other words, and I assume Incorygible would be the authority here, I don't think there would be a long run for most aquatic organisms, whether the "floodwaters" were fresh or salt.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 09 2006,13:15

                  THE CHESS ANALOGY -- LENDS SUPPORT FOR MY HYPOTHESIS ... NOT YOURS
                  Incorygible gave us an analogy with an intended purpose in his mind ... to show that the creationist idea of "perfect design" with subsequent degredation since creation is inaccurate.  I think his belief is that mankind--to pick one of my favorite species--could have been arrived at through evolution by many different paths and that the first true H. sapiens was not in any sense a "perfect design."  Rather, it just happened to be a successful species in the race for survival and reproduction.  He apparently believes that other "human like organisms" could have just as easily evolved from our LCA instead of, or in addition to H. sapiens.  Hmmm ... what could those be like?  Elves maybe like Legolas in Lord of the Rings? Or Dwarves?  Wizards? Orcs perhaps?  Or maybe he says "Look, other human-like organisms DID evolve. Look at the chimps, the gorillas, etc."  To which I would respond with the question, "Why did no others with human-like intelligence, or even super-human intelligence evolve?"  Tough questions, these.

                  In any case, I think I have identified his purpose for the analogy which he gave as follows ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, you want to talk about complexity and organism phenotypes -- the whole chess game, from opening to checkmate (optimally successful reproduction, let's say). That's fine, but let's start with the basics -- selection of a single, good mutation -- and work our way up.

                  Suppose we were to set up the board in some mid-game arrangement. You are playing against my evolutionary program. It's my move. Now, what is the perfect move for me to make?

                  Obviously, that depends on both the state of the board and on you (my opponent). There may be just one really "good" move, but (far more likely) there may be several that could turn the tide in my favour. Of course, there are far more nearly-neutral (i.e., ineffective) moves, and there are probably also far more really bad moves (e.g., ones that will lead to you capturing a piece or control of the board with no gain for me). If my program makes a purely random move -- but one that is allowed (illegal moves "die" as soon as they are made) -- more often than not it's going to be a nearly-neutral or a bad one.

                  Luckily, I get to make it a million times. Then a million more at the next move. And so on. You play against millions and millions of these 'random' moves until the billions of games are over. Obviously, you are going to checkmate the VAST majority of my little players. Those games end when you've mated them, and you are left with the ones who have made not just one, but a series of good moves. By the end of the game, the players I have left are the ones that have built on many, many "good" moves and are still making new "random" decisions against you.

                  The relevant question is: how many of my program strategies beat you? Of the ones that od, are they all the same? Are they all even similar? Is there only one 'perfect' strategy that works against you (the environment)? If we were to redo the "experiment", but change the environment -- let's say we substitute BWE as the opponent -- would the same strategies come out on top? Or would they fail whereas different ones win?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course I understand the analogy he is trying to make quite well.  In chess, there is no single "correct strategy."  There are many and the chosen strategy depends upon the board situation, the player's personal preferences, etc.  And Cory says "Ditto for biology ... the particular path by which Natural Selection leads a species depends, as in chess, upon the environment."

                  I agree with the bare statement completely, but the incredibly misleading part is that ...

                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.

                  It is almost eerie to hear people ascribing intelligence to Natural Selection as if it were some all-powerful Norse god to be worshipped or something.  Genetic Algorithms do not simulate Natural Selection and the notion that they do is dispensed with here < Genetic Algorithms >.  Dr. Tom Schneider's attempt to simulate evolution with his "ev model" is refuted here < Schneider Ev Model >.  Also, I remind Jeannot of his knowledge gap regarding the level at which Natural Selection operates.  He thinks it operates at the nucleotide level which is incorrect  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology.

                  Natural selection acts on the phenotype.

                  < Natural Selection >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Natural Selection does not possess intelligence.  Period.  If you persist in this myth, whoever you are, then there is really no help for you and you'll kindly pardon me if I lose some respect for you as a scientist.

                  So the analogy is misleading and Cory was wise to discard it.  It is clear to me that Dr. Russell Durbin, professor  of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University would be wise to discard it also.

                  Note also the implication that viruses and their hosts use intelligence to evolve "moves, counter-moves, and strategies" ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In fact the chess analogy comes up in a few contexts. But usually in the context of  host/parasite dynamics. A given virus "makes a move" - evolves a mechanism for subverting a host defense. In so doing, it's committed to a particular strategy, and forgoes a whole lot of other moves. The host population, if its survival is sufficiently dented by the virus's "move", will either succumb (checkmate! ), or evolve an effective countermove. For any parasite/host pair you can identify as currently extant, the game is still in progress. For a lot of them, it looks a lot like a stalemate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I contend that they most certainly DO NOT use intelligence to devise "moves, counter-moves and strategies."  Dr. Durbin, can you defend and support your implication that they do?  Or better, explain to our audience the truth ... that the "moves and counter-moves" are caused by pre-existing abilities (either innate or acquired from pre-existing genetic material or by loss of specificity which happens to confer some adaptibility)?

                  THE "EVO" RULES FOR READING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
                  1) You can only draw conclusions from the paper which are those intended by the author
                  2) Any partial quote of a scientific paper by a creationist is by definition a quote mine
                  3) Additional conclusions not specifically intended by the author are specifically prohibited, even if the clear statements of the author support the additional conclusion.

                  Case in point is Crow.

                  Russell goes to great lengths to "spoon feed" me the Crow paper and show me how I am missing the point.

                  Thanks, Russell, but I didn't miss the point.  I can see quite clearly what his intent was, but I can also draw additional conclusions. Last time I checked there were no Thought Police in America (although we apparently have precursors to Thought Police in academia).

                  So, yes, you are correct.  Crow says many things and you have correctly identified one of his conclusions.

                  However ...

                  You cannot hide from the fact that Dr. J. F. Crow ...

                  1) Implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age Ancestors, and
                  2) He considers mutation accumulation to be a "bomb with a long fuse"

                  Sorry, but them's the facts that threaten ToE as we know it ...

                  ... but support the AFD Creator God Hypothesis.


                  PROPELLOR-HEAD WINS OVER PIN-HEAD ... AT LEAST ON THIS TOPIC
                  Yes, I'm a propellor-head ... with afterburners.

                  Not only does Team Random have to happen upon ONE good chess move.  It must happen upon a whole series of MANY good chess moves (not necessarily Kasparov level, but better than BWE if that's who they are playing).  Do you see how the improbabilities multiply together so quickly?  With just a few moves, the odds against it happening are so staggering that one cannot even comprehend the numbers. (See below)

                  Steviepinhead...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, honestly, do you have a diagnosed learning disability?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I've been diagnosed here by the good doctors as having "Severe Creationism."  I'm told that this inhibits clear thinking in spite of the fact that it didn't seem to muddle the minds of clear thinking luminaries like Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The chess-playing computers "learn" the same way that "evolution" learns.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, they don't.  One has intelligence.  One doesn't.  Do you remember which is which?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Moves that, by happenstance, lead to victory, gains in material, or better board position, are retained and "developed" or extended by further random moves on the next turn.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  By happenstance, lead to victory?  Before we get excited about Team Random making it to victory, they have to somehow avoid getting check mated themselves ... all with random moves against mind-numbing odds.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Most of those will turn out to be losers, too.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ALL will be losers if they are playing against an chess player with any intelligence, which is what Cory specified.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In the "universe" of possible moves from a given position--and with a given finite number of squares and pieces, and sufficient processing power, a random search will eventually generate all the possible moves, which however large, will not be infinite--they can't ALL be losers, Davey.  I mean, duh, how obvious can we get here: of the available moves, some will be better than others.  Of the available moves, a sufficiently-intense random search will eventually explore them all.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are correct in one thing: there is the extremely remote chance that Team Random will just happen to pick the same move in a given situation that Kasparov himself would choose.  The problem, however, is multidimensional.  Not only does Team Random have to happen upon ONE good chess move.  It must happen upon a whole series of MANY good chess moves (not necessarily Kasparov level, but better than BWE if that's who they are playing).  Do you see how the improbabilities multiply together so quickly?  With just a few moves, the odds against it happening are so staggering that one cannot even comprehend the numbers.

                  This is the way it is in the real world of living things as well.

                  This is the "Achilles Heel" of ToE.

                  **************************************************

                  Russell...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you telling me you still don't understand that in Kimura's model, the most common mutations are the most neutral ones?
                  Wow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have understood this for a very long time.  I was the one that brought up Kimura's paper.  I was the one that pointed out that most are "nearly neutral."

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have never ridiculed you for not reading Henry Morris or other YECs in total.  I know you couldn't stomach it and that's fine because I can give you snippets.  I feel the same way about ToE writers and you can feel quite free to give me your choice snippets as well.  Fair, don't you think?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You seem to assume the two perspectives are "symmetrical". They're not. This is a common tactic of the new, post-modern anti-intellectual. In science, you don't give any and all contending theories equal time (or equal respect) because that's the "fair" thing to do. They have to earn their respect by making a dent in the dialog of science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Your view has the luxury for the moment of being in power, so you can wield that power (which happens to include my tax dollars) however you wish.  The Medieval Catholic Church (complete with geocentrism and other strange beliefs) also wielded its power to suppress all dissension and look what happened ...

                  ... Martin Luther, the Reformation ... and freedom for all views which people like Russell Durbin continue to enjoy today.

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And what about your chess model?  Are you just going to keep teaching it to students without answering the challenges for why it appears to be misleading?


                  I'll entertain any and all sensible challenges. You got one?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have given many and you have answered none of them to my knowledge.

                   
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And how does the fact that Ames test showed us reversion in bacteria help the big ToE picture?

                  By illustrating the concepts of "beneficial mutation" and "selection".  Thanks for asking.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which, as we understand now is compatible with both views.  And that's about it.  You had me all excited for a few moments that maybe, at long last, there was really some actual evidence for a demonstrable mechanism to transform a single-celled organism into the likes of Fido, Koko and Russell Durbin.

                  *************************************************

                  Faid ... the EB quote was used to support my point that "Standard Portuguese is based upon the Dialect of Lisbon" which it did quite nicely.  I wasn't using it to support what you say I was.  No quote mine.  No one here wants to discuss Portuguese any more.  PM me if your still not happy and I'll give you the latest exchange I had with Arden.

                  I said ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CAN SYNERGISTIC EPISTASIS SAVE ToE? IT SURE IS INVOKED ALOT NOWADAYS.
                  What does the term even mean?  Best I can tell, it is typically defined as the interaction of two expressed genes which together enhance fitness more than they would individually.

                  ... to which Faid replied ...

                  Oh and: No, I'm not satisfied by your "definition" of SE. In fact, you got it exactly

                  backwards. Can you figure out where?

                  Let's see if you are capable of using analysis and reason for a change.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I feel a little bit like a guy who just got told by the Wicked Witch that he's holding the wrong end of the magic wand.

                  How, pray tell ... is this 180 degrees out?  And further, if it is, how does this save ToE?

                  **************************************************

                  RETRACTION LOG: LIST OF ITEMS  FOR WHICH I AM AWAITING A RETRACTION

                  Occam's Aftershave -  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you're being intellectually dishonest again.

                  You have been shown evidence and have admitted that mutations can increase information and produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The second half of this is untrue.  Where have I admitted that mutations can "produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions." ??  Please produce the evidence or issue a retraction.  Then you would also need to retract the statement that I am being intellectually dishonest.

                  Occam's Aftershave -  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:30)
                  My nomination for the "So stupid and deceitful it makes your jaw drop" statement of the week:
                       
                  Quote (AFDave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)
                   
                  I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth...how does the balance of the quote change anything?

                  So when Liar Dave (or his AIG buddies) dishonestly give only part of a quote out of context which totally changes the author's meaning, he's only doing it to save bandwidth.  :O

                  You can't make this sh*t up folks, you just can't.

                  Oh come on. Just because his snippet meant the exact opposite of the larger quote doesn't mean he understood the larger quote. I mean... Er... It is Dave y'know.

                  It is kind of amazing just how exactly the quote was misused though. Given enough leeway random coincidence can explain a lot ;)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Totally changes the author's meaning, huh?

                  I guess you didn't read carefully what BWE said, did you now? ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Unless you are using xianity in the same way Adams did in that letter. In which case I wholeheartedly agree with you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which, of course, I am.  Have been all along.

                  Retraction please. :-)


                  **************************************************

                  SALT WATER, STDs, ICE CORES, POST FLOOD ECOLOGY AND MANY MORE THINGS!

                  I have tons of great info on this stuff ... all from non-YEC sources so you all will not break out in hives or anyting.

                  But we need to be very thorough on each topic, and I'm not done with this one yet.

                  As long as everyone stays civil so as not to make Team "Science" look bad, I'm sure Steve Story will keep the thread open long enough to cover all your heart's desires in great detail.

                  ******************************

                  And have a happy, healthy Saturday!
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 09 2006,13:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  .....LCA instead of, or in addition to H. sapiens.  Hmmm ... what could those be like?  Elves maybe like Legolas in Lord of the Rings? Or Dwarves?  Wizards? Orcs perhaps?  Or maybe he says "Look, other human-like organisms DID evolve. Look at the chimps, the gorillas, etc."  To which I would respond with the question, "Why did no others with human-like intelligence, or even super-human intelligence evolve?"  Tough questions, these.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Pure fantasy AFD like your Bible.

                  You have not read ANY real history of the human species have you?

                  Some time ago I asked why  H.S.S had not evolved futher since around 200,000 years ago. From a long line of proto Humans.

                  I gave you a hint...the ToE predicts it.

                  Now I will give you the answer.

                  H.S.S is under no enviromental pressure to adapt and is now able to change his enviroment to ensure reproductive success.

                  Even you AFD, as thick as you are can see that ...right?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 09 2006,14:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)
                  although we apparently have precursors to Thought Police in academia
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  name them
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,14:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)
                  THE CHESS ANALOGY -- LENDS SUPPORT FOR MY HYPOTHESIS ... NOT YOURS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh, no. Can you figure out why?

                  But just a quick question, Dave: why do you think it matters whether natural selection has "intelligence"? No one here thinks it does; we all just know it doesn't matter whether it has intelligence or not.

                  And in the meantime, thanks for completely blowing off my questions once more. I imagine I won't be the only person who draws certain inferences from your failure to address them.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 09 2006,14:51

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 09 2006,13:59)
                  Some time ago I asked why  H.S.S had not evolved futher since around 200,000 years ago. From a long line of proto Humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm not sure what you mean by that. During the last 200 000 years, we have evolved under environmental pressure. Heck, we almost disappeared some 60 000 years ago (no Dave, it's not the flood).
                  But a few hundred thousand years is short for a species whose generation time is 20-30 years. H. sapiens is very recent.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 09 2006,14:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So the analogy is misleading and Cory was wise to discard it.  It is clear to me that Dr. Russell Durbin, professor  of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University would be wise to discard it also.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup. If I thought that the analogy implied that the "players" (genomes of parasites and their hosts) were "intelligent", I would avoid it like the plague. Fortunately, the students that I'm teaching are not that simple-minded. I guess if I were teaching a room-full of afdaves [shudder] I would have to point out all the things the chess analogy does not imply:
                  *chess players are human, genomes are not
                  *chess limits players to one move at a time, life doesn't
                  *chess is limited to an 8x8 board, life isn't...
                  etc.

                  Now. What about that watchmaker analogy? Isn't it terribly misleading to omit the fact that evolution limits itself to entities that can replicate, while watches don't? Is this key difference, and its implications, highlighted for the students in question? Are the students in question more or less sophisticated in discerning these kinds of subtlety than my post-graduate students?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is almost eerie to hear people ascribing intelligence to Natural Selection as if it were some all-powerful Norse god to be worshipped or something.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What utter nonsense.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE "EVO" RULES FOR READING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
                  1) You can only draw conclusions from the paper which are those intended by the author
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, no. We draw conclusions from papers all the time that were not intended by the author. That's a big part of critical reading. But you have to be able to cite reasons for doing so, and you can't just ignore the fact that the paper in question contains compelling data or arguments that invalidate your alternative conclusions.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) Any partial quote of a scientific paper by a creationist is by definition a quote mine
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hardly. The term "quote-mine" refers specifically to the careful extraction of a quote from its context that substantially alters the meaning of the quote. Like what you did with the Crow quote about stone-age ancestors, as I showed you by quoting the paragraph immediately preceding.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) Additional conclusions not specifically intended by the author are specifically prohibited, even if the clear statements of the author support the additional conclusion
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Seems a bit redundant. How is this different from "1)", which I already dealt with?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell goes to great lengths to "spoon feed" me the Crow paper and show me how I am missing the point.
                  ...However ...

                  You cannot hide from the fact that Dr. J. F. Crow ...

                  1) Implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age Ancestors, and
                  2) He considers mutation accumulation to be a "bomb with a long fuse"

                  Sorry, but them's the facts that threaten ToE as we know it ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You sure do a good imitation of someone completely missing the point. No one is trying to "hide" from these implications. But they apply, not to ToE, but to populations of modern humans in societies that have the luxury of relieving natural selection. It has nothing to do with higher organisms in general, or even human evolution except in very recent times. If you're worried about that time-bomb, Crow has some specific suggestions for how it might be defused. (Though he explicitly says he doesn't recommend implementing them.) Did you catch that? Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with Jesus.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have understood [Kimura's model] for a very long time.  I was the one that brought up Kimura's paper.  I was the one that pointed out that most are "nearly neutral."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Believe me, no one here needed you to point that out. You seem to have missed the point that the most common mutation in Kimura's model is, in fact, the exactly neutral one. So much so, in fact, that you need a telescope, not a microscope, to find it: it's off the chart. The frequency of the exactly neutral mutation in the mathematical model goes to infinity. I believe I pointed this out earlier. That, plus the fact that advantageous mutations, while acknowledged to exist, are deliberately omitted from the model, renders your interpretation...
                  WRONG
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 09 2006,15:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)
                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sure Dave, no one claimed the contrary. Directed mutations would be much more effective than random mutations + selection if such mutations existed.

                  What's your point ? Does it support your Creator God Hypothesis?
                  I guess not. So why don't you provide positive evidence for it? Last time you tried, you lamentably failed at disproving radiocabon dating. You were stuck at "the ancient biosphere was 100 times bigger..." Then what ?

                  It was a few weeks ago and you've been increasingly boring since then.  ???
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,15:20

                  Dave, let me ask you this question, in the context of this chess game analogy you're stretching way past the breaking point. There are two players in this rather poor analogy (in the way you're using it): Natural Selection, and the Environment.

                  Which of these two players do you think is "intelligent," Dave? Either one of them?

                  Doesn't that sort of present a problem for your argument regarding the lack of intelligence (which on one other than you seems ever to have even suggested) of Natural Selection, and its chances for winning this particular chess game?

                  Oh, and one more thing: "tomorrow" is here. You owe me an answer, in case you've forgotten.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 09 2006,15:30

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 09 2006,15:57)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So the analogy is misleading and Cory was wise to discard it.  It is clear to me that Dr. Russell Durbin, professor  of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University would be wise to discard it also.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup. If I thought that the analogy implied that the "players" (genomes of parasites and their hosts) were "intelligent", I would avoid it like the plague. Fortunately, the students that I'm teaching are not that simple-minded. I guess if I were teaching a room-full of afdaves [shudder] I would have to point out all the things the chess analogy does not imply:
                  *chess players are human, genomes are not
                  *chess limits players to one move at a time, life doesn't
                  *chess is limited to an 8x8 board, life isn't...
                  etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One of my Kentucky snake-handling relatives, the kind of person which makes me think AFDave is authentic, thinks that he's invalidated your analogy when he's found two aspects of the analogues which don't match.

                  Me: "KFC is a fast-food restaurant like McDonalds."
                  Him: "No, those are apples and oranges. KFC has chicken while McDonalds has hamburgers."

                  When I was a kid and argued with fundy idiots, this kind of thing happened so many times with him that any time I hear "that's apples and oranges" I suddenly want to throw someone through some furniture.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 09 2006,15:40

                  Liar Dave whines with
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Please produce the evidence or issue a retraction.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Liar Dave, I and others here have been presenting you with scientific evidence for over six months now that show your CGH is full of sh*t, just like you are.  Pick any page at random from this thread and I bet I can find an example of someone presenting you with scientific details, and you ignoring them and/or lying about what was presented.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Then you would also need to retract the statement that I am being intellectually dishonest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sorry Liar Dave, the truth is always the best defense.  Not are you intellectually dishonest, you are morally and ethically dishonest too.  You have been caught flat out lying multiple times, continue to use dishonest quote mined cites, and completely ignore all the evidence that totally refutes your asinine claims.

                  Why do none of the multiple independent C14/C12 calibration methods show your 100X carbon spike Davie?

                  Why are there in Yellowstone two dozen sequentially buried mature forests with a layer of paleosols between each one  Davie?

                  How did a 500' deep canyon get carved in limestone, then get covered by 17000' of sediment Davie?

                  How did clams and angiosperms outrun the Flood waters but raptors didn't Davie?

                  Where did the scavengers come from that supposedly ate all the post-flood carcasses of the modern animals Davie?

                  I have no problems calling you a liar and a coward right to your face Dave.  You and your retraction can kiss my ass.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 09 2006,16:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The second half of this is untrue.  Where have I admitted that mutations can "produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions." ??  Please produce the evidence or issue a retraction.  Then you would also need to retract the statement that I am being intellectually dishonest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 09 2006,16:27

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 09 2006,16:30)
                  One of my Kentucky snake-handling relatives, the kind of person which makes me think AFDave is authentic
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey, don't be so tough on us snake handlers!  That's me, on the left.  Please note that Elmer--he's my brother on the right--lost his arm to a 'rattler.  And HE still KEEPS THE FAITH.

                  If it ain't KJV, it ain't Bible.


                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 09 2006,16:51

                  Haha, I won't say your (non-)answer wasn't expected, dave...

                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,13:15)

                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of COURSE it does not, dave. Not in the way you understand intelligence, at least- an active (conscious?) evaluation and selection, with a specific goal in mind.
                  But that doesn't mean it's random. It's far from that. It's non-random by definition, in fact.
                  Dave, what the chess player (or programm) achieve by learning (discarding erroneous moves, working on the beneficial ones), the species achieve by surviving.
                  That's HOW natural selection functions: "Intelligence" does not enter the equation... but it's the same trial and error process in both cases, and the result is the same. That's how the analogy works. So stop constructing strawmen, and read a little about the well-understood processes you've set out to "demolish".


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Case in point is Crow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, this is going to be good...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell goes to great lengths to "spoon feed" me the Crow paper and show me how I am missing the point.

                  Thanks, Russell, but I didn't miss the point.  I can see quite clearly what his intent was, but I can also draw additional conclusions. Last time I checked there were no Thought Police in America (although we apparently have precursors to Thought Police in academia).

                  So, yes, you are correct.  Crow says many things and you have correctly identified one of his conclusions.

                  However ...

                  You cannot hide from the fact that Dr. J. F. Crow ...

                  1) Implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age Ancestors, and
                  2) He considers mutation accumulation to be a "bomb with a long fuse"

                  Sorry, but them's the facts that threaten ToE as we know it ...

                  ... but support the AFD Creator God Hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How, dave, HOW? If you REALLY understand what Russel (and Deadman, and me) says, then how the he11 does this threaten ToE? I'll ask you again, using small words:
                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  That is a validation for ToE, dave, not a threat.
                  Admit it- you just said "what's that? oh something about me not understanding what Crow says... blah blah blee blah... I'll just hand-wave it away..."
                  Either that, or you know exactly what we're saying, and run away again, Brave Sir Robin.

                  But wait: You finally, FINALLY, after months and months, decided to answer me on the EB issue! Will you have something intelligent to say? Let's see...

                  Oh shucks. :(
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ... the EB quote was used to support my point that "Standard Portuguese is based upon the Dialect of Lisbon" which it did quite nicely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ooohkaaaay... So, your quote of "Standard Portuguese is based upon the Dialect of Lisbon", was used to support your point that "Standard Portuguese is based upon the Dialect of Lisbon"?
                  Suuure. :)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I wasn't using it to support what you say I was.  No quote mine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nope, no quotemining there... Except, and unless you are planning to drive us all CRAZY, your point is (and always has been) that "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"... Defined in detail as "The Portuguese language didn't exist untill 1143, when Alfonso..." etc etc.
                  So, now that you agree that this quote has NOTHING to do with the roots, origin or history of Portuguese, and speaks instead of MODERN PORTUGUESE DIALECTS, and which one is used to define standard Portuguese, can you tell me what the HE|_|_  it had to do with your point?
                  And, of course, what about what EB really says about the origin of Portuguese?
                  I'll be waiting, quote miner. Just remember: it's harder to avoid embarrassing questions here, the way you do it when your little "students" ask them.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No one here wants to discuss Portuguese any more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heh, if by "noone" you mean you, and by "any more" you mean "ever since I realized I goofed up", then for once I agree with you. :D

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I feel a little bit like a guy who just got told by the Wicked Witch that he's holding the wrong end of the magic wand.

                  How, pray tell ... is this 180 degrees out?  And further, if it is, how does this save ToE?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How indeed... ;) Tell you what: Why don't you explain to me, in your own words, what you think the mechanism, in which Crow proposes that Synergistic Epistasis solves the accumulation problem, is? You can read any links you like (there are many in the "tubes"), just explain it.
                  And I'll show you where you are wrong.
                  It's time you started comprehending the things you're out to get, dave. You can only copypaste quotes you do not understand up to a point.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  SALT WATER, STDs, ICE CORES, POST FLOOD ECOLOGY AND MANY MORE THINGS!

                  I have tons of great info on this stuff ... all from non-YEC sources so you all will not break out in hives or anyting.

                  But we need to be very thorough on each topic, and I'm not done with this one yet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, I guess that's true -in the sence that you're NEVER done with ANY topic, before you jump ship and move onto another, leaving a bunch of crucial questions unanswered.
                  And you won't be done with this one, untill you explain jusy how, according to your "higher genome degeneration" theory, not only did not ALL the species from the ark become extinct, but trived and prospered for far, far more than 100 or 300 generations, also producing an amazing amount of diversity at an unbelievable speed.
                  Here's yet another miracle your "theory" will have to explain, dave.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 09 2006,16:53

                  Pinheaded Stevie:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The chess-playing computers "learn" the same way that "evolution" learns.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dim Davey:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No, they don't.  One has intelligence.  One doesn't.  Do you remember which is which?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davey once again makes his astoundingly ___* claim that the day of "true machine intelligence" has arrived.
                      (*Words just fail me...)
                  Davey, one more time for the hard-of-learning: the chess-playing computers do not beat human master chess players because the computers are "intelligent".  They beat them because they are massively-parallel number-crunching devices.

                  And what is evolution when it throws out into the environment--to perish or proliferate--tens of thousands of variants of any given phenotype generated by any given genotype, Davey?  A massively-parallel critter-crunching device.

                  Whatever genotypic-variants are expressed by a given phenotype (critter in its developmental arc from conception through reproduction--arguably, the arc may continue through reproduction by its offspring, if any, but that's a quibble in this discussion) are the equivalent of a randomly-determined move.  The environment selects the "moves" that just happened to be "fit" ones (survived to reproduce).  Only (the offspring of) those fit critters go on to make a later "move."  The bad moves don't survive.

                  Likewise, no lengthy, massively-unlikely, pre-determined "line" of good moves is needed by the chess-playing computer.  It doesn't just make one move--it makes tens or hundreds of virtual moves, allows the internal-virtual "environment" (rules of chess, weightings re material and board position--the selective pressures of the chess environment) to inform it which moves were immediately "fatal" (illegal or checkmated) or highly deleterious (loss of material or favorable board position), and virtually "discards" those selected-against moves.  Move-variants not immediately selected against are used as the starting points for another series of random moves.

                  Rinse and repeat!  Rinse and repeat!  Rinse and repeat!  (This power of this repetitive algorithm is just one of the many aspects of selection of any kind which you simply fail, over and over, to grok, Davey.)  When all of the potential lines of play are "tested" for some given number of moves out into the virtual "future," the "best" (as evaluated in this completely-unintelligent, whichever-move-survives manner) is ultimately executed in real-time.  The human master then responds (almost certainly--due to the sheer power of the machine [trans.: profligacy of nature] and the finite nature of the system--with one of the randomly-generated countermoves that was previously "evaluated"--via unintelligent selection-like simulation--by the machine).  The machine goes virtual again, starting with this "new" position, crunches massively, serves itself up another yet another "generation" of multiple random moves, applies to each of them its internal-environmental weightings, discards some, generates numerous random counter-moves, applies its selection criteria, etc., etc., etc.

                  The only (meaningful for this discussion) difference is that the computer plays out its tens of thousands of lines in virtual reality.  Nature throws out her tens of thousands of phenotypes in real-time, in a real environment.  But, via either procedure, a relatively-best-fit move/critter is selected, and we advance "play" by one round/generation.

                  Once again, that you can't wrap your neurons around this incredibly simple principle just boggles the mind (of those here that actually possess functioning minds...).

                  Neither evolution nor chess-playing computers (we're not, on this side of the board, interested in how human masters do what they do, davey) require intelligence to do what they do, Davey.  Or, if you must persist in describing what-they-do as "intelligence," then they both possess that quality.

                  That's what's remarkable and newsworthy-- and why it's worth the the time and money to come up with the chess-playing, evolution-mimicking hardware and software in the first place, davey: it's not that "intelligent" computers were finally developed, and that's how the human master players were overcome; it's that sufficiently-powerful but utterly unintelligent evolution-like algorithms managed to overpower the human masters.

                  Duh frickin' duh, dude!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 09 2006,18:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How, pray tell ... is [davy's understanding of synergistic epistasis] 180 degrees out?  And further, if it is, how does this save ToE?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not going to bother trying to correct your 180° misunderstanding. I'll just point out that if you had actually read - and understood - the papers you claim that you did read and understand, you wouldn't have made that mistake.

                  But the larger point is:

                  "how does this save ToE"... from what? ? ?

                  From fundie misunderstandings and mischaracterizations? From Crow's concerns, which - hopefully you understand now - in no way challenge ToE? From Kondrashov's concerns, that you haven't read? From the mythical impossibility of beneficial mutations, or the mythical inability of selection to find and amplify the one-in-a-billion beneficial mutation - both canards laid to rest by the Ames test illustration?

                  From what? ? ?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 09 2006,19:16

                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Crow's concerns pose a problem for ToE as follows ...

                  1) If we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors as Crow says, then we did not evolve to our present, more intelligent state from our dumber, more brutish, simpler, etc. Stone Age Ancestors.  Think about it.  This invalidates ToE (at least human evolution). This fact that Crow reveals also validates the Biblical implication of a less deteriorated human genome in the past.
                  2) If humanity is headed for extinction from mutation accumulation in 3000 years or so, how can you say that the very thing that is killing us was the thing that created us?

                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So stop constructing strawmen, and read a little about the well-understood processes you've set out to "demolish".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No strawmen ... see Steviepinhead and Deadman's and Eric's comments.

                  As for Synergistic Epistasis ... I've said all I know about it ... your turn.  

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now. What about that watchmaker analogy? Isn't it terribly misleading to omit the fact that evolution limits itself to entities that can replicate, while watches don't? Is this key difference, and its implications, highlighted for the students in question? Are the students in question more or less sophisticated in discerning these kinds of subtlety than my post-graduate students?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  It is not misleading.  Remember that your naturalistic view requires that inanimate chemicals assembled themselves into amino acids and so on until the first living cell could then replicate.  So it is a matter of semantics to say that evolution limits itself to entities that can replicate.  When creationists talk about 'evolution' we often include abiogenesis as well simply because the whole sequence--from the pool of chemicals to H. sapiens--requires chance and billions of years.  What we really hear you saying to our children (with our tax dollars) is "Hey kids ... there may be a God ... we don't know, but lemme tell you how life came about.  Billions of years ago there were some chemicals ... etc. etc."  This is the message that is being communicated to our children and it is just as unsupported by the evidence (in fact, overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence) as my little funny story about the watch that assembled itself.

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is almost eerie to hear people ascribing intelligence to Natural Selection as if it were some all-powerful Norse god to be worshipped or something.
                  What utter nonsense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If Natural Selection is all-powerful in that it can create all life on earth, why not worship it?  Ceremonies, candles ... the works?  (Just kidding, but hopefully you see my point)

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Like what you did with the Crow quote about stone-age ancestors, as I showed you by quoting the paragraph immediately preceding.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How does what you pointed out change the fact that Crow is saying we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors?

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But they apply, not to ToE, but to populations of modern humans in societies that have the luxury of relieving natural selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So medical/genetic engineering technology will save us?

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You seem to have missed the point that the most common mutation in Kimura's model is, in fact, the exactly neutral one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have seen no evidence from any writer that there is such a thing as an exactly neutral mutation.  Especially now that we are finding that "junk" DNA is not junk after all.

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which of these two players do you think is "intelligent," Dave? Either one of them?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's Cory's analogy not mine.  He compared the Environment to an intelligent player and organisms to Team Random.

                  Jeanot ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.

                  Sure Dave, no one claimed the contrary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure ... except for Deadman (Deep Blue) and Steviepinhead  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The chess-playing computers "learn" the same way that "evolution" learns.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This from a supposedly life science guy who thinks Natural Selection works on individual nucleotides.

                  Stevie...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey once again makes his astoundingly ___* claim that the day of "true machine intelligence" has arrived.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.  How about showing me where I said that?

                  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think it's a pre-exising ability.  Wanna explain how I'm wrong?  Then explain how this shows that you can build a fish or a worm or something out of this little guy's relative?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 09 2006,19:30

                  You think it was a preexisting ability?  What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 09 2006,19:35

                  Quote (AFDave @ earlier)
                  Occam's Aftershave -  
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:30)
                  My nomination for the "So stupid and deceitful it makes your jaw drop" statement of the week:
                     
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:36)

                  I have the whole quote also, but I'm not into using unnecessary bandwidth...how does the balance of the quote change anything?

                  So when Liar Dave (or his AIG buddies) dishonestly give only part of a quote out of context which totally changes the author's meaning, he's only doing it to save bandwidth.  :O

                  You can't make this sh*t up folks, you just can't.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh come on. Just because his snippet meant the exact opposite of the larger quote doesn't mean he understood the larger quote. I mean... Er... It is Dave y'know.

                  It is kind of amazing just how exactly the quote was misused though. Given enough leeway random coincidence can explain a lot ;)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Totally changes the author's meaning, huh?

                  I guess you didn't read carefully what BWE said, did you now? ...  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Unless you are using xianity in the same way Adams did in that letter. In which case I wholeheartedly agree with you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which, of course, I am.  Have been all along.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

                  Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

                  Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

                  The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

                  Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Would be the full context of that quote dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDAVE)
                  The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity. (John Adams, Works, Vol X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. OI-32)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Adams was including Universalists, Priestleyans, Independents, Deists and atheists in his definition of Christian. That's the way I used to define it too. Until I found out that people like you were real. I'm glad to see that all you are saying is that the founders were generally Northern European and that you aren't laying and dogma on their graves. :)

                  If you would have been using Christian in the sense of "Believing in the divinity of Christ", you would have been quotemining. Right? So, in light of this new revelation, what was your original point again?

                  And, this being the case, OA should probably apologize for the misunderstanding. You could see how it might have looked different to Occam's Aftershave though can't you Dave? I mean, you have been babbling about some pretty off-the-wall stuff here. I think it was an honest mistake. But, all's well that ends well I always say.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 09 2006,19:59

                  Dave, as usual, you're not making any sense.
                  You quote my question, and you proceed to completely ignore it and repeat your blabber:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,19:16)
                  Faid ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Crow's concerns pose a problem for ToE as follows ...

                  1) If we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors as Crow says, then we did not evolve to our present, more intelligent state from our dumber, more brutish, simpler, etc. Stone Age Ancestors.  Think about it.  This invalidates ToE (at least human evolution). This fact that Crow reveals also validates the Biblical implication of a less deteriorated human genome in the past.
                  2) If humanity is headed for extinction from mutation accumulation in 3000 years or so, how can you say that the very thing that is killing us was the thing that created us? 

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave.

                  Answer.

                  My.

                  Friggin'.

                  Question.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here, I'll break it down even more for you:
                  If a problem's cause is the breakdown of a mechanism, did that mechanism not prevent the problem when it was active?
                  Did you not read WHY Crow says we have this problem, dave?


                  Give it another shot- and try to engage some brain cells this time.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for Synergistic Epistasis ... I've said all I know about it ... your turn.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *sigh*
                  Dave, it's important that you finally prove you are capable for the tiniest fragment of logical analysis. I have told you you got it exactly backwards; that hint (along with the assumption that you have read Crow's paper, and the very Wikipedia links you provided) should make understanding your flaw a matter of simple common sense- putting two and two together. Are you capable of even that, or are you a total waste of time?
                  Are your "afterburners", as you call them, capable of producing anything more than hot air?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,20:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,19:16)
                  Crow's concerns pose a problem for ToE as follows ...

                  1) If we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors as Crow says, then we did not evolve to our present, more intelligent state from our dumber, more brutish, simpler, etc. Stone Age Ancestors.  Think about it.  This invalidates ToE (at least human evolution). This fact that Crow reveals also validates the Biblical implication of a less deteriorated human genome in the past.
                  2) If humanity is headed for extinction from mutation accumulation in 3000 years or so, how can you say that the very thing that is killing us was the thing that created us?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, it's been explained to you at least four different times by at least two people why Crow's observations are not only not a problem for the ToE, but in fact are an affirmation of it. That you continue to claim otherwise can be due to either breathtaking stupidity on your part, breathtaking intellectual dishonesty on your part, or some combination of the two.

                  Crow states very clearly that the problem he sees is due to the inability for natural selection to work on the human genome in modern human societies. Why? Because modern medical technology allows for individuals with mutations that would be selected against under normal conditions to reproduce successfully. The problem is not that modern humans are genetically inferior to Neanderthals (which, in any event, predate your "creation event" by many thousands of years). And the reason deleterious mutations could be piling up in the human genome is because evolutionary processes have been subverted by civilized human societies. I find it very difficult to believe that even someone as aggressively dense as you cannot understand why neither of these issues is in any way whatsoever a problem for the ToE.

                  But I predict that you will never admit to understanding why Crow's observations are not a problem for the ToE, because to do so would force you to admit you wrong about something after arguing about it for a week.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now. What about that watchmaker analogy? Isn't it terribly misleading to omit the fact that evolution limits itself to entities that can replicate, while watches don't? Is this key difference, and its implications, highlighted for the students in question? Are the students in question more or less sophisticated in discerning these kinds of subtlety than my post-graduate students?  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  It is not misleading.  Remember that your naturalistic view requires that inanimate chemicals assembled themselves into amino acids and so on until the first living cell could then replicate.  So it is a matter of semantics to say that evolution limits itself to entities that can replicate.  When creationists talk about 'evolution' we often include abiogenesis as well simply because the whole sequence--from the pool of chemicals to H. sapiens--requires chance and billions of years.  What we really hear you saying to our children (with our tax dollars) is "Hey kids ... there may be a God ... we don't know, but lemme tell you how life came about.  Billions of years ago there were some chemicals ... etc. etc."  This is the message that is being communicated to our children and it is just as unsupported by the evidence (in fact, overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence) as my little funny story about the watch that assembled itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, your conflation of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution tries to paper over the fact that your analogy is fatally flawed. Evolution cannot work on processes that do not involve self-replication Abiogenetic processes by definition do not involve self-replication. Therefore, your "watch" analogy is totally misleading. No one expects to see a watch evolve because it doesn't reproduce. Evolution cannot work on processes that do not involve reproduction. Q.E.D.

                  But, let's ask you this, Dave. If you think your "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation than the standard theories, then perhaps you can explain how God created life. You can't do that, can you? You have absolutely not the first freaking idea how God created life. Saying he "spoke it" into existence or "breathed it" into existence is worse than useless as an explanation. It conveys no understanding whatsoever.

                  The worst you can say about current abiogenetic theories is that there are plenty of mechanisms which appear to be able to create self-catalyzing and self-replicating molecules, but no one can say for certain which ones actually played a part in getting life started, and which didn't. Your "hypothesis" can say absolutely nothing about how life came to exist beyond saying "goddidit." NOTHING.

                  No doubt you'll come back with some lame statement about at least creationists being honest and not claiming they know something they don't know. Well, first, no one claims to "know" how life arose on earth. There are some working hypotheses that are subject to revision as they succeed or fail in reproducing observation. You have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to say about how God "created" life. You don't even have a mechanism. You, and all your quote-mining, no-research-doing creationist buddies are utterly clueless about how He went about it.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is almost eerie to hear people ascribing intelligence to Natural Selection as if it were some all-powerful Norse god to be worshipped or something.
                  What utter nonsense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If Natural Selection is all-powerful in that it can create all life on earth, why not worship it?  Ceremonies, candles ... the works?  (Just kidding, but hopefully you see my point)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Utter nonsense because real scientists, unlike creationists, don't go about worshipping some powerful natural force. The most powerful (but paradoxically also the weakest) force known is gravity. Do you hear cosmologists going around worshipping gravity?

                  No one thinks natural selection is some sort of all-powerful force, Dave. It's pretty straightforward, and despite your delusions of grandeur, you have given absolutely no reason for anyone to think it can't accomplish exactly what is claimed for it: to take the raw material of evolution (mutations), and winnow out the losers from the winners. It's practically impossible to imagine how it could not work. Unless you're a creationist and have a vested interest in not wanting it to work

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Like what you did with the Crow quote about stone-age ancestors, as I showed you by quoting the paragraph immediately preceding.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How does what you pointed out change the fact that Crow is saying we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's not what he's saying, Dave. That's your wrong, broken, laughable interpretation of what he's saying.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But they apply, not to ToE, but to populations of modern humans in societies that have the luxury of relieving natural selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So medical/genetic engineering technology will save us?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I cannot believe you can be this obtuse, except on purpose. Medical/genetic engineering are the cause of the problem Crow is talking about. For Christ's sake, Dave, will you read the text you've posted?

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You seem to have missed the point that the most common mutation in Kimura's model is, in fact, the exactly neutral one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have seen no evidence from any writer that there is such a thing as an exactly neutral mutation.  Especially now that we are finding that "junk" DNA is not junk after all.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you posted evidence for exactly neutral mutations!

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which of these two players do you think is "intelligent," Dave? Either one of them?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's Cory's analogy not mine.  He compared the Environment to an intelligent player and organisms to Team Random.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't care whose analogy it is. Do you think the environment is somehow "intelligent," Dave? And therefore it can defeat natural selection, which is not intelligent? Stop dodging questions.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jeanot ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever.  Chess players do.

                  Sure Dave, no one claimed the contrary.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh sure ... except for Deadman (Deep Blue) and Steviepinhead          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The chess-playing computers "learn" the same way that "evolution" learns.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This from a supposedly life science guy who thinks Natural Selection works on individual nucleotides.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you claiming that chess programs are actually "intelligent," Dave? Because no one else, including the programmers who wrote the damned things, would agree. Humans have yet to develop machine intelligence, I assure you.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Stevie...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey once again makes his astoundingly ___* claim that the day of "true machine intelligence" has arrived.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.  How about showing me where I said that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, so you admit chess-playing programs are not intelligent. Yet they can beat intelligent human players. So what's left of your argument that unintelligent agencies cannot beat intelligent agencies?

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think it's a pre-exising ability.  Wanna explain how I'm wrong?  Then explain how this shows that you can build a fish or a worm or something out of this little guy's relative?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, it is known that the ability to digest nylon is due to a frameshift mutation that, without the presence of nylon to metabolize, is fatal to the bacteria. So in what sense do you think this ability was "pre-existing"?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 09 2006,20:30

                  Natural Selection has absolutely NO intelligence whatsoever. Chess players do...  Sure Dave, no one claimed the contrary.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh sure ... except for Deadman (Deep Blue) and Steviepinhead
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  Look, you blithering, lying scumbag, I never said "Natural Selection is intelligent," nor did I ever imply it. I'm frankly sick of your little act, you walking cesspool.

                  I didn't say the chess program used by Deep Blue was AI...YOU DID...  and I didn't say natural selection was intelligent ...and OF COURSE HUMAN CHESS PLAYERS HAVE TO BE INTELLIGENT...

                  SO WHAT WAS YOUR POINT ABOUT MENTIONING ME, YOU AMBULATORY BIT OF FECAL SLIME?

                  I wouldn't claim that you were intelligent enough to deal with that, but I'm certain that others can recognize your utter lack of ethics and morals.

                  You can keep trying to lie to yourself as long as you want, cesspool,but  leave me out of your delusions.

                  You dishonor what good that is found in Christianity with your disgusting pathological dishonesty: for example your claim that        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for Synergistic Epistasis ... I've said all I know about it ... your turn.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No you don't, liar. Your definition of it was taken from another. YOU PERSONALLY have no idea about it, how to statistically measure it, how it is discerned, or what it means. Sure, you'll go immediately and try to remedy that, but you STILL WON'T KNOW ABOUT IT because you have no education in the foundational science that supports it, so you'll just spew out more regurgitated crap as you have about

                  alleles, GULO genes,  "hominoid civilizations," chimp-human genetic relatedness, about information theory , about mutation , about beneficial mutations, about Helium isotopes and a hundred other things  that you KNEW NOTHING ABOUT BUT PRETENDED TO .

                  I'll repeat what I DID say about genetic algorithms, in full, Dave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deep Blue used brute force, Dave. Aspects allowed it to "learn" what moves were better as it selected out less favored moves. This doesn't constitute AI -- for example, Kasparov found that he could change HIS pattern of play and Deep Blue couldn't "learn" to adapt to it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  and I said this:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Artificial Intelligence" means a lot of different things to different people. Like Wittgenstein said ...language is messy. Big deal. Yes, you can call Deep Blue an AI, and you can call your home computer an AI, too, or you can call an abacus "AI" if you want, or Babbage's calculator. Again, big deal. The point is that you are choosing a wider definition than I am, and Deep Blue was/is still nothing more than a bunch of processors hooked in parallel using a genetic algorithm that was inflexible enough to fail when Kasparov changed his approach.

                  If you want to call that AI, great, I don't care. The larger points are still valid; (1) you were told the analogy was imperfect (2) evolutionary theory incorporates ideas that are employed in genetic algorithms...such as selection for and against. This was the point of the analogy that you seem intent on dismissing via trivial objections.

                  It's a genetic algorithm, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Okay, scumbag, exactly WHERE did I say "natural selection was intelligent?" ---NOWHERE. When I or anyone else puts words IN QUOTES...like "learn" that MEANS SOMETHING , scumbag. IT MEANS I am NOT using the words LITERALLY,and you KNEW THAT but preferred to utterly twist what I DID say, just as you have twisted what Crow and Kondrashov said...

                  Look at your examples, Dave. You claim that because mutations are accumulating TODAY, that we could not have arisen from distant ancestors evolutionarily....BUT...BUT...CROW SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WE MAY BE INCREASING MUTATION LOAD  ---- BECAUSE WE HAVE THWARTED EVOLUTIONARY SELECTION TODAY.

                  This says NOTHING about evolution IN THE PAST when evolutionary selection was in full effect, cesspool .

                  THIS ALONE SHOWS YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING/LYING ABOUT.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 09 2006,20:39

                  Liar Dave with his regular spew
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age ancestors as Crow says, then we did not evolve to our present, more intelligent state from our dumber, more brutish, simpler, etc. Stone Age Ancestors. Think about it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First off you liar, Crow never used the term ‘genetically inferior’.  That’s YOUR dishonest word-smithing.  All the paper talks about is the fact that we have technology now that lets people survive to breed that 20,000 years ago natural selection would have winnowed out of the gene pool.  There's nothing about individuals being dumber, more brutish, simpler, etc,

                  Here is the paper again so you can reference the whole thing, including the parts from the conclusion that you and Sanford dishonestly snipped out.

                  < The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? >
                  James F. Crow
                  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
                  Vol. 94, pp. 8380-8386, August 1997

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CONCLUSION:  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.

                  It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don't we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.

                  We have seen that quasi-truncation selection can efficiently remove harmful mutations, and the average fitness reduction can be made quite small. This, plus environmental improvements, means that average survival and fertility are only slightly impaired by mutation. Yet, those 80 mutations in a fly and whatever the number is in the human species must surely have deleterious effects that don't show up in a life table (or as effects on fitness). How many headaches, stomach upsets, depressed periods, and such things that make life less pleasant, but don't reduce viability or fertility, would be eliminated if our mutation rate had been lower? I suspect the number is substantial.

                  If the human mutation rate were to drop to zero, we would probably not notice it except for the absence of some of the most loathsome dominant diseases. Loss of variability would not be a problem for a very long time. The genetic variance in the population is enough to satisfy the dreams of even the most wild-eyed eugenist. If we could reduce the mutation rate to zero (without important side effects, of course) I would be for it. If some centuries in the future new mutations are needed, we shall certainly know how to produce them.

                  I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. But this is a problem with a long time scale; the characteristic time is some 50-100 generations, which cautions us against advocating any precipitate action. We can take time to learn more.
                  Meanwhile, we have more immediate problems: global warming, loss of habitat, water depletion, food shortages, war, terrorism, and especially increase of the world population. If we don't somehow reduce the global birth rate to a sustainable level commensurate with economic viability, we won't have the luxury of worrying about the mutation problem.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Liar Dave continues with
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This invalidates ToE (at least human evolution)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course it doesn’t, but your lying Fundy brain is prone to grasp as such straws.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This fact that Crow reveals also validates the Biblical implication of a less deteriorated human genome in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, Crow’s work says absolutely nothing to support your made up ‘Biblical implications.’  That’s just your Fundy brain protecting you from reality again.
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If humanity is headed for extinction from mutation accumulation in 3000 years or so, how can you say that the very thing that is killing us was the thing that created us?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If people get killed in airplane crashes every year who otherwise would still be alive, how can you say the airplane ever did anything good for mankind? :p
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for Synergistic Epistasis ... I've said all I know about it ... your turn.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Since you've said absolutely ZERO about it, I'll chalk that up to one of your few honest statements.   :D

                  OK, I know this will probably get censored, but I couldn't help post at least one picture of AFDave's afterburner   ;)


                  Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 09 2006,20:43

                  Re "You think it was a preexisting ability?  What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism? "

                  Maybe it was preparing to invest in the stocking market?

                  Henry
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 09 2006,21:00

                  OA ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If humanity is headed for extinction from mutation accumulation in 3000 years or so, how can you say that the very thing that is killing us was the thing that created us?

                  If people get killed in airplane crashes every year who otherwise would still be alive, how can you say the airplane ever did anything good for mankind? :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Talk about broken analogies!  Woohoo!

                  Here ... let me give you one that works.  Saying that mutations created all life on earth is sorta like saying that viruses created all life on earth.

                  **************************************

                  As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 09 2006,21:05

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 09 2006,21:24)
                  The most powerful (but paradoxically also the weakest) force known is gravity. Do you hear cosmologists going around worshipping gravity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  When I was in physics I used to irritate people by saying it wasn't the force of gravity that was weaker than the others, it was the gravitational charge.

                  Though I suspect that's only funny to the people who know the equations.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 09 2006,21:06



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 09 2006,21:27

                  I admit nothing ... but please, enlighten me when you find out something.

                  The worshipping NS thing was a joke, Eric.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,21:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,21:00)
                  Talk about broken analogies!  Woohoo!

                  Here ... let me give you one that works.  Saying that mutations created all life on earth is sorta like saying that viruses created all life on earth.

                  **************************************

                  As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I gotta say, Dave: you so, richly deserve the abuse heaped on you here.

                  The only idiot saying "mutations created all life on earth" is YOU.

                  But it's pretty clear we're getting towards the end game here. Dave's pretty much run steam not only with his "hypothesis," but also with his pathetic, brain-dead attempts to manufacture some sort of problem with evolutionary theory.

                  As Russell put it, "Save the ToE from what, Dave?" Idiot, febrile misunderstandings from people who believe the universe was created last week? (Last week, 6,000 years ago; in this context, the two are interchangeable.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 09 2006,22:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,21:27)
                  The worshipping NS thing was a joke, Eric.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So is worshipping your god, Dave.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 09 2006,22:22

                  Well, either dave is seriously intoxicated tonight, or this thread has spiraled down to its logical inevitable conclusion.

                  There's nothing in that last response that rises even to the level of pathetic.

                  So, shake your impotent fists of rage, dave. You got nothin'. ToE is what they teach in schools now; it's what they will teach for the foreseeable future. The religious right is in retreat. Creationism is in retreat. And your contributions, immortalized in this thread, are an excellent testimony as to why.

                  I'll keep my eyes peeled for any articles that challenge ToE in the serious literature. Meanwhile, "good night and good luck"!
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 09 2006,23:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, yes, you are correct.  Crow says many things and you have correctly identified one of his conclusions.

                  However ...

                  You cannot hide from the fact that Dr. J. F. Crow ...

                  1) Implies that we are genetically inferior to our Stone Age Ancestors, and
                  2) He considers mutation accumulation to be a "bomb with a long fuse"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Apart from all the other posts that show AFD dishonestly quotemined (again) Dr. J. F. Crow .


                  Ah... AFD do you even know when the stone age started and finished in the Middle East?

                  Here is a hint, they found pre Neanderthal tools in Europe from around 400,000 years ago and evidence of stone age H.S.S from greater than 40,000 years ago.

                  Your Biblical fables which can be traced back to earlier mythologies ARE ALL BRONZE AGE, why?

                  (hints: Agriculture, domesticated animals, proto writen language and urban population centres VS nomadism, following game herds, harvesting wild vegetation)

                  Again you are claiming evidence supporting your crackpot idea that turns out is actually evidence supporting evolution.

                  The only 'evidence' you have is the misreading you do of Genesis which is very recent in terms Human history.

                  As with all Mythology, Genesis is to truth as 'CSI: Miami ' is to what actually happened last night in Miami.

                  Deal with it AFD..... Adam/Eve is fantasy.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 09 2006,23:17

                  Liar Dave in desperation wails:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I admit nothing ... but please, enlighten me when you find out something.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just because we've worn out three pairs of kneecaps scientifically kicking you in the ass doesn't mean you have to admit it Davie.  You can live in your little fantasy world, and we'll live here in reality where lying jerks like you get shown up every day.  :D

                  Post-flood scavengers Dave - they're gonna come back to haunt ya!  :p
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 10 2006,01:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,19:27)
                  I admit nothing ... but please, enlighten me when you find out something.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, you're the one making the claim (that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon).  I'm not doing your research for you.

                  Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 10 2006,02:04

                  < I guess I expected more of a reaction to this one. >
                  Did it slip by unnoticed or am I just allowing my overinflated ego too much credit?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 10 2006,08:14

                  Oh! I almost forgot. Crow's other cause for the deterioration of the gene pool (other than too much medical care and too much taming of the environment):

                  too much teenage sexual abstinence!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 10 2006,08:28

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why thank you, I think I shall [research nylon-eating bacteria.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  then ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not doing your research for you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Knockout?  What or who did you knockout?  And what does this "astounding victory" do for the dying ToE (remember MacNeill?)

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, shake your impotent fists of rage, dave. You got nothin'. ToE is what they teach in schools now; it's what they will teach for the foreseeable future. The religious right is in retreat. Creationism is in retreat. And your contributions, immortalized in this thread, are an excellent testimony as to why.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Rage?  The only rage I have seen is from your side (not you, but others).  And if you think Creationism is in retreat, you haven't been reading the news.  Try setting a Google alert for "creationism."

                  And finally ... before the games begin again on Monday ... a joke ...

                  Why did the evolutionist go to the dentist?

















                  Because he had a truth-ache!  :p  :p  :p
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 10 2006,09:05

                  Geez AFD you call that a joke?

                  I'll bet you were the life of the party when the coke came out (coke cola that is).

                  Besides..... as usual it's ass backwards.


                  Now along with your sunday school, prepubescent understanding of science, your under developed funny bone may have trouble with this ...a real joke.

                  "A young college student approached his professor after a science class
                  and offered a respectful challenge to an anti-creationist comment the
                  professor had made. Caught dead to rights, the professor attempted to
                  make light of the situation. 'Well, Son,' he smiled, 'if there were no
                  God I guess we'd have to invent one.'


                  "'No, Sir,' the student replied. 'If there were no God, we'd have to
                  invent _us_.'"


                  or this


                  Scientists decide that since they know how to do everything - create
                  life &c - that God should be told to retire. God demurs so they
                  challenge him to a contest. God starts by reaching down & taking a
                  handful of dirt, breathes into it, & a living creature emerges.
                  Scientist thinks that's easy enough to match since living things are
                  made up of the same elements as dirt, so he bends down to pick up a
                  handful of dirt. "No, no" God interrupts. "You get your own dirt."


                  or


                  Voltaire: "If God made us in His image, we have
                  certainly returned the compliment.

                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 10 2006,09:16

                  I haven't seen any hard numbers coming from Dave in a long time.  A whole lot of handwaving and conjecture, along with a healthy dose of quote-mining and personal increduality is all we have had for a couple weeks now.

                  I think Dave is being VERY selective on what he wants to present and defend on this board.  After having the snot kicked out of any number of claims he brought forward all he has left is semantics and obfuscation (eating Crow indeed).

                  C'mon Dave, I want to see more 14C discussion.  Your last attempt was quite limp.

                  I want to see more radiometric challanges.  Yours (and Humphreys) data left a bad taste in your mouth but it was sweet to Deadman and others.

                  I want to see you show how the earth was created only 6000 years ago.  Your genetic richness positions and allele misinformation were dissolved when faced with the acid test of facts.

                  Your present attempt to string together some silly quote-mines and dubious statements (out of context of course) and then weave a connective tale to "prove" your Hypothesis is a joke.  Here's your summary position...  
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,12:41)
                  I see no way that anyone with the slightest understanding of genetics can read these clear statements by prominent geneticists (of which Sanford himself is a highly successful one), the latest being written a mere 4 years ago, can possibly miss the clear messages that ...

                  1) The Higher Genomes are deteriorating.
                  2) The evidence weighs heavily that they have always been deteriorating
                  3) The inevitable end of genome deterioration is extinction of species
                  4) Natural selection can only delay the end, not prevent it

                  What are the logical conclusions from these powerful truths?

                  1) Genomes were better in the past, IOW less deteriorated.
                  2) The source of variation in species is not the very thing (mutations) that causes their deterioration in spite of Ayala's wishful thinking
                  3) Rather, the source of variation is stored genetic variation (Ayala)
                  4) If humanity is in danger of genetic meltdown within the next 3000 years, it could not have survived for 200,000 in the past.
                  5) Therefore, the accepted deep time scale for the human species is wrong.
                  6) This conclusion is further strengthened by examining the details of radiometric dating
                  7) It is further strengthened by the reality of a 6000 year timescale of written history
                  8) It is further strengthened by the oral and written traditions of numerous people groups all over the world, the most prominent of which are the Hebrew records known to the Western world as the Book of Genesis.
                  9) This enigmatic "stored genetic variation" as Ayala calls it, this pre-existing variability, had to come from somewhere.  If not from mutations, then where?
                  10) Ayala's "stored genetic variation" can only come from one place: Intelligence.

                  I think Genesis 1:1 could be restated to say ...

                  IN THE BEGINNING, INTELLIGENCE ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Many people have already parsed these "conclusions" and found them wanting.  Here's an incomplete list of only MY challanges to your statements above....
                  • How do you explain the profusion of 61 or more newly expressed HLA-B alleles in the population within 250 years after the flood.  Your "admixture of populations" argument was clearly refuted and you haven't presented anything to explain this.
                  • How do you explain the concordant results of Rb-Sr Isochron tests with U-Pb-Th tests of the same material.  The age results from these tests show an age of the earth of over 4.3 billion years.  You have yet to respond directly to the validity of Rb-Sr dating methods.  Your (or should I say Arndts and Overn) past "all Isochrons are mixing lines" argument was clearly refuted.
                  • How can we observe supernovae events in space whose light took 50 million years to reach the earth.  You have yet to even hint at a discussion of space, the cosmos, or any of the physics involved beyond the earth itself.


                  Get a new writer, your old one is caught in a loop.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 10 2006,09:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Try setting a Google alert for "creationism."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right.
                  Or "scientology"
                  or "islamic extremism"
                  or "E. coli"...

                  Like I said, let me know when any creationist challenges make it into the serious scientific literature.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 10 2006,10:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I suppose I can presume your misrepresentation of my quote was accidental...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why thank you, I think I shall [research nylon-eating bacteria.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  When I write, Dave, I try to establish a normal continuity of thoughts.  I try to achieve this by using normal sentence and paragraph structure.  Now, perhaps I don't always succeed, but I don't think the quote above represents a failure to present my thoughts clearly.  To me (and I suspect to most folks), a regular reading of my quote would inform the reader that "I shall [take that as admitting you can't answer my questions]," rather than "I shall [research nylon-eathing bacteria]."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Knockout?  What or who did you knockout?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, I was saying I figuratively knocked you out, but really, I just worked you into a corner and you knocked yourself out.  Remeber?:
                  Dave: Biological information can't increase!
                  Shirley: What about if there's a reversion?
                  Dave: Bah, can you give me any real-world examples of such a thing?
                  Argy: Ames test!
                  Dave: I don't get it.
                  Russell and Stephen Wells: (patiently explain what it is and why it's relevant.  Russell goes on to explain how the Ames test also invalidates two of your other ideas)
                  Dave: Ah, I figured out the Ames test on my own.  Also, I never said information couldn't ever increase

                  Surely you haven't forgotten that whole exchange? It was funny. (note - I am referring to the exchange as funny, not the Ames test.  There's absolutely nothing funny about testing for carcinogens)

                  So are you going to back up your claim that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon, and why you think that would be a good thing for the organism?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 10 2006,11:08

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,08:28)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Knockout?  What or who did you knockout?  And what does this "astounding victory" do for the dying ToE (remember MacNeill?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, if the ToE is "dying," then why are hundreds of thousands of research papers (you know, the kind that's based on actual, original research?) published every year, while on your side of the fence, creationist "scientists" manage to eke out a literal handful of papers a year, essentially all of which are based on reinterpretations of legitimate scientific research.

                  If there's anything that's "dying," Dave, it's your young-earth creationism. The "astounding victory" for the ToE happened over a century ago. Perhaps you missed it. You'll note than in the real scientific community, the ToE doesn't even have any competition.

                  But the thing I find so astonishing is that you keep citing McNeill even after half a dozen people have explained to you your monumental misunderstanding of his actual point, which demolishes your claim that the ToE is "dying."

                  I know you're not really that dumb, Dave, but when you post statements like this, you really do give every evidence of being mentally feeble.

                  And yet another content-free post from Dave. Remember that answer you promised me "tomorrow," Dave? Well, "tomorrow" was "yesterday," and I'm beginning to think you can't even remember what question you were supposed to come up with an answer for.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 10 2006,11:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,08:28)
                   Try setting a Google alert for "creationism."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's one for you, Dave: search the PubMed database for "Creationism." Or, even better, try "Created Kinds."

                  It will be very interesting to see how productive young-earth creationism is in, say, the medical field.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 10 2006,11:46

                  THE FLOOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.  THERE IS TOO MUCH CO2 THAT WOULD APPEAR IF THE MECHANISM OF THE FLOOD ACTUALLY OCCURRED.  WE WOULD BE IN AN ENVIRONMENT RESEMBLING VENUS!

                  Recent studies about volcanic extrusions showed the following.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There are huge lava flows on earth, called volcanic traps, which must have occurred during the flood year because they lie on top of supposed flood deposited sedimentary rock and beneath flood deposited sedimentary rock. So if the geology requires that they be extruded during the flood, how much sulfuric acid {and CO2} must come with them?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  A listing of such extrusions (traps) results in over 98x10^6 cubic kilometers of basalt.  From this number we have

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So at 3.6 megatons/km3 x 98 x 106 cubic kilometers of basalt = 3.5 x 1014 tons of CO2.

                  Given that there are 1016 kg/ton this means that during the one year flood, 3.47 x 10^17 kg of CO2 would be released. According to my CRC the mass of the atmosphere is 5.2 x 10^21 g or 5.2 x 10^18 kg. Thus the amount of CO2 released ONLY by the volcanic traps during the YEC global flood, is equal to 6.6% of the entire atmosphere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  WOW!!!!!  6.6% CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.  JUST FROM THESE VOLCANIC TRAPS.  HOW CAN THIS BE?!?!
                  These investigations then compare this CO2 level to some actual measurements on earth.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold. (See "Austin et al, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" 3rd ICC 1994, p. 615 and Michael Oard, A rapid Post Flood Ice Age," CRSQ 16(1979):29-37; Oard, An Ice age Caused by the Genesis Flood, 1990 ICR).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  SEE THAT!!!  ALL THOSE YEC SCIENTISTS ARE REFUTED WITH THIS MATH!!!  IS THERE ANY RECOVERY FOR THE YEC POSITION?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas and young-earth creationists have not given the thought to this issue that they should have. Their global flood would choke Noah on sulfuric acid and then choke him again on the CO2, and with an atmosphere so clogged with CO2, Noah would burn up. Venus has an atmosphere with lots of CO2 and the temperature there is several hundred degrees C.! But somehow, YECs want us to believe that the postflood, CO2 rich atmosphere would be very cold. Is there any scientific fact that will move them to reconsider their views?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Of course, faced with such facts and refutations of the flood.  What can we expect from AFDave?

                  Over to you Dave.  You can't claim there is a flood without accounting for the CO2 release in the atmosphere caused by the volcanic traps.

                  Mike PSS

                  *************************
                  If Dave can't accept scientific journals then he can certainly accept some analysis from a different perspective.
                  Source:  < This article > and others are Dave's worst nightmare.  A shared worldview teleologically (like some commenters on this board have already indicated) requires Dave to answer the questions factually.  Which he can't.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 10 2006,14:01

                  Nobody laughed at my joke!  Come on ... you guys are too serious!

                  Yes, you showed me the Ames test alright ... I would buy you a cold one if you were here ... and yes, I misread you on our nylon friend ... I spent a lot of time on supposed proof for ToE in APO Milano ... I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

                  ... but as soon as you're done celebrating the Ames test, you might want to explain how that helps save ToE.

                  It DOES need saving, Russell ... at least the Modern Synthesis does according to MacNeill.

                  More tomorrow!
                  Posted by: clamboy on Dec. 10 2006,14:27

                  What time does afdave go to the doctor?










                  Truth-hurty! :D  :p  :)  ;)  ???  :(  :angry:  :O
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 10 2006,14:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,14:01)
                  ... but as soon as you're done celebrating the Ames test, you might want to explain how that helps save ToE.

                  It DOES need saving, Russell ... at least the Modern Synthesis does according to MacNeill.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Saving from whom, Dave? Creationists? Creationists are non-entities in the scientific world. They have no actual theory, they do no research worth noting, they contribute nothing to scientific discourse.

                  By contrast, evolutionary theory gives theoretical coherence to all of the life sciences. Entire journals are devoted just to subspecialties of evolutionary theory. The theory is as well-established as any in science. There is essentially no chance that, a thousand years from now, the broad outlines of the theory will have changed any more than the broad outlines of general relativity theory.

                  I know you don't believe this, Dave, but look at what you do believe in: you believe in a universe younger than human civilization. You believe in a universe only 12,000 lightyears across, which is smaller than the Milky Way. You believe in a global catastrophic flood, a biological slate-wiper which makes the Chicxulub crater at the end of the Cretaceous look like a summer cloudburst, which happened during historical times and yet left no trace in the geological, paleontological, or archaeological record. You believe in an evolutionary fecundity so extreme it could essentially repopulate the globe from one pole to another from whatever survivors were left in a 450-foot wooden boat in less than 5,000 years.

                  Given what you do believe in, Dave, what possible difference could it make to any rational person what you don't believe in?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  More tomorrow!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Before you post more drivel tomorrow, Dave, why don't you honor your promise to give me answers to questions I've been posing for weeks, and which you promised to answer two days ago?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 10 2006,14:41

                  Quote (AFDave @ earlier)

                  Totally changes the author's meaning, huh?
                  I guess you didn't read carefully what BWE said, did you now? ...  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which was:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Unless you are using xianity in the same way Adams did in that letter. In which case I wholeheartedly agree with you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To which AFDave replied:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which, of course, I am.  Have been all along.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here was AFDave's quote:    


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (AFDAVE)
                  The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity. (John Adams, Works, Vol X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. OI-32)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And here is the entire quote:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

                  Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

                  Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

                  The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

                  Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Adams was including Universalists, Priestleyans (you do know who Priestley was don't you?), Independents, Deists and atheists in his definition of Christian and proves this by adding his list of philosophers including rousseau, hume, voltaire, locke and the rest.. That's the way I used to define it too. Until I found out that people like you were real. I'm glad to see that all you are saying is that the founders were generally Northern European and that you aren't trying to impose the kind of christianity that involves christ, worship, belief in any particular god, any particular book or laying dogma on their graves. :)

                  If you would have been using Christian in the sense of "Believing in the divinity of Christ", you would have been quotemining. Right? Because that is exactly what Adams avoids. So, in light of this new revelation, that christian is an essentially meaningless word in terms of religion, what was your original point again? What are you trying to prove?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave:    
                  First of all, it was fundies that founded the Untied States of America and it was fundies who came up with the idea of representative government where everyone is truly free and has a voice in governance regardless of their religious or political views.  
                  You will note that American government (designed mostly by what you would call today Christian fundies) allows Atheists, Buddhists, Moslems and everything else under the sun to participate in government.
                  All this freedom was a "Christian fundy" invention against the backdrop of authoritarian, institutional religous rulership.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That last bit, combined with this bit:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave: you think I'm going to disagree, don't you?  Well, I'm not.  You are right.  I DO think one group was in control at America's founding and I think one group should still be in control.  Who is that?  People who subscribe to the General Principles of Christianity based upon the Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible.  Notice that I didn't say they have to be Christians.  We don't need to ask them if they've been born again or baptized before we allow them to serve. They can be Atheists or Muslims or Catholics or what have you, but if they want to serve in government, I want them to agree with the General Principles of Christianity based on the Bible -- God created all things, God created mankind, God created marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, 10 commandments, teachings of Christ, etc.  So yes, I think they should take their oaths on the Bible, not the Koran or some other book.  Some philosophy will be in control.  In the past it was the Christian philosophy, which in my opinion, is the reason for our success.  In the future, I think it should still be the Christian philosophy so that our continued success as a nation is ensured.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  looks to be at odds to me at least and I assume OA too. I'm glad to know that the second quote is simply personal opinion and that you are not trying to make a case for it.

                  And, this being the case, OA should probably apologize for the misunderstanding. You could see how it might have looked different to Occam's Aftershave though can't you Dave? I mean, you have been babbling about some pretty off-the-wall stuff here. I think it was an honest mistake. But, all's well that ends well I always say.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 10 2006,15:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [ToE] DOES need saving, Russell ... at least the Modern Synthesis does according to MacNeill.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah. Well, I'll wait until someone can articulate the threat before I start to worry about it. As for your clumsy equivocation:

                  ToE = modern synthesis = RM + NS

                  I don't think you're going to sucker anyone here on the strength of that one again. I'm sure it works great on your Sunday school kids... the same ones who fall for the equally misleading Watchmaker story. But I believe the frequenters of this forum are all grown-ups. Or at least precocious children.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 10 2006,15:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,14:01)
                  Nobody laughed at my joke!  Come on ... you guys are too serious!

                  Yes, you showed me the Ames test alright ... I would buy you a cold one if you were here ... and yes, I misread you on our nylon friend ... I spent a lot of time on supposed proof for ToE in APO Milano ... I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

                  ... but as soon as you're done celebrating the Ames test, you might want to explain how that helps save ToE.

                  It DOES need saving, Russell ... at least the Modern Synthesis does according to MacNeill.

                  More tomorrow!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  davey, why dont you mail MacNeill or zip over to his blog and engage him there? Explain your position.See if he supports you or not in "person".

                  huh? huh?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 10 2006,15:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Truth-hurty! :D  :p  :)  ;)  ???  :(  :angry:  :O
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 10 2006,17:49

                  Tell you what, Dave. Why don't you demonstrate the depth of your intellectual honesty to us liars here. Why don't you ask McNeill straight out: "Do you think the Theory of Evolution is finished? Do you think it needs 'saving'?"

                  Then you can come back here and post his response. If you're going to completely misrepresent the guy's views, you can at least give him the opportunity to say whether he agrees with you or not.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 10 2006,18:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, OK.  Here's all the evidence that a nylon-digesting organism existed before the invention of nylon:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------












                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I win.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 10 2006,21:30

                  Take a tip from Argy AFD.

                  Next time you make up a quote box with quotemined creationist propaganda ..........don't put anything in it.

                  The net effect will be the same. However the honesty level will be 100% BETTER than your previous effort.

                  It will be a win win situation for you and us.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 10 2006,22:33

                  Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------















                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 10 2006,23:20

                  Liar Dave's unoriginal comeback:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ... (snip another example of how Dave can't think for himself)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your problem, Liar Dave, is that the Ames test wasn't offered as 'proof of ToE'.  It was offered as evidence of real-world examples of reversible genetic mutations, something you asked for and claimed can’t exist.

                  The evidence made you look stupid, but then again most all the scientific evidence posted here makes you look stupid.  Your replies usually serve to make you look more stupid and dishonest.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 11 2006,00:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,20:33)
                  Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------















                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, what OA said.

                  Perhaps there's no use in flogging a dead dolphin, but are you going to even attempt to back up your claim about nylon-digesting bacteria?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 11 2006,00:43

                  Did Dave not totally crash and burn on the founders thing?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 11 2006,03:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,22:33)
                  Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------















                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  this is real kids stuff. But I suppose children lap this up?
                  How old are you davey? 10?

                  When will the earth be 6001 davey?
                  If you can say it's 6000 years old, you must know when it'll be 6001? Or will it be 6000 years old forever? That would be a miracle!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 11 2006,03:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Did Dave not totally crash and burn on the founders thing?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm amused by how shallow and inadequate he really is. This constant pretense of "knowing" about topics he has no comprehension of...based on bits and pieces he scurries around gathering.

                  The really ironic part is when he tries to forward ideas that he claims to have developed himself...we've seen how monumentally tragicomic THAT has been.

                  This whole "creator god hypothesis" itself is merely a ploy to get information spoon-fed to him in childlike terms, so he can then turn around and try to pervert the minds of children -- some of the most vulnerable members of any society.

                  His intellectual laziness extends to the use of any fallacy, any lie, any rhetorical gambit that will keep others cutting up, chewing and digesting data for him, so that he doesn't have to do that actual work for himself.

                  In essence, he's a parasite.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 11 2006,03:47

                  AFDave's evidence in support of his "Creator God" Hypothesis
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 11 2006,06:40

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2006,04:00)
                  When will the earth be 6001 davey?
                  If you can say it's 6000 years old, you must know when it'll be 6001? Or will it be 6000 years old forever? That would be a miracle!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Maybe the universe is like my wife--all the evidence points to her being 43, but she remains perpetually 29.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 11 2006,07:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Maybe the universe is like my wife--all the evidence points to her being 43, but she remains perpetually 29.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hence g$d's a woman

                  Well AFD's belief in a 6000 year old earth would require him to trace the date foward from when that Scottish?twit who initially came up with the idea over a 100 years ago 'decided' how old the earth was.

                  Did anyone note that the Nobel prize for Physics was awarded to 2 researchers who firmed up the 'Big Bang" 13,500,000,000 years ago?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,07:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  that Scottish?twit who initially came up with the idea over a 100 years ago 'decided' how old the earth was.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < Irish twit >
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 11 2006,08:04

                  Deadman,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  His intellectual laziness extends to the use of any fallacy, any lie, any rhetorical gambit that will keep others cutting up, chewing and digesting data for him, so that he doesn't have to do that actual work for himself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And this is exactly what the other trolls do. The motivations are different but the actions are the same. For the other troll it's more:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  His intellectual laziness extends to the use of any fallacy, any lie, any rhetorical gambit that will allow him to convince himself that he is "winning at teh intarnetz" or espouse his latest prejudiced tirade against foreigners, people of different religions or none, and "libruls".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  My modifications. Again with this quote



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This whole "creator god hypothesis" itself is merely a ploy to get information spoon-fed to him in childlike terms, so he can then turn around and try to pervert the minds of children -- some of the most vulnerable members of any society.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The other troll line is more:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This whole "insert any topic here" itself is merely a ploy to get information spoon-fed to him in childlike terms, so he can then turn around and try to justify his predecided faith position by claiming that the irrelevant claims of creationists are somehow "unrefuted". He's trying to intellectualise his dying faith and bigotry, and failing monumentally.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Note ALL we ever get with these trolls/loons is arguments from personal incredulity gussied up in fancy words that, usually, we provide them with. The really sad thing is that it extends from the Berlinskis and Dembskis of this world (who are by no means stupid in any normal or valid sense of the word) right to the Pope and multitudes of archbishops and down to the likes of AFDave and the Tardmeister. I am rapidly becoming convinced of the fact that all these message board trolls are doing is creating false conflicts in order to convince themselves that their asinine views are somehow legitmised by being engaged. It's a classic fallacy.

                  Louis
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 11 2006,09:06

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 11 2006,07:55)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  that Scottish?twit who initially came up with the idea over a 100 years ago 'decided' how old the earth was.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < Irish twit >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gah! It's times like that I deny my ancestry.

                  Still I can take heart that .... HE WASN"T A TRUE IRISHMAN!

                  snigger.

                  He was a < Sasanach, > well half of one anyway and a recent arrival (circa 14th Century).

                  My Family traces its name back to the 5th century in Western Ireland although there are rumblings of Normans from the 10th century on my mothers side.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 11 2006,09:42

                  I'll bet AFD can trace his family name all the way back to Adam and Eve ....like all creationists (for a small fee to some cottage industry fakers).

                  Although I don't know how he would fit in all the incest that went on, his great^^450 grandmother was his great^^451 grandfathers daughter.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 11 2006,09:47

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 10 2006,02:04)
                  < I guess I expected more of a reaction to this one. >
                  Did it slip by unnoticed or am I just allowing my overinflated ego too much credit?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you mean pinning Dave down on his definition of a Christian, yes, you do give yourself too much credit. ;)

                  I tried to nail him down on a week or more ago on the specific criteria by which he included unitarians and diests, but excluded other sects. He never answered.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,10:08

                  TWO DOCTORS MISS CROW'S CONCERN ... BLINDNESS?  PRIORITY OF THE ToE PARADIGM? BEATS ME!

                  All you can do is shake your head in disbelief.

                  Faid, Doctor of I-forget-what, but a Doctor nonetheless ... and Dr. Russell Durbin of Ohio State University can actually read a scientific paper and completely miss clear statements of the author that completely undermine the entire Theory of Evolution.  Let's review this Crow thing now that everyone has pretty much had their say.

                  RUSSELL POINTS OUT CROW'S REAL INTENT WHICH HE IMAGINES I HAVE MISSED
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In the case of Crow, he is concerned with the likelihood that in very recent human history - the past few centuries - the more prosperous human societies have largely relieved the purifying pressure of natural selection, largely by medical and environmental improvements. That, combined with people, especially males, being reproductively active at older and older ages, predicts an accumulation of mutations that would not have survived the more rigorous selection faced by our paleolithic ancestors. Here's the paragraph immediately before  the one you so carefully extracted:  
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Crow]...
                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced. (my emphases)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What he's not talking about is an inherent tendency for all organisms, or "higher organisms" to deteriorate genetically over time.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually he does, but he is careful how he says it.  He's an evolutionist.  He believes we evolved from the little pool of chemicals just like you do.  I didn't say this was his purpose and I don't fantasize that he's become a creationist.  I simply observe that he is a respected geneticist and he makes some clear statements which betray the falsity of ToE.

                  DR. FAID WEIGHS IN
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave. Answer. My. Friggin'. Question.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here, I'll break it down even more for you:
                  If a problem's cause is the breakdown of a mechanism, did that mechanism not prevent the problem when it was active?
                  Did you not read WHY Crow says we have this problem, dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I read Crow's paper completely. Here ... let me walk you through this.

                  CROW'S STATED CONCERNS THAT FAID AND RUSSELL DID NOT MISS
                  1) Nearly-neutral mutations are not getting eliminated as they did in the past.
                  2) Reproductively active older men cause more mutations to be passed on.

                  NOW ... CROW'S STATED CONCERN THAT FAID AND RUSSELL DID MISS
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [1st paragraph of article] < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 > My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; [Religious belief parroted by all ToE advocates including Ayala in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, admitted by Ayala and others] for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. [That is, if you are philosophically pre-committed to excluding any intelligence outside of humanity.  I, for one, am not that proud.  I am humble enough to admit that there might be an Intelligence somewhere that I don't understand that could possibly have had something to do with the incredible innovations we find in nature.] My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, [He assumes that mutation created us and moves on to discuss our future welfare] but rather as a  factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious. [Yes.  Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.  The overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious!  Why, oh why, Dr. Crow does the force of this statement that just came from your own keyboard not smack you right between the eyes and make you realize, like Sanford finally did, what a fool you've been all these years for buying into this remarkable nonsense known as Darwinism? The million dollar question is:  How can a mechanism which has an overall deleterious effect on our species also play the role of creator of our species?  Answer: it cannot.] And it is this deleterious effect that I want to discuss. [Crow totally misses the elephant in the living room and trudges on.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Before we continue with Crow ... back to Faid's question ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  How do Crow's concerns pose a problem for the ToE. when they derive from the fact that ToE has STOPPED WORKING the way it used to in humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What you're missing, Faid, is that Crow says that only the "NS" part of ToE has stopped working.  The "RM" part has not.

                  And the huge disconnect that you are sensing right now stems from your belief [and Crow's and most ATBCers] that "RM's" collectively are a creative mechanism.  They are not.  As Crow clearly shows.

                  Remember?      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Stop just a moment and let this soak in.  I know that this is hard to accept.  Old paradigms die hard.  It is not fun to wake up and realize that you have been had.  Had, I might add, in such an enormous way.  I mean, we are talking here about virtually the entire scientific establishment that for 150 years has now accepted the Fairy Tale of Darwinism.  This is no mere "Oops."  This is a tsunami, guys.  And in accepting the reality which I have just pointed out to you, many of you will have to eat massive crow. (No pun intended)  For months now, many people here have been saying "Dave, you're an idiot blah blah blah" in various and sundry ways. (my latest favorite is "ambulatory bit of fecal slime")  And to think that now you might have to admit that you have been wrong is a heavy thing indeed.

                  So I doubt any of you will.  If anyone does, it will be many months or years after I am gone.  Human pride is a powerful thing.  

                  Lest there be any doubt about what Crow is saying here, let us continue.

                  [Crow continues with some history and discusssion of The Nature of Mutations, Mutation Rates in Males and Females, Paternal Age Effect in considerable detail, The Total Mutation Rate, Persistence of Mutations in the Population, Mutations and Population Fitness, Truncation Selection, Quasi-Truncation Selection, and finally, The Current Human Population.]

                  ... and does a fine job analyzing all these things.  Before we analyze and critique his proposed solutions, however, let's clearly understand the problems as he states them and consider the implications for ToE.

                  It should be clear from Crow's opening paragraph that Crow unwittingly reveals The Fatal Flaw of ToE, but since we have so many TOE Optimists around here, let's reiterate.

                  Mr. Aftershave points out what Crow says here ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don't we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I guess Mr. Aftershave is saying "See, we are keeping well ahead.  What's the problem?"  Yes, we are keeping ahead with technology which is produced by intelligence.  We are not keeping ahead by simply letting nature (natural selection) take its course.

                  Let that sink in for a minute.

                  Again.  The hope that Technology produced by Human Intelligence can prevent human extinction has absolutely nothing to do with the Erroneous Notion that Random Mutations have creative power.  They do not.  Crow admits they do not.  End of story.  ToE loses with just this one paper.  Never mind the hundreds of other evidences against ToE.

                  And if that weren't enough to convince even the most stubborn, look at his statement about our stone age ancestors.      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoa!  Stop the tape!  Wait just one minute!  I thought that Mutations were the Creative Force that transformed our stone age ancestors into the highly intelligent creatures we are today!  Why should we worry about extra mutations if we are forced to return to a stone age life?  Mutations are the creative mechanisms, are they not?  If this situation occurs, wouldn't evolution just keep right on ticking and H. sapiens would reappear?  Or maybe evolution would take a different path?  Maybe we'd come back like elves ... or dwarves ... or wizards!

                  Are you beginning to see how ridiculous this sounds?

                  You cannot have it both ways, friends.  Either mutations are harmful overall as Crow admits, or they are a creative mechanism ... in which case, why worry?  We'll just keep evolving "up" and "down" for eons ... going back to Stone Age life this millennium perhaps, then evolving to some higher form over the next 100 millennia or so, etc. etc.

                  But of course, no one in science is going to say "Oh well, let's just sit back while nature takes it's course."  No.  We will continue to apply our Intelligence to the Mutation Problem so as to mitigate it as long as we can.  Why?  

                  Because we know intuitively, as any child could, that Mutations Will Kill Us, unless (and probably even if) we do something intelligent about them.

                  Intelligence created us, friends.  And only intelligence can save us.

                  Maybe it's time you got to know The Intelligence.

                  He wants to get to know you.

                  AM I SAYING WE SHOULD RETREAT TO MONASTERIES, GIVE UP SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND SIT AROUND ALL DAY AND SING HYMNS?

                  No.  Absolutely not.  We should be fully engaged in scientific research.  We should do our best to come up with solutions to the mutation problem.  We should continue to fight disease with every means at our disposal.  And we should harness more fully the power of the scientific establishment by redirecting their efforts away from fruitless research on how we evolved.  Accept the fact that we didn't evolve.  We were created.  Then spend those brain cells more wisely exploring the wonders of creation, figuring out how Goddidit, and continuing to subdue the earth in new and wonderful ways.

                  ****************************************************************

                  CROW THROWS OUT A SOLUTION TO THE MUTATION PROBLEM, BUT STOPS SHORT OF RECOMMENDING IT.
                  Crow stops short of suggesting any socially disruptive solutions to the mutation problem in humans ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I conclude that for a number of diseases the mutation rate increases with age and at a rate much faster than linear. This suggests that the greatest mutational health hazard in the human population at present is fertile old males. If males reproduced shortly after puberty (or the equivalent result were attained by early collection of sperm and cold storage for later use) the mutation rate could be greatly reduced. (I am not advocating this. For one thing, until many more diseases are studied, the generality of the conclusion is not established. Furthermore, one does not lightly suggest such socially disruptive procedures, even if there were a well-established health benefit.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  CROW OFFERS NO NATURAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PRESENT HUMAN POPULATION, NOT EVEN "QUASI-TRUNCATION SELECTION"
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.  There is a way out, however.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  [DESCRIBES TRUNCATION SELECTION] ... then ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, natural selection in either flies or people does not line up individuals and remove all of those with more than a certain number of mutations. The unreality of this model kept me for many years from considering this as a way in which the population deals with a high mutation rate. Then, thanks to a suggestion from Milkman (47), Kimura and I worked out the consequences of what I shall call "quasi-truncation selection" (48). ...[describes it] ... I conclude that for flies, and very likely for human populations in the past, mildly harmful mutations were balanced by quasi-truncation selection. Since people have more genes and a great deal more DNA than Drosophila, this form of selection seems to me to be the most likely mechanism by which the population could survive and prosper, despite a high mutation rate.

                  Until recent times, the size of the human population grew at an extremely slow rate. With the population largely density regulated, something like quasi-truncation selection seems likely. There was a high reproduction rate with a death rate such that only about two children per couple survive to reproduce. Despite the largely random nature of accidental and environmental deaths, those individuals with the smallest number of mutations enjoyed a greater chance of being among the survivors and quasi-truncation selection could operate.

                  The Current Human Population

                  However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So notice--this is very important--he is NOT offering Quasi-truncation selection as a solution to the PRESENT human population ... he only speculates that this is what operated in the past.

                  Sanford has taken his Quasi-truncation selection equations and modeled them with ReMine's help.  And before you start going "Bah! Two YECs modeling data!"  I'll point you to some "real scientists" who come up with the same results.
                  < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/1/394 >



                  So Truncation Selection fails even as an explanation for how our ancestors survived.

                  Sorry to burst your bubble.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,10:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When will the earth be 6001 davey?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Apparently it was 1997: >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,10:27

                  Liar Dave starts out the morning with his usual dose of stupidity and dishonesty:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And the huge disconnect that you are sensing right now stems from your belief [and Crow's and most ATBCers] that "RM's" collectively are a creative mechanism.  They are not.  As Crow clearly shows.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, here is Crow's opening statement again
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow:  My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Which part of "on which natural selection acts" are you too friggin' stupid to understand?

                  mutation + NATURAL SELECTION, you brain-dead moron.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,10:29

                  davy, you are a piece of ... work.

                  Where has anyone here suggested that evolution has been proceeding in the limited human populations that Crow is talking about (recent wealthy societies) as has in the past?

                  Where is there any support from Crow, or any of your other quote-mine victims, for your nutty proposal that human evolution and E. coli, caenorhabditis, chrysanthemum and everything else evolution has been going downhill since the first generation of humans?

                  So now, in addition to his classic equivocation:

                  ToE = Modern Synthesis = RM + NS

                  we can add the ridiculously desperate idea that ToE requires that modern prosperous human populations, if not every population of every organism, cannot be currently accumulating negative mutations.

                  How many times do we have to point out to you, davy, that the huge majority of species that ever existed have gone extinct? And that Homo sapiens is almost certainly going to join that group?

                  Sometimes, you just have to say "duh".
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,10:41

                  Dave, you cannot be this idiotic. You would never have survived past infancy if you were. Therefore, the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that you are deliberately and with malice aforethought avoiding both Crow's real point and everyone here's explaining of Crow's point.

                  I'm repeating this again, not for you since you refuse to even read the words on your screen, but for the benefit of lurkers who may think you're making a point:

                  MODERN MEDICAL SCIENCE IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM CROW IS POINTING OUT. HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS INTERFERING WITH THE WORKINGS OF NATURAL SELECTION IN WEEDING OUT DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS.

                  It's not that you're incapable of understanding this point, Dave. It's much worse than that. Your own intellectual dishonesty prevents you from admitting you understand it.

                  Once again, it's time to move on. You are so utterly, irretrievably wrong on this point there's nothing more for you to do than to move on. I know you won't admit defeat, because you're congenitally incapable of admitting defeat (must be due to a deleterious mutation, the "degeneration" of your genome, right?), but you can at least admit to defeat to yourself and move on to some other argument to have it blown out of the water for you.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,11:00

                  OA...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, here is Crow's opening statement again

                  Quote
                  Crow:  My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts


                  Which part of "on which natural selection acts" are you too friggin' stupid to understand?

                  mutation + NATURAL SELECTION, you brain-dead moron.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Crow can SAY that "Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts" (implying that it is the creative mechanism of ToE) until he is blue in the face.  But his own paper contradicts this opening statement quite clearly.  Too bad the he (and you) don't see it.

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where is there any support from Crow, or any of your other quote-mine victims, for your nutty proposal that human evolution and E. coli, caenorhabditis, chrysanthemum and everything else evolution has been going downhill since the first generation of humans?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Humans are the species I am most interested in.  I suspect that the same thing is going on in other higher organisms and bacteria as well.  Why would it not be?  I am fully aware that I have not cited studies which support my thesis on other organisms, but what makes you think they are different?

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How many times do we have to point out to you, davy, that the huge majority of species that ever existed have gone extinct? And that Homo sapiens is almost certainly going to join that group?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I've heard the first one stated.  I've not heard the second until now.  Maybe you could point out where it's been said before?

                  But I'm glad to know that you agree.

                  We're making progress.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,11:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] What he's not talking about is an inherent tendency for all organisms, or "higher organisms" to deteriorate genetically over time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [davy:] Actually he does, but he is careful how he says it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You forgot to show us where he says anything of the sort, even "carefully".    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Faid: ]Did you not read WHY Crow says we have this problem, dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, I read Crow's paper completely. Here ... let me walk you through this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NOW ... CROW'S STATED CONCERN THAT FAID AND RUSSELL DID MISS [followed by quote from Crow interspersed with obnoxious moronic parenthetical comments, but in no way even hinting at anything that Faid or I "missed"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  More of that "thou shalt go forth and be annoying". You don't think you reflect badly on your religion when you show this kind of smug arrogance? You think Jesus would approve?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What you're missing, Faid, is that Crow says that only the "NS" part of ToE has stopped working.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And what you're missing, davy, is the fact that Crow is talking specifically about a fraction of the modern human population. And that you are talking about "ToE" which covers all of life.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [ericmurphy: ] I'm repeating this again, not for you [davy] since you refuse to even read the words on your screen, but for the benefit of lurkers who may think you're making a point
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nah. There are no lurkers who think that davy is spouting anything but comic nonsense. (Once again, if I'm wrong, Dave-Supporting Lurkers, now is the time to speak up! ) There really is no rational reason why we continue to engage davy. At this point, I really can't explain the compulsion.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  continuing to subdue the earth in new and wonderful ways
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's lines like that that make me think we'll all have a good laugh when you eventually admit that "afdave" is the creationist alter ego of prankster dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,11:17

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 11 2006,11:04)
                  There are no lurkers who think that davy is spouting anything but comic nonsense. (Once again, if I'm wrong, Dave-Supporting Lurkers, now is the time to speak up! ) There really is no rational reason why we continue to engage davy. At this point, I really can't explain the compulsion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I was just reading an article about the sick fascination people have with Paris Hilton. I realized that we engage AF Dave for the same reason Paris Hilton ends up on the cover of Us magazine all the time.

                  It's the fascination everyone has with breathtaking stupidity.

                  Would you ever have thought you'd hear yourself compared to Paris Hilton, Dave? Because the comparison is apt, and it has nothing to do with your fashion sense.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,11:37

                  Russell is right that Crow does not address other organisms besides humans (well ... fruit flies).  But what kind of twisted thinking could justify the idea that other higher organisms would not be subjected to the same problems?

                  Face it.  Diversication and speciation (within very limited boundaries) happened very quickly following the abatement of the Global Flood and subsequent repopulation of the earth.

                  (As would be expected from what we know ... thank you Dr. Ayala)

                  Following this, many species went extinct as a result of climate change and other factors during the Ice Age.

                  NOW I would bet that there is almost no speciation going on and probably has been very little in the last 3500 years or so relative to the massive amount that probably took place during the first 800 or so years following the Flood.

                  Rather, at the present time, what we hear about is endangered species, not new species.

                  Would you disagree?

                  ****************************************

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  More of that "thou shalt go forth and be annoying". You don't think you reflect badly on your religion when you show this kind of smug arrogance? You think Jesus would approve?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Jesus approved of speaking the truth, confronting error, and being polite, except with hardened deceivers (which I don't think you are one).  Have I called you any names?  Have I treated your statements unfairly?  Or if I did, not fixed it immediately?  Yes, I think Jesus would approve.

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There really is no rational reason why we continue to engage davy. At this point, I really can't explain the compulsion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't ask you to engage me.  you chose to.  You have always been free to leave whenever you like.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,11:49

                  Liar Dave:
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow can SAY that "Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts" (implying that it is the creative mechanism of ToE) until he is blue in the face.  But his own paper contradicts this opening statement quite clearly.  Too bad the he (and you) don't see it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Amazing.  Dave not only thinks everyone here's understanding of the paper is wrong, he thinks the understanding of the author of the paper is wrong too.

                  (OA shakes head in disbelief) Wow Dave, just wow.  An ex jet-jockey with no formal scientific training at all knows better than a research PhD about the PhD's own work in the field.

                  When Dave finally buys the farm (hopefully not for another 50 years Dave), science has to save his brain and examine it for the root cause of such stupidity and arrogance.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,11:57

                  Liar Dave says
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell is right that Crow does not address other organisms besides humans (well ... fruit flies).  But what kind of twisted thinking could justify the idea that other higher organisms would not be subjected to the same problems?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I just couldn't let this pass.  Dave, according to you Crow says it takes 100-300 generations to accumulate enough bad mutations to doom a species.

                  How many generations of rabbits have there been since the first two hopped off the ark?  :D
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,11:57

                  delete duplicate post
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,11:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But what kind of twisted thinking could justify the idea that other higher organisms would not be subjected to the same problems?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The kind of twisted thinking, perhaps, that doesn't see medical advances, "environmental taming", and relatively sudden increases in average age of fatherhood as applying to any populations other than post-industrial, wealthy human nations?

                  That kind of twisted thinking?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 11 2006,12:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,12:37)
                  Face it.  Diversication and speciation (within very limited boundaries) happened very quickly following the abatement of the Global Flood and subsequent repopulation of the earth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 11 2006,12:15

                  Quote (afdave @ ,)
                  many of you will have to eat massive crow. (No pun intended)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It really is hard to believe that afdave didn't intend the pun. Oh, and on today's tirade: Ah-hahahahahah! "[See? The theory of airplanes doesn't work because when you take the vertical stabilizer off they crash more!]" L. O. L.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,12:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jesus approved of speaking the truth, confronting error, and being polite
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I regard these as typical examples of rude, arrogant disrespect for a lifetime of study and hard work:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  TWO DOCTORS MISS CROW'S CONCERN ... BLINDNESS?  PRIORITY OF THE ToE PARADIGM? BEATS ME!
                  All you can do is shake your head in disbelief.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid, Doctor of I-forget-what, but a Doctor nonetheless ... and Dr. Russell Durbin of Ohio State University can actually read a scientific paper and completely miss clear statements of the author that completely undermine the entire Theory of Evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...and I regard this as a typical sample of your not speaking the truth:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I simply observe that he is a respected geneticist and he makes some clear statements which betray the falsity of ToE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If your [version of] Jesus is not repulsed by your antics, He's just a jerk.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] There really is no rational reason why we continue to engage davy. At this point, I really can't explain the compulsion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I didn't ask you to engage me.  you chose to.  You have always been free to leave whenever you like.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not complaining. I'm just admitting there's no rational reason for it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,12:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I just couldn't let this pass.  Dave, according to you Crow says it takes 100-300 generations to accumulate enought bad mutations to doom a species.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not A species.  In humans, OA.  In humans.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The kind of twisted thinking, perhaps, that doesn't see medical advances, "environmental taming", and relatively sudden increases in average age of fatherhood as applying to any populations other than post-industrial, wealthy human nations?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wait a minute.  Let's keep this straight.  Crow's (and your) bottom line apparently is that we were better off as a viable species before modern medicine.  IOW ... back then, NS was efficient at eliminating mutations.  But he's wrong because his "Truncation Selection" model doesn't work as I have shown.

                  Where does that leave us?  It leaves us with the fact that modern humans NEED high tech medicine to stay alive.  But now I know that even you don't think this will save us.

                  As for the animals, what makes you think that "Truncation Selection" works for them?  The only reason you think it does is because you say ...

                  1) ToE is a fact
                  2) Look at all the animals
                  3) Therefore, they evolved
                  4) If they had a mutation accumulation problem in the past, there must have been some mechanism to overcome it.

                  But the only one that Crow can think of is truncation selection for humans.  Why would it be any different for animals?

                  And truncation selection doesn't work.

                  You are at the end of the maze.

                  There is no escape.

                  ToE loses.

                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Dave]Face it.  Diversication and speciation (within very limited boundaries) happened very quickly following the abatement of the Global Flood and subsequent repopulation of the earth.[/dave]

                  It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm .. I'll look into this.

                  Ved ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [See? The theory of airplanes doesn't work because when you take the vertical stabilizer off they crash more!]" L. O. L.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do whaaaat?
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 11 2006,12:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,11:37)
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  More of that "thou shalt go forth and be annoying". You don't think you reflect badly on your religion when you show this kind of smug arrogance? You think Jesus would approve?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Jesus approved of speaking the truth, confronting error, and being polite, except with hardened deceivers (which I don't think you are one).  Have I called you any names?  Have I treated your statements unfairly?  Or if I did, not fixed it immediately?  Yes, I think Jesus would approve.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (Permalink)   Posted: Dec. 07 2006,12:51    
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,12:04)
                  Also, Russell ... it is a common practice of yours to try to ridicule your ideological opponents by the use of their typographical errors?

                  Hey Dave, do you REALLY want to go there?  Because you have a track record of doing the same.
                  Hypocrite.



                  (Permalink)   Posted: Dec. 07 2006,18:37    
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.

                  Well Dave, what does it say about your character that you did the same to me?

                  --------------
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,12:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Not A species.  In humans, OA.  In humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But, davy... you just wondered:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  what kind of twisted thinking could justify the idea that other higher organisms would not be subjected to the same problems?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  because his "Truncation Selection" model doesn't work as I have shown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh? You'll need to provide a link for that. I'm going to have to start calling these "lies" to point out where Jesus would be embarrassed to be associated with you.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 11 2006,12:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do whaaaat?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Who, me? I was just making a nice little airplane analogy for you; something that's on par with your Crow argument.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,12:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,11:37)
                  Russell is right that Crow does not address other organisms besides humans (well ... fruit flies).  But what kind of twisted thinking could justify the idea that other higher organisms would not be subjected to the same problems?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, let's think about it, Dave. Do fruit flies have a medical technology that allows them to artificially prolong their lives, or allow individuals with potentially fatal mutations to breed? Well, no, of course not. So you now realize why Crow's observations do not apply to fruit flies.

                  Now, let's look at a more complex organism. Say, penguins. Penguins probably have a more complex civilization than fruit flies. But as far as I know, penguins have not yet developed the sort of medical technology that would allow penguins who have, say, the penguin equivalent of Down syndrome to live long enough to reproduce. Right? So penguins are not subject to the sorts of problems Crow is talking about.

                  How about African wild dogs? They have a pretty complex society. What's the state of African wild dogs' medical technology? Have their doctors advanced to the point where wild dogs with crap genomes can live long enough to reproduce anyway?

                  Let's go up a bit further. Now, most New World monkeys are arboreal, and of course eyesight is pretty important to an arboreal lifestyle. Do New World monkeys have the technology to create corrective eyewear for individuals who have genetic defects serious enough to affect brachiation capabilities? No?

                  Are you starting to get it now, genius?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Face it.  Diversication and speciation (within very limited boundaries) happened very quickly following the abatement of the Global Flood and subsequent repopulation of the earth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, really, Dave? So the several thousand "kinds" on the ark rapidly diversified into the tens of millions of species we have today in how much time? A few hundred years? And this diversification and speciation came from where? We've already demonstrated that there was almost no genetic diversity on the ark. No more than 28 alleles at any locus in any "kind." Your only other choice is mutation, at levels high enough to kill off everything in a matter of generations.

                  Your problems are much more severe than the ToE's, Dave. You need to accomplish everything evolution has accomplished over billions of years in only a few millennia.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NOW I would bet that there is almost no speciation going on and probably has been very little in the last 3500 years or so relative to the massive amount that probably took place during the first 800 or so years following the Flood.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So basically you went from a few thousand "kinds" to 10 million species in eight hundred years? But no one saw fit to write down that kind of explosive increase in diversity in your precious written records, Dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,13:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,12:23)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The kind of twisted thinking, perhaps, that doesn't see medical advances, "environmental taming", and relatively sudden increases in average age of fatherhood as applying to any populations other than post-industrial, wealthy human nations?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wait a minute.  Let's keep this straight.  Crow's (and your) bottom line apparently is that we were better off as a viable species before modern medicine.  IOW ... back then, NS was efficient at eliminating mutations.  But he's wrong because his "Truncation Selection" model doesn't work as I have shown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You showed this where, Dave? Where? You've shown no such thing, and you know it. Post a freaking permalink if you think you have. I've read every line of your drivel on this thread, and you haven't even begun to show any such thing.

                  I swear, Dave, you have the most active fantasy life of anyone I've ever seen on an Internet discussion board. Your delusions of grandeur would make Napoleon blush.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,13:32

                  Remember < this, > Dave? "Tomorrow" was December 9th. It's now the 11th. Are you planning on providing an answer at any time in the future? Or are you tacitly admitting you don't have an answer?

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:15)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Close, but not correct.  Can you guess again?  Outta time today, but I'll give you the answer tomorrow, unless you think of it first.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here's the question you said you'd answer:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But you don't need to know the answers to any of these questions to answer my second question: how is that organisms with a generation time of a year or less are not yet extinct? Your own "hypothesis" predicts that they should all be extinct by now, and yet they are not. In fact, no matter how many "kinds" there were on the ark, it's inarguable that there is more biodiversity now than there would have been at the end of the flood! You yourself have claimed that biodiversity has increased!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No answer yet, Dave, as to this contradiction in your "hypothesis," which predicts that biodiversity should be increasing and decreasing simultaneously.

                  It would help if you could track of your own claims, too, Dave. On the one hand, you say you're talking only about humans (which—news flash!—will most likely eventually go extinct, just like everything else), but on the other you say you'd have to be insane to think it's only humans that are affected. You're the one who said all "higher genomes" are degenerating. Biodiversity goes up and down simultaneously, all complex genomes but only human genomes are degenerating; you're completely floundering around, Dave. With your head jammed in a milk bucket. Watch out for that drinking trough!
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 11 2006,13:48

                  Wes & SteveStory:
                  There is a persistent bug in the AFDave threads that needs to be addressed.  Dave is being logged off within minutes of certain keywords (like hyp0cr1te, hope that's safe) being used on his threads.  The error is probably malware, and not just poor code, as AFDave is not even able to see these posts, a clear attempt to hide the 'sploit.
                    Just see what you can do, we would all be grateful.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 11 2006,13:52

                  Professional PhD scientist:
                  "Here are my research results for Blue.  Blue blue blue blue blue blue. Sky blue, sea blue, robin's egg blue, midnight blue.  It's all about blue blue blue blue blue."

                  Liar AFDave:
                  "HA!  My CGH requires red, so I conclude that scientist was really saying red, he just didn't know it!"

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  post-flood scavengers Davie  - the discussion is waiting for ya!
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 11 2006,14:59

                  Over the last few days, Dave has spiraled into ever-increasing silliness--this may sound funny (except his attempts at humor are so wretched), but we are talking about the intellectual equivalent of a plane locked into a death spiral, about to crater.

                  (Well, truth be told, the "landscape" spread across these pages is a veritable map of Dave-craters...)

                  Let's see if we can follow just a few links in his latest rash of tail-chasing "logic": either computer chess-playing programs or natural selection is intelligent, which is it, huh huh?  Well, davey, clearly it's not chess-playing programs--the day of AI has not yet arrived, in case you haven't a clue.  So that leaves natural selection, right?  Davey clearly doesn't want to go there--in fact, Davey pretty much has to close his eyes and plug his ears every time natural selection is brought up lately, he's having so much trouble with the topic--because the last thing he wants to admit is that NS could act with anything like "intelligence."

                  For most creationists, artificial selection (animal husbandry, etc.) can't possibly work anything like NS, because there is (alleged) "intelligence" behind artificial intelligence (the dog, cow, horse, corn, etc., domesticators and breeders--though we've noted the point that dogs may have "domesticated" themselves in order to obtain the security of a steady supply of scraps, warmth near the fire, whatever...).  But it's not clear that dubious Davey even "believes" in artificial selection, given his unevidenced conviction that no mutation can generate "new" "information" (not that Dave knows what either of these terms means....).

                  So Davey definitely can't admit that NS acts with "intelligence."  So which is it that's intelligent, child-like mind, chess-playing programs or NS?

                  Dave's abject response: "Huh, wait, I never said that...!"  (Dave, you woulda thought by now that you'd realize that your previous idiotic claims and statements are all stored here.  You can lie to yourself, but you can't get away with lying to us.

                  Then there's this sterling "logic"-string, already pointed out by numerous others, and which again requires Davey to bury his head in the sand every time NS appears: modern medicine may (arguably, I'm not at all so sure) trump NS in the very small group of all the organisms that have ever lived on the planet (elites in a few modern human societies, and their pets) who have had recent access to it.  (I would suggest that modern medicine and technology have just changed the selection pressures of the environment, rather than eliminated them, but that's an argument for another day.)

                  Somehow, though, Dave extends this teensy exemption from the operation of NS to all the organisms that have ever lived on the planet, without giving the slightest rationale for doing so--what Davey, all the organisms that have ever lived on the planet have had access to the benefits modern medicine and technology for the entire history of life (whether that be long, as every field of human science attests, or short, as only Davey and his fellow hold-outs from reason insist)?

                  But because the NS that necessarily prevailed before modern medicine and technology for any of this to make any sense whatsoever is Davey's big boogey-man, he simply has to hand-wave it away, so we get: mutations may be accumulating in a few strata of a few modern human societies ==> mutations must be accumulating in the genomes of all the organisms that have ever lived on the planet ==> ToE couldn't possibly work ==> Davey "wins" (despite utterly failing at any point in his entire time here with the efficacy of NS + utterly failing at any point in his entire time here to plausibly advance any element of his "hypothesis" as any sort of viable *koff koff* "replacement" for the ToE).

                  Crater on, dude.  Just be glad, though, that you're only flying your keyboard.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 11 2006,16:24

                  Hahaha, amazing.

                  Congratulations dave. That post of yours will make it on the list of "AFDave's most irrelevant posts ever". With extra points for arrogance.

                  There is a tiny phrase, dave. A phrase you completely avoid to address in your whole rant... Undoubtedly on purpose. There's no arguing it this time.

                  NATURAL SELECTION.

                  Nobody questions the fact that the "overall effect of mutations is deleterious", you fool- that you consider this to be some huge obstacle for evolution shows how little you STILL know about the things you try to disprove.

                  Was that the best you could do? try to derail the issue and get it back to "ALL mutations are BAAAAAAAD" again? You already got a beating on that one, dave. A serious one. How about some variety? :)

                  But hey, you scanned a page from Sanford! Let's see what he says... I bet he applies Crows calculations, and clearly demonstrates how they do not in fact work, right?
                  <snip picture of a graph- and NOTHING ELSE>

                  Oh shucks. and to think I was all worked-up to see some calculations and, you know, figures and equations and stuff. But Sanford is a good Christian, so I guess he must have done some research on Crow's model- the one he (and KONDRASHOV, and KIMURA) describe in detail < here > and < here > and < here > and < here >- but his modesty stopped him from gaining the glory of such distinguished work (and proving that Crow is a LIAR, since his calculations show otherwise), so he kept it all in his desk somewhere. Oh well.
                  :D
                  Oh oh wait, he has some support after all! See what he says?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Almost identical mutation accumulation curves have been modeled by Schoen et al. 1998
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Cool! A non-YEC paper that disproves truncation selection! Let's see...
                  ...oh-oh.
                  < REGENERATION AND STORAGE OF GERM PLASM? >

                  Sooo... Sanford basically says:
                  "Look guys, here are some graphs. We did them using Crow's theory, and they don't work!"

                  "Trust us they don't! We' um, have the math here somewhere."

                  "...and anyway, Crow totally has it wrong because he says that mutations are of equal value, when if they weren't the effect would be worse... no wait... anyway, he also says that they are subtle, but not too subtle, when the whole problem arises from the fact that mutations are subtle, but not too subtle... Um... whatever, he totally has it wrong, I assure you!"

                  "And just FYI, our model is totally valid because see, some other guy had a simillar graph about accumulations of mutations- in seed storage, it's true, and small parent populations, and it's all about agriculture and the quality of seed but still the graphs were the same how cool is that? I mean, bear with me here, if that guy Schoen was actually talking about natural selection, wouldn't that graph support us?
                  So there!"

                  "Finally, you can see from our totally awesome math how "higher genome" animals go extinct in 300 generations, which of course means that no animal off the ark could have made it today and OH MY GOD WHAT DID I JUST SAY?"

                  *sound of self-flogging*




                  ...Thanks, dave, that look inside your mentors' world was highly entertaining.  ;)


                  (Guys, I know that dave won't touch the links to the papers by Crow and Kimura and Kondrashov... I put them up there for everyone else to check out. Shows how ACTUAL science is done, in contrast to Creo quoteminings and distortions).
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 11 2006,16:46

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 11 2006,17:24)
                  There is a tiny phrase, dave. A phrase you completely avoid to address in your whole rant... Undoubtedly on purpose. There's no arguing it this time.

                  NATURAL SELECTION.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's no use.  I think that phrase just scans as "fnord" whenever Dave sees it.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 11 2006,17:14

                  You folks aren't chewing up, digesting and regurgitating the material into Dave's empty brainpan fast enough.

                  Dave claims to "understand" and "know" about topics like various truncation models ( yes, DaveDim, there's more than one) and synergistic epistasis. Dave really doesn't, but he has to pretend to in order to keep getting information puked into his eager, open mouth.    

                  Dave actually still thinks some remarkably stupid things, such as:  
                  (1) Dave "thinks" ( I hesitate to even use that term) that truncation models were designed to account for some (in his incompetent mind) flaw in the Neodarwinian Synthesis. He fails to note that it is specifally aimed at one species...humans -- who have the technology to thwart selection.

                  (2) Dave claiming that **IF** Truncation is "invalid" it somehow negates all of the Theory of Evolution.

                  (3) Dave cites Sanford on Crow's truncation model. Notice that Sanford gave no specifics on what mathematics were specifically used and how his conclusions were thereby supported. Note also that Sanford...(and Dave) referred to a paper by Schoen et al, 1998...Dave posted a link to it here:  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/1/394

                  (4) Do you think Dave read the paper? I bet he didn't. Why? Because it says this:  
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations accompanying recurrent regeneration of plant germ plasm was modeled under regeneration conditions characterized by different amounts of selection and genetic drift. Under some regeneration conditions (sample sizes = " src="/math/12pt/normal/ge.gif" align=baseline75 individuals and bulk harvesting of seed) mutation accumulation was negligible, but under others (sample sizes <75 individuals or equalization of seed production by individual plants) mutation numbers per genome increased significantly during 25-50 cycles of regeneration.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave claims that THIS paper and Sanford's (with no math given in Sanford) shows that

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Truncation Selection fails even as an explanation for how our ancestors survived. Sorry to burst your bubble."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is beyond stupid. It shows conclusively that Dave didn't read/comprehend the paper, as this bit that I quoted above...occurs in the Abstract leading INTO the article. I really have to wonder if Dave knows what <75 signifies in math. Dave...do you know what a population bottleneck is? Do you know which way the "less than / more than " signs face in each instance, with a number to the right of each?

                  Here, Dave, daddy will explain for you: Schoen et al are talking about a population...LESS THAN 75. Moreover, they are talking about plant seeds held in storage:  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When mutations also are assumed to occur (at elevated rates) during seed storage, significant mutation accumulation and fitness decline occurred in 10 or fewer cycles of regeneration regardless of the regeneration conditions. Calculations also were performed to determine the numbers of deleterious mutations introduced and remaining in the genome of an existing variety after hybridization with a genetic resource and subsequent backcrossing. The results suggest that mutation accumulation has the potential to reduce the viability of materials held in germ plasm collections and to offset gains expected by the introduction of particular genes of interest from genetic resources.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now..what on Earth would this have to do with "negating" Truncation models, Dave...?? I'd like you to explain this in your own words, preferably using the math that Sanford didn't include in the pages you scanned in. Show me how much you "know" about this. Be bold. Pretend you have both a brain and courage.

                  When you're finished with that, perhaps you can give me another belly-laugh by "explaining" synergistic epistasis in your own words -- a **full** description, including some math for my amusement.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,18:01

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 11 2006,17:14)
                  This is beyond stupid. It shows conclusively that Dave didn't read/comprehend the paper, as this bit that I quoted above...occurs in the Abstract leading INTO the article. I really have to wonder if Dave knows what <75 signifies in math. Dave...do you know what a population bottleneck is? Do you know which way the "less than / more than " signs face in each instance, with a number to the right of each?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave does not understand what a genetic bottleneck is. For the longest time (perhaps even still), he denied that reducing all of humankind down to eight individuals was somehow not a genetic bottleneck.

                  Dave, if the human population pre-flood were as little as one hundred individuals, reducing it down to eight individuals would still be a genetic bottleneck.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,21:03

                  Faid ... Did you have a hard day at the office treating patients?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a tiny phrase, dave. A phrase you completely avoid to address in your whole rant... Undoubtedly on purpose. There's no arguing it this time.

                  NATURAL SELECTION.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I guess he missed this ...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What you're missing, Faid, is that Crow says that only the "NS" part of ToE has stopped working.  The "RM" part has not.

                  And the huge disconnect that you are sensing right now stems from your belief [and Crow's and most ATBCers] that "RM's" collectively are a creative mechanism.  They are not.  As Crow clearly shows.

                  Remember?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "NS" stands for Natural Selection, Faid.  Wanna try your rebuttal again tomorrow when you're nice and fresh?

                  ****************************************

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For the longest time (perhaps even still), he denied that reducing all of humankind down to eight individuals was somehow not a genetic bottleneck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course it's a bottleneck ... it's just not a problem as I have demonstrated ... plenty of diversity can be regained very quickly ... remember my friend Ayala? (You should have that quote memorized by now)

                  ****************************************

                  Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) Dave "thinks" ( I hesitate to even use that term) that truncation models were designed to account for some (in his incompetent mind) flaw in the Neodarwinian Synthesis. He fails to note that it is specifally aimed at one species...humans -- who have the technology to thwart selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oops!  You blew that one.  Better go read (eat?) Crow again ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Crow]I conclude that for flies, and very likely for human populations in the past, mildly harmful mutations were balanced by quasi-truncation selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So it is not specifally [sic] aimed at techno-humans.  It was aimed at fruit flies and ancient humans.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (2) Dave claiming that **IF** Truncation is "invalid" it somehow negates all of the Theory of Evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmmm ... didn't quite say that ... but it does destroy Crow's only remaining idea for how our stone age ancestors of the past could have survived mutation accumulation ... which in turn calls into question the very idea that we evolved from ape like ancestors in the first place.  And yes, we could extend this thinking to the entire animal kingdom without too much effort.

                  Where does that leave ToE?  Hmmmm ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (3) Dave cites Sanford on Crow's truncation model. Notice that Sanford gave no specifics on what mathematics were specifically used and how his conclusions were thereby supported. Note also that Sanford...(and Dave) referred to a paper by Schoen et al, 1998...Dave posted a link to it here:  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/1/394
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are really grasping at straws here, but I can probably chase down the calculations.  

                  And (4) ... the Schoen paper.  I'll take a look and see if your objections have any merit.  Right off the bat, I see that Crow talks about both plants and fruit flies ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Truncation Selection

                  Animal and plant breeders have long known that the most efficient form of selection is "truncation selection."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We'll see.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,21:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,21:03)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For the longest time (perhaps even still), he denied that reducing all of humankind down to eight individuals was somehow not a genetic bottleneck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course it's a bottleneck ... it's just not a problem as I have demonstrated ... plenty of diversity can be regained very quickly ... remember my friend Ayala? (You should have that quote memorized by now)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Regained from where, Dave? You still don't understand what a "genetic bottleneck" means.

                  What it means, junior, is that all that "genetic diversity" Ayala is talking about is gone. You don't get any "genetic diversity" out of a pair of individuals. You get a maximum of four alleles for any one gene out of a couple of individuals. You get N(2) alleles out of N individuals. Are you sure you understand this? The only way you get diversity after a genetic bottleneck is MUTATIONS. That's the only source, Dave. There is no other. So unless you think the mutation rate after your "flood" was millions of times its current level, your "hypothesis" dies.

                  And in fact, if humanity ever had actually been reduced down to eight individuals, the species probably would have gone extinct through exactly the mechanism you think presents a problem for evolutionary theory: the pile-up of deleterious mutations in very small populations with low diversity!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,21:34

                  You know, Dave, I posted a big long post this morning that shows you exactly why Crow's observations have nothing to do with what you're talking about. Remember the fruit flies, the penguins, the monkeys, etc.? Did you even read the post? Was it beyond your ability to comprehend?

                  You're so utterly wrong on this particular argument, it's yet another Portuguese moment for you. But you still persist. What an unbelievable waste of bandwidth. How many times do you have to be shown how utterly brain-dead this argument is?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 11 2006,21:43

                  Hmmm ... Deadman ... guess where Crow got his idea for "Truncation Selection" ...

                  I'll tell you tomorrow!  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,22:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  guess where Crow got his idea for "Truncation Selection" ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  < Probably here: >  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Animal and plant breeders have long known that the most efficient form of selection is "truncation selection."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But who cares? What does that have to do with its validity in this particular case? Aren't you more interested in showing us that this:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But he's wrong because his "Truncation Selection" model doesn't work as I have shown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  is not the, um "deviation from the truth" that it appears to be? The kind that would make Jesus embarrassed to be associated with you?

                  I have a premonition davy's going to clutch at this  irrelevant side-issue and ignore the fact that there is egg all over his face on his misreading of Crow.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 11 2006,22:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  remember my friend Ayala? (You should have that quote memorized by now)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. I don't. You're going to have to remind me. What quote from Ayala can possibly help you with your insurmountable bottleneck problem?

                  (And, by the way, I suspect Ayala would be just as averse to being associated with your arguments as Jesus would be.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,22:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,21:43)
                  Hmmm ... Deadman ... guess where Crow got his idea for "Truncation Selection" ...

                  I'll tell you tomorrow!  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, how about you answer the question you said you'd answer two days ago?

                  After a certain point, statements like this become nothing more than lies. I can't tell how many times you've promised to answer questions, never answered them, and then weeks later claimed you've "demonstrated" something you've never even addressed.

                  You're gonna need all of Jesus' love if your kids ever read this thread, Dave.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 11 2006,22:44

                  Quote (Seven Popes @ Dec. 07 2006,18:37)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well Dave, what does it say about your character that you did the same to me?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave, this wasn't a rhetorical question..
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,22:59

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 11 2006,22:36)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  remember my friend Ayala? (You should have that quote memorized by now)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. I don't. You're going to have to remind me. What quote from Ayala can possibly help you with your insurmountable bottleneck problem?

                  (And, by the way, I suspect Ayala would be just as averse to being associated with your arguments as Jesus would be.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < This > is what Dave thinks help him get around a genetic bottleneck:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,04:43)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
                  p. 58
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  p. 59
                  “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
                  p. 63
                  “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
                  p. 64
                  “In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
                  “A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But because Dave is evidently an idiot, he doesn't seem to realize (despite having been told at least a dozen times) that a genetic bottleneck eliminates all this genetic variation. That's what a genetic bottleneck means, Dave! I've patiently explained to him (to no effect whatsoever) that when a species goes through a severe genetic bottleneck (being reduced to one, or four, or seven breeding pairs), all this genetic variation Ayala is talking about is annihilated.. Therefore, Ayala does absolutely nothing for Dave's argument.

                  It's simply impossible to believe that Dave could really be this retarded. The only remaining explanation for his failure to comprehend is, once more, his absolutely astounding intellectual dishonesty.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 11 2006,23:39

                  And, just for fun, let me repost an < illustration > of why Ayala doesn't even remotely help Dave out of his "bottleneck," back in October.

                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 17 2006,16:04)
                  Let's take as an example a "kind" which was represented on the ark by a single pair of organisms. Let's assume this organism has a genotype with 20,000 genes (approximately the same as humans). Let's further assume that there are ten (or fifty or a hundred; it doesn't matter) different alleles for each gene in this organism at the time of the flood. So what are the maximum and minimum amounts of "genetic richness" this pair could have?

                  Minimum "genetic richness": both parents have exactly the same alleles at every single locus. This is essentially impossible, because you need a male and a female to get a breeding couple, but it sets a hypothetical floor as to what the absolute logical minimum "genetic richness" could be.

                  Maximum "genetic richness": each of the two organisms is heterozygous for every single gene in its genotype, and there are no duplicate alleles between the two individuals. Therefore, for each gene, the couple contains four alleles, regardless of the number of possible alleles. There could be thousands of possible alleles for each gene in this organism's genotype, but the maximum achievable for a pair of organisms is only four times the absolutely minimum possible "genetic richness."

                  Therefore, Dave, there's no way for your "kinds" present on the ark to be appreciably more "genetically rich" that any organism alive today. Even with maximum hybrid vigor, Noah's "genetically rich" specimens are unlikely to have even twice the genetic variability available today.

                  So there's no way your "genetic richness" can result in an explosive increase in biodiversity over the past five millennia, and even it could, it didn't, because we would have proof positive of such increases in biodiversity in the written records. We have no such proof; therefore it didn't happen.

                  Further, considered as a population, the denizens of Noah's ark are unavoidably less "genetically rich" than any larger pre-existing population. Noah's ark is a genetic bottleneck, no matter how you look at it, which drastically reduces genetic variability, and the larger the number of alleles for a given gene in a given population, the narrower the bottleneck. Starting with any number of organisms of a "kind" on the ark, the available number of alleles for a given gene is 2(number of organisms). Since (number of organisms on ark) is unavoidably < (number of organisms before flood), there's no way for Dave to get the freakishly explosive increase in diversity his "hypothesis" demands through any sort of "genetic richness."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is about the fifth or sixth go-around on this stupidity, Dave. Do you now understand why "genetic variation" doesn't help you even one tiny bit in trying to get from a few thousand "kinds" (all of which went through a maximally-tight genetic bottleneck) on the ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today? Do you now see, after having your face rubbed in it one more time, that Ayala's "genetic variation" was wiped out by the flood?

                  Or, are you just too dumb?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 12 2006,00:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is about the fifth or sixth go-around on this stupidity, Dave. Do you now understand why "genetic variation" doesn't help you even one tiny bit in trying to get from a few thousand "kinds" (all of which went through a maximally-tight genetic bottleneck) on the ark to the tens of millions of species in existence today? Do you now see, after having your face rubbed in it one more time, that Ayala's "genetic variation" was wiped out by the flood?

                  Or, are you just too dumb?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave seems to lie out of force of habit - he's been lying to himself and to others for so long now that he doesn't know how to quit.  

                  Dave insists on repeating this out of context quote as though it were some magic charm that will ward off the demons of Scientific Knowledge:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why do you keep ignoring the context Liar Dave?  It's been given to you at least five times by four different posters.  Repeat after me Liar Dave:

                  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious IF NATURAL SELECTION AS A FILTERING MECHANISM IS REMOVED BY TECHNOLOGY.

                  Once more Liar Dave:

                  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious IF NATURAL SELECTION AS A FILTERING MECHANISM IS REMOVED BY TECHNOLOGY.

                  Again Liar Dave, so you can't claim you never were told:

                  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious IF NATURAL SELECTION AS A FILTERING MECHANISM IS REMOVED BY TECHNOLOGY.

                  Now given his track record of dishonesty, I'm sure we can expect at least two more rounds of Dave lying before he declares victory and moves on.  Anyone wanna bet?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 12 2006,00:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,21:03)
                  Faid ... Did you have a hard day at the office treating patients?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a tiny phrase, dave. A phrase you completely avoid to address in your whole rant... Undoubtedly on purpose. There's no arguing it this time.

                  NATURAL SELECTION.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I guess he missed this ...
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What you're missing, Faid, is that Crow says that only the "NS" part of ToE has stopped working.  The "RM" part has not.

                  And the huge disconnect that you are sensing right now stems from your belief [and Crow's and most ATBCers] that "RM's" collectively are a creative mechanism.  They are not.  As Crow clearly shows.

                  Remember?        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Crow]Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "NS" stands for Natural Selection, Faid.  Wanna try your rebuttal again tomorrow when you're nice and fresh?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Heeeeere I am, dave, all nice and fresh... My daily dose of evening entertainment from your clownish posts helped me get my mind off work, and get a good night's sleep. Thanks!

                  Sooo... Are you ready to actually ADDRESS that lil' phrase that haunts you, dave, not just mention its initials (it must seem more oscene than the "F" word in your mind) and proceed to completely ignore it, as if ToE worked ONLY by random mutations, and random mutations are "baaa-aaa-ahd"?
                  Because I guess you're right, I must have "missed" it. All I see is you trying to run away from questions again. Nothing new.

                  Your strawmen don't work with us as well as they do with the poor kids you "teach", dave.
                  You'll have to wake up pretty early in the morning to catch us off-guard; and, as you can see, being a doctor, I wake up pretty early myself.
                  If you wanna try to tapdance around my questions, it's best not to sleep at all. :)
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 12 2006,01:04

                  Occam:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now given his track record of dishonesty, I'm sure we can expect at least two more rounds of Dave lying before he declares victory and moves on.  Anyone wanna bet?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, it's a well known fact that the dave we all know and love (to smack around) declares victory and moves on (with another "summary"), as soon as he realizes he's cornered and spinning like a rat in a maze (a metaphor I gave for him, and he eagerly adopted for his use, being incapable of original thought).

                  So, let's see... That thing with Schoen got him a bit startled (right, dave? :p) so we should expect a few hand-waving posts with lots of quotemined snippets to help him get through... then a few irrelevant rants about truncation, with equally irrelevant quotes from wikipedia... let's say 3 posts. Throw in a good dose of childish attempts at irony -to help him steer through all the questions we have asked (like why does Crow PROVE how his model can work, but Sanford just posts a graph with no math, or, of course, the implications this would have for the POST-FLOOD WORLD, if Sanford was correct- why are there ANY animals today, dave?)...

                  ...I give him 8 posts before he starts his next SUMMARY (buck-buck-buck).

                  What odds do you give for that?  ;)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 12 2006,02:12

                  .
                  .
                  Heh, here's what I posted:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave "thinks" ( I hesitate to even use that term) that truncation models were designed to account for some (in his incompetent mind) flaw in the Neodarwinian Synthesis. He fails to note that it is specifally aimed at one species...humans -- who have the technology to thwart selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave responds by posting PART of a longer paragraph by Crow...a paragraph that leads right into a discussion of humans.
                  But this is irrelevant. Notice how I qualified my statement above by saying "it is aimed at ONE SPECIES...HUMANS...THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO THWART SELECTION" Do drosophilia have that ability DimDave? No.  
                  dave says  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So it is not specifally [sic] aimed at techno-humans. It was aimed at fruit flies and ancient humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, DIMDAVE...Drosophilia don't possess the quality I specifically mentioned.

                  Oddly enough, that was the total of Dave's disagreements with my entire post. The rest of his post is simply non-responsive. He obviously doesn't have even the slightest grasp of the subject, much like his nonsense on the following topics ( a brief list of the things Dave has managed to screw up entirely, while claiming to "know" them):
                  (1) human-chimp relatedness, (2)GULO genes, (3)what ALLELES are, (4)Helium ratios, (5)Helium origins, (6)the effects of pressure on diffusivity, (7) Sedimentary dating (8)  Information theory (9) radiocarbon dating (10) Einsteinean Relativity and Lorentz Contraction (e.g. "things existing outside of spacetime") (11) Why "hominoids" wouldn't have "civilizations" ...####, I could go on for at least another hundred items, covering almost every major area of science.

                  In short, Dave has consistently lied about "knowing"  things he did not know...so that he could be spoonfed information that was pre-digested by others here. Again...he's just a parasite.

                  By the way, stupid, I'm still waiting for you to get "Dr." Don Batten over here ( I already dissected his claims here, so you can't use that as an excuse, stupid).

                  If you don't adhere dogmatically to the idea that the stars were created 6000 years ago, DimDave...what IS your explanation for their apparent ages?

                  If the Toroweap and Kaibab layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down only 2300 years ago, DimDave...why did the Barringer meteor crash right through them 50,000 years ago?

                  Oh, I know you can't answer any of those things, Dave, so you'll pretend you answered them already and fail to provide a link, because your computer can't handle links, according to you, just as your notepad program, unlike any other Notepad program...elides out ellipses...or you'll say you've moved on ( but you still never answered them when they were asked during the relevant discussions)....or you'll find some other OBVIOUSLY fraudulent "excuse"
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 12 2006,07:01

                  Dave appears to believe that, somehow, you can produce different species without mutations.

                  He mentionned something about phenotypic plasticity, which is ridiculous.
                  He mentioned the fact that a couple of individuals can produce billions of different children, which is true. But, Davey, children belong to the same species as their parents and grand parents... and so on, if there isn't any mutation.

                  It is also a fact that, the thousand species that are supposed to belong to the same "kind" all have a different copy (at least) of each gene (except highly conserved ones).
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,11:00

                  SORRY, BUT IT IS NOT DISREPECTFUL TO POINT OUT ERROR IN SCIENCE
                  I am sorry, Russell, that you don't feel respected by me for your lifetime of work in science.  I am sure that you would feel more respected if we were discussing virology or some other field of science not related to Origins.  So please don't misunderstand.  I am quite sure you would sense more respect from me in another context. But in this context I'm afraid you will have to earn my respect if you want it, although I will continue to try to choose words carefully and not engage in name calling and other rudeness.  There are certain posters here--you included--who should notice that I already am giving you a certain level of respect, simply by responding to your posts in a detailed manner.  Frankly, there are a few here whose posts I hardly read anymore, much less answer because of their history of vacuity.  But perhaps you were not referring to yourself not getting respect but to Crow.  And to that I would say that the same applies to him.

                  By now we are all quite familiar with the Crow paper, so I will refrain from posting voluminous quotes and make this review short and sweet ...

                  THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF MUTATIONS AS THE SOURCE OF VARIABILITY
                  First of all, it is clear that all of you (and Crow and Ayala) have a fundamental belief that mutations are the ultimate source of variability and are the driving force of evolution.

                  You believe this in spite of the overwhelming amount of clear evidence to the contrary which includes universal recognition of the massive imbalance of "neutral" and "harmful" mutations compared to "beneficial" ones, the strikingly few examples of "beneficial" mutations, the dubious benefit of these "beneficial" mutations upon closer inspection, the clear statements by Crow and others that mutation accumulation is a problem in humans (and likely all species), and the clear statement of Ayala that  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
                  Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), p. 63.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ..."contrary to Darwin's conception"  (Translation: Darwin was wrong about this)

                  ..."mutations provide a mere trickle of new alleles"

                  ..."much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation"

                  ..."recombination alone is sufficient"

                  ..."no need for new genetic input by mutation"

                  Do you see what Ayala (and you) has done here?

                  He has assumed that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" with no experimental verification whatsoever.  In fact, all observation indicates that most mutations are at best neutral (OK, get out your microscope for the "beneficials").  Nevertheless, he says "Well, we are here aren't we?  We got here somehow.  So it HAD to be mutations which got us here."  Which of course is a huge fallacy.  You cannot use your starting assumption to prove the validity of that same assumption.  This would be like my kids saying "Santa Claus is real.  Look.  My Christmas stocking is full of candy.  Therefore, this proves that Santa Claus is real."  Never mind the fact that all the evidence favors the non-existence of Santa Claus (we don't have a chimney, no one has ever seen him, reindeer don't fly, etc.)  (I know what you're thinking ... "Ditto for your God, Davey."  But this is a separate question.)  The question at hand is "Are mutations the source of variability?"  And the evidence says (and I say) "No," but Ayala and you and Crow and virtually the entire science establishment say "Yes."  Fine.  At least we know where we stand.  BTW, to demonstrate the power of "stored genetic variation" I invite each of you to go find a pair of "mutt" dogs, a male and a female.  Bring them home and breed them.  You will be amazed at how much variation there will be in the puppies in just one generation!  

                  HOW CAN BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS BE WRONG ABOUT SUCH A BIG, BASIC THING?
                  I cannot explain it, but I do know it happens all the time.  Crow reviewed the life of the Nobel-prize winning geneticist H.J Muller in 2005.  While he had a brilliant mind, he apparently was quite susceptible to buying into big lies ...

                  CROW REVIEWS THE LIFE OF MULLER
                  Hermann Joseph Muller, Evolutionist
                  James F. Crow
                  NATURE REVIEWS | GENETICS VOLUME 6 | DECEMBER 2005 | 941


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Muller had gone to Russia with high idealism, as he thought that in a classless
                  society, social and economic justice would prevail and genetic research would thrive.
                  Alas, the idealistic social aims were far from fulfilled and genetics was completely corrupted by Trofim Lysenko’s naive lamarckian ideas, which had found favour with Stalin.
                  < http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol451_551/readings/muller.pdf >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Alas, a brilliant mind wasted on not one, but two false big ideas: Communism and Darwinism.

                  WITH THAT BACKGROUND, LET US EAT SOME MORE CROW FOR LUNCH
                  Again we review Crow's opening statement ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious. And it is this deleterious effect that I want to discuss. < Crow Paper >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  We see again the Statement of Darwinist Doctrinal Faith repeated by Crow: "Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible."  (Never mind that Ayala said Darwin was wrong about this.)

                  And of course we all agree that Crow is writing about his concern for humanity living in the modern, wealthy nations.  Russell thought I was purposely ignoring this, but I am not.  

                  IF WE AGREE ON THIS, THEN WHAT AM I TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU?
                  Several things ... glad you asked.  We have agreed that you can draw other conclusions from papers as long as they are supported by the author ... so this is what I do.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #1: MODERN HUMANS ARE GENETICALLY INFERIOR TO OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS
                  I've already quoted the relevant passage in Crow's paper.  If this is not supported by Crow's statement, you need to show me HOW it is not.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #2: IF #1 IS TRUE, THEN THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE
                  If you do not agree, then please explain how this can be.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #3: THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE MUTATION PROCESS MUST BE DELETERIOUS.
                  Note that this is in his opening statement.  He has not yet begun to talk specifically about the human species, nor yet even more specifically about humans living in wealthy nations.  Now tell me ... how can you (or Crow) defend "mutation is the ultimate source of variability" while in the same paragraph you say "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious"?  This does not add up, friends.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #4: CROW CONSIDERS MUTATIONS TO BE A BOMB
                  Notice something key here.  He considers that the only thing that is forestalling the "bomb" is our technology.  But he also considers our technology to be the very thing that allows the "bomb" to eventually explode!  What a paradox!  Poor Crow!

                  So what do we have?

                  We have Crow speculating that "quasi-truncation selection" (Natural Selection, Faid) operated in the past to get us to where we are now.  But he says this is not working any more because our high techiness is causing us to preserve all those mutations.  And further, he fears that if we somehow lose all this high tech stuff, we will have a tougher time than our stone age ancestors because of all the accumulated mutations.

                  One immediately has to ask, "Why this last concern?"  I mean, "Come on, Dr. Crow, you just said that "quasi-truncation selection" was effective in the past to make us survive.  Why would it not be effective in the future?  He apparently does not place much confidence in this.  Add to this Dr. Russell Durbin stating yesterday that he thinks it is quite likely that H. sapiens will go extinct, and one is left scratching his head.  

                  Consider our very real quandary.  On one hand, we face extinction because of high tech medicine, while on the other hand we face the loss of high tech medicine and probable extinction anyway (or at least short lifespans and miserable existence) because we have so many more accumulated mutations than our ancestors.  Not very  bright prospects coming from the scientific community, I must say.

                  *********************************************************************

                  BUT OF COURSE THERE IS AN ANSWER ... AND IT COMES FROM AN OLD AND FAMILIAR SOURCE
                  The good news is that the Creator Himself, who created us in the first place (it wasn't mutations that created us), has made a promise.  He has promised to give new life to all who believe in Him.  How can we be sure this promise will be fulfilled?  There are many assurances.  But one of the best assurances is that if God raised Jesus from the dead, can He not also raise us from the dead someday?  He can.  Read Lee Strobel's Case for Christ to find out why.  God's Word agrees with God's World, friend.  Dr. Crow and Dr. Durbin alike agree with what the Apostle Paul told us long ago--that mankind is headed for extinction ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   But there is hope ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord ... and ... Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why would anyone not accept this free gift?

                  **********************************************************************

                  Deadman on my treatment of "Quasi-truncation selection" ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is beyond stupid. It shows conclusively that Dave didn't read/comprehend the paper, as this bit that I quoted above...occurs in the Abstract leading INTO the article. I really have to wonder if Dave knows what <75 signifies in math. Dave...do you know what a population bottleneck is? Do you know which way the "less than / more than " signs face in each instance, with a number to the right of each? Here, Dave, daddy will explain for you: Schoen et al are talking about a population...LESS THAN 75. Moreover, they are talking about plant seeds held in storage:  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Deadman, you're going to make yourself look sillier and sillier if you keep spouting insults about how stupid I am while making really elementary mistakes yourself.

                  Note two things that should have been obvious to you:

                  1) You ridicule me for making the comparison with plants, yet you fail to note that Crow himself got the idea of truncation selection from both animal and plant breeders ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Animal and plant breeders have long known that the most efficient form of selection is "truncation selection."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  2) You ridicule me for my comparison to a paper which uses a low numbers of individuals, yet you fail to notice how many individuals were used in one of the key Drosophila experiments which Crow and Mukai performed ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Experimental procedure: The method for accumulating spontaneous mutations is essentially the same as those used by DOBZHANSKY, SPASSKY, and SPASSKY (1952), PAXMAN (1957), and MUKAI (1964). A single Cy/+ male from the cross C-160 x WM-1 was chosen at random and mated to several Cy/Pm females from C-160. Fifty Pm/+ sons (or if necessary, Cy/+) were individually mated with Cy/Pm females. Half of these were mated with 3 Cy/Pm females to establish 25 lines numbered C-1, C-2, . . . C-25. In each line a single Pm/+ male was chosen each generation and mated with 3 Cy/Pm females, and the process repeated generation after generation. The wild-type second chromosome in every line was descended from that of the original Cy/+ male, and there was no opportunity for crossing over since this chromosome was always kept heterozygous in males. There was a minimum opportunity for selection, since a single male was used each generation and the chromosome was never allowed to become homozygous. The process was continued for 4.0 generations.
                  < Mukai et al >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  3) You laugh at me for supposedly not knowing what a "bottleneck" is and apparently you think that because a bottleneck occurred in the Schoen experiment, this somehow disproves my statement that Crow's "truncation selection model fails."  Now the honest life sciences guys here can correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that a bottleneck gives the best possible chance for Crow's "Truncation Selection" idea to work because so many mutations can be eliminated in the bottleneck.  Am I wrong here?  If so, why?  

                  In any case, I see no reason why you should reject Sanford's analysis of Crow's model, especially when it is confirmed by a non-YEC on plants (Crow is cool with plants), and when both involve a small number of individuals.

                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I got to thinking about this, and it occurred to me that "Isn't the evidence already abundantly clear?"  I mean, the fossil record confirms it, right?  This is why the whole Punc Eq thing came about.  Also, we don't see much speciation happening today do we?  No, I don't think so.  Also, I have already quoted numerous authors who show that rapid diversification and speciation occurs with founder populations which become isolated.  You remember all of this, right?  I think the only piece that you are missing is that you don't accept the evidence for the Global Flood with it's bottleneck of land animals, the breakup of the Super continent, the receding of the water to form numerous land bridges, then the melting of the ice caps and associated sea level rise which isolated various land masses and caused specialization of species.  Now I have not given evidence here for all these items but I hope to as time allows and if Steve doesn't shut down the thread.  But to answer your statement, I think creationists have already given this "slam dunk" as you call it.  You just haven't read it because, of course, anything that smacks of creationism is banned from the major journals.  Solution?  Subscribe to CRSQ or Origins or Journal of Creation ... or better yet ... all three!

                  Have a great day!
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 12 2006,11:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:00)
                  HOW CAN BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS BE WRONG ABOUT SUCH A BIG, BASIC THING?
                  I cannot explain it, but I do know it happens all the time.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That says all anyone needs to know about Dave and his "hypothesis."
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,11:16

                  Dave, I must be one of those guys with a "history of vacuity" whose posts you don't even read anymore, because if you had read my posts (along with everyone else who's even addressed your points) you'd realize that you're dead wrong with Crow, and you're dead wrong with Ayala.

                  Crow's point, which has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times, is that modern medical technology is what's causing deleterious mutations to pile up in modern humans. And by "modern humans," he's talking about humans who have access to modern medical technology.

                  You're not getting this not because you're an idiot (frankly, no one could be that dumb), but because you're not letting yourself get it.

                  Ayala doesn't help you, as I pointed out in all those posts of mine you didn't read, because your "flood" wiped out all the genetic variability Ayala is talking about. So now you have to get from a few thousand "kinds" to ten million or more species in (your figure) EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS. With no genetic variability to start with, you have to get ALL OF IT FROM MUTATIONS. ALL OF IT.

                  This idea of Air Force Dave trying to point out scientists' errors to them is going to give me laughs all day.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,11:24

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow's point, which has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times, is that modern medical technology is what's causing deleterious mutations to pile up in modern humans. And by "modern humans," he's talking about humans who have access to modern medical technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   I don't think I have ever even once disagreed with this, if what you mean is that "medical technology is increasing lifespans, making more live births, etc. therefore accumulated mutations are not being eliminated"  Is this what you mean?  If so, we agree ... for once.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,11:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:24)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow's point, which has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times, is that modern medical technology is what's causing deleterious mutations to pile up in modern humans. And by "modern humans," he's talking about humans who have access to modern medical technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   I don't think I have ever even once disagreed with this, if what you mean is that "medical technology is increasing lifespans, making more live births, etc. therefore accumulated mutations are not being eliminated"  Is this what you mean?  If so, we agree ... for once.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Then if you agree with this, then why do you still think Crow's observation is a problem for the ToE? Why would it be a problem for any other species than humans? Do you remember the penguins and the New World monkeys?

                  If you agree that "medical technology is increasing lifespans, making more live births, etc. therefore accumulated mutations are not being eliminated," why on earth would you think this is a problem for the Theory of Evolution? It could conceivably be a problem for the continued existence of the human race (which will almost certainly go extinct at some point anyway), but what possible consequences does it have for evolutionary theory?

                  Is this yet another instance of Dave missing the forest for the trees? Or is it Dave slowly backing down from an untenable position, hoping no one will notice?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 12 2006,12:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is this yet another instance of Dave missing the forest for the trees? Or is it Dave slowly backing down from an untenable position, hoping no one will notice?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  Notice how Davie has learned from his past mistakes.  Instead of flat out lying about what he said (as in the past), he's now couching his denials in weaselese.  :D

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave): I don't think I have ever even once disagreed with this
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Keep it up Davie - you're the funniest moron on the web!
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 12 2006,12:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:00)
                  SORRY, BUT IT IS NOT DISREPECTFUL TO POINT OUT ERROR IN SCIENCE
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It is not disrespectful to question some aspect of science, nor even to provisionally suspect error after lay consideration (though some may consider this to be more than a tad presumptuous, I wouldn't count it as 'disrespectful', per se). However, it is disrespectful to persist in trumpeting this so-called 'error' after your claim is fully evaluated by those with the requisite scientific education and found to be profoundly lacking. It is especially disrespectful to claim to know better than those who have devoted their lives to understanding a field of knowledge. It is heinously disrespectful to do so after such experts have patiently explained to you -- in detail -- why the so-called 'error' is no such thing, but is instead borne of your lack of knowledge in the subject at hand (which they have attempted to provide). A respectful man, while curious and questioning, would give the benefit of the doubt to superior education, familiarity and practice in a subject of expertise before presuming life-long delusion or error in "such a basic thing", Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IF WE AGREE ON THIS, THEN WHAT AM I TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU?
                  Several things ... glad you asked.  We have agreed that you can draw other conclusions from papers as long as they are supported by the author ... so this is what I do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Alright, let's see what we agree on and how well you do with the conclusions you draw.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NEW CONCLUSION #1: MODERN HUMANS ARE GENETICALLY INFERIOR TO OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS
                  I've already quoted the relevant passage in Crow's paper.  If this is not supported by Crow's statement, you need to show me HOW it is not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In terms of general genetic load, I'm inclined to agree with you (and more accurately, with Crow) here. Of course, I suspect modern humans have more than a few adaptations to our present environment that are genetically superior to those of our ancient ancestors, but overall I have no qualms with calling them generally "genetically inferior" for the purposes of this discussion. So far, so good.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NEW CONCLUSION #2: IF #1 IS TRUE, THEN THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE
                  If you do not agree, then please explain how this can be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And yet, now you've lost me (and everybody else). This is a gross non sequitur, Dave.

                  Let's work with what Crow says, and confine it to your limited understanding of evolution. Specifically, we'll just work with your ol' "RM + NS". I want you to keep up here, so this will verge on sophomoric. In other words, this a pedagogical tool, and has absolutely no bearing on any real understanding of evolution, because you have ably demonstrated that you are not equipped for any such thing. So "RM + NS" it is.

                  As others have pointed out, even with such a simple 'equation', you keep ignoring that "NS", Dave. Which is too bad, since Crow has a lot to say about it, doesn't he? So let's assume that "all" RM is bad in that little equation (as you have claimed). Furthermore, NS, or quite literally being selected out of existence, is also bad. So the "aim" of everything playing the game of life is to keep the sum of that little equation as low as possible. Let's pretend a higher total means a higher chance of death/extinction, while a lower total means a better chance of survival/persistence. We'll call it "survivability". Obviously, survivability is inversely correlated with "RM + NS" (Survivability = 1/(RM+NS)). Now, we have already agreed that the RM term has increased in modern humans -- we have accumulated a genetic load via random mutation that acts to reduce our survivability.

                  Dave, looking at our simple little equation above, do you see any possible, conceivable way in which our overall 'survivability' relative to our ancient ancestors might have stayed the same (or even increased), despite our genetic inferiority (i.e., increased RM)? Any way at all? Maybe Crow mentions it? Maybe it's why RM was "allowed" to increase in the first place? Think hard, Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NEW CONCLUSION #3: THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE MUTATION PROCESS MUST BE DELETERIOUS.
                  Note that this is in his opening statement.  He has not yet begun to talk specifically about the human species, nor yet even more specifically about humans living in wealthy nations.  Now tell me ... how can you (or Crow) defend "mutation is the ultimate source of variability" while in the same paragraph you say "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious"?  This does not add up, friends.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The overall impact of lotteries must be deleterious -- an overwhelming majority of players will lose money (leading many to claim that the lotto is a "tax on the poor", or at least on people who can't do math). Nevertheless, with winners every week, the "ultimate" source of brand new multimillionaires among people below the poverty line is the lottery.

                  (Dave, just to be clear, the analogy above in no way reflects evolution. It merely demonstrates your error in logic here. Furthermore, I don't know if my claim about "new multimillionaires" is true or not, though it could be. It doesn't have to be true to show how Crow's statements do NOT constitute a logical contradiction. If you don't like my analogy, maybe you can think up a similar one more to your taste.)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NEW CONCLUSION #4: CROW CONSIDERS MUTATIONS TO BE A BOMB
                  Notice something key here.  He considers that the only thing that is forestalling the "bomb" is our technology.  But he also considers our technology to be the very thing that allows the "bomb" to eventually explode!  What a paradox!  Poor Crow!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If you've figured out the answer to my question about #2 above, you should have explained this apparent 'paradox'. In other words, if you've finally found a concept you've been ignoring for quite some time now, you might be a little concerned about how it could potentially change in the future, given new values for other terms in the 'equation'.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So what do we have?

                  We have Crow speculating that "quasi-truncation selection" (Natural Selection, Faid) operated in the past to get us to where we are now.  But he says this is not working any more because our high techiness is causing us to preserve all those mutations.  And further, he fears that if we somehow lose all this high tech stuff, we will have a tougher time than our stone age ancestors because of all the accumulated mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hmmm. How might this relate to our little 'equation' above, eh?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  One immediately has to ask, "Why this last concern?"  I mean, "Come on, Dr. Crow, you just said that "quasi-truncation selection" was effective in the past to make us survive.  Why would it not be effective in the future?  He apparently does not place much confidence in this.  Add to this Dr. Russell Durbin stating yesterday that he thinks it is quite likely that H. sapiens will go extinct, and one is left scratching his head.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, yes, what a connundrum. I mean, every day I come into work I have confidence that the building I'm currently sitting in won't collapse. Ask me if I'd have confidence sitting here in a hurricane. Might the relative balance of opposing forces be a key player in determining 'confidence' here, Dave?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Consider our very real quandary.  On one hand, we face extinction because of high tech medicine, while on the other hand we face the loss of high tech medicine and probable extinction anyway (or at least short lifespans and miserable existence) because we have so many more accumulated mutations than our ancestors.  Not very  bright prospects coming from the scientific community, I must say.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hmm...humans as a species might face very real challenges  in the future. We might even have to lie in a few beds we've made for ourselves. No, not a very bright prospect. Who cares if it's a very real one -- let's think happier thoughts...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  BUT OF COURSE THERE IS AN ANSWER ... AND IT COMES FROM AN OLD AND FAMILIAR SOURCE
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Ah, there we go....



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The good news is that the Creator Himself, who created us in the first place (it wasn't mutations that created us), has made a promise.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You know, I seem to recall He has also made a few promises that I wouldn't exactly count as "bright prospects" either. In fact, they make possible extinction look #### right appealing.

                  *snip silly sermon*



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why would anyone not accept this free gift?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I wonder? I also wonder why I didn't accept the "free ski vacation" I was offered in the mail yesterday, either.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have a great day!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You too, Davey.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,12:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:24)
                  I don't think I have ever even once disagreed with this, if what you mean is that "medical technology is increasing lifespans, making more live births, etc. therefore accumulated mutations are not being eliminated"  Is this what you mean?  If so, we agree ... for once.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, of course you never disagreed with it, Dave. You never even addressed it, despite the fact that it punches a hole so big through your argument that your argument is entirely hole.

                  But now that you do agree with it, you also therefore agree that you have no argument vis a vis Crow, right? That your claims that Crow's observations invalidate the ToE are entirely wrong and inoperative, right?

                  (Pause while entire thread holds its collective breath, wondering if Dave will actually admit he was wrong about something.)
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 12 2006,12:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:00)
                  We see again the Statement of Darwinist Doctrinal Faith repeated by Crow: "Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible."  (Never mind that Ayala said Darwin was wrong about this.)

                  ...
                  IF WE AGREE ON THIS, THEN WHAT AM I TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU?
                  Several things ... glad you asked.  We have agreed that you can draw other conclusions from papers as long as they are supported by the author ... so this is what I do.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #1: MODERN HUMANS ARE GENETICALLY INFERIOR TO OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS
                  I've already quoted the relevant passage in Crow's paper.  If this is not supported by Crow's statement, you need to show me HOW it is not.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #2: IF #1 IS TRUE, THEN THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE
                  If you do not agree, then please explain how this can be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Firstly, Ayala did not say that mutations were unnecessary. He pointed out that most (not all) genotypic variation comes from shuffling of the currently existing set of genetic variation. However, that genetic variation does ultimately arise from mutations. Darwin, of course, didn't have our modern understanding of genetics, so it's unsurprising he didn't get all details right. Amusingly, this is a perfect example of why Dave can't grasp science; he thinks Darwin is some kind of bearded prophet whose word is unquestionable, whereas in fact he was just a really smart guy with some good ideas. That's why Dave thinks "Darwin was wrong about X" means "Evolution is false", which is a bit like claiming that, if Newton was wrong about anything (and he was- alchemy), then gravity doesn't exist.

                  In regard to Dave's "new conclusions", #1 is probably correct; the current human population is probably genetically less fit than our stone-age ancestors. This is because we now have the technology to keep people alive in the population who would previously not have been able to survive. Example: I have extremely poor eyesight, about -6 diopters, a trait which (in stone age times) did not persist in the population because of, for example, leopards. Now, optical technology compensates for my disadvantageous trait, and I may well pass it on to my children.

                  This illustrates an important point; just because I understand evolution doesn't mean I want it to happen to me. It's one of those things that is beautiful when seen from a sufficient distance. As Terry Pratchett put it: "On the long term, something wonderful was about to happen. On the short or medium term, something horrible was about to happen. It's the difference between the beauty of morning dew on a cobweb, and actually being a fly." Similarly, I have a very good grasp of the theory of gravity, but I'm not going to jump off a cliff to, er, participate in it.

                  Conclusion #2 simply doesn't follow. Only very recently has our technology freed us from natural selection. Human evolution, from pithecanthropus to Cro-Magnon, took place in a brutally competitive environment (due to, again, LEOPARDS, also ice ages, droughts, and the tribe over the hill). I think the problem here is the timescale issue- Dave is too used to shoehorning everything into 6000 years, so the idea that the conditions of life, for humans, in the last few thousand years, differ from the conditions over the previous several million, probably doesn't sit well.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,12:34

                  What is wrong with this "ericmurphy" character's reading skills?  Of course I addressed it, the latest being this morning ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Consider our very real quandary.  On one hand, we face extinction because of high tech medicine,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What sems to be the problem, Eric?

                  Now, let me digest Incorygible's post and I'll get back to you.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 12 2006,12:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34)
                  What is wrong with this "ericmurphy" character's reading skills?  Of course I addressed it, the latest being this morning ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Consider our very real quandary.  On one hand, we face extinction because of high tech medicine,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What sems to be the problem, Eric?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The problem is that you persistently equate "natural selection isn't operating on technologically advanced human populations now" with "natural selection never operated at all on anyone ever." This is your current most annoying error.

                  Also, you seem to be arguing that we have to ignore science and believe bronze-age myths, because science says that bad things might happen to us. Childish, really.

                  Oh, here's a good one for you. In Genesis 18, God apparently gets his information from hearsay, and has to travel to find out if what he hears is true:

                  018:020 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is
                         great, and because their sin is very grievous;

                  018:021 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether
                         according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not,
                         I will know.

                  How's that sit with your comforting fantasies?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 12 2006,12:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34)
                  Now, let me digest Incorygible's post and I'll get back to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ironic metaphor. Considering.

                  Last time asking. When is the earth 6001 davey?

                  You are not saying "the earth is 6000 +/- 1000". You are saying it's exactly 6000. If you said "6000 +/- 16billion" then perhaps we can work to narrow the error margin.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,12:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34)
                  What is wrong with this "ericmurphy" character's reading skills?  Of course I addressed it, the latest being this morning ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Consider our very real quandary.  On one hand, we face extinction because of high tech medicine,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What sems to be the problem, Eric?

                  Now, let me digest Incorygible's post and I'll get back to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, is your point that humans (especially humans who live in advanced technological societies) are faced with a quandary, or that the theory of evolution is faced with a quandary?

                  The first is certainly true. The second is certainly false.

                  There's nothing wrong with my reading skills, Dave. There's plenty wrong with your "arguments." Most of the time, you can't even seem to keep track of what your own arguments are.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 12 2006,13:05

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2006,12:50)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34)
                  Now, let me digest Incorygible's post and I'll get back to you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ironic metaphor. Considering.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  :D

                  Okay, that one left me scratching my head for far too long before I got it. Thanks for reminding me I'm in desparate need of another coffee.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,13:22

                  Incorygible...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A respectful man, while curious and questioning, would give the benefit of the doubt to superior education, familiarity and practice in a subject of expertise before presuming life-long delusion or error in "such a basic thing", Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I show respect by taking the time to read your posts (and Russell's and others who seem to be knowledgeable in the life sciences) and answer them in thoughtful detail.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #1: MODERN HUMANS ARE GENETICALLY INFERIOR TO OUR STONE AGE ANCESTORS
                  Good, I have at least more or less agreement on this one from Stephen Wells and Incorygible.

                  NEW CONCLUSION #2: IF #1 IS TRUE, THEN THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE
                  If you do not agree, then please explain how this can be.

                  Cory ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And yet, now you've lost me (and everybody else). This is a gross non sequitur, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK.  Hold it right there, then.  Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible.  I am trying to accurately portray your view.  Here we go.  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.  Is that better?  I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter.  So now the time is 100 kya.  Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right?  (we already agreed on that).  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!?? These mistakes that Crow says "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious."  ??  Hello?  McFly?  

                  I'm sorry ... I don't care how many life science degrees you have.  I cannot just sit here and swallow this one.

                  *************************************************

                  You make the comparison to the lottery and I understand what you are saying.  But, I'm sorry, it just does not work that way.  Lottery winners are instant successes, with no requirement for millions of sequential, viable-at-every-evolutionary-stage strokes of luck to become millionaires.  To make a human by random mutation (hey, even a bacteria) requires so many sequential, fortuitous "lucky numbers" in a row that the odds against it are just daffy.  Do you not see this?  You are correct that there WILL BE winners in the lottery.

                  But I contend that THERE WILL NOT BE winners in the "biological lottery," simply because an organism (say a fish like creature--you know--Grandpa Nemo) would have to have at least one  beneficial mutation, those individuals with that beneficial get selected for and preserved and hopefully the organism doesn't get eliminated because some other bad mutations also occurred reducing it's fitness.  Then you have to repeat this cycle fast enough to outpace the bad mutations which far outnumber the good ones (if there even are any truly good ones--what happens if those "good" ones become homozygous, etc?).  Of course, truncation selection helps you some, but does it help enough?  Not according to the studies I posted.

                  So you really cannot compare biology to the lottery.  Do you see why you cannot?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 12 2006,14:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:00)
                  Improv ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I got to thinking about this, and it occurred to me that "Isn't the evidence already abundantly clear?"  I mean, the fossil record confirms it, right?  This is why the whole Punc Eq thing came about.  Also, we don't see much speciation happening today do we?  No, I don't think so.  Also, I have already quoted numerous authors who show that rapid diversification and speciation occurs with founder populations which become isolated.  You remember all of this, right?  I think the only piece that you are missing is that you don't accept the evidence for the Global Flood with it's bottleneck of land animals, the breakup of the Super continent, the receding of the water to form numerous land bridges, then the melting of the ice caps and associated sea level rise which isolated various land masses and caused specialization of species.  Now I have not given evidence here for all these items but I hope to as time allows and if Steve doesn't shut down the thread.  But to answer your statement, I think creationists have already given this "slam dunk" as you call it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank you for confirming my expectations.  You are absolutely incorrect, and you have presented no supporting evidence of rapid speciation from a small set of kinds over the last 4000 years.  But feel free to try again when you have actual evidence.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 12 2006,14:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,13:22)
                  OK.  Hold it right there, then.  Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible.  I am trying to accurately portray your view.  Here we go.  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.  Is that better?  I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter.  So now the time is 100 kya.  Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right?  (we already agreed on that).  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  {nitpick}
                  Firstly, that would be the divergence from the CHIMP/human LCA, not gorilla.

                  Secondly, Cro-Magnons are really recent, more like 50kya rather than 500.
                  {/nitpick}

                  Thirdly, no, mutations did not accomplish this. Mutations and recombinations PLUS NATURAL SELECTION accomplished this. Sure, a lot of mutations are harmful. When natural selection is operating, those harmful mutations get selected out because the organisms carrying them are less likely to SURVIVE and BREED. I'm capitalising the parts that, after several hundreds of pages, you still haven't grasped.

                  You seem to have this weird idea that, for evolution to work, the net effect of mutations has to be positive. It doesn't have to be, and clearly it isn't. But when natural selection is operating, a small proportion of positive mutations are selected for, and a larger proportion of negative mutations are selected against. It's the selection, not the mutations, that's critical. And the selection process is not difficult to grasp: mutations that make their carriers less likely to survive and breed, are less likely to be passed on, because their carriers have fewer descendants, and vice versa for positive mutations.

                  This is such a very simple, indeed obvious, idea, that it was discovered independently at least twice (Darwin and Wallace, that I know of). Given the observable nature of reproducing organisms, it's hard to see how it could possibly NOT work.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,14:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,13:22)
                  OK.  Hold it right there, then.  Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible.  I am trying to accurately portray your view.  Here we go.  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.  Is that better?  I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter.  So now the time is 100 kya.  Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right?  (we already agreed on that).  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!?? These mistakes that Crow says "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious."  ??  Hello?  McFly?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, once again you're tripping over your own penis, because you have almost no understanding of, or knowledge about, even the most basic scientific facts.

                  Humans have hardly evolved at all over the past 100,000 years.

                  (Cro-Magnons do not appear 500,000 years ago. Not remotely. Neanderthals don't go back that far. Cro-Magnons are essentially modern H. sapiens.)

                  Yes, there have been minor evolutionary changes in that time. But there's no evidence that humans living today (humans living 100,000 years ago are for most purposes "modern") are any more intelligent, or more "evolved" than humans from 100,000 years ago. Culturally, yes. Genetically, not at all. Australopithenes were, for the most part, indistinguishable from modern humans from the neck down, and they existed three million years ago.

                  The problem you have, once again, is your inability to understand that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. A hundred thousand years is virtually instantaneous by evolutionary standards.

                  Further, none of these problems Crow is discussing existed more than, at most, 1,000 years ago. So how did they present a problem for human evolution 10,000, or 100,000 years ago?

                  So again, Dave: where does any of this present any sort of difficulty whatsoever for evolutionary theory? It presents a huge problem for your "hypothesis," but then virtually everything presents a huge problem for your "hypothesis."  



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You make the comparison to the lottery and I understand what you are saying.  But, I'm sorry, it just does not work that way.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, Incorygible has already cautioned you that his "lottery" analogy doesn't work for evolution. Did you miss this statement somehow?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, just to be clear, the analogy above in no way reflects evolution. It merely demonstrates your error in logic here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 12 2006,14:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,14:22)
                  Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible.  I am trying to accurately portray your view.  Here we go.  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.  Is that better?  I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter.  So now the time is 100 kya.  Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right?  (we already agreed on that).  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!?? These mistakes that Crow says "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious."  ??  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's the selection process.  Everyone reading this thread understands it except you, and you never will.  So we should probably just move on.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 12 2006,14:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ..."contrary to Darwin's conception"  (Translation: Darwin was wrong about this)

                  ..."mutations provide a mere trickle of new alleles"

                  ..."much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation"

                  ..."recombination alone is sufficient"

                  ..."no need for new genetic input by mutation"

                  Do you see what Ayala (and you) has done here?

                  He has assumed that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" with no experimental verification whatsoever.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you dumb or what? (we all know the answer but still...)
                  How to you create a new allele without a mutation, genius?

                  I you'have also noticed that Ayala is referring to genetic variation within populations not between species. Big difference.
                  Show me a model in which post-zygotic isolation can arise between populations without mutation. Don't know what I'm talking about? Just get a clue.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,14:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:00)
                  Improv ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I got to thinking about this, and it occurred to me that "Isn't the evidence already abundantly clear?"  I mean, the fossil record confirms it, right?  This is why the whole Punc Eq thing came about.  Also, we don't see much speciation happening today do we?  No, I don't think so.  Also, I have already quoted numerous authors who show that rapid diversification and speciation occurs with founder populations which become isolated.  You remember all of this, right?  I think the only piece that you are missing is that you don't accept the evidence for the Global Flood with it's bottleneck of land animals, the breakup of the Super continent, the receding of the water to form numerous land bridges, then the melting of the ice caps and associated sea level rise which isolated various land masses and caused specialization of species.  Now I have not given evidence here for all these items but I hope to as time allows and if Steve doesn't shut down the thread.  But to answer your statement, I think creationists have already given this "slam dunk" as you call it.  You just haven't read it because, of course, anything that smacks of creationism is banned from the major journals.  Solution?  Subscribe to CRSQ or Origins or Journal of Creation ... or better yet ... all three!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, you have shown not the tiniest speck of evidence for this. You need evidence that shows an explosive increase in biodiversity, from a few tens of thousands of "kinds" to tens of millions of species in, according to your estimates, eight hundred years.

                  If you think you've provided evidence for a three-order-of-magnitude increase in biodiversity between 2,500 B.C. and 1,700 B.C. (while the genomes of all higher organisms are degenerating and species are going extinct left and right), please post a permalink so we can all evaluate your evidence. If you think any of your creationist websites have evidence for a three-order-of-magnitude increase in biodiversity between 2,500 B.C. and 1,700 B.C., please post a link so we can evaluate their evidence.

                  Thanks.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,14:48

                  Stephen Wells ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The problem is that you persistently equate "natural selection isn't operating on technologically advanced human populations now" with "natural selection never operated at all on anyone ever." This is your current most annoying error.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Look.  Let's simplify this even further.

                  1) Stone age ancestor has to get smarter, better lookin', more civilized, etc.
                  2) What's a Pithecanthropus supposed to do to achieve this?
                  3) Well mutate!  By golly!  
                  4) Mutate, mutate, mutate ... keep them dogies mutatin' (Note: recombination only makes varied Pithecanthropi, not Super-Pithecanthropi)
                  5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)
                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  9) Meanwhile:  mutate, mutate, mutate ...
                  10) Problem: We now have no mechanism for helping the good mutations outrun the bad ones
                  11) Problem: this will lead to genetic meltdown according to the geneticists
                  12) Hey wait a minute!  Didn't Crow say we are genetically INFERIOR to these ancestors?
                  13) How did we get to be genetically inferior if mutations made us smarter, better lookin', etc.?

                  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.

                  Conclusion:  A Designer, not mutations and recombination, created humans.

                  SW...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You seem to have this weird idea that, for evolution to work, the net effect of mutations has to be positive. It doesn't have to be, and clearly it isn't. But when natural selection is operating, a small proportion of positive mutations are selected for, and a larger proportion of negative mutations are selected against. It's the selection, not the mutations, that's critical. And the selection process is not difficult to grasp: mutations that make their carriers less likely to survive and breed, are less likely to be passed on, because their carriers have fewer descendants, and vice versa for positive mutations.

                  This is such a very simple, indeed obvious, idea, that it was discovered independently at least twice (Darwin and Wallace, that I know of). Given the observable nature of reproducing organisms, it's hard to see how it could possibly NOT work.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I have understood all this for quite some time.  I do not have "this weird idea that, for evolution to work, the net effect of mutations has to be positive."  

                  But I do have the idea that enough good ones have to accumulate and be preserved to make new functions and structures.  And while this is going on, the nearly neutrals which get passed on with the good ones because they are unselectable (remember Kimura?) will hopefully not accumulate so much that the species loses fertility and goes extinct.  But alas, this is precisely what Crow and the others are talking about.  This is not possible in the real world.  What really happens is that the nearly neutrals continue to get passed on with the beneficials (are there any really?) and the species melts down.

                  Do you have this weird idea (as Jeannot does) that Natural Selection works at the nucleotide level or something?  It doesn't.  It works on the phenotype.

                  I'm not getting how you can read Crow and the others, yet think think that humans evolved.  There are too many contradictory things here.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 12 2006,14:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What really happens is that the nearly neutrals continue to get passed on with the beneficials (are there any really?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, and you've admitted such.  So stop with the ubersilly.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 12 2006,15:10

                  Silly me, I had thought that today I'd be entertained by a post from Dave containing Sanford's "mathiness" on Truncation Selection. Alas, it was not to be. (A familiar refrain here in dealing with Dimboy). BUT...here's a howler, as eric pointed out:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay. this is the level of intellect that we're dealing with. This is his level of knowledge that he applies in virtually every bit of science he taints with his ignorance. Cro-Magnons are, as eric pointed out, fully modern humans. This was brought home to me ironically enough, on the very first day of classes at UCLA, when Jim Sackett was in an elevator with me going up to a classroom where he was to begin teaching a class on Paleolithic archaeology. He had a box of skulls-- some casts, some real-- and I pointed to a concealed cranium and over-eagerly blurted out: " Ohhh, nice skulls. What's that one?" He held up a Cromagnon skull, with its characteristic "rectangular" eye sockets looking me right in the face and said forebodingly, "THIS is YOU."
                  Later Jim and I became good friends and he was on my graduate committee,and one of the influences in my changeover from physical anthro to archaeology. But Dave has never had that kind of intimate access to the materials in question....he's shown no meaningful knowledge of ANY of the subjects he's mangled, he's not even clear on the BASICS.  

                  Another instance:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, that's right...DimDave thinks we split off from GORILLAS 5 million years ago. With tardity of this sort, I don't need to see Borat...

                  Another instance:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh, where did Crow say this, or anyone else for that matter? You really don't have a clue about the Lamarckian nature of culture?

                  DimDilettanteDave concludes with this monument to his stupidity:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NEW CONCLUSION #2: IF #1 IS TRUE, THEN THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION IS FALSE

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please explain HOW that MUST be true...if there are no differences physiologically ( and genetically--we HAVE examined the DNA of early modern humans, stupid) and the ONLY KNOWN DIFFERENCES ARE CULTURAL?

                  Here, let me put that in words a child might understand, so you can grasp this, DumbassDave:
                  CroMagnons (modern humans) are not different from you in ANY way physically. They are not different GENETICALLY in any way that has ever positively been shown, to my knowledge. (I have never seen any actual genetic studies showing such...have you? I don't want MATHEMATICAL MODELS, in THIS case...I want actual DNA studies, such as those done by Svante Paabo [40 early moderns] showing NO differences)
                  THE DIFFERENCES ARE CULTURAL AND HAVE NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MUTATIONS, UNTIL YOU CAN SHOW OTHERWISE. CAN YOU?
                  NO?
                  THEN SHUT UP, STUPID.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 12 2006,16:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,14:48)
                  1) Stone age ancestor has to get smarter, better lookin', more civilized, etc.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  aaaaand that's your first error right there. Stone age ancestor is probably doing just fine, individually. But any stone age (non-)ancestor with a genetic disadvantage- say, short sight- probably gets eaten by the leopards, and any stone age ancestor with an advantage- smarter, or better looking (to other pithecanthropes), or stronger, or more resistant to infections- probably leaves more descendants.





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  2) What's a Pithecanthropus supposed to do to achieve this?
                  3) Well mutate!  By golly!

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Second error; Mr. Pithy isn't personally _trying_ to _achieve_ mutations (Though it's a lovely mental image- apeman with a strained expression, trying to mutate :) )  but mutations are gonna happen anyway, sometimes.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  4) Mutate, mutate, mutate ... keep them dogies mutatin' (Note: recombination only makes varied Pithecanthropi, not Super-Pithecanthropi)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You'll be getting a lot of recombination, plus some mutations. Anyway, onwards




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You're hiding a lot in that "in spite of." For one thing, you've yet to demonstrate that we're even in a region of parameter space (e.g. mutation rates/genome sizes) where natural selection is insufficient.





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Obviously, improving our scientific models is a terribly bad thing (/sarcasm).



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Whose arguments have not convinced anyone, in case you hadn't noticed. That graph from a paper on seed storage lacked a certain something- relevance. Your remaining conclusions are based on assuming that natural selection doesn't work.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  12) Hey wait a minute!  Didn't Crow say we are genetically INFERIOR to these ancestors?
                  13) How did we get to be genetically inferior if mutations made us smarter, better lookin', etc.?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again with the skipping around; Crow's argument is that, in VERY RECENT human history, what with the eyeglasses and the medicine, natural selection isn't operating, hence increased deleterious mutation load.






                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.

                  Conclusion:  A Designer, not mutations and recombination, created humans.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your conclusion doesn't follow from anything you've said up  'til now.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I have understood all this for quite some time.  I do not have "this weird idea that, for evolution to work, the net effect of mutations has to be positive."  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You certainly gave that impression- for one thing, your constant harping on 'how can mutations make us smarter etc.' without ever getting to grips with selection.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But I do have the idea that enough good ones have to accumulate and be preserved to make new functions and structures.  And while this is going on, the nearly neutrals which get passed on with the good ones because they are unselectable (remember Kimura?) will hopefully not accumulate so much that the species loses fertility and goes extinct.  But alas, this is precisely what Crow and the others are talking about.  This is not possible in the real world.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Kimura looked at the statistics of a model with no advantageous mutations. Be cautious about applying conclusions from that model to the real world :)
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 12 2006,16:17

                  Did he create also H. erectus and H. habilis separately or do they come from Adam & Co?

                  What does the bible have to say about?  :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 12 2006,16:21

                  Pithecanthropus erectus was Dubois' name for Java man...H. erectus. It's no longer used.

                  On Truncation selection:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really? and you were asked specifically to show the mathiness of your claim, DimBulb. Failing that ( I know you're not bright enough to actually accomplish that,) at least post the relevant passages that you claim support this leap of faith by Sanford.

                  And where's **Sanford's** math, by the way? Or is he operating the way most creationists do -- by pulling alleged "math" out of his ass, as you posted on CO2 increase, DullardDave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,16:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,14:48)
                  5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)
                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version. things here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Wrong. Dave, you're still not getting it. Crow is saying that Natural Selection does not work with modern humans with access to modern medical technology. Why don't you get this? It's not conceptually difficult. I don't know about you, but this problem occurred to me probably in junior high school, if not earlier. It's been explained to you half a dozen different ways by half a dozen different people. AND YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

                  Come on, Dave. You cannot be this much of an imbecile. Oh, wait. Of course. You don't want to get it.

                  So, we know that Natural Selection can, and does, work in normal organismal populations (of which modern humans are not an example). It's been doing so for billions of years.

                  We do not have a "serious problem," Dave. You have a serious problem. You have an inability to comprehend unpleasant concepts. For you, an unpleasant concept is the one where your ancestors were the same as the ancestors of modern chimps. You simply cannot accept that, so you keep coming up with bullshit objections that all, ultimately, boil down to the same thing:

                  your personal incredulity.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 12 2006,17:11

                  I'm not going to respond to all the willfully ignorant claptrap regurgitated yet again today. I'm bored going around the same old circle. Obviously there's no point in trying to educate davy, and I can't imagine any third party over the age of 10 who would find any merit in today's davy-dump. (But again, any Lurkers out there who think I'm underestimating him? Anyone? Anyone?)

                  I'll just note that davy failed at the key request I - and others - specifically asked for: to show us how he "disproved" truncation selection. Crow didn't say it "didn't work"; he said the model was too simplistic. Big difference.

                  And, believe me davy, I couldn't care less about your "respect". In fact, having seen how you think, I'll be worried if I ever "earn" it. I'm just pointing out to you that you earn a whole lot of "negative" respect - for yourself and your religion - with your childishly, inappropriately sarcastic, arrogant, anti-intellectual, phallocephalic attitude.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,17:28

                  Russell-- You and Deadman missed the "truncation selection" bit.  Remember?  Deadman was fussing about low numbers of individuals and "Foul! You can't use plants"?  It was a pretty easy answer.

                  *****************************************

                  Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

                  Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

                  What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

                  (This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,17:34

                  Okay, Dave. Your argument that Natural Selection cannot work—doesn't work. You've presented no evidence that it doesn't work. Crow's statements do not show that it cannot work, and neither do Shoen's. Time to move on to something else. I'd say you're beating a dead horse, but actually you missed the horse. The horse has disappeared over the horizon, and you're just beating the dirt with your shovel over and over again.

                  It must be frustrating to you to be wrong like this, over and over and over again. But you never seem to tire of it...
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 12 2006,17:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,18:28)
                  Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

                  Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

                  What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

                  (This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Watches are tools created by humans.  Butterflies are not.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 12 2006,17:46

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 12 2006,18:34)
                  It must be frustrating to you to be wrong like this, over and over and over again. But you never seem to tyre of it...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Couldn't resist...
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 12 2006,17:46

                  One hesitates to venture into a whole 'nother layer of Dave's misconceptions, since doing so is unlikely to lead to any actual change in his position, even if there was any remote hope of actually educating him on the topic.

                  But, with those misgivings expressed, it appears to me that part of Davey's adherence to the bad-mutations-swamping-good mantra is his failure to understand the differing levels at which variability is conserved and expressed and selected for.  

                  There is of course the entirety of the variability available within the population of a species, including all alleles at every locus, the rate of new mutations (or other sources of variability, however labelled).  While Dave occasionally mumbles phrases like "genome" and "richness" and "load," which vaguely suggest some acquaintance with population dynamics, he continually demonstrates that he has no clue as to how any of this actually works, conceptually or mathematically.

                  Then there's breeding subpopulations, a nuance that Dave strenuously resists, since it leads swiftly to matters such as sexual selection, ring species, and outright speciation, which to Dave is the anti-grail (right along with an animal ancestry for humans).

                  Then there's breeding groups--packs, pairs, and so forth.  Dave, of course, starts out with the subconscious prejudice that all animals come in "pairs," just as he inherently is committed to immutable (but flabbergastingly diverse) "kinds."  So he has difficulties with packs, rookeries, harems, anything beyond mr. and mrs. critter.

                  Then there's the individual animal.  This is really about as complex a phenomenom as Dave is comfortable conceptualizing about, hence his huge difficulty in seeing the problem with bottlenecks, population diversity, etc.

                  When Dave "thinks" about the accumulating "load" of bad mutations, he's really not thinking in terms of populations, breeding groups, any of that.  He's thinking in terms of genome = species = one individual animal.  

                  He pays lip service to the notion that selection acts on the phenotype (while getting this utterly confused with mutations acting on the genotype or nucleotide "level"), but this translates in dave-thunk into his mentally compressing every animal that ever lived over time in a species into one critter, which in davey's mind carries and expresses the entire load of evil mutations all at the same time, while being benefitted--"if at all" (he can't make up his "mind")--by a miniscule number of good mutations, only an even more miniscule number of which can possibly confer any actual benefit, and only then if this one emblematic critter happens to have wandered into a very odd environment which very temporarily allows what's really just another garden-variety deleterious mutation to pose as a beneficial one.

                  So, in dave-world, of course the poor dumb critter must be overwhelmed with a zillion bad mutations and its none-one-few good mutations will confer upon it no survival benefit whatsoever.

                  Dave's "thinking" in this area is so out of touch with the reality of the distribution and expression of variation in the population that one doesn't even know where to begin to straighten "him" (a hypothetical person with dave's current level of ignorance but without his current avoidance of logic, evidence, and learning) out.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,17:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,17:28)
                  Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

                  What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

                  (This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh for—come on, Dave, I can do it in two words, and so can anyone else here:

                  Butterflies reproduce.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 12 2006,17:51

                  Dave, everybody knows this old chestnut:

                  "You can watch the butterflies, but you can't butterfly the watches!"

                  If you really want to converse on that level, have I ever got some knock-knock jokes for you!
                  Posted by: jupiter on Dec. 12 2006,18:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  stephenWells @ Dec. 12 2006,12:34

                  Amusingly, this is a perfect example of why Dave can't grasp science; he thinks Darwin is some kind of bearded prophet whose word is unquestionable, whereas in fact he was just a really smart guy with some good ideas. That's why Dave thinks "Darwin was wrong about X" means "Evolution is false", which is a bit like claiming that, if Newton was wrong about anything (and he was- alchemy), then gravity doesn't exist.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Exactly. AsymptoticFrenulumDave believes Darwin:evolutionists::God:fundamentalists--inerrant text and all. As we've seen, he acknowledges that "inerrant" really doesn't mean "without error." There are errors but only he and those likewise enlightened can discern them.

                  That's why AnilineFrottageDave believes that reading excerpts from the abstract of a scientific paper, or skimming the first few pages of an academic text, gives him access to the "real" truth of the author's work--never mind the fact that AgletFoghornDave doesn't understand any of the underlying principles.

                  That's why AsthmaticFlubberDave believes that Wikipedia and EBOnline are authoritative texts--he can (sorta) understand them.

                  That's why AcephalicFeuillitonDave refuses to believe that he could possibly be wrong about something as basic as the meaning of "primary" in the context of geology, or the difference between cultural and linguistic history--he can tell when The Lord God Almighty made a typo!  

                  That's why AlliumFroufrouDave only believes, never thinks, and why no amount of reasoning or evidence will ever cause AgarFritillaryDave to reconsider his beliefs.

                  Which is not to say that I don't enjoy this slo-mo train wreck. It's a tuition-free education in current science, as well as an effective argument against YEC and (by the transitive property of idiocy) ID. Last time I was home, my brother and my father made some peculiar noises about "macro-evolution." I pointed them both at the collected works of AgitaFlocculentDave and--praise the Lord!--they were cured.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 12 2006,18:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell-- You and Deadman missed the "truncation selection" bit.  Remember?  Deadman was fussing about low numbers of individuals and "Foul! You can't use plants"?  It was a pretty easy answer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, I don't see it.  I doubt that you have provided an answer, but there's a heck of a lot of garbage to slog through here. If you think you have answered the question, kindly supply a link, or a date/time. Remember, the question is: how have you shown that truncation selection doesn't work?
                  Posted by: alicejohn on Dec. 12 2006,19:59

                  For Dave:  I do not understand how you can say humans are not stronger genetically than in the past.  I think I read somewhere the life expectancy for humans 2000 years ago was something like 30 years.  I think I also read the life expectancy 200 years ago was something like 45 years.  I think the life expectancy for a human today is something like 75 years.  How can this be true if humans are getting weaker?  It just doesn’t make sense.  Obviously, the Bible is wrong about how humans are degenerating.

                  For Everyone Else:  I apologize for the above post.  I sense the topic will change soon so I decided to post it.  I realize my argument is wrong but it would sound good to the sheep Dave preaches to.  Which, of course, is what Dave is trying to do:  sound good to the sheep.  The more sheep Dave can get into his camp, the more political power he can gather.  Which, of course, is Dave’s goal in life.  The end (political power) justifies the means (dishonesty).  He has already stated the goal of his political ambitions: create a  Christian theocracy in the United States.  I suspect he sees the kind of power the Muslims clerics exert over people in the various Muslim theocracies and is jealous.  

                  I posted a couple of months ago that I thought Dave was here to practice his Gish Gallop.  I have read nothing since then which has made me change my mind.  Dave is here to practice his theatre act.  I suspect Dave does not author most of his initial responses to a “problem”.  When a new topic comes up, his AIG handlers write up a sounds-good (to the sheep) response, which he posts.  He then learns the information by trying to give good sounding (to the sheep) responses to questions he selects.  This is why he contradicts himself during his posts: he is learning the material as he goes along and sometimes he messes up the story.  He goes back to his handlers who get him “straight” again.  In the end when he claims victory, he is claiming victory because he learned the material well enough to Gish Gallop on the topic for the sheep, not because anything scientific was refuted by him.  Then he can move on to the next lesson.  I suspect in another couple of months Dave will have enough practice for him to graduate from lying to children to lying to adults (oops, I meant sheep).

                  Finally, I ask no one but Dave respond to the “problem” I presented at the beginning of my post.  It would be refreshing to finally read a valid scientific rebuttal from Dave to a bad “scientific” argument.  

                  For Dave: For all you hold dear, please end this thread.  If God created the universe 6000 years ago, it could ONLY have happened by an immeasurable and unobservable miracle.  God certainly is capable of such a thing, but there is no science that supports it.  It has been pointed out to you several times a weakness in the theory of evolution is not proof that God did it in 6000 years.  Not one person on this thread will deny you the right to believe in a 6000 year old Earth: just keep it out if science class.  Your main two problems then will be to explain to your sheep why God created the universe with apparent age (you should have no trouble with this for most of the sheep) and to find another way to overthrow the government of the United States.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 12 2006,20:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,13:22)
                  Incorygible...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A respectful man, while curious and questioning, would give the benefit of the doubt to superior education, familiarity and practice in a subject of expertise before presuming life-long delusion or error in "such a basic thing", Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I show respect by taking the time to read your posts (and Russell's and others who seem to be knowledgeable in the life sciences) and answer them in thoughtful detail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, so if the amount of reading and answering in 'thoughtful detail' is the measure of your respect, we'll see how much respect you show me at the end of this post.

                  Now Dave, Eric and deadman have already dealt with the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the intellectual and cultural improvements you cite are in any way genetic. So no need for mutation there. In fact, George Williams once convinced me over tea that most of the differences between us and earlier hominids that you stammer on about are probably an 'accident' of "stone-age" (earlier, actually) mutations evolved to do very different things. But never mind that. And never mind your old "better looking" argument first encountered back in the infamous chimp debate.

                  All that's left for me to point out is that we are genetically inferior to our stone-age ancestors when it comes to the (much stronger) environmental selection pressures they faced. Put us back in that highly selective environment with our current genes (as Crow worries about) and we wouldn't do nearly as well as they did. Of course, in today's world, the reverse transfer of a stone-age ancestor into our age would probably find him investing FAR too much energy into leopard-avoiding traits and the like, given the current environment. Once again, "good" genes are dependent upon the environment we are considering. Since we have such technological control over our environment, we have accumulated mutations that would probably kill us off in an uncontrolled environment should we ever lose our technological grip. It's a sobering thought that Crow provides -- too bad you don't get it.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hello?  McFly?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hmm...a Back to the Future reference. Strangely appropriate for this carousel of a thread.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm sorry ... I don't care how many life science degrees you have.  I cannot just sit here and swallow this one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Might go down easier if you weren't so intent on covering it in your own feces before attempting to swallow it. But since we can't seem to avoid that, all I can suggest is a spoonful of sugar.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You make the comparison to the lottery and I understand what you are saying.  But, I'm sorry, it just does not work that way.  Lottery winners are instant successes, with no requirement for millions of sequential, viable-at-every-evolutionary-stage strokes of luck to become millionaires.  To make a human by random mutation (hey, even a bacteria) requires so many sequential, fortuitous "lucky numbers" in a row that the odds against it are just daffy.  Do you not see this?  You are correct that there WILL BE winners in the lottery.

                  But I contend that THERE WILL NOT BE winners in the "biological lottery," simply because an organism (say a fish like creature--you know--Grandpa Nemo) would have to have at least one  beneficial mutation, those individuals with that beneficial get selected for and preserved and hopefully the organism doesn't get eliminated because some other bad mutations also occurred reducing it's fitness.  Then you have to repeat this cycle fast enough to outpace the bad mutations which far outnumber the good ones (if there even are any truly good ones--what happens if those "good" ones become homozygous, etc?).  Of course, truncation selection helps you some, but does it help enough?  Not according to the studies I posted.

                  So you really cannot compare biology to the lottery.  Do you see why you cannot?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And here is where that 'thoughtful detail' and respect would have come in handy. That's a nice rebuttal of an analogy between biology and a lottery, Dave. Might have given me second thoughts if I compared biology/evolution to a lottery. Of course, I didn't.

                  I invite you to re-read my post. I used the lottery analogy to rebut your 'logic', Dave. You know, where you claimed that we (Crow) could not say "x is deleterious overall, but is the ultimate source of y". Biology and evolution were never involved.

                  And if that wasn't clear enough on first read, I included the following explicit warning noting that evolution was not the analogue for my lottery analogy:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, just to be clear, the analogy above in no way reflects evolution. It merely demonstrates your error in logic here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Whoops, Dave. So much for thoughtfulness and respect, eh?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 12 2006,21:08

                  Quote (alicejohn @ Dec. 12 2006,20:59)
                  For Dave: For all you hold dear, please end this thread.  If God created the universe 6000 years ago, it could ONLY have happened by an immeasurable and unobservable miracle.  God certainly is capable of such a thing, but there is no science that supports it.  It has been pointed out to you several times a weakness in the theory of evolution is not proof that God did it in 6000 years.  Not one person on this thread will deny you the right to believe in a 6000 year old Earth: just keep it out if science class.  Your main two problems then will be to explain to your sheep why God created the universe with apparent age (you should have no trouble with this for most of the sheep) and to find another way to overthrow the government of the United States.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Excellent thoughtful and appropriately moderate post.  Thanks alicejohn.  Now if only Dave will realize the wisdom in your words.

                  This is becoming more and more of a train wreck.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 12 2006,21:15

                  While I understand the utility of rebutting (annihilating, demolishing) dave on the stronger (for him) basis that deleterious mutations are accumulating in the "modern" human genome, this again confuses the phenotypic and population "effects" of modern medicine and technology.

                  Certainly I, and likely many of you, may have survived into adulthood with weak eyes or other problems, for our particular phenotypes, that would likely have disadvantaged us were we forced to try to survive without eyeglasses in the environment with which some hypothetical hunting-gathering ancestor had to deal.  

                  Likewise as to various other surgically-correctible problems (heart valves), serious injuries, childhood diseases, and perhaps some correctible birth defects which might arguably result from a deleterious variant of a gene.  Of course, in a medically/technologically-supported environment, many of these things aren't a problem and won't be for our offspring.

                  And in some quasi-"stone-age" environment to which we might hypothetically return should our resource and environmentally-intensive way of life collapse, most of those variants would again promptly be selected out.

                  But I question how many uncorrectible but currently-survivable genetic problems (at the moment, Down's syndrome children, etc.) are really "burdening" the gene pool.  What differential reproductive advantages do (any but very mildly-afflicted) Downs kids enjoy?  Or severely autistic children?  Etc.  

                  I guess arguably you have too-big babies being born, you have too-narrow birth canal moms surviving, lots of hypotheticals.  But for as many of these examples as one can throw out, most would quickly be eliminated again in a harsher environment--they are not "very slightly deleterious mutations."  

                  And this whole line of argument ignores the enormous size of the current human population and the relatively modest proportion of it which lives a "first world" lifestyle.  For much of this huge population, the exposure to disease, problems of childbirth, problems of birth defects, etc., etc., is not greatly different than for our stone-age ancestors.  Indeed, bar some aspects of hygiene and vaccination, maybe optics, modern medicine and technology have an arguably minimal impact on survival in much of the second and third world.  And for the first world, the impact of "modern" medicine should probably be limited to the last 75-100 years (for hygiene, maybe 125, for vaccination for some diseases, a couple of hundred, for optics, a few hundred).

                  And look at the bell curve.  There may be people at one extreme "protected" by modern medicine and technology.  But there are folks at the other end of the curve--and probably there are more such folks alive right now than the earth supported during any one generation of the stone age--who have better overall natural immunity (being descended from folks who survived cities and crowding and population-density enhanced matters like plagues), greater strength, height, sight, etc., than any but the very rarest folks from the stone age.

                  Think about professional and amateur sports, which represents a little artificially-maintained stone or bronze age competitive environment.  Think about the progression of sports "records."  While some of that progression is due to nutrition and training, much of it's due to a huge population throwing up more and more "specimens" from the thin wedge of a bell curve that covers an enormous world-wide pool of human variability.

                  What dave's worried about could conceivably be a problem for a fantasy future, where a first-world way of life is extended for generation after generation to most of the world's billions (yet where we never manage to figure out how to address genetic defects at the genetic level?).  I very much doubt it's a problem now.

                  And I strongly suspect that if you "reverted" the world to the stone age--either via a combination of environmental and political catastrophes over the next several generations, or some one horrendous plague, war, whatever--you'd find that the inevitable pool of survivors from such a civilization-wide holocaust would, a few generations down the line, easily outmatdh--inch for inch, pound for pound, immune system for immune system, diopter for diopter, social empathy for social empathy--any hypothetical Cro Magnon stone age "dream team."

                  So play with DimDavey as you like, as a cat plays with a mouse, but I don't think careful consideration or the available evidence at present supports any sort of "accumulating deleterious mutation" model in the first place.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 12 2006,21:19

                  Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Pithecanthropus erectus was Dubois' name for Java man...H. erectus. It's no longer used.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hey Stephen Wells ... keep the Fairy Tale straight, wouldja?

                  Alicejohn...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For Dave:  I do not understand how you can say humans are not stronger genetically than in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because Crow says they are not.  Incorygible and Stephen Wells agree.  This is not rocket science.

                  And I'm having fun on this thread for many reasons.  You'll have to talk to Steve Story about closing it.

                   :D  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,21:28

                  So, Dave—ready to tackle your next challenge? Ready to explain how, despite all these bad mutations piling up and everything being driven to extinction, you manage to get from a few tens of thousands of "kinds" to ten million or more species in eight hundred years? And without depending on mutations (which are all bad) or natural genetic variation (which was extinguished by the "flood")?

                  Can't wait to hear it…

                  Edit: and remember, Ayala doesn't help you. You should have that memorized by now.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 12 2006,21:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,21:19)
                  Alicejohn...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For Dave:  I do not understand how you can say humans are not stronger genetically than in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because Crow says they are not.  Incorygible and Stephen Wells agree.  This is not rocket science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow. That went right over Dave's head. If anyone ever needed evidence as to Dave's utter vacuity and vapidity, here it is.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 12 2006,22:22

                  Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 12 2006,18:46)
                  one doesn't even know where to begin to straighten "him" (a hypothetical person with dave's current level of ignorance but without his current avoidance of logic, evidence, and learning) out.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You'd have to start at the beginning. Somebody here with an old Intro to Bio textbook would mail it to him and we'd go from there.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 12 2006,22:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,22:19)
                  And I'm having fun on this thread for many reasons.  You'll have to talk to Steve Story about closing it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The 'leave it open' forces are a bit stronger for the time being. Although the 'shut it down' forces send me emails like this one:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Steve, I agree with shutting down the thread. When civilized people are driven to name-calling and profanity due to their utter despair of making someone listen to reason, it's time to stop.

                  I don't suppose that Deadman or Occam's Aftershave talk to their colleages and friends like that in real life, barring any ethanol-inspired conversations. But Dave's obtuseness drives them to madness.

                  I laugh at the comments while I cringe at how an uninvolved observer, unaware of any science, would interpret them. And you can bet your ass Dave is saving replies like that to show how 'evil' those 'evilutionists' are - resorting to child-like name-calling and poop comments.

                  Shut it down. We can (and have) learned our science elsewhere. The regulars keep talking about the lurkers, but it seems as if the lurkers have by and large decloaked.

                  It doesn't make rational scientists look like rational scientists, and believe me, in the public arena, scientists need all the rational help they can get.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And I am sympathetic to their point of view.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,00:44

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 12 2006,22:34)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,22:19)
                  And I'm having fun on this thread for many reasons.  You'll have to talk to Steve Story about closing it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The 'leave it open' forces are a bit stronger for the time being. Although the 'shut it down' forces send me emails like this one:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Steve, I agree with shutting down the thread. When civilized people are driven to name-calling and profanity due to their utter despair of making someone listen to reason, it's time to stop.…
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And I am sympathetic to their point of view.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One thing I've said to Dave before, when he claimed people were hurling insults rather than actually addressing his points, was that the insults are in addition to, rather than in place of, actually demolishing his arguments.

                  And the truth is, Dave is easily as insulting as anyone responding to him; he just uses less salty language. Is it anything less than deeply insulting when Dave says he, someone with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and a near-total ignorance of any science, is going to point out the errors in the work of professional scientists, who have devoted decades of their lives to the work Dave so blithely misinterprets, some of whom are Nobel Prize winners?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 13 2006,02:32

                  To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience,  without interference by the government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833, observed concerning the First Amendment that "The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion." Justice Story echoed the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson in his Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777 in which he stated that "Almighty God hath created the mind free and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint."

                  My bolding, agree or disagree Davey and explain in detail?

                  Baboon dogs Davey. So simple Davey. Credibility Davey. No one here needs to address the complex sciency issues you can't comprehend.

                  Baboon dogs Davey. Degenerate mutant baboon dogs Davey. Goliath NEEDS to know.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 13 2006,04:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't suppose that Deadman or Occam's Aftershave talk to their colleages and friends like that in real life, barring any ethanol-inspired conversations. But Dave's obtuseness drives them to madness...I laugh at the comments while I cringe at how an uninvolved observer, unaware of any science, would interpret them. And you can bet your ass Dave is saving replies like that to show how 'evil' those 'evilutionists' are - resorting to child-like name-calling and poop comments...The regulars keep talking about the lurkers, but it seems as if the lurkers have by and large decloaked... It doesn't make rational scientists look like rational scientists
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'd like to make a few comments about this topic, since I keep getting mentioned as some "major offender".

                  1) I've made a point of actually keeping accounts on the language that I've used since I VOLUNTEERED to tone down my use of "profanity" ---and the WORST thing that I've said since then was "calling Dave "fecal slime" for deliberately skewing my statements on chess-playing computers and saying that I somehow claimed natural selection was "intelligent." Last that I looked, "feces" wasn't "obscene"

                  2) I don't view my deliberate use of insults as "madness" nor does the use of any profanity neccessarily indicate "anger." I take issue with anyone small-minded enough to claim this.

                  3) The mystery e-mailer uses " you can bet your ass" while bemoaning the use of profanities?

                  4) The e-mailer expresses concern simultaneously that lurkers may misinterpret Occam and myself...then states that lurkers have " by and large decloaked" so (apparently) the thread should be closed due to lack of ...what, readership? And the e-mailer is "concerned" about non-existent readers?  If there's so few readers, then why be concerned about how a few may interpret my use of insults? And why should I care if Dave will carry my insults about as indictments of how mean scientists are?
                  IF a person is so stupid as to accept Dave's word for things, WITHOUT looking at the data, then that person isn't going to be amenable to any kind of rational persuasion -- I give you Dave as an example of that.

                  5) IF any of my colleagues or friends DELIBERATELY went about lying, weaseling, using the tactics Dave has here, you can bet **your** ass I would use harsh language to express my displeasure.

                  6 ) I agree that words have meaning and there are many types of verbal aggression, ranging from slight disparagement, slurs, to outright "vile" language...but WHAT terms are considered "vile" vary from context to context both geographically and temporally.
                  Shakespeare is replete with outright vulgarities ("bescumber, "pizzle," coynt" ) The Bible contains terms and images ( "Song of Solomon" anyone?) considered obscene and blasphemous at many time periods ( including DIRECTIONS to eating shit) .
                  There is a huge degree of arbitrariness about what IS vulgar and what is not--If we were consistent, yelling 'Angels!', 'Mucous!', and 'Birthing!' would be just as bad as saying "Christ!", shit! or Damm!". During the Victorian period, a LEG was "vulgar" and a gentleperson spoke of a piano "limb" -- I'm sure you would be thrown out of a party if you even said "groin," yet today this is seen as quaint....which itself ( the word "quaint") meant "cunt" in Shakespeare's day (Chaucer used it as well).

                  So, today, what IS profanity and blasphemy? "Damm","Crap" "bitch" and other terms are found in all mass media. But people are interested in POWER, so they try to control language, as Orwell pointed out. What are the effects of this? Well, there are over 400 instances of book censorship reported each year to the American Library Association...because of "vulgar" ideas and words.

                  Look at the example of censorship in Panama City, Florida, where "not too long ago, the grim children's book , "I Am the Cheese" by Robert Cormier, and also "About David" by Susan Beth Pfeffer... were targeted by censors for being "depressing, vulgar, and immoral." They were banned from the curriculum. But this was just the beginning. One year later, 65 further books were removed from the curriculum and from classroom libraries for being "vulgar," "obscene," or "sexually related." Among the affected works were three works of the American canon: "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -along with "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte and four of Shakespeare's plays... They were only protecting, they felt, impressionable young Floridians from Shakespeare's "lack of moral tenor." Three other Shakespeare plays were on their hit list as well: King Lear, The Merchant of Venice, and Twelfth Night." ( Quoted from < http://www.macondo.nu/Hemliga/hemliga_extra_Garret.htm) >

                  7)  I realize that people have their own ideas of propriety. I realize that they want to put on the best possible face to informal forums like this, but THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE. Neither I nor anyone ELSE here represents " all scientists" or "science" in general, and anyone stupid enough to think so is simply too stupid to care about.
                  I also realize that people who view my RECENT use of language as somehow unbearably or degradingly obscene ...are not going to be mollified by any of the points I make here...they can argue that ANY vulgarity denigrates science and would cause the fundamentalists to cry out( yet Cheney and Bush use "a$$hole" and "fuck" in other arenas without any great outcry from the religious right). That leads me to my last point...hypocrisy

                  I don't believe that terms for sex or bodily functions are "obscene" People try to control the language of others to control PEOPLE, and I'm not real fond of that.

                  The most common objections to "vulgarities" or "Profanity" is that  ( as the emailer above claimed) it's "uncivilized" yet it's present in all civilizations, bar none. I would argue that a CIVILIZED person would prefer to use vulgarities to actual violence or even INDIRECT actions leading to harm, such as firing a worker or banning them from a Mormon church,for example,  and I sure as he11 would have preferred Bush to cuss out Saddam rather than attack him, but I suppose the emailer is looking for a perfect world, in which no "offensive" language is ever used as insult...yet even the Victorians couldn't eliminate it, or the hypocrisy that follows it. The Victorians initially saw no vulgarity in child labor and tenements, and were quite fond of jabbering on about "wogs"  but G_D forbid anyone should mention a bull ("male beast" was preferred) So where does it end?

                  It doesn't so far as history as shown. Ever.
                   
                  People will argue profanity  "looks bad" ...but then the question becomes WHEN? WHERE? If I use"fecal slime" and not "shit stain" that's okay?  If i say it in French? Tagalog? If I say "FECES" that's GOOD...FOR NOW, but eventually, should that be tossed out, too?

                  I ALWAYS have given substantive arguments ALWAYS, and I have also "cussed" and I'm not real impressed with ANYONE that cannot separate out the two and only seeks to control language " for appearance's sake"

                  Others would argue that it's "for the children's sake" that we need to censor the use of language deemed inappropriate... and I'd argue that's nonsense too. We lie to kids every day in this and all other human societies. To claim that children would be harmed by ordinary vulgarities is simply a means of keeping control over children and not allowing them to face the world in which Bush and Cheney DO use such terms, and it's found on the radio and television and newspapers and books. The age for this to be explored is up to each parent, but I have no problem in discussing these topics with ANY kids.

                  There is a happy medium here and I DO have to seek balance--which is PRECISELY why I "toned down" my language for well over 90 "pages" of this thread, even though I wasn't directly asked to. I'll be happy to be left out of the e-mailer's complaints, too.

                  **********************************
                  Finally, I'd like to leave on this note:

                  Banish the use of those four-letter words
                  Whose meanings are never obscure.
                  The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds
                  Were vulgar, obscene and impure.
                  But CHERISH the use of the weak-kneed phrase
                  That never says quite what YOU mean --
                  Far better to stick to a hypocrite's ways,
                  Than be vulgar, or coarse or obscene.
                  ***********************************

                  I don't have a lot of patience with the kind of blithering, sanctimonious, hypocritical Grundyism that the emailer laid out. If this were a FORMAL forum, I might have never even used "fecal slime" but I wasn't aware that at least one person here found that so offensive that they were ready to get the vapours.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 13 2006,04:54

                  Well dave, everyone's been doing a great job ripping your "arguments" to shreds... Just one ever so tiny request from me:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaly?

                  Where do Schoen et al deal with truncation selection, dave?

                  Where do they deal with evolution at all?

                  You HAVE read the paper, right? Otherwise, claiming to know what it shows would be a LIE, right?

                  Dave.

                  Either show us and explain, just WHERE Schoen shows that truncation selection does not work in his paper,

                  Or admit that you are a LIAR.

                  Feeling up to the challenge, Brave Fighter Pilot?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 13 2006,05:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Pithecanthropus erectus was Dubois' name for Java man...H. erectus. It's no longer used.  
                  Hey Stephen Wells ... keep the Fairy Tale straight, wouldja?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wasn't talking to Mr. Wells, I was talking to you, Dave. You first used the term "pithecanthropus" not Wells.

                  So take up Faid's challenge, Dave.

                  Or you could persuade "Dr." Don Batten to scurry over, as you claimed.

                  Or you could take up any of the other direct questions put to you over the past 20 pages that you've consistently refused to deal with while you mangle Crow and Kondrashov...even though the questions directly pertain to topics NOW or to topics that you brought up previously, but never managed to answer the questions about.

                  I've read Schoen's article several times, Dave. I'd be interested in you posting up this alleged refutation of Truncation that it contains, or even ( as I said before) you pointing to excerpts that support your claim.

                  And WHERE IS that math from Sanford? Or doesn't it exist? How am I or anyone else to judge the validity of his claims? Or why they are alleged by Sanford to somehow be relevant to Schoen?

                  Take Faid up on his challenge, Dave.
                  Or ignore it, as you have so many others.
                  Or try to make a joke about it while avoiding it.
                  Or pretend you've "moved on".
                  Or pretend you've "already answered that."
                  Or pretend it's obvious and beneath you to answer.
                  Or pretend that you don't understand the question.
                  Or pretend that Sanford's already answered it.
                  Or pretend that there's a far more pressing question you have to answer.
                  Or pretend you'll "get to it" and hope it goes away.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 13 2006,05:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,21:19)
                  Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Pithecanthropus erectus was Dubois' name for Java man...H. erectus. It's no longer used.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hey Stephen Wells ... keep the Fairy Tale straight, wouldja?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dude, what are you trying to say? That Homo erectus never existed?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,07:21

                  CLOSE THIS THREAD AND YOU WILL HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM

                  Steve Story--

                  Believe it or not, I agree with Deadman completely on his recent post defending his word usage and I respect him for his thoroughness and his hard work ethic in researching the various topics.  I believe that he is being consistent with his world view and his insults do not offend me in the least.

                  I think to close the thread would send a bad message to the science world about ATBC and Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.  The science world currently has the impression (I'm not sure if this is written anywhere) that Wesley Elsberry is an open-minded individual who allows people with differing viewpoints to post.  How would you explain to people why you closed the thread?  You couldn't point to serious board violations by me.  What would the reason be?  Well, you've just posted the reason yourself ... you think some people on this thread are making the science establishment look bad.  But how will it make ATBC (and the science establishment by association) look to know that One of the Most Popular Threads at ATBC was shut down, not because AFDave was a rule violator, but because some ATBC responders didn't conform to Steve Story's ideas about word propriety?

                  And for your own peace of mind, I have no plans to advertise the darker contents of this thread in any format outside this forum.  The only way I have ever used anything from this thread outside of this thread is by quoting some of the factual information that has been given to me.  Example - In my Ape/Human post on my blog  < here >, I used some genetic information from Incorygible, but I did not include any of the coarse dialog surrounding it.  You should know this is true even by my conduct here.  Do I spend much time highlighting all the invective thrown at me?  Not much.    And usually only when I am falsely accused of the very thing that was done to me ... a recent example was when Russell talked about me "shaking my impotent fists of rage", I responded with "Rage?  The only rage I have seen is from your side (not you, but others)."  Deadman's post was what I had in mind, but I didn't even mention him or what he said.  As in politics, mudslinging does no good and I have no desire to engage in it myself.

                  However, if you close this thread, you can be sure that this will soon be known far and wide and I don't think you want to send that message to the world.

                  Notice this dialog entitled "Topic: Evolution/Creation discussion boards, which are hottest these days?" right here on this forum ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  edmund

                  Posts: 34
                  Joined: Jan. 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,21:54  
                  I'm gearing up to teach a course on evolution and creationism in January, and one of the course components consists of making students go discuss these issues online with real live Evolutionists and Creationists ™. (Nothing quite like full immersion in the strangeness of the EvC Web culture-- no offense meant to present company, of course.)

                  Some of the bulletin boards that were pretty active last year in the wake of the Dover decision are pretty anemic now, so I thought I'd ask our illustrious AtBC'ers which boards are most lively these days. Ideally, I'm looking for discussion boards where there's a broad diversity of viewpoints.

                  Thanks for your help!

                  --B Spitzer
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  Ichthyic



                  Posts: 1932
                  Joined: May 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,23:01  
                  ARN (Access Research Network) leans towards the creationist viewpoint, but has the highest number of parties from both sides posting there, AFAICT.

                  Pharyngula has far more traffic, and more discussion, but the creobots that show up there are often a bit on the anemic side (teenagers and the insane).  Still, it's one of the hottest science blogs on the web these days.

                  believe it or not, this little forum here is decent if you want to show your students a consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist.

                  just point them to the AFDave thread.
                   lots of standard creationist boilerplate, combined with a continual shredding of same with actual reference to real scientific works.

                  they will also learn a great deal about how the creationist mindset works, and how they 'argue'.

                  have them try to convince Dave of ANYTHING he off the top disagrees with, and they will get a quick lesson in just how irrational the creationist mindset can be.


                  I tired of it myself months ago (yes MONTHS), but there are many diehards here who never tire of shredding 'ol dave as their morning cup 'o joe.

                  AIG (Answers in Genesis) is probably the largest remaining pure YEC site, if they want to see where most of the YEC arguments online get cut-and-pasted from.

                  Uncommon Descent is pretty much the only place ID gets discussed, but the moderation policy is so draconian that the only thing your students would learn there is how NOT to run a blog.
                       
                  [Notice that Ichthyic does NOT agree with the draconian moderation policy.]

                  Posts: 2840
                  Joined: Oct. 2005

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,23:19  
                  Just make sure to show them this:

                  < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html >
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  Ichthyic



                  Posts: 1932
                  Joined: May 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,23:41  
                  hmm, I wonder if that blog that MacNeil set up for his class is still active?

                  anyone know?

                  if it is, that should be a good place to send your students to see "both viewpoints".

                  as a final note, do make sure to note that there is no equivalency in this "debate".  One side has ALL the actual evidence and hundreds of years of research on their "side" and the other has, well, i guess you could say nothing and describe it as "religious apologetics".
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  Occam's Aftershave



                  Posts: 559
                  Joined: Feb. 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,00:37  
                  The Internet Infidels E/C discussion board still has a high scientific content, and enough Creationists /IDiots to act as cannon fodder.


                  IIDB

                  --------------
                  AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  Ichthyic



                  Posts: 1932
                  Joined: May 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,01:17  
                  thanks for the reminder; I had totally forgotten about IIDB.

                  Wes recommended it to me months ago, and I simply blanked.
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



                  Posts: 461
                  Joined: Feb. 2005

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,07:25  
                  Quote (edmund @ Dec. 11 2006,21:54)
                  Some of the bulletin boards that were pretty active last year in the wake of the Dover decision are pretty anemic now, so I thought I'd ask our illustrious AtBC'ers which boards are most lively these days. Ideally, I'm looking for discussion boards where there's a broad diversity of viewpoints.

                  Almost none.  

                  ID is dead.  They know it.  They've all retreated to safe havens that they control (like Uncommon Descent) where they can cry on each other's shoulders and kick out anyone who is mean to them.

                  As for the anti-ID boards, there's not much use for them anymore, and they've all pretty much collapsed into useless internal feuding over religious opinions.

                  So anyone who NOW wants to engage ID/creationists in "debate", is too late.  The fight is already over.

                  The best you can do is wait a few years until they come up with a new name for their anti-science campaign and return.  My opinion is that they will give up on evolution completely, and return with some vague anti-Big-Bang cosmological nonsense instead.

                  But given the fact that fundie political power is virtually zero now, it may be quite a long wait.
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  Dr.GH



                  Posts: 50
                  Joined: May 2002

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,12:26  
                  If you have not looked at this online resource, I think that you should.

                  Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 12 2006,12:32
                        Report this post to a moderator
                  skeptic



                  Posts: 386
                  Joined: May 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,22:24  
                  Thanks for the Cal State link, that's quite a load of info and all out of the chemistry department.  Who said science and philosophy can not coexist?

                  As a suggestion, you might want to point your students to the Reasons to Believe website.  As Lenny said ID in it's current form is dead but if I had to guess this site offers a preview of where the movement is going.  The message to the Christian is science is ok and compatible with your faith while at the same time telling the scientist that faith is no threat to the scientific method.  Just a guess on my part, someone can check the Vegas odds and we can start placing our bets now.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                     
                  Notice that "edmund" is teaching a class on evolutionism and creationism and really wants Real Live Evolutionists and Creationists for his students to converse with and he wants a broad diversity of viewpoints.

                  Notice Ichthyic's recommendation for MY thread as a great place to see a "consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist."

                  ********************************************

                  The truth is that there is a love/hate relationship that people have with me.  They disagree with me, yet they want to know how my mind works and they want to engage me, because I'm the Real Thing.  I am often unpredictable (many people have tried to predict my responses and have often failed) and this adds an element of suspense and surprise.

                  There exists the very real possibility that I could get some of the leading YECs from AiG or ICR (you know ... the ones with advanced science degrees) to come to this forum and debate.  I know Deadman wants to debate dendrochronology with Dr. Don Batten, and I would like to get Dr. Sanford and others to make appearances.  I have not attempted to do this yet, but I am well connected and feel sure that I could make some of these things happen.  

                  I think you would be making a strategic mistake to close this thread.  Listen, I want ToE to have a fair chance at winning the minds of the public (it already dominates the scientific community).  I myself will become a promoter of ToE if I can be convinced that it is true.  And I think if you close this thread, then AtBC will revert to being pretty much a monolithic place with just a few "anemic" creationists dropping by occasionally.

                  I'm rather well known now and you can be sure that if you shut me down here, I will broadcast the story far and wide through every channel available to me that  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ATBC and Wesley Elsberry used to be open-minded, but they are no more.  They shut down one of their most popular threads, hosted by what one of their prominent members described as "a consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist" because they didn't want science to look bad.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Is that what you want?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 13 2006,08:35

                  Well, dave. If you don't want them to shut down the thread, why don't you make it interesting, by answering some of the persistent questions? Like, say, where have you "shown" that truncated selection doesn't work? Or how can "Baboon dogs" exist, if males don't survive to sexual maturity? Or how can biodiversity simultaneously increase - explosively, in your timeline - and decline? Or how can analogizing non-reproducing watches with reproducing butterflies be an honest attempt to discuss evolution? Or any of hundreds of other unanswered questions you've ignored in this thread?

                  Your claiming that you would accept evolution:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I myself will become a promoter of ToE if I can be convinced that it is true.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  looks dishonest, blind, or stupid - or all three - in light of the fact that you refuse to examine the obvious defects in your criticism of it.

                  Oh, and by the way. Reading comprehension. I can't stress it enough. Your pretending to understand the fine points raised by Ayala, Kimura, Crow, Kondrashov etc. better than they understand them themselves is pretty laughable when you make this kind of mistake:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And usually only when I am falsely accused of the very thing that was done to me ... a recent example was when Russell talked about me "shaking my impotent fists of rage"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Go back and read carefully. Did I accuse you of shaking your impotent fists of rage? Or was it an imperative sentence?  Do you know the difference? I was suggesting that you should shake your impotent fists of rage, because there's not much else you can do. Clearly you can't argue your way out of a paper bag, and public policy makers who still show sympathy for the "intelligent design" scam seem to be getting bounced out of office right and left.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,10:55

                  Dave, if SteveStory did decide to shut down this thread, it would be because it's become useless (something it's already in danger of becoming). You've said so little new about creationism or evolution, your arguments are so laughably weak, your circular logic so pathetically obvious, that it's teetering on the verge of becoming as dull as dishwater.

                  The only thing that keeps this thread going is your propensity, from time to time, to say really comical things, like your claim that Adam could have had hundreds of alleles for some or all of his genes. Things like that are just priceless.

                  But I think there is one way you could spice up this thread a little: take care of outstanding business. There are easily a hundred questions and/or objections to your hypothesis, some of which have been outstanding for over six months. If you've forgotten what they are, I would be more than happy to post them for you.

                  My suggestion is that you spend the next few months either answering these questions and objections, or admit that your soi disant "better hypothesis" has no answer for them.

                  But don't worry; I don't expect you to take my suggestion.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 13 2006,11:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,07:21)
                  I'm rather well known now and you can be sure that if you shut me down here, I will broadcast the story far and wide through every channel available to me that    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ATBC and Wesley Elsberry used to be open-minded, but they are no more.  They shut down one of their most popular threads, hosted by what one of their prominent members described as "a consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist" because they didn't want science to look bad.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Is that what you want?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I recall that you said if you were shut down here, you would open up comments at your blog.  Why not do so anyways?  Since you are so well known, inviting those you disagree with to post on your blog would only serve to burnish your fame by showing your Christian magnanimity, open mindedness, and confidence in your position.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,11:21

                  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES (AND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE EVO/CREO DEBATE)
                  (Ooops!  Pardon me ... I forgot ... there IS no debate ... strike that!;)

                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY

                  All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

                  First, how are they similar?
                  1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
                  3) Both get worn out over time
                  4) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

                  So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

                  COMPLEXITY

                  That's it really in the final analysis.

                  1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
                  2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
                  3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
                  4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

                  On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?
                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

                  Think about it ...

                  *****************************************************

                  HUMANS WERE CREATED BY MUTATIONS (EXCEPT WHERE IT IS CONVENIENT TO SAY THEY WEREN'T)
                  You just gotta love this stuff.  Supposedly mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor by mutation--EXCEPT for the last stage which was purely cultural.  Sorry, guys, that I'm not able to keep up with the latest story.  

                  On the one hand you've got YECs who have had the same story of where humans came from since Adam first penned (stylused? chiseled?) his part of the Genesis Record, then on the other hand you've got the Skeptics, who want to overturn all of accepted history and make up fairy tales about how H. sapiens got here (a very well accepted fairy tale in the last 150 years, I hasten to add).  The funny thing is that the fairy tale has been changing constantly.  I honestly cannot keep all the supposed human ancestors straight it's changed so much.

                  So now we have Deadman laughing at me for assuming that Evos believe there is a genetic difference between Cro-Magnon and  modern humans.  Sorry!  Forgive me if I have a hard time keeping it all straight!  He also said I mentioned Pithecanthropus first, which I did not.  Stephen Wells did.  But who really cares.

                  The whole point was that Evolutionists say that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" (direct quote from Ayala ... note, Stephen Wells, nothing about recombination here.  Recombination simply "recombines" pre-existing data, whether that data happens to be caused by mutations--almost entirely degraded data--or pre-designed variability)

                  Soooo ... if mutations created modern humans, then shouldn't "our stone age ancestors" (pick any one you like) be genetically INFERIOR to us?

                  Yes, they should be if ToE is true.

                  But they are not, according to Crow.  We are inferior to them as both Incorygible and Stephen now agree.

                  Add to this the quandary you have in trying to explain why H. sapiens is the most complex and sophisticated organism to emerge from the supposed LCA of apes/humans.

                  Why are there no elves?  Or wizards?  Or ___ (fill in the blank)?

                  ********************************************************

                  QUASI-TRUNCATION SELECTION - A REHASH AT THE REQUEST OF RUSSELL
                  To recap, Crow says accumulated mutations are a problem ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He continues in the next paragraph developing his "way out"...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a way out, however. In stating his genetic death principle, Muller (42) stated, "For each mutation, then, a genetic death---except in so far as, by judicious choosing, several mutations may be picked off in the same victim." Thus, natural selection, acting in a way that seems reasonable for both fly and human populations can indeed pick off several mutations at once.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He describes "truncation selection" then repudiates it himself, Russell, as follows ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, natural selection in either flies or people does not line up individuals and remove all of those with more than a certain number of mutations. The unreality of this model [truncation selection which he just described] kept me for many years from considering this as a way in which the population deals with a high mutation rate. Then, thanks to a suggestion from Milkman (47), Kimura and I worked out the consequences of what I shall call "quasi-truncation selection" < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 > (48).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  OK great.  So Dr. John Sanford, a prominent Cornell plant geneticist who invented the "gene gun", pathogen-derived resistance and genetic immunization, and, with his collaborators, is responsible for most of the trans-genic crops grown in the world today ... here's just a small listing of his published works ... (note the 146 results)  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Google Scholar  All articles  Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 146 for author:JC author:Sanford. (0.12 seconds)

                  High-velocity microprojectiles for delivering nucleic acids into living cells - group of 4 »
                  TM Klein, ED Wolf, R Wu, JC Sanford - Nature, 1987 - nature.com
                  We report here a novel phenomenon, namely that nucleic acids can be delivered
                  into plant cells using high-velocity microprojec-tiles. This research was ...
                  Cited by 382 - Related Articles - Cached - Web Search - BL Direct

                  Introduction of Foreign Genes into Tissues of Living Mice by DNA-Coated Microprojectiles - group of 6 »
                  … , M Riedy, MJ DeVit, SG McElligott, JC Sanford - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1991 - pnas.org
                  Page 1. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, pp. 2726-2730, April 1991 Genetics
                  Introduction of foreign genes into tissues of living ...
                  Cited by 174 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  The concept of parasite-derived resistance-deriving resistance genes from the parasités own genome
                  JC SANFORD, SA JOHNSTON - Journal of theoretical biology, 1985 - cat.inist.fr
                  The concept of parasite-derived resistance-deriving resistance genes from
                  the parasités own genome. JC SANFORD, SA JOHNSTON Journal ...
                  Cited by 157 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  Factors Influencing Gene Delivery into Zea Mays Cells by High–Velocity Microprojectiles - group of 2 »
                  TM Klein, T Gradziel, ME Fromm, JC Sanford - nature.com
                  1 Plant Gene Expression Center, USDA-ARS, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, CA 94710.
                  ... † Department of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University, Geneva, ...
                  Cited by 133 - Related Articles - Cached - Web Search

                  Transfer of Foreign Genes into Intact Maize Cells with High-Velocity Microprojectiles - group of 5 »
                  … , D Tomes, S Schaaf, M Sletten, JC Sanford - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1988 - pnas.org
                  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 85, pp. 4305-4309, June 1988 Botany ...
                  Transfer of foreign genes into intact maize cells with high-velocity ...
                  Cited by 85 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  Virus Resistant Papaya Plants Derived from Tissues Bombarded with the Coat Protein Gene of Papaya …
                  … RM Manshardt, D Gonsalves, JL Slightom, JC Sanford - nature.com
                  name="robots"> ...
                  Cited by 75 - Related Articles - Cached - Web Search - BL Direct

                  Stable transformation of papaya via microprojectile bombardment
                  … RM Manshardt, D Gonsalves, JL Slightom, JC Sanford - Plant Cell Reports, 1990 - Springer
                  1 Department of Horticulture, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA 2
                  Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, USA 3 ...
                  Cited by 70 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  The biolistic process
                  JC SANFORD - Trends in biotechnology(Regular ed.), 1988 - cat.inist.fr
                  The biolistic process. JC SANFORD Trends in biotechnology(Regular
                  ed.) 6:1212, 299-302, Elsevier Science, 1988.
                  Cited by 67 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  Mitochondrial transformation in yeast by bombardment with microprojectiles - group of 4 »
                  SA Johnston, PQ Anziano, K Shark, JC Sanford, RA … - Science, 1988 - sciencemag.org
                  The genetic transformation of mitochondria and chloroplasts has been an
                  intractable problem. The newly developed "biolistic" (biological ballistic) ...
                  Cited by 62 - Related Articles - Web Search

                  Stable Genetic Transformation of Intact Nicotiana Cells by the Particle Bombardment Process - group of 6 »
                  … Klein, EC Harper, Z Svab, JC Sanford, ME Fromm, P … - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1988 - pnas.org
                  Page 1. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 85, pp. 8502-8505, November 1988 Botany
                  Stable genetic transformation of intact Nicotiana cells by the ...
                  Cited by 57 - Related Articles - Web Search
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So this is a guy that Dr. Russell Durbin would otherwise take note of, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Sanford, at the end of his long, sucessful career has now "jumped ship" from HMS Darwin and is writing pro-YEC books.

                  Anyway, Sanford takes Crow's "Quasi-truncation" model and gets ReMine to model the data and gets the following ...



                  Knowing that evolutionist readers might question YECs modeling data, Sanford points us to the Schoen (1998) study previously referred to which, he says, shows almost identical fitness decline curves, which arise from mutation accumulation.

                  BOTTOM LINE?  SANFORD BELIEVES THAT CROW'S MODEL BREAKS DOWN

                  I believe him and I'm not sure how much time I want to waste trying to convince a bunch of skeptics at ATBC of this.

                  I DID ANSWER DEADMAN'S TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS ... HERE THEY ARE AGAIN
                  Deadman on my treatment of "Quasi-truncation selection" ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is beyond stupid. It shows conclusively that Dave didn't read/comprehend the paper, as this bit that I quoted above...occurs in the Abstract leading INTO the article. I really have to wonder if Dave knows what <75 signifies in math. Dave...do you know what a population bottleneck is? Do you know which way the "less than / more than " signs face in each instance, with a number to the right of each? Here, Dave, daddy will explain for you: Schoen et al are talking about a population...LESS THAN 75. Moreover, they are talking about plant seeds held in storage:  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Deadman, you're going to make yourself look sillier and sillier if you keep spouting insults about how stupid I am while making really elementary mistakes yourself.

                  Note two things that should have been obvious to you:

                  1) You ridicule me for making the comparison plants, yet you fail to note that Crow himself got the idea of truncation selection from both animal and plant breeders ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Animal and plant breeders have long known that the most efficient form of selection is "truncation selection."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  2) You ridicule me for my comparison to a paper which uses a low numbers of individuals, yet you fail to notice how many individuals were used in one of the key Drosophila experiments which Crow and Mukai performed ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Experimental procedure: The method for accumulating spontaneous mutations is essentially the same as those used by DOBZHANSKY, SPASSKY, and SPASSKY (1952), PAXMAN (1957), and MUKAI (1964). A single Cy/+ male from the cross C-160 x WM-1 was chosen at random and mated to several Cy/Pm females from C-160. Fifty Pm/+ sons (or if necessary, Cy/+) were individually mated with Cy/Pm females. Half of these were mated with 3 Cy/Pm females to establish 25 lines numbered C-1, C-2, . . . C-25. In each line a single Pm/+ male was chosen each generation and mated with 3 Cy/Pm females, and the process repeated generation after generation. The wild-type second chromosome in every line was descended from that of the original Cy/+ male, and there was no opportunity for crossing over since this chromosome was always kept heterozygous in males. There was a minimum opportunity for selection, since a single male was used each generation and the chromosome was never allowed to become homozygous. The process was continued for 4.0 generations.
                  < Mukai et al >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  3) You laugh at me for supposedly not knowing what a "bottleneck" is and apparently you think that because a bottleneck occurred in the Schoen experiment, this somehow disproves my statement that Crow's "truncation selection model fails."  Now the honest life sciences guys here can correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that a bottleneck gives the best possible chance for Crow's "Truncation Selection" idea to work because so many mutations can be eliminated in the bottleneck.  Am I wrong here?  If so, why?  

                  In any case, I see no reason why you should reject Sanford's analysis of Crow's model, especially when it is confirmed by a non-YEC on plants (Crow is cool with plants), and when both involve a small number of individuals.

                  To which Deadman did not respond ...

                  *****************************************************
                  Faid ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where do Schoen et al deal with truncation selection, dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think the term is mentioned.  Sanford simply points out that "Schoen et al. (1998) have modeled almost identical fitness decline curves, which arise from mutation accumulation."  Looking at the curves, this appears to be true.  Also, remember that Crow got the idea of "truncation selection" from plant and animal breeders, and Crow's experience was with small numbers of individuals, as was Schoen's.

                  ****************************************************

                  SINCE RUSSELL ASKED THIS, I WILL ANSWER IT AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY HAVE
                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or how can biodiversity simultaneously increase - explosively, in your timeline - and decline?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not today, though ... I'm out of time.

                  ******************************************************

                  BABOON DOGS ... THIS CAME FROM AIG ... ON AIG WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT ... MY GUESS IS MID TO LATE JANUARY
                  Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 13 2006,11:43

                  I agree with Dave on keeping the thread open. Dave's not violating any rules, so why punish him because others can't behave in a civilised fashion? As far as the argument about "not making the anticreationist side look bad":

                  1) The anticreationist side is what it is. If you want to reform the bad elements within the movement, hiding our misdeeds is the wrong way to go about it. This just reinforces the suspicion that we're hiding/censoring evidence we don't like, and that our real agenda is not good science education but something else. So punish the offenders and let the good contributors shine more brightly (and there's a ton of good responses on this thread).

                  2) Most lurkers can separate a good argument from name-calling. They also understand that Dave can be a handful sometimes.

                  3) If Dave ever gets boring, then people will stop participating and he'll go away. The problem will fix itself.

                  4) Censorship is a very addictive drug and should only be used when absolutely necessary.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 13 2006,11:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
                  2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 13 2006,12:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
                  BOTTOM LINE?  SANFORD BELIEVES THAT CROW'S MODEL BREAKS DOWN

                  I believe him and I'm not sure how much time I want to waste trying to convince a bunch of skeptics at ATBC of this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm curious as to how you define "wasting time".  In all the months you've been posting here, the only thing you've ever convinced anyone of is your own utter inability to accept information that conflicts with your faith.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,12:02

                  Waxing eloquent, I see ... "No"? ... just "No" ??
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 13 2006,12:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,13:02)
                  Waxing eloquent, I see ... "No"? ... just "No" ??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll be happy to discuss it further with you once you figure out why your statement is wrong.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 13 2006,12:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why are there no elves?  Or wizards?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Because our past is not a fairy tale.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or ___ (fill in the blank)?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There were Neanderthals, but we killed them. There's also all the "races" of man that didn't make it into the Bible, but I guess that's not good enough. And then there's Bonobos who are a little more distanty related... they're kinda cute. :D
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 13 2006,12:29

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 13 2006,12:13)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,13:02)
                  Waxing eloquent, I see ... "No"? ... just "No" ??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll be happy to discuss it further with you once you figure out why your statement is wrong.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hint for Dave- it has to do with that word "purpose."

                  Gotta watch that teleology!
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 13 2006,12:35

                  While I of course echo improvius's emphatic yet understated, "No", that's too easy for us and too hard for Dave.

                  So instead, Davey, could we continue your 'logic', but make a slight departure from sunshine, daisies and butterflies?

                  By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

                  Hint #1: we're talking about the parasite that causes malaria, Dave.

                  Hint #2: since you have the requisite information to inform us on at least some of the wonderful "designed purposes" of Lepidopterans, there's no real reason to plead ignorance on the purpose of these malaria-causing little fiends, now is there?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 13 2006,12:36

                  I'm sitting here laughing at AFDave's idea that shutting down this thread after 10,000 comments indicates really disgraceful censorship on the part of "Steve Story and Wesley Elsberry".
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,12:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,11:21)
                  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES (AND WHAT THAT [HAS TO DO WITH THE EVO/CREO DEBATE)
                  (Ooops!  Pardon me ... I forgot ... there IS no debate ... strike that!;)

                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. The most fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, in the context of the evolution/creation debate, is not complexity, Dave. It's that butterflies reproduce and watches do not. If watches had been around for four billion years and could reproduce, and were subject to the same selection pressures as butterflies, they would in all likelihood be just as complex as butterflies.

                  You're assuming what you're trying to prove, Dave. You're assuming that because butterflies are so complex they needed to be built by an intelligent agent, they must have been built by an intelligent agent. The problem with this circular logic is that you haven't proven the first step: that butterflies are so complex they require an intelligent agent.

                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is incremental. The fundamental, irreducible difference, the one that has anything whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory, is that the only way butterflies developed their complexity is through the necessity that evolution always build on pre-existing structures. You can't get from non-life to a butterfly in one giant leap. You need incremental steps from the simplest precursors of life, constantly adding new features over billions of years, until you get a butterfly. We observe exactly this pattern in the fossil record. Every structure observed in the fossil record is based on and modified from earlier structures. Limbs from fins, wings from limbs, hair from scales, feathers from scales.

                  You don't see this in watches, Dave. What parts that are integral to the telling of time does a digital liquid-crystal watch derive from a mechanical spring-driven watch?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?
                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. You simply don't understand how evolution works, Dave. And worse, you don't get how much time evolution has to work. It doesn't take a designer to get a butterfly. It takes time. You don't think evolution can work, but you're basically wrong.

                  There's really not much more to be said about an argument from incredulity, Dave. Look at your argument—you claim that "MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence." And your evidence for this statement is—what? Personal incredulity. As I've said before, considering what you do believe in, your personal incredulity is worthless.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HUMANS WERE CREATED BY MUTATIONS (EXCEPT WHERE IT IS CONVENIENT TO SAY THEY WEREN'T)
                  You just gotta love this stuff.  Supposedly mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor by mutation--EXCEPT for the last stage which was purely cultural.  Sorry, guys, that I'm not able to keep up with the latest story.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave. Until you can get your mind around concepts like "millions of years," and "billions of years," you're going to continue to make these sorts of bonehead conceptual errors.

                  By evolutionary standards, all of human civilization is essentially instantaneous. Humans have probably evolved essentially not at all in the past hundred thousand years. Civilization has existed for approximately 10% of that time. Civilization and culture are not a result of humans "evolving " the abilities to have civilization and culture. Those abilities had already evolved. What caused civilization and culture to arise was population densities. When no humans anywhere lived in groups of more than a few dozen, civilization was an impossibility. When population densities increased to where humans were living in groups of hundreds to thousands, civilization arose by necessity.

                  Again, your argument? Personal incredulity. Nothing more.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the one hand you've got YECs who have had the same story of where humans came from since Adam first penned (stylused? chiseled?) his part of the Genesis Record, then on the other hand you've got the Skeptics, who want to overturn all of accepted history and make up fairy tales about how H. sapiens got here (a very well accepted fairy tale in the last 150 years, I hasten to add).  The funny thing is that the fairy tale has been changing constantly.  I honestly cannot keep all the supposed human ancestors straight it's changed so much.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And you think this is a bad thing, Dave? Your biblical fairy tale has become increasingly at odds with the known facts, almost as soon as it was written. Now, 2,500 years later, it's contradicted by almost all the facts. Has it changed? Has it been modified to reflect new understandings of observation? No. Because it will never change. Even if we did discover evidence that God exists, but bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible, do you think the Bible will be rewritten to reflect this new information? No, of course it won't. How could it? It's inerrant.

                  Meanwhile, science is always contingent, always tentative, always amenable to modification or wholesale re-writing to reflect no information gleaned from observation. But somehow you think this is a shortcoming with the scientific method. Riiiight.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now we have Deadman laughing at me for assuming that Evos believe there is a genetic difference between Cro-Magnon and  modern humans.  Sorry!  Forgive me if I have a hard time keeping it all straight!  He also said I mentioned Pithecanthropus first, which I did not.  Stephen Wells did.  But who really cares.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the reason you can't keep any of this straight is because you're an ignoramus when it comes to science. You know essentially nothing about human evolution, or evolution in general. You've already admitted that you've never read any books on evolution. What, do you think you can just learn this stuff by osmosis? You can't keep it straight in your head because you never learned it in the first place. Why you think you're qualified to even hold an opinion on a subject you are completely ignorant of remains a mystery.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The whole point was that Evolutionists say that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" (direct quote from Ayala ... note, Stephen Wells, nothing about recombination here.  Recombination simply "recombines" pre-existing data, whether that data happens to be caused by mutations--almost entirely degraded data--or pre-designed variability)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, where do you think the variability Ayala talks about came from in the first place? It was designed there? No. All of that variability would have been destroyed by your "flood." So where does your "hypothesis" think it came from?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Soooo ... if mutations created modern humans, then shouldn't "our stone age ancestors" (pick any one you like) be genetically INFERIOR to us?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Our "Stone Age ancestors" are genetically almost identical to us. You'd know this if you had the slightest idea when the stone age even happened. Do you know how long ago the stone age was, Dave? No? Didn't think so.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, they should be if ToE is true.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. See above.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But they are not, according to Crow.  We are inferior to them as both Incorygible and Stephen now agree.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this has been explained to you so many times any more repetition would be morally wrong. If you want to see why this argument is wrong, I suggest you re-read the last week's worth of posts.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Add to this the quandary you have in trying to explain why H. sapiens is the most complex and sophisticated organism to emerge from the supposed LCA of apes/humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is a problem why, Dave? Some organism is going to be more complex than any other, in the same way that there is always some largest number of any finite group of numbers. Humans happen to be the most complex. Why is this some sort of "quandry"?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why are there no elves?  Or wizards?  Or ___ (fill in the blank)?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is a problem for your "hypothesis," not the ToE. This is the same stupid argument as your "hominid civilizations" argument.

                  Meanwhile, you need to explain why it is that, alone among the organisms on the ark, humans did not radiate out into thousands of other species in about 800 years. Good luck.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  QUASI-TRUNCATION SELECTION - A REHASH AT THE REQUEST OF RUSSELL
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave. Go back. Read the last week of posts on this subject. Understand why you're wrong on this argument. It's been explained to the point of stupidity why you're wrong. It can't be explained in any more detail why you're wrong. That you keep bringing it up gives reason to doubt your sanity.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  SINCE RUSSELL ASKED THIS, I WILL ANSWER IT AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY HAVE
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Or how can biodiversity simultaneously increase - explosively, in your timeline - and decline?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not today, though ... I'm out of time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is the most unambiguous example I can think of of a direct lie on your part. You have NEVER answered this question. I've been asking you this question for weeks. It's in my freaking signature for crying out loud. The last time you even addressed the issue, you said the exact same thing: "Out of time, I'll get to it tomorrow." Tomorrow came and went, the day after came and went, and the day after and the day after. You NEVER answered it. You don't HAVE an answer for it. You'll NEVER answer it, because you CAN'T answer it.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 13 2006,12:49

                  OK. A perfect example of DaveThink.

                  He states that he has "shown" how truncation selection fails.

                  Some of us doubt it, and challenge him to point to where he's done anything of the sort. After a couple of days prodding, we finally get this quote from Crow, which is as close as davy comes to dealing with this criticism:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, natural selection in either flies or people does not line up individuals and remove all of those with more than a certain number of mutations. The unreality of this model [truncation selection which he just described] kept me for many years from considering this as a way in which the population deals with a high mutation rate. Then, thanks to a suggestion from Milkman (47), Kimura and I worked out the consequences of what I shall call "quasi-truncation selection" < http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380 > (48).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Note:
                  Nowhere does this show how truncation selection fails.
                  Nowhere does this show that davy even understands what "truncation selection" means in the first place, what Crow's reservations about it were, or how "quasi-truncation" refines it.

                  Therefore, the claim that he has shown that truncation selection fails is just false. Not "kinda sorta", not "that's debatable", not a question of perspective, not stated imprecisely but basically right; just false, (as in "wrong, incorrect, indefensible, etc.")

                  Now that this has been pointed out, I have no reservations at all about calling any repetition of the claim what it is: a LIE. (You know, the kind of thing that makes Jesus sad.)

                  Another classic example of DaveThink. He asks us what the key difference between butterflies and watches is, for the purposes of the infamous "watchmaker" analogy. We point out the obvious: butterflies reproduce. Dave proceeds to ignore that, and proclaim that, no, the key difference is "complexity".

                  That is so obviously wrong, I don't need to dwell on it for this audience. But for him to ignore this obvious problem with his "educational material" for kids... well, I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort parsing the differences between "dishonest", "willfully ignorant", "brainwashed", etc.  I'll just say that this is the problem I have with religious demagoguery. Dave Koresh's, Jim Jones's, Osama bin Laden's , or afdave's.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now the honest life sciences guys here can correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that a bottleneck gives the best possible chance for Crow's "Truncation Selection" idea to work because so many mutations can be eliminated in the bottleneck.  Am I wrong here?  If so, why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes. You're wrong. Perhaps one day I'll explain why. But not today. I'm out of time.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,13:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,11:21)
                  First, how are they similar?
                  1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
                  3) Both get worn out over time
                  4) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is actually one of your biggest blind spots when talking about the theory of evolution (and it's not like I haven't mentioned it to you before, to exactly zero effect). You simply cannot get over your insistence on looking at organisms from a teleological perspective. You insist on assuming (with not a stitch of evidence for it) that, e.g., butterflies have a "legitimate purpose."

                  Butterflies are utterly without "purpose." Butterflies don't exist in order "to pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc." Butterflies aren't designed to "achieve the purposes stated above." That butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty (give me a freaking break), or inspire artists (sheesh!) is entirely accidental, and all these properties are incidental to the real reason butterflies exist, and the only reason they do exist: to generate more butterflies. All other characteristics of butterflies are utterly meaningless.

                  This is a preliterate understanding of biology, Dave. It's something a grade-schooler should be ashamed to admit. It's why everyone here thinks you're a clown.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 13 2006,13:33

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 13 2006,10:35)
                  While I of course echo improvius's emphatic yet understated, "No", that's too easy for us and too hard for Dave.

                  So instead, Davey, could we continue your 'logic', but make a slight departure from sunshine, daisies and butterflies?

                  By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

                  Hint #1: we're talking about the parasite that causes malaria, Dave.

                  Hint #2: since you have the requisite information to inform us on at least some of the wonderful "designed purposes" of Lepidopterans, there's no real reason to plead ignorance on the purpose of these malaria-causing little fiends, now is there?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, balls yeah.  I'm going to second the suggestion that Dave takes on the purpose of Plasmodium parasites, since this is an area where I can actually claim a modicum of expertise, having a coauthorship on a paper about... Plasmodium evolution.

                  So I'll repeat...
                  By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 13 2006,13:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Actually, I don't think so.

                  So HA! I've completely demolished the Watchmaker analogy! Living things need sulfur and phosphorus, watches don't! Can't you see? How can you be so blind?

                  I demand that you stop using this misleading analogy immediately!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,13:44

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 13 2006,13:33)
                  So I'll repeat...
                  By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I can do it (once again) in two words:

                  God's wrath.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,13:47

                  Steve Story...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm sitting here laughing at AFDave's idea that shutting down this thread after 10,000 comments indicates really disgraceful censorship on the part of "Steve Story and Wesley Elsberry".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wasn't me that said that.  Please don't misquote me.

                  I've always been thankful that you allow me to post here and have expressed that to both you and Wesley.  I respect you both for your open-mindeness which allows you to do this and I think this makes for a better board than one which excludes certain viewpoints.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,14:16

                  I thought you were out of time, Dave? Instead of making a pointless response to a question having nothing to do with the substance of this thread, you could actually, you know, make a substantive post (to the extent any of your posts are actually "substantive").

                  You now owe both me and Russell an answer to this question:

                  How is it that biodiversity can be both increasing and decreasing simultaneously?

                  Or, alternatively:

                  What happened 800 years after the flood that suddenly threw an explosive increase in biodiversity (for which there is no evidence) into reverse and started a decline in diversity (for which there is also no evidence)?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 13 2006,14:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,13:47)
                  Steve Story...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm sitting here laughing at AFDave's idea that shutting down this thread after 10,000 comments indicates really disgraceful censorship on the part of "Steve Story and Wesley Elsberry".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wasn't me that said that.  Please don't misquote me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Did he say it was you?

                  Again, what about Homo erectus, Davey? Hoax? Our ancestor? A separate "kind"? Pick your choice.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,14:20

                  HMMM ... DON'T LIKE THE TELEOLOGY? ... OK, LET'S DROP THAT THEN
                  I was really guessing about God's design for butterflies anyway ... I actually don't have a direct brain-link to God and thus can only guess about many of his purposes.

                  Let's also fix one small thing pointed out by Russell ... let's change this one sentence to read ...

                  1) Both are constructed from elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?

                  (Dropped the "exact same elements" part)

                  OK?  So now we have ...


                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY

                  All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

                  First, how are they similar?
                  1) Both are constructed from elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both get worn out over time
                  3) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

                  So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

                  COMPLEXITY

                  That's it really in the final analysis.

                  1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
                  2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
                  3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
                  4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

                  On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?

                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

                  Think about it ...

                  There ... is that better?  

                  Now ... if you disagree, could you tell me WHY ... specifically?

                  *****************************************************

                  PS:  I can only guess as to the designed purpose of a malaria parasite.  What I do know is that Scripture teaches that all things were created "good" in the beginning, but that many things changed at the Fall and Curse.  Did these little parasites have a good purpose in the beginning which changed to a bad purpose later on?  Maybe!  I don't know.  But they are not a problem for my world view.

                  PSS ... Eric said ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty (give me a freaking break), or inspire artists (sheesh!;) is entirely accidental, and all these properties are incidental to the real reason butterflies exist, and the only reason they do exist: to generate more butterflies. All other characteristics of butterflies are utterly meaningless.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's your opinion and your guess is as good as mine.  You cannot prove that God did not create them and thus cannot prove that He didn't intend the purposes that I suggested.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,14:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,14:20)
                  PSS ... Eric said ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty (give me a freaking break), or inspire artists (sheesh!;) is entirely accidental, and all these properties are incidental to the real reason butterflies exist, and the only reason they do exist: to generate more butterflies. All other characteristics of butterflies are utterly meaningless.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's your opinion and your guess is as good as mine.  You cannot prove that God did not create them and thus cannot prove that He didn't intend the purposes that I suggested.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't need to prove God didn't invent butterflies for a particular purpose, Dave. You need to prove he did. It's your freaking "hypothesis."

                  Let's keep the burden of proof where it belongs: on you.

                  This isn't a matter of opinion, Dave. It's a matter of what the evidence supports. You don't have any evidence. You have opinion, nothing more.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 13 2006,14:38

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,15:20)
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Non sequitur.
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Dec. 13 2006,14:39

                  Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 13 2006,11:43)
                  Dave's not violating any rules
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmm.  I am breaking the rules by reminding you of the rules, but what the ####  :D

                  "Be sure to pick the *most appropriate* forum for your message. That could be at a different board."

                  "Each user is requested to consider the quantity and quality of his/her messages. One specific item to be aware of is that repetition of the same quoted material at a frequency greater than once per month is considered annoying."

                  "Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded."
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 13 2006,15:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,14:20)
                  HMMM ... DON'T LIKE THE TELEOLOGY? ... OK, LET'S DROP THAT THEN
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Drop teleology? But why, Davey? You're always willing to persist in something you think we don't like or don't want to hear if you know it to be true. It's part of your reason for being here, remember? To educate us? You wouldn't be dropping teleology because it was guiding you down some dark and twisted paths regarding the intents and purposes behind all that designed life out there, would you? That wouldn't be very honest of you, now would it?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I was really guessing about God's design for butterflies anyway ... I actually don't have a direct brain-link to God and thus can only guess about many of his purposes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Really? You don't say? I don't suppose you'd be willing to acknowledge that you can also only guess that He had any purpose at all in the current 'design' of butterflies (see your reply to the malaria question)? Don't suppose you'd acknowledge that you can only guess that He has any of the attributes you ascribe to Him, ultimately including existence itself? Nah. Guess away, Davey.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Both are constructed from elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both get worn out over time
                  3) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Er...the "purposes" stated above are apparently to be constructed out of atoms and to get worn out over time. "That's really it in the final analysis."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PS:  I can only guess as to the designed purpose of a malaria parasite.  What I do know is that Scripture teaches that all things were created "good" in the beginning, but that many things changed at the Fall and Curse.  Did these little parasites have a good purpose in the beginning which changed to a bad purpose later on?  Maybe!  I don't know.  But they are not a problem for my world view.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, yes, your "worldview" is impervious to reason. Duh. Too bad your argument ain't, eh? Actually, if you were honest, it would be the other way around: we could, if we chose, provisionally accept your argument (that we can see 'designed purpose' in complex organisms), but that would destroy the "good" Creation worldview, wouldn't it? Better to run away, eh Dave?

                  Davey, you really should look into the complexity of Plasmodium some time. (Maybe argystokes is willing to enlighten you a bit?) If God didn't design them to do exactly what they're doing -- parasitizing not only humans but birds, reptiles, rodents, monkeys and (other) apes in a much more complex mosquito-riding, defense-avoiding, shape-changing way than you could possibly imagine -- then they 'evolved' it on their own (or someone else re-designed them). But that can't happen, right?

                  Once again, if you were honest, you know damned well that if you had to "guess" at the 'designed purpose' of this parasite in the same way you guessed at that of those purty butterflies, you would be forced to admit that they were put on this earth first and foremost to make life miserable for tropical humans and other species. But that would point to a less than 'good' designed purpose...

                  Catch 22, eh Dave? What were you saying about miserable paradoxes yesterday?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 13 2006,15:14

                  Here's a fun exercise for you, Dave.  Using your, um, methodology (snicker), can you come up with any examples of "systems" - or even just "things" - that do NOT require "intelligence" in order to exist?  Or does your design detector return positive for literally everything?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 13 2006,15:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What I do know is that Scripture teaches that all things were created "good" in the beginning, but that many things changed at the Fall and Curse.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, like acquiring the new function of being infectious?  I thought you said that kind of thing couldn't happen.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Davey, you really should look into the complexity of Plasmodium some time. (Maybe argystokes is willing to enlighten you a bit?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric.  And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 13 2006,15:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,14:20)
                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, why don't you keep your pseudo-phylosophy off this thread and provide some evidence for your hypothesis instead?

                  ???
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,15:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,14:20)
                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The fundamental difference between a watch and a butterfly is "complexity."

                  Oh.

                  Really?

                  One is complex (the watch). The other is really, really complex (the butterfly). This is a difference?

                  Now, if you'd said one was simple and the other was complex, then you'd be making a coherent argument. But you're not saying a watch is simple, are you? (edit: oh, boy, I really, really hope you are!)

                  This is what your argument really is, Dave: a watch is complex, and therefore requires a designer; so a butterfly, which is also complex, must also require a designer.

                  The interesting thing about this, Dave, is that you think you're making an argument based on differences between watches and butterflies. But you're not; you're making an argument based on the similarities between watches and butterflies. It doesn't change the invalidity of your argument, but it's interesting that you don't even characterize your own arguments correctly. Therefore, why should we trust your characterization of other people's arguments?

                  But your question was, what is the fundamental difference between a watch and a butterfly.

                  The fundamental difference, Dave, is that one can reproduce, and the other cannot. This is a much stronger argument for why one (the watch) requires a designer, and the other (the butterfly) does not.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 13 2006,16:08

                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.

                  Incidentally, davy likes to pretend that "evolutionists" have trouble "keeping their story straight". His fellow creationists generally think it's complexity that watches and butterflies have in common, and that you can therefore conclude things about butterflies based on watches.

                  What a knucklehead.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,16:14

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 13 2006,15:18)
                  Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric.  And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, I think if you just posted a link to a good description of the Plasmodium lifecycle (assuming that would induce Dave to actually read it), that would suffice. The Plasmodium life cycle is fantastically complex, and if Dave doesn't think an a butterfly could evolve from simpler proterostomes without divine assistance, he'd certainly be hard-pressed to justify how the Plasmodium could have evolved its own peculiar lifestyle without God having something to do with it.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 13 2006,16:27

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 13 2006,16:08)
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Descartes figured this out a few centuries ago. Some still have a problem with that apparently.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 13 2006,16:28

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 13 2006,15:18)
                  Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric.  And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I, for one, would love a good link to a refresher on the specifics of this fascinating (and devastating) life cycle.

                  Also, given that the stated motive of the vast majority of people still reading/posting here is to learn some interesting stuff while Dave gets eviscerated, I think you would be "hijacking" a plane that is circling endlessly in mid-air and insisting that if the pilot had no intention of following the flight plan, could we at least land someplace nice (tropical, perhaps?) before the plane runs out of fuel.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,16:37

                  Perfect. I nominate this for Post of the Month:

                  Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 13 2006,16:28)
                  Also, given that the stated motive of the vast majority of people still reading/posting here is to learn some interesting stuff while Dave gets eviscerated, I think you would be "hijacking" a plane that is circling endlessly in mid-air and insisting that if the pilot had no intention of following the flight plan, could we at least land someplace nice (tropical, perhaps?) before the plane runs out of fuel.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,16:53

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But you're not; you're making an argument based on the similarities between watches and butterflies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  That's right.  I am indeed.  I'm saying that they are similar in the ways which I have stated and that the only real difference is complexity.

                  And, Jeannot, this supports my CGH quite simply and elegantly.  Why?  Because it demonstrates the foolishness of believing one thing is designed (the watch) while at the same time believing the other, more complex thing (the butterfly) is NOT designed.

                  This screams loudly of the truth of my CGH.

                  *******************************************

                  I took the teleology out of it simply to keep our focus on one thing at a time.  I am perfectly happy to look at this parasite in detail.

                  But you're going to have to figure out a way to keep Steve from shutting down the thread if you want me to talk about it.  You guys are in control here at this forum ... that's obvious.

                  *******************************************

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why is reproductive ability not simply a matter of degree of complexity?  What do you mean ... absolute?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 13 2006,17:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why is reproductive ability not simply a matter of degree of complexity?  What do you mean ... absolute?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  WTF?
                  color me... nonplussed.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 13 2006,17:13

                  DAVE ADMITS THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE - OR THAT HE'S A LIAR, TAKE YOUR PICK

                  dave, dave, dave...

                  My challenge was:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where do Schoen et al deal with truncation selection, dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To which you replied:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...  I don't think the term is mentioned.  Sanford simply points out that "Schoen et al. (1998) have modeled almost identical fitness decline curves, which arise from mutation accumulation."  Looking at the curves, this appears to be true.  Also, remember that Crow got the idea of "truncation selection" from plant and animal breeders, and Crow's experience was with small numbers of individuals, as was Schoen's.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, that's it then. Dave agrees that his previous statement


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is something he pulled out of his ass.

                  Liar or Lunatic, dave? 'cuz you sure ain't no Lord... :)

                  Tell you what: Why don't you read Schoen's paper? See what it's really about? regeneration after seed storage, dave? wtf?
                  Then you might proceed to ask yourself a few questions- such as, why did Sanford have to present such an irrelevant paper as "support" for his "calculations"? Just because the graphs  "look the same"? WHO IS HE TRYING TO FOOL?

                  Oh and, I needn't tell you how laughable your attempts to pose Sanford as some almighty authority are, dave.
                  Crow has TEN times the credentials your pal Sanford has, dave, and yet you think that YOU (not Sanford, YOU) know better. And not just Crow: You claim to know better than Kimura, Kondrashov, Ayala, Mc Neil, you name it.
                  You claim to know what they mean better than them.
                  And at the same time, you have the nerve to actually say we gotta trust Sanford because see, he invented the "gene gun"? Suuure.

                  Dave: If science was all about authority (like in the Mddle Ages, where you and your pals want to get us back to), Then this thread would be less than a few posts long; All we'd have to do is tell you that 99.99% of scientists are against your position, and that would be that.

                  Instead, we chose the hard way. We started to explain to you WHY 99.99% of scientists say you are wrong, and why they are RIGHT...
                  Only to stumble on your ferrus cranus ignorance and arrogance. I guess we expected too much from you.

                  Dave, when a scientist proposes a theory, he doesn't say "trust me, I'm right, I have an awesome resume". He DEFENDS it. Just like Crow did on the links I gave you: he did the math, tested his model, checked the results, and published everything for all to see.
                  Sanford, on the other hand, just showed a graph his pal did -no formulas, no math, nothing. He didn't even show crucial data he (supposedly) used, like the value of U. And he referred to another paper (schoen), speaking about something else entirely, that has "similar graphs" as if that means anything by itself.

                  So, who should we trust? Remember, Crow says his model works, Sanford claims it doesn't (basically, he accuses Crow of -what? fudging data? incorrect math? Who knows?). Crow shows the math behind his results, Sanford doesn't.
                  Well, dave? Who should we trust?






                  Oh, I almost forgot: dave, your veiled threats against Wes (about closing the thread) are laughable.
                  Reality check, dave:

                  Nobody takes you guys seriously.

                  You are the laughing stock of the scientific community. If this thread was closed tomorrow, and you started posting and writing and screaming "no fair" here and there, nobody would pay any attention; You would only broaden the entertainment you provide, as people would come and read your thread and see your arrogance and ignorance firsthand.
                  If nothing else, I think it would be good advertisement for this forum, since most people (even some of the saner creationists) would say: "What, you actually let that guy post for 400 pages? You really respect all views!"
                  :)
                  But don't worry, noone's gonna kick your butt out- you're too entertaining for that. And something tells me you know that, and that's why you will slowly rise the "excessively annoying" factor with stupid threats like these aimed at the moderators.
                  Because you know that you are so cornered, the only way to get out of this and save some face among your peers is to claim martyrdom by getting kicked out.

                  Right dave?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 13 2006,17:56

                  "Because it demonstrates the foolishness of believing one thing is designed (the watch) while at the same time believing the other, more complex thing (the butterfly) is NOT designed."

                  And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

                  And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,18:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,16:53)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But you're not; you're making an argument based on the similarities between watches and butterflies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  That's right.  I am indeed.  I'm saying that they are similar in the ways which I have stated and that the only real difference is complexity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, the difference is not complexity. Unless your argument is that watches are simple, and therefore require a designer, but butterflies are complex, and therefore require a designer. Is that your argument? That everything, simple or complex, requires a designer?

                  Didn't think so.

                  The other argument I'm assuming you're not making is that the only difference between watches and butterflies is complexity. First, being complex is what they have in common, not what's different about them, and second, the thing that's really really different, and not remotely similar, about them is that one reproduces and the other doesn't.

                  It's simply dumbfounding that we have to explain this sort of thing to you. But again, it's an instance where you made a simple and mostly understandable error, but now, because you can't admit you were wrong, you'll stick to it long past the point of comic hilarity.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And, Jeannot, this supports my CGH quite simply and elegantly.  Why?  Because it demonstrates the foolishness of believing one thing is designed (the watch) while at the same time believing the other, more complex thing (the butterfly) is NOT designed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No it doesn't, Dave, and for exactly the reason your analogy is misleading, and exactly because of the one thing that truly is different about watches and butterflies: one reproduces and the other doesn't.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But you're going to have to figure out a way to keep Steve from shutting down the thread if you want me to talk about it.  You guys are in control here at this forum ... that's obvious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I have no more control over this forum than you do. If you want to prevent SteveStory from shutting it down, start actually supporting your "hypothesis," something you have so far completely failed to do.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why is reproductive ability not simply a matter of degree of complexity?  What do you mean ... absolute?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The ability to reproduce is absolute because a watch cannot reproduce and a butterfly can. It doesn't get any more absolute than that. No matter how complex a watch is made, that complexity qua complexity will not give it the ability to reproduce.

                  A watch is already complex. It's just less complex than a butterfly. That's a relative difference. You can't say a watch is just "less able" to reproduce than a butterfly. It can't reproduce at all.

                  Again, amazing that we have to explain this sort of thing to you. I would think a five year old would be able to understand what Russell is saying.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,18:25

                  God, the more I think about this watches/butterflies thing, the more I am simply astonished by Dave's absolute, utter vacuity.

                  Dave, you should be making an argument from analogy here. What you should be saying is that, since a watch, which is complex, required a designer, then it naturally follows that a butterfly  which is even more complex than a watch (i.e., it's similar to a watch), must also require a designer.

                  This argument is still wrong and indefensible (because it doesn't take into account the real difference between watches and butterflies, which is that butterflies reproduce and watches can't), but at least it makes logical sense, and it's the argument that creationists have used at least since ol' Bill Paley came up with it 200 years ago.

                  But no. Dave wants to somehow reformulate this argument into an argument from—what, exactly? It's really hard to tell! He seems to be saying that because the primary DIFFERENCE between watches and butterflies is that watches are complex and butterflies are also complex (WTF!? as Russell so eloquently put it), they both require a designer.

                  This argument of similarity vs. difference really has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of Paley's watch argument, but it really points out how totally illogical Dave is, and whether or not he really is mentally-challenged, it sure makes him look like, well, an idiot.

                  That's really the best way to put it, Dave. WTF?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 13 2006,19:38

                  Eric, what's the primary difference between a microprocessor and a sycamore?

                  Give up?

                  SIZE.  A sycamore is WAY bigger than a microprocessor.  And since we know the microprocessor is designed, then so must be the sycamore!

                  OK, OK, a substantive post on Plasmodium is forthcoming... in a couple of hours I hope.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,19:49

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 13 2006,19:38)
                  Eric, what's the primary difference between a microprocessor and a sycamore?

                  Give up?

                  SIZE.  A sycamore is WAY bigger than a microprocessor.  And since we know the microprocessor is designed, then so must be the sycamore!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  [stuttering] I–I…wow, I never thought of it that way before. I think you're right!

                  "And that, my liege, is why we believe the earth to be banana-shaped."*






                  *At least I can follow Merlin's reasoning here. I cannot for the life of me find any "reasoning" behind Dave's "difference between watches and butterflies is complexity" argument.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 13 2006,20:45

                  Quote (NOTafdave @ today)
                  "What is the fundamental difference between a micro-evolution and macro-evolution?"

                  One word.

                  TIME

                  First,how are they similar?
                  1) Both use the same mechanisms for change.
                  2) Both use the same mechanisms for change.
                  3) Both use the same mechanisms for change.

                  So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

                  TIME

                  That's it really in the final analysis.

                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?

                  Simply this ...

                  1) Micro-evolution utilizes the mechanisms of evolution to exhibit change over time in a species.
                  2) MORE TIME means more changes in a species which leads to macro-evolution.

                  Think about it ...

                  There ... is that better?  

                  Now ... if you disagree, could you tell me WHY ... specifically?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow.  I like this form of presenting ideas.

                  Maybe Dave can respond to the implications raised above.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 13 2006,21:52

                  WATCHES AND BUTTERFLIES ... AN EASY PROOF FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

                  Dr. Russell Durbin says ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is not correct.  Let me explain why.  Think about what reproductive capacity is.  Break it down and analyze it like a good scientist should.  

                  What you will find is that it simply means that the replication system (machines, tools, plans) are external to the watch, but in the case of the butterfly, the replication system is internal.  And this simply boils down to complexity, i.e. more in the case of the butterfly.

                  Do you see?

                  So the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch is, as I said -- COMPLEXITY -- more in the case of the butterfly.

                  This being the case, then it should be quite obvious that IF the watch requires a designer, then the butterfly does also, but much more so.

                  *****************************************

                  Malum ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

                  And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know what you are saying and I agree that it is impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend such a thing as an Uncaused Cause of all things, which is essentially what the Bible describes when it talks about God.  The problem is that to believe the alternative (Chance caused all things) not only presents it's own difficulties, but also requires us to close our eyes to everything that science has taught us.  At least with the Uncaused Cause, we are consistent with science up until the point we hit the Uncaused Cause, at which point, like the Naturalist, we must say ... "We don't understand how this can be."  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!

                  ****************************************

                  Faid ... Relax, my friend.  I have invited Dr. Sanford to this forum.  We will see if he comes.  In the mean time, I will see if I can answer your objections myself.

                  ****************************************
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 13 2006,21:57

                  BIG FAT POST ON PLASMODIUM
                  Or, "Everything I Could Think of Without Doing Research."
                  As requested by Eric and Cory.

                  Plasmodium is a genus of protozoan parasites (what your middle school teacher would have called a ‘protist’) that causes malaria in several species across the animal kingdom, most notably humans.  It is transmitted from one individual to another by the Anopheles mosquitoes, a genus of mosquito which is currently confined to tropical regions of the earth.  Malaria is endemic in most regions of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as South America and Asia.  It’s not a particular vicious disease, at least not compared to something like AIDS, but since it’s so widespread that it’s among the big 3 infectious diseases receiving the most attention in terms of vaccine development and new drug treatments (along with TB and AIDS).  About 2 million people die every year of malaria, most of them very young children.  Almost all of these deaths are attributable to infection by species Plasmodium falciparum (as opposed to the other 3 species of Plasmodium).  There are some subtle differences between the life cycles of the different species of Plasmodium, but I think everything I will be describing here is applicable to all species, except where noted otherwise.

                  Plasmodium’s life cycle can essentially be broken up into 3 stages:
                  1. Mosquito stage
                  2. Liver stage
                  3. Blood stage

                  1. Mosquito Stage
                  The parasites within the mosquito are horny little buggers, constantly having sex and recombining their genomes and creating all kinds of diversity.  They replicate and then travel to the salivary glands of the mosquito, apparently causing the insect little or no discomfort and being generally noninfectious.  When a mosquito takes a blood meal from some poor African kid, these motile parasites are injected into the bloodstream and quickly swim their way to the liver.  If I recall correctly, the parasites first traverse a layer of immune cells called Kuppfer cells, by quite literally charging right through the cells themselves.  This allows the parasites to reach the liver cells themselves, which they invade.  

                  2. Liver Stage
                  During invasion, the parasite acquires part of the liver cell’s membrane, which it uses to separate itself from the rest of the cell. (Imagine blowing a bubble with some bubble gum, then pushing a rock into the bubble until the invagination closes on itself.  Then the bubblegum surrounding the rock pinches off from the rest of the bubble, leaving a rock inside a bubble inside a bubble).  The parasite then start to reproduce asexually, growing and dividing and stretching the limits of its envelope and the host cell itself.  Eventually, through unknown mechanisms, the parasite escapes both its envelope and the liver cell itself, and shuffles its way back into the bloodstream.

                  3. Blood Stage
                  The blood stage of Plasmodium is much it’s liver stage, in that cells are being invaded, the parasite resides in a host-derived envelope, divides lots and lots, and escapes the host cell.  As wikipedia describes the blood stage :


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  From the hepatocytes, the parasite replicates into thousands of merozoites, which then invade red blood cells. Here the parasite grows from a ring-shaped form to a larger trophozoite form. In the schizont stage, the parasite divides several times to produce new merozoites, which leave the red blood cells and travel within the bloodstream to invade new red blood cells. Most merozoites continue this replicative cycle
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As one might expect, this causes the destruction of a lot of blood cells, and leads to anemia, which in some cases can be quite severe.  Some of the parasites differentiate back into the sexual form, which can be taken up when a mosquito takes a blood meal, and the cycle continues.  Wikipedia also has an interesting hypothetical evolutionary scenario for the origin of this life cycle:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This life cycle is best understood in terms of its evolution. It is thought that Plasmodium evolved from a parasite spread by the orofaecal route which infected the intestinal wall. At some point this parasite evolved the ability to infect the liver. This pattern is seen in the genus Cryptosporidium to which Plasmodium is distantly related. At some later point this ancestor developed the ability to infect blood cells and to survive and infect mosquitoes. Once mosquito transmission was firmly established the previous orofecal route of transmission was lost.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There is a pretty nice animation showing the whole process here:
                  < http://www.sumanasinc.com/scienceinfocus/sif_malaria.html >

                  var genes, pathogenicity, and immune evasion
                  During any infection, the pathogen must avoid detection by the immune system until it has multiplied enough to make transmission to a new individual easy.  Plasmodium accomplishes this in a pretty interesting way.  Most cells have a mechanism of presenting all the little bits of its innerds to circulating immune cells.  The immune cells check to see if the presented bit is host-derived or foreign.  If the immune cell recognizes foreign material, it will bombard the poor infected cell with nasty chemicals, leading to the destruction of both the infected host cell and it’s freeloader (for more detailed information, wiki or google MHC Class I and Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte).  By infecting red blood cells, however, the parasite avoids this arm of the immune system.  Red blood cells are enucleated, and thus don’t produce any DNA, RNA, or protein.  They therefore lack any kind of machinery for blowing the whistle on the parasite which is living inside them.

                  However, living in red blood cells (RBCs) presents a different problem for the parasite.  The cells are constantly circulating and must travel through the spleen, the organ responsible for destroying old and crappy RBCs.  Through mechanisms which I do not understand, cells in the spleen are able to recognize infected RBCs, and destroy them.  This is apparently not a total death blow to most species of Plasmodium, but it does appear to keep most infections from becoming lethal.

                  Except when it comes to Plasmodium falciparum.  P. falciparum has evolved a mechanism to evade having to go through the spleen.  When the falciparum parasite is within an RBC, it produces PfEMP1 proteins.  These are encoded by var genes…
                  ****
                  To avoid confusion, or perhaps cause it:
                  DNA -> RNA -> Protein
                  Var -> var RNA -> PfEMP1
                  ****
                  The PfEMP1 protein is exported from inside the parasite all the way to the RBC surface.  This process is extremely fascinating, as it requires the parasite to set up machinery outside of itself in order to properly transport the protein through the envelope in which the parasite resides and all the way to the RBC membrane.  The parasite can’t co-opt host cell machinery, since RBCs don’t have any.  This process is still being figured out.  Anyway, the PfEMP1 protein is able to bind to certain receptors that are on the surface of the blood vessels.  This tethers the infected RBC to the blood vessel, preventing the infected cell from reaching the spleen where it would be destroyed.  PfEMP1 can also attach to uninfected RBCs, which essentially cloaks the infected RBC with uninfected RBCs, making it harder to “see.”  Infected RBCs also can stick together, forming big ole clumps of cells.  All this sticking is pretty bad, and becomes lethal when cells start clogging up passageways in the brain.  Cerebral malaria causes hemorrhaging, and is one of the main causes of malaria-associated deaths (along with pregnancy malaria and severe anemia).

                  So the stickiness is all well and good for the parasite, but by putting a piece of itself on the surface of an RBC, it has exposed itself once again to the immune system.  Before getting into the beauty of antigenic variation, I’ll need to do a quick aside on how adaptive immunity works.
                  ****
                  Adaptive immunity is absolutely ridiculous.  Basically, when a T cell or B cell (henceforth lymphocyte) is made, the part of its DNA that encodes the T cell Receptor or B cell Receptor undergoes recombination that is pretty much random.  There are enough possible permutations of the DNA to produce proteins that just happen to be capable of binding to just about any other protein.  The lymphocytes that have receptors that can bind host cells are weeded out and destroyed, while ones that can’t are allowed to get into the blood stream and look for trouble.  The body cranks out enough of these cells that just about any foreign protein can be recognized by a small handful of cells in the body (and there are ways that the body uses to increase the odds of this interaction occurring, which I won’t go into).  Once a lymphocyte recognizes something (hopefully a pathogen), it will start dividing and cranking out antibodies (which are soluble B cell receptors, so are very specific), and the infection can be pretty quickly cleared.  Some of the lymphocytes will differentiate into memory cells, which can start the process of cranking up the adaptive immune response to the same foreign material much more quickly than if the body had to start all over again.
                  ****
                  Back to malaria.  The falciparum parasite has about 60 different var genes in its genome, but only expresses one at a time.  The immune system recognizes the PfEMP1 protein on the RBC surface, cranks up a response to it and then… the parasite switches what var gene it is expressing, and hence changes the PfEMP1 protein on the surface.  And the immune system has to start all over again.  The switching of var genes isn’t fully understood, but it appears to be a general low rate of switching, followed by selection for newly exposed PfEMP1s, rather than a preprogrammed sequence of gene expression (but we DO see that in Trypanosoma brucei, the African Sleeping sickness parasite… but that’s another sto-ey).  This process is known as “antigenic variation,” and is found in both protozoans and bacteria.

                  I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.  If one strain is endemic in a region, eventually people’s immune systems will have figured out a good deal of the different var genes.  But when a new strain enters the region, once again the immune system needs to learn a whole new set of proteins to recognize.  Thus, it is beneficial to the parasite to have a different set of vars than its relatives, because it will evade the immune system more easily just by being different.  Clearly, this shows a scenario where a very high proportion of mutations would in fact be good for the parasite, simply because they make the parasite look different.

                  The Theory of Evolution easily explains why there is so much var gene diversity amongst different strains of Plasmodium.  Mutation creates the diversity, and diversity is selected for.

                  How does Dave’s UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis explain it?  Were all the strains created as different kinds (and remember, these bugs had to have been on the ark, maybe in some poor hapless dinosaurs?), or did they gain all these special new abilities?  Have the species of Plasmodium that lack var genes lost their ability to produce them, with God creating more lethal parasites to start with?

                  Please, Dave, what does your hypothesis predict for the origins of this nasty parasite and, in particular, the very valuable antigenic diversity contained between different strains?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 13 2006,22:19

                  And here I thought Dave was busy typing up a response to my little post.  But no, 20 minutes after it goes up, he runs away.  I guess it is sleepytime in MO, and I'm sure I can count on a substantive response in the morning.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 13 2006,22:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,21:52)
                  WATCHES AND BUTTERFLIES ... AN EASY PROOF FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

                  Dr. Russell Durbin says ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is not correct.  Let me explain why.  Think about what reproductive capacity is.  Break it down and analyze it like a good scientist should.  

                  What you will find is that it simply means that the replication system (machines, tools, plans) are external to the watch, but in the case of the butterfly, the replication system is internal.  And this simply boils down to complexity, i.e. more in the case of the butterfly.

                  Do you see?

                  So the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch is, as I said -- COMPLEXITY -- more in the case of the butterfly.

                  This being the case, then it should be quite obvious that IF the watch requires a designer, then the butterfly does also, but much more so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you've backed yourself into a corner once again and cannot escape it because you simply cannot admit error.

                  Watches cannot reproduce. Nothing about any particular watch's fitness has any effect on any future watches.

                  There is no "watch reproduction" that is external to watches. Watches do not undergo selective pressure. A million defective watches have no effect on subsequent watches. There is no reason in principle why a watch factory cannot continue to turn out watches that are fatally defective—that cannot even tell time—until the cows come home.

                  A butterfly that has a fatal genetic mutation that kills it before it is sexually mature cannot reproduce. Cannot, not even in principle.

                  If you think talking about factories that produce watches in any way analogizes to the way butterflies, or any other organism, reproduces, you're just as stupid as you look.

                  There is no feedback loop between a watch and subsequent watches.

                  (I simply cannot believe I'm even typing this. Can this guy possibly be this vacuous?)

                  Think about it for a minute, Dave. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The difference between a watch and a butterfly, is that a watch is complex, and a butterfly is more complex? You have a pretty broken understanding of what the word "difference" means.

                  So a watch is "different" from a butterfly because a watch is "complex" but a butterfly is "more complex."

                  So where does all this get you, Dave? It gets you nowhere, because your analogy is completely and totally broken. Unless you can explain about how the fitness of a watch has something to do with the fitness of future watches, your analogy goes right down the toilet.

                  Now. Let me show you why else your analogy is broken. Take a mechanical watch. A good one, like a Rolex. Now, if watches were subject to the same sort of selection pressure, and the same ways of evolution, we would expect any other watch to be either an elaboration of the mechanism of said Rolex, or a simpler, less effective or accurate or reliable analog of the Rolex mechanism. We do not in fact find this to be the case.

                  Let's look at your standard digital watch, with a liquid crystal display and a quartz crystal movement. Is the mechanism of this watch in any way derived from the mechanism of the Rolex? No. Not at all. They bear not the slightest resemblance to each other. Therefore, we can rest assured that the digital watch did not evolve from the Rolex.

                  On the other hand, every single time we look at some biological structure, we can always find, going back to the sub-cellular level, that this structure is a modification or elaboration of some simpler structure. This is why cladistics can talk about "primitive" and "derived" characteristics. Every derived characteristic can always be traced back to a more primitive characteristic.

                  The same cannot be said of watches. Therefore, we know that watches did not evolve, and we know that butterflies did evolve.

                  As I said, your confusion about "differences" vs. "similarities" has no effect on the invalidity of your argument. It merely points up your own illogic.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 14 2006,00:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Malum ...
                  Quote
                  And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

                  And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>
                  ============

                  I know what you are saying and I agree that it is impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend such a thing as an Uncaused Cause of all things, which is essentially what the Bible describes when it talks about God.  The problem is that to believe the alternative (Chance caused all things) not only presents it's own difficulties, but also requires us to close our eyes to everything that science has taught us.  At least with the Uncaused Cause, we are consistent with science up until the point we hit the Uncaused Cause, at which point, like the Naturalist, we must say ... "We don't understand how this can be."  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, I can comprehend the concept of the 'uncaused cause' or the 'unmoved mover' as the Greeks originally phrased it, I just don't agree that the concept is usefull or enlightening in any way.

                  In order to avoid an infinate regress you have to make the jump from 'it's so complex that it has to have a designer' to 'it's so much more complex than anything we have knowledge of, but it doesn't need to have a designer'.  It saves a lot of time to just forget about a designer from the beginning.  Especially when you have to invent layer after layer of unecessary complications to keep your 'undesigned designer' viable.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 14 2006,01:37

                  Davey puffs up his chest and claims,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There exists the very real possibility that I could get some of the leading YECs from AiG or ICR (you know ... the ones with advanced science degrees) to come to this forum and debate.  I know Deadman wants to debate dendrochronology with Dr. Don Batten, and I would like to get Dr. Sanford and others to make appearances.  I have not attempted to do this yet, but I am well connected and feel sure that I could make some of these things happen.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Will one (or more) of these "leading YEC's with their advanced science degrees" be able to explain the Baboon dog paradox? I say pull those strings of yours and let's get them cleared up ASAP! Show us what a man of action you are.

                  You gotta give Dave credit guys, he's trying really hard to get the job done. He didn't understand how hard it would be.

                  His Caspar Milquetoast threat to expose ATBC's lack of intelectual tolerance is freaking HILARIOUS!

                  He spouts so much nonsense it's hard to know where to start and most of it gets demolished so fast that all I can do is pick nits out of the pink haze,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I know what you are saying and I agree that it is impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend such a thing as an Uncaused Cause of all things, which is essentially what the Bible describes when it talks about God.  The problem is that to believe the alternative (Chance caused all things) not only presents it's own difficulties, but also requires us to close our eyes to everything that science has taught us.  At least with the Uncaused Cause, we are consistent with science up until the point we hit the Uncaused Cause, at which point, like the Naturalist, we must say ... "We don't understand how this can be."  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The Bible is describing an Uncaused Cause when it talks about God?

                  Huh?

                  "Chance" (or ToE) presents difficulties that requires us to close our eyes to everything science has taught us?

                  WHAT?

                  Difficulties, sure but they are steadily and surely being worked out as our knowledge base expands and our tools get better but we know which person here has closed his eyes (and ears and mind) to the lessons of science Davey.

                  Your worldview does NOT say "We don't understand how this can be." when it hits the brick wall of what you're now calling the Uncaused Cause. In fact, you and yours claim to have the ONLY answers to the Uncaused Cause, Life, the Universe and Everthing and everyone else be damned, literally!

                  Davey, you suffer from (among other things) a "Nostalgia for an Age That Never Existed".
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 14 2006,03:37

                  Dave,

                  We'd love to have Sanford here. Maybe he'd also tell us if he really said that Synergistic Epistasis means "interactive interaction", or it's something you made up as well, along with "Schoen says truncation selection doesn't work".

                  I must say I am a bit surprised you admitted making that up, dave.

                  I half-expected yet another post the likes of I JUST ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTION ON "WHY DOES SCHOEN NOT SAY TRUNCATION SELECTION DOESNT WORK" or something.

                  :D

                  PS. Oh and Sanford could explain to us why, after more than 300 generations, and an initial poulation of 2, there are STILL animals alive today, according to the FLUD theory? You seem reluctant to.
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 14 2006,07:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,16:53)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why is reproductive ability not simply a matter of degree of complexity?  What do you mean ... absolute?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK, that's it. No one who can learn to tie his own shoes or fly an airplane can be that stupid.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 14 2006,08:05

                  HOW DO SYPHILIIS, MALARIA AND OTHER "NASTIES" FIT INTO THE BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW?
                  Excellent post, Argystokes on the Plasmodium.  For someone to understand where these little buggers fit into the Biblical world view, it is necessary to get some background.  I'll give you some snippets here from an article entitled "Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses? by Dr. Jerry Bergman which will hopefully encourage you to do some further reading.
                  < http://www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp >


                  Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo.  He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities.  He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

                  VIRUS ARE GOOD IN THEIR PROPER SETTING


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Role of Viruses in Ecology

                  The importance of viruses is closely related to the importance of bacteria.  As Margulis notes, microorganisms have long been considered ‘tiny little beings [that] are primarily germs and pathogens.’ [19] In contrast to this public image, bacteria are at the basis of our life-support system.  They supply our fertile soil and atmospheric gases.  They cleanse our water supply, play a role in stabilising the atmospheric nitrogen concentration, regulate the acidity or alkalinity of the soil environment, and thus generally ensure that our world is liveable.[20]

                  The view now emerging of the normal relationship between viruses and genes is not so much a host/invader relationship, but a relationship more akin to bees carrying pollen from flower to flower, thus causing cross-fertilisation.  Viruses carry not only their own genes, but also those of other creatures as well, especially those of bacteria.[21] Although bacteria pass genetic information to each other using several processes such as pili transfer (see below), viral transfer is now known to be critically important.[22]

                  A critical role that viruses play relates to the fact that bacteria contain a constant, stable genetic system (the large replicon), but they function in the world by acquiring and exchanging a diverse set of variable genetic systems (several small replicons, including plasmids, viruses, and so forth).  The small replicons are physically separated from the major bacterial DNA, called the genophore.  New DNA can be inserted into the genophore; and it usually divides synchronously with it, but some is able to start self-replicating autonomously (Figure 5).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  VIRUSES PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN ECOLOGY ... THERE ARE MORE THAN A BILLION OF THEM IN A TEASPOONFUL OF OCEAN WATER!


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ‘A teaspoonful of seawater may contain more than a billion viruses—10,000 to 10 million times more than previously estimated.  The world ocean is what laboratory scientists would call a culture medium, the largest petri dish known to mankind.  There can be millions of individuals of a single species in an ounce of seawater, and presumably they play an enormous role in the planet’s carbon cycle.  Whether Earth undergoes the global warming the world is watching for may be decided by organisms we didn’t know were there.  As Bob Guillard of the Bigelow Laboratory of Ocean Sciences in Marine has observed: “A hundred years of oceanography, and the most abundant being in the world wasn’t recognized by anybody”.’[38]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DID HUMANS HAVE SHEEP SEX AND MONKEY SEX?  DID THIS CAUSE AIDS AND SYPHILIS IN HUMANS?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Evidently, inappropriate sexual acts by humans caused the transfer of a lentivirus from a monkey to humans.  As long as the HIV lentivirus lived in monkeys, it was not a threat for humans.  HIV in monkeys (called SIV), ‘appears not to cause disease in most of its natural hosts’, and ‘bacteria and viruses that cause disease today may not always have done so’. [32] The same situation also is true of syphilis (apparently from sheep) and many other infectious diseases.  Baboons resist being adversely infected by HIV, and for years researchers have been exposing certain animals to the virus without infecting them.

                  This supports the argument that viruses normally do not, and should not, cause disease.  Only if something goes wrong, such as a mutation or accidental inappropriate movement of genes, do they cause problems.  Dr Charles Stiles recognised this many years ago when he concluded that ‘germs were not created as they are today, but they later evolved into germs … those germs were originally created in some form other than as disease germs.’ [33] Stiles claimed that germs developed as a result of the devolution that has occurred since creation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DISEASE IS THE RESULT OF 'SOMETHING GONE WRONG'


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It should not surprise us that in a post–Fall world, disease is a result of ‘something gone wrong’, as indicated from several lines of research, specifically research on

                     ‘a range of “emerging” diseases that appear… to have entered the human population only recently.  And here, perhaps more than anywhere else in the field, myths abound.  The standard theories hold that, when a microorganism moves from one species to another—as HIV is believed to have done—it will be nastier than it had been in its original host.  Again, this is simply wrong.  According to Ebert, parasites tend to be less infectious, less fit and less harmful in new hosts.  Of course, there are exceptions, and these are the ones we notice, says Ebert.  In reality, bacteria, viruses and other parasites probably jump species far more often than anyone knows, without doing much damage.’ [44]

                  Morse also states:

                     ‘Common wisdom held that an emerging virus sprang forth so suddenly because it had evolved de novo... As it happens, the great majority of “new” viruses are not really new at all but are by-products of…viral traffic: the transfer to humans of diseases that exist within some animal population.’ [45]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  WHY POP AN ANTIBIOTIC PILL TO CURE AN INFECTION WHEN YOU CAN 'POP A VIRUS'?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Use of Viruses in Medicine

                  Bacteriophages (literally eaters of bacteria) may help to control bacterial growth and spread.  Almost all known bacteria have a specific predatory phage.  Research indicates that in certain animals some virulent viruses may fight against bacterial infections.  The advantages of using viruses to treat illness, and the reason for the importance of such a concept was reviewed by Radetsky, who noted that few persons in the past

                     ‘… wanted to fool around with live infectious viruses when you could pop a few penicillin pills… Western scientists bundled bacteriophage therapy into the dusty closets of history.  Today it may be coming back.  Some 50 years after antibiotics heralded the end of bacterial disease their golden age is waning… More and more microbes are developing resistance to our arsenal of antibiotic drugs, and scientists are again searching for miracle treatments.  Some are looking to the past, to the almost forgotten bacteria eaters.  In fact, bacteriophage therapy has never really disappeared.  [Some]…doctors and health care workers routinely use bacteriophage therapy to cure a wide variety of maladies…’ [50]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  VIRUSES AND THE GENETIC REVOLUTION
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Viruses and the Genetic Revolution

                  An infected animal cell can express thousands of copies of many kinds of proteins, but can produce only enough viral proteins for as many as six viruses.  On the other hand, if the viral protein genes are spliced into a bacterium’s DNA by recombinant DNA means, the bacterium will mainly manufacture these viral proteins, making it far easier to separate and study them.  This greatly simplifies the process of genetic research.  Another advantage of using viruses in research is that virtually all viruses of a particular strain are identical.

                  Just how critical viruses are for medical and molecular research is now obvious to all molecular biology researchers.  Zimmerman and Zimmerman (1993) noted that in molecular biology ‘today is the day of the virus’ and ‘nothing being studied in medicine, nothing in biology, is more important.’ [54] Among the many tools that are critical in molecular biology, and that were either discovered in viruses or exist because of viruses, include: reverse transcriptase, restriction enzymes made by bacteria to control viruses, and many other enzymes.  This research has aided virologists enormously in exploring the relationship between the virus and its host, and the mechanism of pathogenicity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Again, I would encourage you to read the entire article found here ...

                  < http://www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp >

                  ******************************************************

                  Somebody will probably say "Dave, the Plasmodium is not a virus ... it's a parasite" to which I respond "Is not a virus a parasite?"  "Isn't this Plasmodium similar to a virus in many ways in that it needs a host to survive?"  I am not aware at the moment of any creationist papers on the Plasmodium specifically, but the above information has a direct bearing on the topic.

                  As for Argy's statement and question ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Theory of Evolution easily explains why there is so much var gene diversity amongst different strains of Plasmodium.  Mutation creates the diversity, and diversity is selected for.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't see anywhere that you show that "mutation creates the diversity" if by "mutation" you mean "random mutation" which I think you do.  Diversity is built in as Ayala clearly states.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How does Dave’s UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis explain it?  Were all the strains created as different kinds (and remember, these bugs had to have been on the ark, maybe in some poor hapless dinosaurs?), or did they gain all these special new abilities?  Have the species of Plasmodium that lack var genes lost their ability to produce them, with God creating more lethal parasites to start with?

                  Please, Dave, what does your hypothesis predict for the origins of this nasty parasite and, in particular, the very valuable antigenic diversity contained between different strains?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I do not have an answer for this particular bug, but the information I have posted clearly explains how various other "nasties" fit quite easily into the Biblical world view.  Why wouldn't this "nasty" also fit quite well when more is known?  (I would guess that some creationist scientist somewhere has addressed this specific bug ... if I run across one, I will let you know.)

                  I learned some interesting info about Plasmodiums.  Let me ask you ... did you learn anything new from Dr. Bergmans' article?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 14 2006,08:17

                  ERIC AND ALL DARWINISTS ARE THE ONES "IN THE CORNER" WITH BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you've backed yourself into a corner once again and cannot escape it because you simply cannot admit error.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.  Just the opposite actually.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watches cannot reproduce. Nothing about any particular watch's fitness has any effect on any future watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No need to repeat what we both agree on.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no "watch reproduction" that is external to watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh yes there is.  I can take you to the Timex factory the Bulova factory and the Seiko factory.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watches do not undergo selective pressure.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  But only because they have not been designed to be complex enough to function as automatons and reproduce, feed themselves, move around, have sex, live, die, get selected out of existence, etc.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A million defective watches have no effect on subsequent watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  Ditto above reason.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no reason in principle why a watch factory cannot continue to turn out watches that are fatally defective—that cannot even tell time—until the cows come home.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Eric ... you are simply stating observation stemming from the fact that watches and watch replication equipment is NOT AS COMPLEX as butterfly replication equipment.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A butterfly that has a fatal genetic mutation that kills it before it is sexually mature cannot reproduce. Cannot, not even in principle.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  And this would apply to watches as well if they were designed with sufficient complexity to function as living organisms do.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you think talking about factories that produce watches in any way analogizes to the way butterflies, or any other organism, reproduces, you're just as stupid as you look.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If the analogy is good enough for Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, it's good enough for me ...

                  Here's one more nice tidbit on Molecular Machines from a non-YEC source ... Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines.  In his article, Alberts admits that ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94)."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no feedback loop between a watch and subsequent watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course not.  They were not designed with sufficient complexity to include this.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (I simply cannot believe I'm even typing this. Can this guy possibly be this vacuous?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I simply cannot believe you are typing it either, but for a different reason.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Think about it for a minute, Dave. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The difference between a watch and a butterfly, is that a watch is complex, and a butterfly is more complex? You have a pretty broken understanding of what the word "difference" means.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have thought about it ... for many, many minutes.  The question is ... have YOU thought about it?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So a watch is "different" from a butterfly because a watch is "complex" but a butterfly is "more complex."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  You got it.  That's truly the fundamental difference which is the root cause of all the other differences which you and others have correctly identified.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So where does all this get you, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh ... it gets me a long ways.  It screams quite loudly of the foolishness of saying on the one hand "A watch requires a designer" and in the same breath saying "A butterfly does not."

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now. Let me show you why else your analogy is broken. Take a mechanical watch. A good one, like a Rolex. Now, if watches were subject to the same sort of selection pressure, and the same ways of evolution, we would expect any other watch to be either an elaboration of the mechanism of said Rolex, or a simpler, less effective or accurate or reliable analog of the Rolex mechanism. We do not in fact find this to be the case.

                  Let's look at your standard digital watch, with a liquid crystal display and a quartz crystal movement. Is the mechanism of this watch in any way derived from the mechanism of the Rolex? No. Not at all. They bear not the slightest resemblance to each other. Therefore, we can rest assured that the digital watch did not evolve from the Rolex.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is all N/A as I have said because a watch was not designed as elaborately as a butterfly, thus does not have all these things you are talking about.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand, every single time we look at some biological structure, we can always find, going back to the sub-cellular level, that this structure is a modification or elaboration of some simpler structure. This is why cladistics can talk about "primitive" and "derived" characteristics. Every derived characteristic can always be traced back to a more primitive characteristic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh really?  That's a pretty broad statement.  Can you back that up?

                  *********************************************

                  So once again, I think it's quite clear. Those of you shaking your head in disbelief about how stupid I am need to point your finger right back at yourself.  

                  How could you have been so blind all these years to this simple truth ... that the truly fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, from which springs all the other differences ... is DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY !!??

                  Wow!

                  And this simple truth --- all by itself --- overthrows all of ToE and establishes the truth of an Intelligent Designer.

                  So yes, Jeannot, this supports my CGH quite well, thanks.

                  *********************************************
                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We'd love to have Sanford here. Maybe he'd also tell us if he really said that Synergistic Epistasis means "interactive interaction", or it's something you made up as well, along with "Schoen says truncation selection doesn't work".

                  I must say I am a bit surprised you admitted making that up, dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't make anything up.  Sanford actually describes SE as "interactive interaction" in his book.  And of course, I got the information on Schoen from Sanford also ... here's what I actually said ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe these are correct statements.  Schoen does not directly refute quasi-truncation selection, but I believe he does indirectly as Sanford describes.

                  I hear you, though, that you don't accept this yet.  That's OK.  I'll keep it an open question and hopefully get some clarification from Sanford.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 14 2006,08:22

                  THAT WAS FUN!  I LEARNED A LOT.  HOPE YOU DID TOO!  I'M GONE FOR TWO DAYS ... BACK SATURDAY!

                  Hopefully I won't come back to find out that Steve shut the thread down ... I have many more things to say ... and you have many questions for which I owe you answers.  If you want these questions answered, send Steve a PM asking him to keep it open.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 14 2006,08:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,09:17)
                  So once again, I think it's quite clear. Those of you shaking your head in disbelief about how stupid I am need to point your finger right back at yourself.  

                  How could you have been so blind all these years to this simple truth ... that the truly fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, from which springs all the other differences ... is DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY !!??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

                  "Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 14 2006,09:04

                  Improv...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

                  "Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very good point.  I personally am not setting about to find out where that line should be drawn, but Dembski and Behe and others are.  I restrict myself to the clear cut comparisons.  IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.

                  I am sure you could provide me some examples of objects which may not be so clear cut and for these we would need a ore rigorous test.  I have little interest in these non-clear cut examples in light of the present debate.

                  My point is simple ...

                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 14 2006,09:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,10:04)
                  Improv...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

                  "Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very good point.  I personally am not setting about to find out where that line should be drawn, but Dembski and Behe and others are.  I restrict myself to the clear cut comparisons.  IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.

                  I am sure you could provide me some examples of objects which may not be so clear cut and for these we would need a ore rigorous test.  I have little interest in these non-clear cut examples in light of the present debate.

                  My point is simple ...

                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I'm challenging you to give just one example of something that isn't complex.  Because as far as I can tell, everything is complex in some way.  So you're essentially arguing that because watches are designed, everything is designed.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Dec. 14 2006,09:31

                  No, you idiot, the difference is that in the case of the watch, we know the designer, we know the manufactury, we can with no difficulty determine that watches are made things and are made by us.
                  No such identification or determination is possible for butterflies, and in principle it is not possible that there should be.  If everything is designed, design is a meaningless and unsubstantiable term.
                  One might as well declare that 'everything is garglefoop' because X is garglefoop by definition and Y is declared (on no basis whatsoever) to be garglefoop, therefore by [entirely irrational and unsupportable] assertion everything is garglefoop.
                  Get it thru your thick skull antiFactDave -- "God" is an undefined term and as such illegitmate for use in any theory or hypothesizing.
                  And once you eliminate the term, you have nowhere to go.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: mitschlag on Dec. 14 2006,09:48

                  Thanks, Dave, for pointing out how much we owe The Creator for giving us (besides malaria):

                  African trypanosomiasis
                  Amebiasis
                  Ascariasis
                  Babesiosis
                  Chagas Disease
                  Clonorchiasis
                  Cryptosporidiosis
                  CysticercosisDiphyllobothriasis
                  Dracunculiasis
                  Echinococcosis
                  Enterobiasis
                  Fascioliasis
                  Fasciolopsiasis
                  Filariasis
                  Free-living amebic infection
                  Giardiasis
                  Gnathostomiasis
                  Hymenolepiasis
                  Isosporiasis
                  Kala-azar
                  Leishmaniasis
                  Metagonimiasis
                  Myiasis
                  Onchocerciasis
                  Pediculosis
                  Pinworm Infection
                  Scabies
                  Schistosomiasis
                  Taeniasis
                  Toxocariasis
                  Toxoplasmosis
                  Trichinellosis
                  Trichinosis
                  Trichuriasis
                  Trypanosomiasis

                  (List from Wikipedia)

                  One of my favorites is filariasis.  See < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/6146722.stm >

                  That Creator is somethin'. alright.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 14 2006,10:08

                  Dave, you didn't actually read my whole post, did you?  If you had, you wouldn't have said something as silly as this:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't see anywhere that you show that "mutation creates the diversity" if by "mutation" you mean "random mutation" which I think you do.  Diversity is built in as Ayala clearly states.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  After all, I said:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's like the HLA thing again, Dave.  Mutation-free recombination doesn't create new alleles.  You do remember what an allele is, right?  And you do remember admitting they arise by mutation, right?

                  Interesting hypotheses from Dr. Bergman on the acquisition of HIV and syphilis.  Here I'd been told that the most likely scenario for the SIV/HIV jump from non-human primates to humans was because of unsanitary butchering processes.  Now I learned it was from hot wild monkey sex!  Furthermore, it is certainly surprising that he thinks that we got syphilis from Enumclaw style sheep sex, since sheep don't get syphilis.

                  As I expected, you couldn't answer my specific questions because you couldn't find anything to cut and paste:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do not have an answer for this particular bug, but the information I have posted clearly explains how various other "nasties" fit quite easily into the Biblical world view.  Why wouldn't this "nasty" also fit quite well when more is known?  (I would guess that some creationist scientist somewhere has addressed this specific bug ... if I run across one, I will let you know.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I didn't ask you about Plasmodium in general, I asked you about a specific pathogenic mechanism, and what your hypothesis PREDICTS about its origin.  It's OK for a prediction to be wrong - that just means that a modification of the hypothesis is necessary.  But if your hypothesis makes no predictions at all, other than "I bet I can find the answer to that at AiG," then it's completely vacuous.

                  You also haven't answered how a nonpathogenic organism can become pathogenic without gaining any function (you ought to address the PfEMP1 proteins specifically, since everyone here knows all about how they work now).

                  Now also might be a good time to address a question I asked of you in May, since you've had 7 months to think about it:
                  What did the immune system do in the Garden of Eden?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 14 2006,10:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jerry Bergman ...currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm curious. Where does Bergman currently teach "at the college level"? Where can I read about his research on cancer genetics?

                  Oh, and on the "complexity vs. reproduction" thing?
                  Too stupid for words.
                  This just has to be a joke.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 14 2006,10:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,08:17)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watches cannot reproduce. Nothing about any particular watch's fitness has any effect on any future watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No need to repeat what we both agree on.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you agree that watches can't reproduce. Or maybe you can't keep track of your agreements and disagreements.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no "watch reproduction" that is external to watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh yes there is.  I can take you to the Timex factory the Bulova factory and the Seiko factory.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And you will show me a factory where watches are produced. You will not show me watches reproducing other watches. Here Dave goes again, taking a perfectly ordinary word like "reproduction" and completely redefining it out of recognition.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watches do not undergo selective pressure.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  But only because they have not been designed to be complex enough to function as automatons and reproduce, feed themselves, move around, have sex, live, die, get selected out of existence, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (my emph.)
                  In other words (your words), watches don't reproduce. Whether they've been designed to reproduce or not, they simply do not reproduce. Which also demonstrates why your analogy is completely broken. Watches are not subject to the same mechanisms living organisms are, which invalidates your analogy. Or hadn't you noticed?

                  Why are we having this argument?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 14 2006,11:08

                  [quote=afdave,Dec. 14 2006,08:17]ERIC AND ALL DARWINISTS ARE THE ONES "IN THE CORNER" WITH BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES[/quote]

                      [quote]  [quote]A million defective watches have no effect on subsequent watches.[/quote]True.  Ditto above reason.[/quote]
                  Which is why your analogy is broken.
                             

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no reason in principle why a watch factory cannot continue to turn out watches that are fatally defective—that cannot even tell time—until the cows come home.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Eric ... you are simply stating observation stemming from the fact that watches and watch replication equipment is NOT AS COMPLEX as butterfly replication equipment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not "not as complex." It doesn't exist. There is no such thing as watch reproduction, as you have just admitted. And don't think no one has noticed your sudden replacement of "reproduction" with "replication" in an attempt to make your argument less obviously wrong.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A butterfly that has a fatal genetic mutation that kills it before it is sexually mature cannot reproduce. Cannot, not even in principle.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  And this would apply to watches as well if they were designed with sufficient complexity to function as living organisms do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In other words, if watches and butterflies were similar in the way that your analogy requires. They aren't. Therefore, your analogy is invalid.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you think talking about factories that produce watches in any way analogizes to the way butterflies, or any other organism, reproduces, you're just as stupid as you look.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  If the analogy is good enough for Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, it's good enough for me ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not. He's not using it the way you're using it. He's not stating that because an organism is more complex than a watch, which requires a designer, an organism requires a designer too.

                  This is the same stupid "biological machines" you've used before to so little effect.


                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's one more nice tidbit on Molecular Machines from a non-YEC source ... Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines.  In his article, Alberts admits that ...

                               

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94)."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And where does he say here that life is complex, and therefore requires a designer? I also notice a frank lack of mention of watches.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is no feedback loop between a watch and subsequent watches.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course not.  They were not designed with sufficient complexity to include this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So in what way is your analogy valid, then? It's not.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                               

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Think about it for a minute, Dave. Think about what you're saying for a minute. The difference between a watch and a butterfly, is that a watch is complex, and a butterfly is more complex? You have a pretty broken understanding of what the word "difference" means.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I have thought about it ... for many, many minutes.  The question is ... have YOU thought about it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Evidently, the time you spent thinking about it was not time well spent.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So a watch is "different" from a butterfly because a watch is "complex" but a butterfly is "more complex."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  You got it.  That's truly the fundamental difference which is the root cause of all the other differences which you and others have correctly identified.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not a difference, Dave. It's a similarity, if anything. That's the part you're not getting. Unless you're saying a watch is "simple," in which case your argument is even more wrong.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So where does all this get you, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh ... it gets me a long ways.  It screams quite loudly of the foolishness of saying on the one hand "A watch requires a designer" and in the same breath saying "A butterfly does not."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No it doesn't. For one simple reason, that's been explained to you, but which you not only refuse to accept, but claim isn't true. Dave claims that watches reproduce. Even though he's already admitted (see above) that they don't.

                  You might want to read up on von Neumann machines someday to get a feel for what "reproduction" means, Dave.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh really?  That's a pretty broad statement.  Can you back that up?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How do you think the field of cladistics works, Dave? I'm not going to bother recommending a book on the subject, because you won't read it (you'll "skim" it until you get to the hard parts). But finding the relationships between primitive and derived characteristics is the basis for the entire field.

                  And if you think I'm wrong, feel free to come up with a counterexample.

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So once again, I think it's quite clear. Those of you shaking your head in disbelief about how stupid I am need to point your finger right back at yourself.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really? After you admit that watches cannot reproduce, and then insist in the same post that they do?

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How could you have been so blind all these years to this simple truth ... that the truly fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, from which springs all the other differences ... is DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY !!??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. A thousand times no.


                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And this simple truth --- all by itself --- overthrows all of ToE and establishes the truth of an Intelligent Designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you really are an idiot.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 14 2006,11:51

                  Okay, I could have imagined that Dave would say something like, "The ability to reproduce is not a fundamental difference between watches and butterflies." It would be a strange comment to make, or to claim that variations in the degree of complexity between a watch and a butterfly is somehow more important than the fact that watches cannot reproduce and butterflies can. That would have been a strange position to take, but not completely surreal.

                  But no, that's not what Dave does. Instead, he claims that watches can, in fact, reproduce.

                  Dave, by your definition, everything made in factory can "reproduce." Cars "reproduce," microwave ovens "reproduce," and M1-A1 tanks can "reproduce." Maybe you believe LNG supertankers can "reproduce"?

                  So evidently the ability is no longer a hallmark of living organisms, right? Or are you saying every manufactured object is "alive"?

                  Of course, I can't fail to point out that Dave admitted, in the same freaking post where he claimed that watches can reproduce, that they can't reproduce:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,08:17)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Watches do not undergo selective pressure.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True.  But only because they have not been designed to be complex enough to function as automatons and reproduce, feed themselves, move around, have sex, live, die, get selected out of existence, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  My emphasis. I can only assume Dave didn't notice what his hands were typing.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Dec. 14 2006,11:53

                  I realize we're not addressing abiogenisis, but:
                  How complex is a pile of sand? if I dumped a square meter of sand in one spot, and was able to divine which grains were touching each other, what would be the likelihood that after re-boxing said sand anyone could replicate any given configuration?  What's the likelihood of any given configuration? Trillions to one against?  

                  With odds that high against any possible configuration, it is impossible to make any mound of sand.  It's far more likely that a tornado in a junkyard would produce a...
                  bugger....
                  Surely a big bucket of sand is therefore more complex than a butterfly?
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 14 2006,12:31

                  This is getting fun again!

                  Davey, you can't drop teleology and purpose from "design". I already pointed out to you that, despite trying to sweep it under the rug when the going got tough, you still include "for the purposes stated above" in your watch-butterfly analogy. Skim the definitions of "design" and you'll find subtle variations on Behe's ol' "purposeful arrangement of parts". You're not going to contradict Behe, are you?

                  So living things are designed. They've got all these complex, interworking parts working in concert to achieve some purpose. Okie dokie. But it doesn't stop there. You use Scripture as the (only) basis for claiming that the purpose of all these designed organisms and their complex, interworking systems must be "good". And according to Genesis and your interpretations thereof, "good" means no death, no suffering, no disease, etc.

                  Have you even performed a cursory survey of life on this planet before making such claims about it? Because Davey, I'll let you in on something you seem to have missed -- an awful lot of those complex, interworking, must-have-been-designed systems and organisms are absolutely fascinating instruments of dealing death (and suffering if the organism is unfortunate enough to possess a CNS) and disease. We've talked about a handful of human parasites and you've babbled a bit about viruses -- do I really need to mention the millions upon millions of predators and pathogens out there?

                  You would have us believe that the method by which Plasmodium or HIV infects a host, or by which a leopard disembowels a gazelle, or by which a venus fly trap digests an insect, or by which a wasp creates a 'zombie' cockroach or paralyzed tarantula for a nursery, or...

                  ...were all originally designs for some (unknown) "good" purpose that somehow became these astounding instruments of "bad" after the Fall. Can you identify a handful of "good" purposes for the designed things I've mentioned? Because babbling about viral transfer of DNA in bacteria or (even less relevant) the role of viruses in the carbon cycle ain't going to cut it, Davey. We're talking an unimaginable number of complex, interworking parts that put butterflies and watches to shame. If they are a purposeful arrangement of parts, then we can be quite sure their purpose is to kill, maim and infect on a grand scale, just as we can tell that a watch is designed to tell time.

                  Ah, but those are just their current purposes, right? They all came from a "good" ones originally, right? So now we need, (a) at least a few hypotheses for the original "good" purposes of some of these designs (much like you expect in our hypotheses for the adaptive evolution of complex traits) and (b) a mechanism -- absent further design, of course, because that would be either the work of the devil or a God that is indistinguishable from the same -- by which these orginal "good" purposes became the millions upon millions of "bad" ones we see in the last 6,000 years (less in fact -- records of lions and predation and disease, etc., go back quite a ways, Dave: read the Bible and you'll see what I mean).

                  Even if you fall back on "sindidit", that's some serious exaptation (where did it come from? mutation perhaps?) on a scale that would make evolutionists cringe (or, more likely laugh). In which case, you've defeated your own argument against evolution.

                  Any way you slice it, Davey, a quick look at life confirms that either the argument that design (remember: "purposeful arrangement of parts") is the only means to generate biological complexity or the concept of a "good" God and a "good" Creation must fall.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 14 2006,12:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,09:04)
                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, watches and butterflies are different, therefore they're both designed?

                  I've never seen "What is the difference between a duck?" advanced as a logical proposition before.

                  And a watch factory is a watch's way of making other watches!

                  Has Dave noticed that we can easily observe watches being produced IN FACTORIES, BY HUMANS, whereas we can easily observe butterflies being produced BY BUTTERFLIES?

                  I'm amazed that one person can produce so much of teh stoopid. Unless AFDave is actually a team?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 14 2006,13:17

                  I'm going to deal with this one more time, and then shut up on the topic before it's completely beaten to death.

                  The proper formulation (i.e., the one that actually makes sense) of Paley's "watch" analogy is this: what watches and butterflies have in common is that they are both complex. If a watch, which is complex, requires a designer, then a butterfly, which is even more complex, must also require a designer. This is what is known (as I'm sure everyone here with the exception of AF Dave is aware) as an argument from analogy. The reason the analogy works is because watches and butterflies have something in common: complexity. In other words, a characteristic that both share—complexity—is what makes the analogy work.

                  But no. Dave doesn't think so. He thinks it's a difference between watches and butterflies that makes his argument work.

                  Think about it a little more, Dave, and eventually you might get it: you say that because a watch is different from a butterfly, i.e., it is simpler than a butterfly, it must be true that both were designed.

                  Neither formulation of the argument works, because neither takes into account the real fundamental difference between the two: the ability to reproduce (don't bother arguing that watches can "reproduce," Dave; you've already admitted they can't). But Dave's personal formulation of his argument (which, despite the fact that its flaws were pointed out over a hundred and fifty years ago, Dave thinks all by itself disproves evolutionary theory) is utterly wacky.

                  It's truly surreal that a thinking person would be able to screw up such a simple analogy. But it's what makes Dave so darn entertaining!
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 14 2006,13:43

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 14 2006,14:17)
                  But no. Dave doesn't think so. He thinks it's a difference between watches and butterflies that makes his argument work.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To be fair, I think Dave is saying that the fundemental "difference" is the level of complexity - not complexity itself.  So he is still arguing that complexity itself is what is similar, so it's still true to Paley's argument.

                  Of course, it's still not logical...
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 14 2006,13:46

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 14 2006,08:12)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jerry Bergman ...currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm curious. Where does Bergman currently teach "at the college level"? Where can I read about his research on cancer genetics?

                  Oh, and on the "complexity vs. reproduction" thing?
                  Too stupid for words.
                  This just has to be a joke.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Jerry Bergman has a PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University.  A quick google reveals:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Court Orders Columbia Pacific University
                  to Cease Operating Illegally in California
                  Stephen Barrett, M.D
                  In December 1999, the Marin County Superior Court ordered Columbia Pacific University (CPU), of Novato, California, to cease operations within the State [1,2]. On February 21, 2001, the judge denied further appeals and entered a final judgment ordering CPU to:

                  Pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education for violating Sections 17200 et seq. and Sections 17500 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code
                  Permanently stop operating or offering any educational programs in California.
                  Notify all students enrolled from June 25, 1997 to December 1, 2000 of the injunction and of their right to a refund.
                  Provide refunds to all students within 30 days of their request.
                  Provide a status report to the Court by June 30, 2001.
                  Failure to comply with the above order in California would constitute contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment [3]. CPU moved to Montana but closed about a year later.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Read the whole thing < here. >
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 14 2006,13:51

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 14 2006,14:46)
                  Read the whole thing < here. >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is another just part of the atheist conspiracy to discredit and humiliate anyone who dares disagree with the grand fairytale of evolutionism.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 14 2006,13:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But something as complex as 'god(s)' or 'godess(es)' are in the class of things that don't need a designer?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 14 2006,14:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
                  ;-}>
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 14 2006,15:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
                  ;-}>
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 14 2006,15:11

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 14 2006,13:43)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 14 2006,14:17)
                  But no. Dave doesn't think so. He thinks it's a difference between watches and butterflies that makes his argument work.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  To be fair, I think Dave is saying that the fundemental "difference" is the level of complexity - not complexity itself.  So he is still arguing that complexity itself is what is similar, so it's still true to Paley's argument.

                  Of course, it's still not logical...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, Dave's argument is the same as Paley's. His description of his argument is what's so goofy. You'd think he'd be able to keep clear in his mind the distinction between "difference" and "similarity," but evidently not.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 14 2006,15:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In an earlier post you offered to take us on a tour of factories so we could see people assembling watches.  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tuor of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
                  ;-}>
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 14 2006,16:14

                  Am I missing some evidence or data that says, if something is complex then it must be designed.

                  Why the automatic leap to the designer conslusion?

                  Where does complexity prove design? Or is that just a way of saying, "I give up, it's too tough to figure out...Game over".

                  Is it maybe becuase science is on the verge of coming up with the explanations and the Creationist/Christian Right/Fundies see this and rather than have it all exposed, they hope to stem the tide before the curtain is lifted???
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 14 2006,19:31

                  Malum Regnat baits AFD...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I will accept your butterfly/watch analogy, and the conclusions you draw from it just as soon as you arrange a tour of one of the factories where people are assembling butterflys.
                  ;-}>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Really you must realize  the sexual naivety creationists work under.

                  AFD blind side knows for his watchmaker g$d to work ........ boy and girl butterflies don't have sex AND boy and girl watches get it on.......his fairy tale genesis is just as real as the frog and the prince


                  The real crime of course is that he poisons kids minds.

                  And Dr Sanford or whatever his name is showing up for a caning?

                  Forget it, he knows he has chosen ignorance, the alternative for him was to go crazy from hard reality ......and he is going to come here and have his fairy tales challenged ?...dream on.

                  Carry on with your horror show AFD.

                  Give us some other sexual delusion ...it's almost like waiting to see if Paris is wearing undies.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 15 2006,04:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,08:17)
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We'd love to have Sanford here. Maybe he'd also tell us if he really said that Synergistic Epistasis means "interactive interaction", or it's something you made up as well, along with "Schoen says truncation selection doesn't work".

                  I must say I am a bit surprised you admitted making that up, dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I didn't make anything up.  Sanford actually describes SE as "interactive interaction" in his book.  And of course, I got the information on Schoen from Sanford also ... here's what I actually said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe these are correct statements.  Schoen does not directly refute quasi-truncation selection, but I believe he does indirectly as Sanford describes.

                  I hear you, though, that you don't accept this yet.  That's OK.  I'll keep it an open question and hopefully get some clarification from Sanford.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well dave, as long as you understand that, since you CANNOT show how Schoen supports this (directly or indirectly), you also CANNOT claim this as an argument, then I'm OK.

                  In the meantime, why don't you really read Schoen's paper? Not just to check the absence of any arguments against Truncation selection and its validity... See the circumstances he describes that apply to those graphs, and also the mutation rates he assumes? Then see the graphs for the other models, and notice the difference?
                  Then maybe you can ask yourself some questions.

                  As for Sanford: If this is true, and it is HIM (a scientist with his backround in genetics) that mockingly refers to Synergistic epistasis, a well-known and accepted term in genetics, as "interactive interaction", then I can only assume that
                  -He is either making some lame attempt at a joke, or
                  -He is trying to give the impression that SE is an invalid, made-up term some evolutionist thought of to explain his dead ends, without any basis in genetics- and that is a HUGE inaccuracy, as he knows himself.

                  You read the book, you tell me which one it is, 'kay?





                  Oh btw, I noticed that you ignored my question about why, according to your theory (and Sanford's model) there are ANY animals alive today- once again.

                  Don't worry, no biggie, I got used to that by now.  ;)
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 15 2006,08:01

                  WOW ... THE BUTTERFLY/WATCH THING GOT SOME SERIOUS ACTION ... LET'S SORT THE FACT FROM THE FICTION

                  First, let's summarize my position again and deal with the responses ...

                  MY POSIITION

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY

                  All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

                  First, how are they similar?
                  1) Both are constructed from elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both get worn out over time
                  3) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

                  So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

                  COMPLEXITY

                  That's it really in the final analysis.

                  1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
                  2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
                  3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
                  4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

                  On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?

                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence. [You accept this already]
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence. [Why wouldn't you accept this?]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  BE CAREFUL ... DON'T LET ALL THE MISIFORMATION THAT IS FLYING AROUND THIS DEBATE CONFUSE YOU

                  Here is some "anti"-misinformation stuff to keep the water unmuddy ...

                  1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.

                  2) Understand what I am NOT saying ...

                  a) I am not saying anything about general tests for complexity
                  b) I am not invoking teleology (purpose in design) in any way for this argument ... it is not needed
                  c ) Malum asks a good question "How can God not be designed" ... but that is not part of this argument

                  THE ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL
                  Clear everything else from your mind and understand this ...

                  1) "WE KNOW ABOUT WATCH DESIGNERS" NOT A VALID OBJECTION.  You already accept that watches are designed.  Why?  Someone said it's because we KNOW something about watch designers.  Yes, you do ... but wait a minute ... HOW do you know about them?  Have you ever met one?  Have you ever been to his factory?  Have you ever watched this process in action?  I doubt it.  You have probably done nothing more than heard or read reports in some form ... a magazine, a book, TV ... whatever.  And ... now here is the key thing.  You accepted the testimony of the reporter ... on faith.  Yes, I said faith.  You put your trust in that reporter or author to give you the truth about how watches are made.  Was it blind faith like some people believe certain religious things?  No.  It was a reasonable faith, grounded in good evidence.  It is reasonable to believe that these reports are true.

                  Now why did we go through this?  

                  Simply so that I can demonstrate to you that in both cases -- the watch and the butterfly -- we have been given reports of how they were made.  We just looked at the reports informing us about watchmaking.  And the report for how butterflies are made, of course, is in the Book of Genesis.

                  The difference is ... you feel you have good reason to believe one report, but you feel that you have good reason to doubt the other.  You DO NOT need to accept the report in the Bible for my argument to work.

                  Do you understand what I am telling you here?  I am telling you that the argument of "We know something about watch designers, but not about butterfly designers" is invalid for explaining how they are fundamentally different.

                  2) YOU ACCEPT DESIGN IN MANY THINGS THAT YOU KNOW EVEN LESS ABOUT THAN WATCHES.  Pyramids, for example.  You accept that the Egyptians built them.  Stone tools, paintings, pottery ... all kinds of things.  Many of the things that archaeologists discover are things which are not built any more today.  Yet you accept that they were designed.  Why do you do this?  
                  BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY.  YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH MANY STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS AND PROCESSES WHICH PRODUCE SIMILAR OBJECTS TO THOSE FOUND BY THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS.

                  Sorry for the all caps, but this is the key point, guys.  If you miss this, all is lost ...

                  You see a Pyramid and you say ...

                  Ooooh ... a geometric building made out of cut stones with passageways and a casket inside (or whatever).  I know about this kind of stuff.  We make buildings out of cut stone too.  We have passageways in our buildings too. We make caskets too.  Conclusion:  this pyramid must have been built by humans!

                  Do you see what you have done?  You have observed the object and noted certain features about it that resemble our own technology.  From this you have jumped to the conclusion that it was made by someone who possesses intelligence similar to our own.  Further, in the case of the Great Pyramid for example, you marvel at the knowledge that they possessed because of all the science and mathematics built into the structure and you are not quite sure how they managed to pull off this great feat.  Were they smarter than us in some ways?  It's logically possible, yes.


                  Notice that I am not muddying the waters by getting into absolute rigorous mathematical ways for detecting design or teleology (purpose) any of that.  Don't need to.  I am working strictly in the arena of things you already accept.

                  BACK TO BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES
                  So now let's return to butterflies and observe carefully ...

                  1) A butterfly is composed of elements from the same periodic table as watches.  No voodoo elements here.  No magical "life-force" stuff.  They are just ordinary, run-of the-mill atoms.  In fact, ALL the atoms in that butterfly's body came from the dirt that the flowers grew in that his mother sipped nectar from.  So we are familiar with the most basic building blocks (atoms) from which the butterfly is constructed.

                  2) A butterfly contains millions--did you get that?--millions of micro-miniaturized high tech factories (!;), each chock full of every imaginable type of high tech machine.  This is where Bruce Alberts comes in.  Don't put words in my mouth, Eric.  No, of course he doesn't admit design.  I didn't say that.  I simply observe that he says cells contain real factories and machines.  Note that they are not fake factories and machines.  They are real.  Just like our factories, the cellular factories have assembly lines, shipping and receiving functions, waste disposal, robotic workers, raw material movement, computer software, blueprints, communication systems and more.  Yes, it freaks your mind out to think that all this sophistication could be packaged into a tiny cell, but there is no denying it.  It's real and it's breathtaking!  So we are familiar with much of the high technology that is employed within cells.

                  3) None of the technology that we have observed in a butterfly can in any way be thought of as "an absolute difference" from our technology, as Dr. Russell Durbin has stated that reproduction is.  The only difference is in the DEGREE of high-techy-ness.  Notice that a reproductive system is nothing more than a highly, highly sophisticated manufacturing system.  Let's bold this one ...

                  A REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM IS NOTHING MORE THAN A HIGHLY, HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

                  Am I wrong?  No, I don't think so.  Please show me in detail if I am.  If you think it through, I think you will see that this is correct ...

                  Let's analyze the reproductive system ...

                  1) There is a blueprint, right?  The DNA which is stored in almost every body cell.  Now just that is amazing.  What a high tech innovation!  Store the software in every building block of the structure?  Humans have not thought of that yet, but what if we employed this technology?  It would probably revolutionize our construction techniques.
                  2) There is a system of copying the blueprint from the "plans library" of the "butterfly factory" to the manufactured item -- the egg.  In this case, the female butterfly is the "factory" and the manufactured product is the egg.  Note that the female accepts "blueprint" information from the male as well, and there is a system for "mixing" the two blueprints--highly ingenious!  < Butterfly Reproduction >
                  3) The egg (manufactured product) is then stuck to a branch and you know the rest of the story, which is nothing more than an amazing manufacturing process in itself which is guided by the new "mixed" blueprint all the way through the caterpillar stage and finally to the butterfly stage.

                  So the butterfly reproductive system is truly nothing more than ...

                  AMAZINGLY HIGH-TECH MANUFACTURING ... SO ADVANCED IT MAKES YOUR HEAD SPIN!

                  There is nothing different from our 21st century technology in any kind of absolute sense.

                  Sorry, Dr. Russell Durbin.  

                  If you want me to believe there is, you will have to explain how ... don't just say  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Too stupid for words. This just has to be a joke.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's a cop out.

                  So where does this leave us?

                  YOU ACCEPT DESIGN IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZE SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY

                  YOU SHOULD ACCEPT DESIGN IN BUTTERFLIES FOR THE SAME REASON

                  I'm not asking you to accept purpose.
                  I'm not proposing any "tests" for design.
                  I'm not saying anything about sand piles.
                  I'm not asking you to become a fundy.
                  I'm not even asking you to believe any part of the Bible is true.

                  Throw all of that stuff out the window for now.  It just muddies the water.

                  I'm simply asking you to accept design in one object for the same reasons that you accept design in another.

                  How about it?

                  ****************************************************************

                  Now ... your objections.  Remember, the most effective objections--if you have any--are ones directed at my specific points.  It won't help anyone (and Steve thinks it makes you look bad) to just say stuff like "Dave. You're an idiot."  That's fine if you think that.  But please tell me HOW I'm an idiot and WHY--in detail--my particular statement is idiotic.

                  Thanks!

                  **************************************

                  Sorry I did not get to all the other stuff ... I am out of town and don't have much time.  More Saturday.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 15 2006,08:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  YOU ACCEPT DESIGN IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZE SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY

                  YOU SHOULD ACCEPT DESIGN IN BUTTERFLIES FOR THE SAME REASON
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is utter nonsense, Dave.  Clarify a couple of terms and this is what you get:

                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.

                  Also, since you can't seem to come up with an example of something that isn't "complex", we can extrapolate your argument to:

                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and everything consist of similar technology, everything is also built by humans.
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 15 2006,09:30

                  Dave,

                  Please provide any evidence that proves complexity proves design or designer.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 15 2006,09:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you want me to believe there is [an absolute difference between reproduction of butterflies and watches], you will have to explain how ... don't just say "Too stupid for words. This just has to be a joke."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Once it has been explained to you, over and over, that

                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T

                  there's really nothing left to say, but

                  Too stupid for words. This just has to be a joke.

                  All this nonsense about mere differences in technical sophistication in how they "reproduce"? No. Just, no. The theory of evolution applies specifically, exclusively, to organisms that reproduce themselves, that do so by passing on genetic information. For some bozo, who has never read Origin of Species, to claim to have something to say on the subject, without recognizing this, yes, absolutely fundamental point is just... too stupid for words.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 15 2006,10:13

                  AFDave shows his ignorance again
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A butterfly contains millions--did you get that?--millions of micro-miniaturized high tech factories (! , each chock full of every imaginable type of high tech machine.  This is where Bruce Alberts comes in.  Don't put words in my mouth, Eric.  No, of course he doesn't admit design.  I didn't say that.  I simply observe that he says cells contain real factories and machines.  Note that they are not fake factories and machines.  They are real.  Just like our factories, the cellular factories have assembly lines, shipping and receiving functions, waste disposal, robotic workers, raw material movement, computer software, blueprints, communication systems and more.  Yes, it freaks your mind out to think that all this sophistication could be packaged into a tiny cell, but there is no denying it.  It's real and it's breathtaking!  So we are familiar with much of the high technology that is employed within cells.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No Dave, cells do not contain actual ‘factories’.  Cells are composed of complex organic molecules that interact solely based on the laws of chemistry and physics.  Some of the resulting actions are sometimes described as ANALAGOUS to functions found in human designed factories.  Since you’re fond of shouting, ANALOGIES AREN’T THE SAME AS REAL EVIDENCE YOU MORON.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a blueprint, right?  The DNA which is stored in almost every body cell.  Now just that is amazing.  What a high tech innovation!  Store the software in every building block of the structure?  Humans have not thought of that yet, but what if we employed this technology?  It would probably revolutionize our construction techniques.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No Dave, DNA is not an actual blueprint.  A blueprint is an abstract representation using symbols to represent an idea or a physical object. DNA is NOT an abstract representation, it just one step in a chain of complex chemical reactions whose end result is a protein molecule.  DNA is sometimes described as ANALAGOUS to human blueprints, but ANALOGIES AREN’T THE SAME AS REAL EVIDENCE YOU MORON.

                  You’re giving us one more round of the old, tired, stupid Creto “Well, it LOOKS designed to me, so it must BE designed!” argument from personal incredulity.  That hasn’t worked for over 200 years Dave, and it sure ain’t gonna work now.

                  Dave, please repeat this until it sinks in –

                  ANALOGIES AREN’T THE SAME AS REAL EVIDENCE.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 15 2006,10:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Choking, choking, ...*gasp*... too... much... irony... PfEMP.. uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 15 2006,10:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,08:01)
                  Simply so that I can demonstrate to you that in both cases -- the watch and the butterfly -- we have been given reports of how they were made.  We just looked at the reports informing us about watchmaking.  And the report for how butterflies are made, of course, is in the Book of Genesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (suppressed snorting noises).

                  Did Dave really just argue that there's no real difference between believing that watch factories exists and believing in an invisible omnipotent superbeing? Wow.

                  Were butterflies made before man was created, as "reported" in Genesis 1? Or were they made after man was created, as "reported" in Genesis 2?

                  Anyway, everyone knows that butterflies, like everything else on earth, are really made from the body of the frost giant, Ymir. So it is written in the Eddas!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,11:33

                  Wow. Is Dave really intellectually dishonest, or really dumb? Hard to tell from here.

                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,08:01)
                  WOW ... THE BUTTERFLY/WATCH THING GOT SOME SERIOUS ACTION ... LET'S SORT THE FACT FROM THE FICTION
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Now here's some prime tard:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, so now Dave admits (again) watches cannot reproduce.


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence. (You accept this already)
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now Dave claims butterflies also can't reproduce. Amazing.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here is some "anti"-misinformation stuff to keep the water unmuddy ...

                  1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, Dave, where do you think I've put words in your mouth? As far as I can tell, your argument is this: the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, is that watches are complex, and butterflies are more complex. Is this somehow not an accurate characterization of your argument? If you think I've put words in your mouth, or mischaracterized what you've said, please provide a quote and/or permalink.

                  And here's more prime tard:
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) "WE KNOW ABOUT WATCH DESIGNERS" NOT A VALID OBJECTION.  You already accept that watches are designed.  Why?  Someone said it's because we KNOW something about watch designers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So now Dave claims that there's just as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for watchmakers. I don't think I need to say anything more about that argument, do I?


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) A butterfly contains millions--did you get that?--millions of micro-miniaturized high tech factories (!;), each chock full of every imaginable type of high tech machine.  This is where Bruce Alberts comes in.  Don't put words in my mouth, Eric.  No, of course he doesn't admit design.  I didn't say that.  I simply observe that he says cells contain real factories and machines.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is what you said:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If the analogy [of factories that produce watches to the way organisms produce] is good enough for Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, it's good enough for me ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You claimed that Bruce Albert was making an analogy between the factories that make watches and the reproductive systems of butterflies. He made no such analogy. Now explain to me how that's "putting words in your mouth," Dave.  

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM IS NOTHING MORE THAN A HIGHLY, HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

                  Am I wrong?  No, I don't think so.  Please show me in detail if I am.  If you think it through, I think you will see that this is correct ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll show exactly why you're wrong, Dave. There is a feedback effect (natural selection) between the design of an organism and its reproductive success. There is no such feedback loop between a watch and a watch factory.

                  But here's another question for you, Dave. This argument was raised 200 years ago, and discarded 150 years ago. What new information do you think has arisen in the last 150 years ago that would make anyone think Paley was right, and Darwin was wrong? And before you say, "We now know that organisms are really, really complex," I would remind you that Darwin was well aware that organisms are really, really complex.

                  Your argument really just boils down to this: life is too complex to have evolved. That's an argument based on personal incredulity, Dave, and it's simply not persuasive. You can keep posting about how watches and butterflies are different because they're both really complex, but that argument failed over a century ago, and it's no better now than it was then.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,12:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,08:01)
                  1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, let's get something straight here: someone doesn't need to be a scientist to defeat your "arguments." Someone needs to have a brain to defeat your "arguments." I have a freaking highschool diploma (well, I have one somewhere; I haven't seen it in a while), and I've been eviscerating your arguments for eight months now.

                  (Which should not be taken to be in any way minimizing or denigrating the fine work that Russell, Incorygible, Argystokes, Occam's Aftershave, BWE, etc. have done in also obliterating Dave's arguments, in much more detail than I can muster. The point is that while those arguments are very entertaining and informative, they are overkill when it comes to defeating Dave's "arguments.")

                  If anyone is misrepresenting, mischaracterizing, and posting 25k of nonsensical and illogical posts at a time, along with straight-out lying, that would be, um, you, Dave.

                  And one more thing, Dave? I'm pretty sure the only person here who could possibly be confused by my posts is you.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,12:42

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 15 2006,09:48)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you want me to believe there is [an absolute difference between reproduction of butterflies and watches], you will have to explain how ... don't just say "Too stupid for words. This just has to be a joke."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Once it has been explained to you, over and over, that

                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T

                  there's really nothing left to say, but

                  Too stupid for words. This just has to be a joke.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Dave now appears to be claiming that butterflies can't reproduce, either. I'm assuming he doesn't actually mean to say that, but here's the quote:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?

                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence. (You accept this already)
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence. (Why wouldn't you accept this?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hmm. "MORE complex systems like butterflies don't build themselves." Really, Dave? Are you sure about that?

                  Why wouldn't we accept this, Dave? Because any first grader knows that butterflies do, in fact, "build themselves." They "reproduce." You know, that thing that watches cannot do, and that you've admitted (twice) that they cannot do.

                  And you still don't see this as the true fundamental difference between watches and butterflies.

                  Sorry, Dave, but as Russell says, this really is "too stupid for words."
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 15 2006,13:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,08:01)
                  Simply so that I can demonstrate to you that in both cases -- the watch and the butterfly -- we have been given reports of how they were made.  We just looked at the reports informing us about watchmaking.  And the report for how butterflies are made, of course, is in the Book of Genesis.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Please quote the Genesis  'report for how butterflies are made'.

                  If you can't do that just tell us how they are 'made' now and how the process changed from when the first prototype was constructed from raw materials to the process of 'self manufacture'

                  Did your dust breather create a boy BF first and then a girl one?

                  Tell us all about it AFD since the Book of Genesis describes g$d so perfectly.....

                  1. A male with a hand to hold dust ....so therefore fingers & finger nails an arm a shoulder a circulation and nervous system.

                  2. The ability to breathe .....so lungs a mouth and nose.

                  3. The ability to expend energy.....therefore  a fuel consuming system that requires oxygen, water and food.

                  4. The ability to plan.

                  So please explain how DNA is produced by breathing Oxygen,Nitrogen and CO2 on dirt?
                  Are any tools required?

                  Where did all the water in Adam come from?
                  How quickly or slowly did the conversion of dirt to man by breath occur?
                  Was it one breath? What did g$d do with his other hand?
                  Did g$d have hair? Eyes?

                  Remember this is not a miracle ,you have just stated it is as simple as making a watch, a logical step by step process....you are an engineer AFD ....materials to motors...give us the plan.

                  What size was g$d? smaller than a breadbox or bigger

                  What ethnic group was g$d? Chinese, Egyptian, Turkish, Persian ?

                  What language did g$d speak...he had a tongue and a voice box,  right? Teeth ......did g$d have teeth?



                  Come on AFD everyone is waiting on their tard fix and you are dying for your martyr fix.

                  Are you not the least embarrassed to have an addiction to stupidity at least as bad as Haggart's Meth&Massage addiction?

                  To assist in helping you understand that AFD go outside and get one handful of dust and breathe on it and tell us in your own words what happened when g$d did it.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 15 2006,13:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sorry, Dave, but as Russell says, this really is "too stupid for words."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So why do we continue to check in, even continue posting, on this thread? Isn't it more or less equivalent to laughing at cripples? Or looking for chess opponents in the Alzheimer's ward?

                  It's a question I've raised before, and admit I don't have any really rational reasons. But I suspect it has something to do, at least in my case, with my strong suspicions that DaveThink is what passes for mental function in the dubya-in-chief, and the not insubstantial Christian-Right lunacracy to which he owes his office. And that to just ignore it may be shirking one's civic responsibility, sort of like not reading a newspaper.

                  So, in that spirit, I offer you < this link. >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,13:45

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 15 2006,13:26)
                  So why do we continue to check in, even continue posting, on this thread? Isn't it more or less equivalent to laughing at cripples? Or looking for chess opponents in the Alzheimer's ward?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't think so. Dave is actually not unintelligent. I believe he's capable of learning new things. He's blinded by ideology, which is a different thing.

                  So it's not laughing at someone who is mentally challenged. Dave is the way he is by choice, not by necessity. He chooses to be the way he is.

                  So I don't feel guilty at all by being entertained by Dave's industrial-strength tard. I think on some level he actually realizes he's grasping at straws, and that his arguments don't really make any sense. But he needs to preserve his worldview. That he's been able to do so despite the onslaught his "hypothesis" has been subjected to is definitely something to marvel at.

                  And you have to admit he's fantastically entertaining. Watch factories analogizing to butterfly reproduction! Now that's tard.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 15 2006,13:49

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 15 2006,13:26)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sorry, Dave, but as Russell says, this really is "too stupid for words."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So why do we continue to check in, even continue posting, on this thread? Isn't it more or less equivalent to laughing at cripples? Or looking for chess opponents in the Alzheimer's ward?

                  It's a question I've raised before, and admit I don't have any really rational reasons. But I suspect it has something to do, at least in my case, with my strong suspicions that DaveThink is what passes for mental function in the dubya-in-chief, and the not insubstantial Christian-Right lunacracy to which he owes his office. And that to just ignore it may be shirking one's civic responsibility, sort of like not reading a newspaper.

                  So, in that spirit, I offer you < this link. >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As a lurker and occasional poster, I think you have a point, Russell.  Part of why I continue to read this thread is the insight it gives me into the thought processes of the fundy foot-soldier.  Most of the usual creationist suspects manage to perform some self-censorship, and are able to package their message in a superficially sensible way.  Dave seems to lack the tact, political sense or mental agility to do so.

                  These people are the enemies of civilisation.  Having one to cross-examine can only help defend it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 15 2006,14:14

                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

                  There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

                  They are not analogues of the real thing.

                  They ARE the real thing.

                  ***************************************

                  Do you deny this, Dr. Russell Durbin, professor of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University?

                  If so ... why?  In detail, please.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 15 2006,14:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:14)
                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

                  There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

                  They are not analogues of the real thing.

                  They ARE the real thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  All of those "real things" are specfiically made by humans.  So you are still arguing that butterflies are made by humans.  Is that really what you want to do?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 15 2006,14:30

                  So you're basically saying that a butterfly is also a butterfly factory.
                  I think we're making progess.

                  Now, do "watch factories" reproduce?

                  ???

                  And BTW, do you consider nylonase as a biological machine?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 15 2006,14:34

                  Male and female watches AFD ........you complete twit.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 15 2006,14:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,14:14)
                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

                  There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

                  They are not analogues of the real thing.

                  They ARE the real thing.

                  ***************************************

                  Do you deny this, Dr. Russell Durbin, professor of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University?

                  If so ... why?  In detail, please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They are REAL metaphors, Dave.

                  They are not REAL buildings.  They do not pay REAL utility bills.  They do not have REAL employees.  They do not have REAL managers.  They do not have REAL lunch breaks.  They do not tender REAL bids for the REAL contract in REAL Birmingham.  They do not outsource REAL jobs to REAL Malaysia.  And on and on.

                  As for why Dr. Durbin denies your claim, although I can't speak for him, I'm guessing it's because it's self-evident nonsense.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 15 2006,14:44

                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Almost right.  

                  Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!

                  (As in higher intelligence than human intelligence)

                  ****************************************

                  And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 15 2006,14:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,14:14)
                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

                  There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

                  They are not analogues of the real thing.

                  They ARE the real thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  *steps away slowly*

                  Um...oookaaay Dave...you're off the deep end now, my friend. I can't come along for the ride, but have a good trip, m'kay?

                  Wow.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 15 2006,14:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:44)
                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Almost right.  

                  Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!

                  (As in higher intelligence than human intelligence)

                  ****************************************

                  And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So watches are designed and built by a "higher intelligence than human intelligence"?  Dave, you make less sense with every letter of every post.
                  Posted by: The Ghost of Paley on Dec. 15 2006,14:55

                  Russell:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's a question I've raised before, and admit I don't have any really rational reasons. But I suspect it has something to do, at least in my case, with my strong suspicions that DaveThink is what passes for mental function in the dubya-in-chief, and the not insubstantial Christian-Right lunacracy to which he owes his office. And that to just ignore it may be shirking one's civic responsibility, sort of like not reading a newspaper.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This might be a little harsh towards fundamentalism. I've known atheist "skeptics" who play the Cleopatra role every bit as well as your typical fundie. I've had several tell me that OJ Simpson was an innocent victim of a massive conpiracy, that IQ tests have zero correlation with analytic intelligence, that Dubya collaborated in the WTC attacks, that LBJ planned the Kennedy assassination, that Communism is a sound economic system, and so on. Atheism may not require a prior commitment to irrationality & evidence denial the way that religious fundamentalism does, but a lot of 'em are sure willing to go the extra mile.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 15 2006,14:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,14:14)
                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oxford English Dictionary, Dave:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  factory
                  factory fæ;ktori. Also 6-7 factorie. repr. med.L. factoria, f. factor: see factor sb. The proximate source is uncertain: the word is found in several of the Romanic langs.: Ital. fattoria, Sp. factoría, Pg. feitoria (1551 in the original of our first quot.); Fr. has factorerie (Cotgr. 1611), f. as factor sb. + -erie -ery; also, factorie app. adopted from some foreign lang. In senses 4-5 referred to the type of factorium place or instrument of making (recorded in sense `oil-press';), f. facere to make.

                  1. An establishment for traders carrying on business in a foreign country; a merchant company's trading station.

                     * 1582 N. Lichefield tr. Castanheda's Conq. E. Ind. xxi. 54 b, To the intent hee might remaine in the Factorye with the Factour.

                     * 1613 Purchas Pilgrimage vii. vii. Sect.3. 573 Here [Sofala] the Portugals haue..a Fort and Factorie of very rich Trade.

                     * 1682 Lond. Gaz. No. 1692/1 The total subversion of their Factory at Amoy.

                     * 1701 Charter Soc. Prop. Gospel, The maintenance of clergymen in the Plantations, Colonies and Factories of Great Britain.

                     * 1772 Mad. D'Arblay Early Diary 3 Feb., He is chaplain to the British factory at St. Petersburg.

                     * 1837 W. Irving Capt. Bonneville II. 84 Vancouver..the main factory of the Hudson's Bay Company.

                     * 1861 Pattison Ess. (1889) i. 39 Long before..the Hanse..fixed their factories in Lisbon.

                       fig.

                     * 1641 Milton Ch. Govt. ii. 34 All those that seek to bear themselves uprightly in this their spiritual factory.

                       attrib.

                     * 1804 Valentia Voy. & Trav; (1809) I. vii. 372 The factory-house is a chaste piece of architecture.

                  2. The body of factors in any one place. Obs.

                     * 1702 W. J. Bruyn's Voy. Levant vi. 18 The three Statues were..sent..by the French Factory to Paris.

                     * 1777 W. Dalrymple Trav. Sp. & Port; cxxv, I feasted..with the consul and factory.

                  3.

                  a. The employment, office, or position of a factor; factorship. (Chiefly Sc.: cf. factor sb. 5.) Also, letter of factory.

                     * 1560 in Tytler Hist. Scot. i. xx. (1864) III. 328 No disposition of factorie shall be made by [= contrary to] his advice.

                     * 1594 Sc. Acts Jas. VI (1816) 64 Diuers personis..hes maid dyuerss bandis, obligationis, lettres of factorie.

                     * 1631 T. Powell Tom All Trades 35 The Merchant Royall..comes to his Profession by travaile and Factory.

                     * 1752 G. Brown in Scots Mag. (1753) Nov. 555/2 He..accepted the factory of the estate.

                     * 1869 Act 32-3 Vict. c. 116 Sect.3 A conveyance..for the purposes of such estate or trust, or factory.

                  b. A document investing another with the authority of a factor or agent.

                     * 1640-1 Kirkcudbr. War-Comm. Min. Bk. (1855) 134 The factorie granted be Gilbert Browne of Bagbie to Johne Browne, merchand.

                     * 1676 W. Row Contn. Blair's Autobiog. xii. (1848) 380 He..gaue a factorie to his son-in-law, to go over with Forther and agent that business.

                  4. The action or process of making anything.

                     * 1664 Butler Hud. ii. iii. 864 These reasons..are far from satisfactory, T' establish, and keep up your Factory.

                     * 1678 Butler Hud. iii. ii. 1446 Gain has wonderful Effects, T'improve the Factory of Sects.

                  5.

                  a. A building or range of buildings with plant for the manufacture of goods; a manufactory, workshop; `works'.

                     * 1618 Ussher Let. to Camden 8 June, The Company of Stationers in London are now erecting a Factory for Books and a Press among us here.

                     * 1832 G. R. Porter Porcelain & Gl; 307 The spacious factory of the manufacturer.

                     * 1878 Jevons Prim. Pol. Econ. 63 Somebody must settle whether the factory is to work for..ten..or eight hours a day.

                  b. transf. and fig.

                     * 1618 Middleton Peacemaker Wks. 1886 VIII. 326 Come then to the factory of Peace, thou that desirest to have life.

                     * 1682 Sir T. Browne Chr. Mor. (1716) 21 Our corrupted hearts are the Factories of the Devil, which may be at work without his presence.

                     * 1847 Emerson Poems, Monadnoc Wks. (Bohn) I. 433 Factory of river and of rain; Link in the alps' globe-girding chain.

                     * 1856 Emerson Eng. Traits, Univ. ibid. II. 91 Oxford is a Greek factory.

                     * 1860 O. W. Holmes Prof. Breakf.-t. x. 216 This was no common miss, such as are turned out in scores from the young-lady-factories.

                  c. A prison; a police station. slang.

                     * 1832 in Penguin Bk. Austral. Ballads (1964) 33 But the lass I adore, the lass for me, Is a lass in the Female Factory.

                     * 1874 M. Clarke His Natural Life ii. iii. 91 In the factory-a prison for females-the vilest abuses were committed.

                     * 1891 F. W. Carew No. 747 xxxvi. 426 A stranger..whom a plain-clothes D. from the `Factory' would most assuredly have catalogued as suspicious.

                     * 1938 F. D. Sharpe Sharpe of Flying Squad 330 Factory, the police-station.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Note that of all those definitions and usages, only 5b applies to your 'argument'. (Don't even bother trying to make a case for the archaic usage of Butler (4) as if that's what you were referring to -- your pluralization demonstrates otherwise.) So, any guess at what transf. and fig. mean? Perhaps compare them to "REAL"?

                  Words mean something, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,15:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,14:44)
                  Improv ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Almost right.  

                  Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, here's where your analogy goes right into the toilet.

                  We know for a fact beyond any possibility of doubt, that watch factories, and watches themselves, are designed and built by humans. Do you have any reason to doubt this? Do you think any of his here should doubt that humans, in fact, build watches, and that they build watch factories? Is there any shortage of evidence that this is so? Do you doubt my ability, were I sufficiently motivated, to find someone who actually has worked in a watch factory, or participated in some way with the construction of a watch factory? Do you doubt that I could, with sufficient motivation, come up with photographs of human beings participating in the construction of a watch factory?

                  I hope not, for the sake of your sanity.

                  Now. Do you have any evidence—any evidence whatsoever—that butterflies are made by anything other than other butterflies? No "It's obvious!" or "Come on!" or "it's reasonable to suppose" or "how can you guys not get this?" or "I've already shown evidence that butterflies are not built by butterflies." Do you have any actual evidence that any butterfly any time in the history of the world was ever produced or built by anything other than another butterfly (or, more precisely, two butterflies)?

                  I want actual evidence that you, or anyone else you care to name, has ever witnessed a butterfly being built, or manufactured, or constructed, or even designed, by anything other than another butterfly. I want you to give me some reason to suppose that any butterfly that has ever existed was built by anything other than another butterfly or (if you really want to pick nits) the immediate ancestor of a butterfly.

                  If you can do that, Dave, then you'll have given us some reason to trust your analogy. If you can't, then your analogy is worthless.

                  I still can't believe I have to explain stuff like this to anyone out of diapers, but hey—that's why I keep coming back here.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 15 2006,15:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do you deny this [that there are REAL, not just metaphorical, factories inside cells], Dr. Russell Durbin, professor of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University?

                  If so ... why?  In detail, please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  1. Incorygible and JohnW beat me to it.

                  2. Whatever point you're trying to make, the fact remains:
                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T
                  That's why evolution applies to butterflies, and not to watches. That's why your "watchmaker" story for kids is deceptive.

                  3. I'm not "professor of micro/molecular biology at Ohio State University?". I'm (the considerably less exalted) "Senior Research Scientist" at Columbus Children's Research Institute, which is affiliated with Ohio State University. Part of the job is teaching graduate students in micro/molecular biology. Previously I was Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at a medical school. Having been immersed in this field for more than 3 decades, I daresay my insights into it merit more respect than yours. But I  prefer to be addressed and referred to here just by my first name. If that's all the same with you.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 15 2006,15:44



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This might be a little harsh towards fundamentalism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Russel wasn't being harsh on fundamentalism. He was saying that he feels it's the davethink that's the problem with Bush, NOT his fundamentalism. And I think even afdave would agree that fundy-ism isn't the main problem with the shrub. I think he's a terrorist hooligan.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 15 2006,15:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,14:14)
                  They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

                  There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

                  They are not analogues of the real thing.

                  They ARE the real thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And there are REAL Mack trucks pulling up to the REAL gates to deliver REAL crates and REAL invoices are signed on delivery and the REAL workmen have REAL coffee breaks at 11 and...
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 15 2006,15:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,09:01)
                  Now ... your objections.  Remember, the most effective objections--if you have any--are ones directed at my specific points.  It won't help anyone (and Steve thinks it makes you look bad) to just say stuff like "Dave. You're an idiot."  That's fine if you think that.  But please tell me HOW I'm an idiot and WHY--in detail--my particular statement is idiotic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  O.K. Dave.  I'm game to parse this post at your invitation.  Maybe you'll actually respond.  I think I'll keep my objections to only one point.

                  You first said.....


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here is some "anti"-misinformation stuff to keep the water unmuddy ...

                  1) {snip}

                  2) Understand what I am NOT saying ...

                  a) I am not saying anything about general tests for complexity
                  b) [/b]I am not invoking teleology (purpose in design)[/b] in any way for this argument ... it is not needed
                  c ) Malum asks a good question "How can God not be designed" ... but that is not part of this argument
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you don't want to invoke teleology at all.  No mention, no purpose, just design detection a la ID.  We continue with your next statements....



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE ARGUMENT EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL
                  Clear everything else from your mind and understand this ...

                  1) "WE KNOW ABOUT WATCH DESIGNERS" NOT A VALID OBJECTION.  You already accept that watches are designed.  Why?  Someone said it's because we KNOW something about watch designers.  Yes, you do ... but wait a minute ... HOW do you know about them?  Have you ever met one?  Have you ever been to his factory?  Have you ever watched this process in action?  I doubt it.  You have probably done nothing more than heard or read reports in some form ... a magazine, a book, TV ... whatever.  And ... now here is the key thing.  You accepted the testimony of the reporter ... on faith.  Yes, I said faith.  You put your trust in that reporter or author to give you the truth about how watches are made.  Was it blind faith like some people believe certain religious things?  No.  It was a reasonable faith, grounded in good evidence.  It is reasonable to believe that these reports are true.

                  Now why did we go through this?  

                  Simply so that I can demonstrate to you that in both cases -- the watch and the butterfly -- we have been given reports of how they were made.  We just looked at the reports informing us about watchmaking.  And the report for how butterflies are made, of course, is in the Book of Genesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well Dave.  You didn't take long to counter your own promise to exclude teleology.  Your premise of butterfly design is based upon the Bible.  A truckload of teleology right there.  But you try to back your way out of the words you just typed (maybe using the 'Delete' key isn't known to your typing skills)...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference is ... you feel you have good reason to believe one report, but you feel that you have good reason to doubt the other.  You DO NOT need to accept the report in the Bible for my argument to work.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How can WE not accept the Bible as an explanation when your entire premise is based upon that book.  Your fallacy here is that your entire basis for your point rests upon the Bible account of Genesis.  There is no other reference given, except your own word and you talked about trusting the story teller if you can't see the evidence.  I'm SURE that if you ask the people on this board if they trust you on your word then the answers would resoundly reply "NO!!!"  So if you remove the Bible as your evidence what do you have left to support your whole butterfly analogy?

                  Does that make sense to you?

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 15 2006,16:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:44)
                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Almost right.  

                  Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!

                  (As in higher intelligence than human intelligence)

                  ****************************************

                  And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So watches are to humans using human technology as butterflys are to "higher intelligence"...... using human technology??

                  W-h-a-a-a-a-a-t??

                  Is this really your position Dave?  That the butterfly design used human technology?  Is that the road were on right now?

                  Please elaborate a little.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 15 2006,16:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Does Dave even know what a metaphor is?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,16:38

                  Dave, for your "factory" analogy to gain any traction, you have to prove either one of two things: 1) that it is logically impossible for your little butterfly "factories" to have evolved without the intervention of a "designer" (your strongest possible case); or 2) to show that assuming a "designer" is a more productive way of figuring out how butterflies came to be (a much weaker case).

                  So let's assume you go with 2), since you're never going to be able to show 1). If you try to show 2), you're going to have go a lot further than "a designer must have done it," because that doesn't explain anything at all. It's like a parent saying, "You have to go to bed now because I said so."

                  You need to explain how a designer did it, Dave. Why? Because you claim your "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation than the standard theories. But the standard theories have gone quite some ways towards elucidating how one gets from non-life all the way up to butterflies. At a minimum, the standard theories are a very good explanation for how one gets from the simplest known organisms up to butterflies and beyond. Now, you may think those explanations are unworkable, Dave (and you would of course be wrong, as you always are), but the point is, there is in fact a coherent explanation, that does not require any violations of known natural law, for how life has evolved on earth.

                  Now, what's your explanation for how a designer got from nothing to butterflies, Dave? Do you have any idea as to what mechanisms were used? Do you have any idea as to methodologies in use? What's the nuts-and-bolts explanation for how your "designer" actually implemented its designs? With pixie dust? What was the praxis your putative designer used to come up with butterflies? Did he just "breathe" life into them? Do you think that's any sort of coherent explanation, that can compete with the detailed explanations available through, say, evolutionary development theory? An analysis of how Hox genes lay the foundations of tissue differentiation? Does your "hypothesis" have anything to say about how the genes for different proteins were derived from the genes for earlier proteins, or about how different macroscopic anatomical structures were derived from earlier macroscopic structures? Does your "hypothesis" have the first thing to say about the obvious and clearly-described interrelationships among different taxa? No?

                  I didn't think so.

                  So explain, once again, how your "hypothesis" is an improvement over the standard theories.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 15 2006,16:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HOW do you know about them?  Have you ever met one?  Have you ever been to his factory?  Have you ever watched this process in action?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, yes, and yes.  I have also known a custom watchmaker who made mechanical watches by hand on his workbench.

                  Have you, Dave, ever seen a butterfly maker assembling a butterfly?  

                  I'm still waiting for that tour of the butterfly factory.
                  ;-}>
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,18:30

                  One more point about Dave's "argument from complexity." As usual with Dave, his argument boils down to an "argument from personal incredulity." He simply cannot believe that something as complex as a butterfly (or, presumably, even as complex as a bacterium, or a virus) could have evolved without the intervention of a designer.

                  But note something about Dave's argument. Presumably he has no trouble imagining that an electron, or a hydrogen atom, could have happened without the intervention of a designer? Or maybe not. Maybe everything requires a designer. So then why bother with the watch analogy? If a gluon requires a designer, than why don't you just use gluons, or neutrios, for an example?

                  At any rate, Dave has conceded that below a certain point, objects are not so complex as to imply a designer. So there must be some place where an object becomes complex enough so that it requires a designer. It's not important for now to know where that point is; only to acknowledge that, under Dave's "hypothesis," such a point exists.

                  But there's another point, one Dave would prefer no one mentioned (although Mr. Regnat, among others, has already brought it up). That point is where an object becomes so complex that it no longer needs a designer. God doesn't need a designer, according to Dave.

                  So, according to Dave's "hypothesis," there's a region of complexity within which a designer is required. Below a certain point, no designer is required. Above that point, a designer is also not required.

                  This seems a rather dubious position to take, at least to me. Anyone else?
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 15 2006,18:39

                  Dave,

                  Again, please provide any evidence that assumed complexity proves design or designer.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 15 2006,18:51

                  I had to re-read this thing Dave posted the other day, just to see if it made any sense at all. It doesn't.
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,21:52)
                  Malum ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And, if complexity requires a designer, then the butterfly's designer, being by necessity more complex then the butterfly, would also require a designer.

                  And so on to infinity and beyound ;-}>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I know what you are saying and I agree that it is impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend such a thing as an Uncaused Cause of all things, which is essentially what the Bible describes when it talks about God.  The problem is that to believe the alternative (Chance caused all things) not only presents it's own difficulties, but also requires us to close our eyes to everything that science has taught us.  At least with the Uncaused Cause, we are consistent with science up until the point we hit the Uncaused Cause, at which point, like the Naturalist, we must say ... "We don't understand how this can be."  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I especially like this part:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  With Naturalism, we are not even consistent with the known facts of science -- EVER!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So naturalism, Dave, which is essentially synonymous with science (show me one part of science which does not attempt to find naturalistic, i.e., non-supernatural, explanations for natural phenomena if you can), is not even consistent with the known facts of science. Ever? Or are you using "ever" the way you use the word "no" when you say there are "no" beneficial mutations?

                  You are claiming that science is showing us that supernatural causes are requirements. That non-supernatural mechanisms cannot account for observation. I don't imagine too many scientists, or even non-scientists, would agree with that view.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 15 2006,20:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But note something about Dave's argument. Presumably he has no trouble imagining that an electron, or a hydrogen atom, could have happened without the intervention of a designer? Or maybe not. Maybe everything requires a designer. So then why bother with the watch analogy? If a gluon requires a designer, than why don't you just use gluons, or neutrios, for an example?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ....because Kids would not understand. The analogy is half cocked like the 'opposite of dog is cat'.

                  The whole effect, if not purpose is to remove the ability to reason in the child by making language a nonsense, no test for the truth by the use of language is allowed to make logical sense.

                  Reality for adult Fundies IS nonsense, in that it's description completely lacks all but the most childlike sensory input, they have no real sense of humor or sense of the use of nonsense language to subvert the symbols we use to describe reality as children normally do and thus separate the symbol from the object, for adult Fundies their outlook is almost autistic. They missed an important developmental milestone in their childhood, the use of subjective language to describe objective reality with clear logical distinctions between myth and reality

                  AFD can presumably grok electrons since they are no direct threat to his baby version of reality, however if he were to realize before matter and time existed in the universe 13-14 billion years ago all that existed was pure energy and then the first matter was only muons and then a universe filled only with hydrogen.

                  AFD knows the story that almost every element on earth is the product of exploding stars so his denial is easier by concentrating on subjects he can easily distort, like Biology.

                  His understanding of reality can only ever be at a pre-pubescent autistic level.

                  He does make up for that inadequacy by a rat cunning that understands children's minds.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 15 2006,22:57

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 15 2006,19:30)
                  At any rate, Dave has conceded that below a certain point, objects are not so complex as to imply a designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, I don't think he has.  If he did, I missed it.  I think he's afraid to commit to that one way or another.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 16 2006,03:08

                  Davey,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BABOON DOGS ... THIS CAME FROM AIG ... ON AIG WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT ... MY GUESS IS MID TO LATE JANUARY
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why do you persist in dodging something so simple as the baboon dog BS you yourself posted? AiG didn't come here and post this crap, YOU DID.

                  The "peer reviewed sciency" website you rely on needs months to review this and come up with an answer?

                  The answer is obvious. Pick two fingers Davey.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,04:17

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 15 2006,22:57)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 15 2006,19:30)
                  At any rate, Dave has conceded that below a certain point, objects are not so complex as to imply a designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, I don't think he has.  If he did, I missed it.  I think he's afraid to commit to that one way or another.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, he's at least conceded that there is a line of demarkation between those objects simple enough not to need a designer, and those objects complex enough to require a designer. That looks like what he's saying here:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,09:04)
                  Improv...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

                  "Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very good point.  I personally am not setting about to find out where that line should be drawn, but Dembski and Behe and others are.  I restrict myself to the clear cut comparisons.  IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.

                  I am sure you could provide me some examples of objects which may not be so clear cut and for these we would need a ore rigorous test.  I have little interest in these non-clear cut examples in light of the present debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Dave appears to believe that some objects are simple enough not to need a designer. I'm guessing he thinks anything complex enough to be alive requires a designer. You'll never pin him down on where the line lies, but it's probably somewhere between a quark and a protein.

                  He also seems to believe that some things are complex enough not to need a designer. He'll protest that he simply doesn't know if God required a designer, but if it's true that he doesn't know, than he has to concede it's at least possible God doesn't need a designer; otherwise he would know. Therefore, he has to concede the possibility that some really complex things don't need a designer. If some complex things might not need a designer, then surely less-complex things also might not need a designer either. But Dave will never agree to that, even though it seems to follow naturally from is own beliefs.

                  In any event, he does seem to believe there is a line between objects that are simple enough not to need a designer and objects complex enough to require a designer. On the other hand, if you were to sometime later ask him about whether the laws of nature require a designer, he'd probably say they do, and if that's true, then every single thing in the universe, down to the level of quarks and leptons, requires a designer. Unless God just reused parts he found lying around that he didn't have to invent first. Who knows? Maybe electrons were around before God invented himself.

                  Usually it's a bad sign when your model predicts two mutually-contradictory things. I've pointed this out to Dave before, but he doesn't seem too concerned about it.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 16 2006,05:35

                  The assumption "complexity requires a designer" is completely bogus. It's equivalent to "complexity requires complexity".

                  AFDave, you are uncommonly dense.  :D
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 16 2006,06:47

                  Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 15 2006,18:39)
                  Dave,

                  Again, please provide any evidence that assumed complexity proves design or designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave.......Answer please
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,08:05

                  CELLS ARE REAL, AUTOMATED FACTORIES.  PROTEINS ARE REAL, AUTOMATIC MACHINES ... FAR MORE HI-TECH THAN MAN-MADE EQUIVALENTS.

                  They are not analogous to factories and machines.

                  They are REAL.

                  *************************************************

                  Stephen Wells ... tries to deny this ... No workmen, no trucks, no invoices, etc.
                  JohnW ... tries to deny this ... they are metaphors. No utility bills, etc.
                  Incorygible ... says I'm off the deep end ... posts some pre-20th century "factory" definitions ... asserts that phrases like "Factories of the Devil" is like my argument (??!! )
                  Russell ... dodges the statement and shouts loudly ... "BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T" ... "Besides, I'm way smarter than you"
                  Improvius ... is misreading ... he says "So you are still arguing that butterflies are made by humans."  No, Imrov.  Read it again.  

                  And for the moment, forget that part ... just explain to me why you think cell factories are not real factories. Different, I understand.  More sophisticated, I understand.  No human intervention required, I understand.  System to reproduce itself completely self-contained, I understand.  

                  But NOT a real factory?  Not real machines? This seems like the most foolish thing one could possibly say.

                  **************************************************

                  So I suppose all this means that Stephen Wells and JohnW have never heard of modern factory automation.  I guess they have not noticed that modern factories employ fewer and fewer humans and they are getting more and more automated (like cells already are).  I guess these guys would be surprised to read articles like this one entitled "Fully automated factories approach reality" found here < http://www.automationworld.com/view-220 >.  Russell thinks I'm talking about evolution at the moment which I'm not.  I'm comparing factories in cells (that build things like butterflies) to factories that humans make.  Eric thinks I'm arguing about design, but I'm not at the moment.  Mike PSS is trying to bring the Bible back into the discussion, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.

                  **************************************************
                  I've already given you Bruce Albert's quote in which he says that "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."  Full article here < Cellular Factories >.  He gives no indication whatsoever that he is speaking of fuzzy analogies.  It is clear from the article that cells are REAL factories and contain REAL machines.  He even says "I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines ...".

                  ***************************************************

                  So ... please answer my simple question.

                  "DO YOU DENY THAT CELLS ARE REAL FACTORIES AND THAT PROTEINS ARE REAL MACHINES?  DO YOU DENY THAT THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE AND THEIR MAN-MADE COUNTERPARTS IS LEVEL OF AUTOMATION AND SOPHISTICATION?"

                  Simple "Yes" or "No" to both questions would be uber-great.  If you say "No" please restrict your objections to the SPECIFICS of these particular statements--nothing more.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,08:16

                  Steverino ... that's the next question I plan on answering, but it doesn't make any sense to even answer that until we either agree on biological vs. man-made factories and machines, or see that we will never agree.
                  Posted by: mitschlag on Dec. 16 2006,08:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,08:05)
                  So ... please answer my simple question.

                  "DO YOU DENY THAT CELLS ARE REAL FACTORIES AND THAT PROTEINS ARE REAL MACHINES?  DO YOU DENY THAT THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE AND THEIR MAN-MADE COUNTERPARTS IS LEVEL OF AUTOMATION AND SOPHISTICATION?"

                  Simple "Yes" or "No" to both questions would be uber-great.  If you say "No" please restrict your objections to the SPECIFICS of these particular statements--nothing more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, I deny both assertions.  Is that simple enough?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 16 2006,08:45

                  AFD do male watches have penises and female watches vaginas? Can they reproduce ?

                  JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

                  Your pathetic protests are NEVER going to make Watches and Butterfies EQUIVALENT...cock head.

                  A living creature IS NOT A FACTORY OR A MACHINE.
                  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

                  A FACTORY is a human creation and by definition can not exist  without  input from a living human being.

                  All life on this planet exists without input from a living human being except in trivial exceptions and human reproduction of course.

                  Life does not need a human designed creator.

                  Life just IS....get used to it.


                  IF life is an automatic machine ARE YOU an automatic MACHINE?

                  You are close to saying your g$d is just a mindless machine like a drink dispenser.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 16 2006,08:53

                  Dave, don't you think it would be considerate to answer some of the outstanding questions before you started demanding answers to your own?

                  EDIT: You can also bet I won't be answering your challenge until you've clearly defined what you mean by "factory" and "machine."  I can smell conflation miles ahead.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,09:02

                  Fair enough, yes ... but didn't I just knock out several?  Either with an explanation or "I don't know"?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,09:11

                  No, dave. There is nothing inside a cell that matches any of the definitions of "factory" provided by my dictionary. You want to provide another definition?

                  There are lots of proteins that could be considered "machines" by either of these definitions:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Webster 7th New Collegiate:)
                  1e(1) an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner
                  and
                  2a a living organism or one of its functional systems
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  but I don't see "the key difference between [proteins] and their man-made counterparts is level of automation and sophistication".

                  But, as all of this seems quite beside the point, let me just take this opportunity to remind you that
                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T
                  so when do you propose to stop using this deceptive analogy?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 16 2006,09:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,09:05)
                  Improvius ... is misreading ... he says "So you are still arguing that butterflies are made by humans."  No, Imrov.  Read it again.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, you keep saying that butterflies contain real examples of human technology.  What else should I think?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 16 2006,09:16



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  've already given you Bruce Albert's quote in which he says that "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."  Full article here Cellular Factories.  He gives no indication whatsoever that he is speaking of fuzzy analogies.  It is clear from the article that cells are REAL factories and contain REAL machines.  He even says "I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines ...".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, see the part that says "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory".  The can be viewed as means he's making an ANALOGY to human factories.  Just how dense can you get?

                  Cells are only 'factories' in the broadest sense of 'an entity that produces a product.'  THAT'S ALL DAVE.  The rest of your spew is the same old worthless argument from personal incredulity, with a little equivocation throw in for good measure.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 16 2006,09:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I've already given you Bruce Albert's quote in which he says that "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." Full article here Cellular Factories.  He gives no indication whatsoever that he is speaking of fuzzy analogies.  It is clear from the article that cells are REAL factories and contain REAL machines.  He even says "I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines ...".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  can be viewed as  a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."


                  AFD WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT viewed as?

                  That is a point of view....... an analogy

                  dictionary.com
                  1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

                  5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.  



                  similarity IS NOT IDENTICAL OR THE SAME

                  1. the state of being similar; likeness resemblance.  
                  2. an aspect, trait, or feature like or resembling another or another's: a similarity of diction.  


                  AFD said cells are REAL factories

                  yeah AFD sure ....the kids will swallow that if you keep repeating it as though it were fact.

                  fix that statement to this and it would be correct


                  cells are REAL and have similarities to factories OR resemble factories BUT ARE NOT ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE HUMAN MADE FACTORY.


                  You're losing it AFD. Take the red pill.

                  logic is not your strong point is it?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 16 2006,09:21

                  bah ......beaten by OA while (de)composing.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,10:12

                  This is the strangest thing I've ever seen ...

                  College educated science guys--some of them with advanced degrees--who DENY that cells are literal, actual factories that have thousands of real, actual machines that produce all kinds of real, literal physical structures, chemicals and other real, literal products to make the cell operate successfully.

                  What is a factory if not that?

                  Are you telling me that if Toyota achieved enough sophistication to eliminate all their factory workers, that their factories would no longer be a factories?

                  Are you telling me that if manufacturing became so sophisticated that we could actually store the plan within each manufactured object and enable those objects to manufacture duplicates of themselves simply by giving them access to the raw materials for assembly--if our 21st century technology could achieve this, then you are telling me that these smart products would not be a factory in themselves?

                  What are you guys thinking?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 16 2006,10:24

                  It's starting to become sad.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,10:35

                  Dave, even if it were true that cells are factories that contain machines (and until you define what you mean by "factories" and "machines," how can anyone even say? since your definition clearly doesn't match the dictionary definitions), so what? Is your argument going to be "since cells are factories containing machines, they therefore must have been created by a designer"? I don't think that's going to fly.

                  Everyone here can smell this from a mile away. You're going to say "cells are factories containing machines, and since factories and machines (real factories and machines? is that what you're going to say?) were made by humans, therefore cells must have been made by a designer.

                  Why is this not true, Dave? For the same reason Russell's been trying to pound into your head for four days now: cells reproduce. Factories don't reproduce. Do you understand the distinction between "producing" and "reproducing"? They're fundamentally different concepts, and you're trying to conflate them.

                  That's not going to work any better than your watch "analogy" (which is the only analogy I've ever seen anyone try to construct based on a "difference," rather than a similarity).
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,10:41

                  Knowing what I now know about some scientists, I can see more clearly now the wisdom of the AIG and DI strategy ...

                  (which is not what you think it is)

                  (which is why you think they are losing)

                  (and I'm glad you haven't recognized what that strategy is)
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 16 2006,10:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,08:05)
                  Incorygible ... says I'm off the deep end ... posts some pre-20th century "factory" definitions ... asserts that phrases like "Factories of the Devil" is like my argument (??!! )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, that's the current OED I quoted for you. Can you even read a dictionary? Do you even know why it quotes "pre-20th century" usages? Can you point to ANY OED definition of "factory" which your argument meets, aside from the FIGURATIVE, TRANSFERRED USE exemplified by things like "factories of the devil"? You think "cellular factory" has a literal meaning outside your own head -- point to the accepted literal definition that fits, big guy.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,10:56

                  DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)

                  * A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function

                  * A factory is simply a coordinated grouping of machines working together to produce a suite of products and/or services

                  * Biological Reproduction is nothing more than super high tech manufacturing in which the "widget production machinery" is integrated into the product itself.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,11:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What are you guys thinking?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We're thinking that you're ranting, and we're wondering what point you're trying to make.

                  I have the feeling we could go on indefinitely with:
                  "They are SO real, literal, actual factories"
                  "Not according to my dictionary"
                  "They are SO real, literal, actual factories"
                  "Not according to my dictionary"
                  "They are SO real, literal, actual factories"
                  ...

                  And we'd never get to your point.

                  So I'm going to switch gears, just a little, and refocus on why your cute little "Watchmaker" cartoon is deceptive.

                  It states "the doctors from Oxford say cells came from chance".  That is wrong. No doctors from Oxford, or anywhere else I'm aware of say that. I might forgive it as sort of "poetic license", but in light of the hyper-literal stance you're insisting on with all this "REAL factories, REAL machines" nonsense, I'm afraid you've waived any appeal to the "poetic license" defense.

                  You are deliberately misrepresenting the "educated and intelligent" community to your captive kid audience, in an attempt to recruit them into your anti-intellectual crusade.

                  The key elements of evolution, as we have hammered home countless times in this discussion, are:

                  VARIATION (Random mutation, "chance")
                  ***AND***
                  SELECTION (very much NOT random, NOT chance)
                  acting on
                  REPRODUCING ORGANISMS

                  No one thinks evolution applies in any case without the combination of all three of these components.

                  Does your cartoon reflect that? No. It pretends that those "doctors from Oxford" have considered only "chance". It never hints at the concept of SELECTION, or the key difference between "creatures" that reproduce, and those that don't.

                  [Also, as long as we're being hyper-literal: where in a cell can I find "electrical cable"?]

                  The other place I think your little presentation is dishonest, deceptive, and disgracefully anti-intellectual is in the "more information" page. The author poses the question "where can I learn more about the intricacies and complexities of all life", and answers thus:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Some excellent books are Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny, both by Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, and Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, a biochemist. Answers magazine is an excellent quarterly periodical designed for families and always has good articles on the wonders of nature. It is from Answers in Genesis International and has a special section just for kids. Visit www.answersingenesis.org for more information. Acts and Facts is a free monthly publication from the Institute for Creation Research and has very interesting articles. Visit www.icr.org for more information. Other good sources of Creationist information are www.creationscience.com and www.trueorigins.org.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Long discredited, outdated books, websites that push the most transparently, absurd nonsense [chromosome fusion, baboon dogs, radiometric dating...] debunked by the most basic understanding of biology, geology, physics...

                  You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Dec. 16 2006,11:08

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:56)
                  DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)

                  * A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function

                  * A factory is simply a coordinated grouping of machines working together to produce a suite of products and/or services

                  * Biological Reproduction is nothing more than super high tech manufacturing in which the "widget production machinery" is integrated into the product itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, much like you do not get to to make up the "REAL" claims of scientific theories "off the top of your head", and much like you don't get to make up the "REAL" significance of empirical results (1%!;) "off the top of your head", you do not get to make up the "REAL" definitions of words "off the top of your head". Sorry. But welcome to the world of rational communication.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,11:10

                  WIKIPEDIA MACHINES

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Machine
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                     This article is about devices that perform tasks. For other uses, see Machine (disambiguation).

                  Wind turbines
                  Enlarge
                  Wind turbines

                  The scientific definition of a machine is any device that transmits or modifies energy. In common usage, the meaning is restricted to devices that perform or assist in performing useful work. It normally requires some energy source ("input") and accomplishes some sort of work.

                  People have used mechanisms and machines to amplify their abilities since before written records were available. Generally these devices decrease the amount of force required to do a given amount of work, alter the direction of the force, or transform one form of motion or energy into another.

                  The mechanical advantage of a simple machine is the ratio between the force it exerts on the load and the input force applied. This does not entirely describe the machine's performance, as force is required to overcome friction as well. The mechanical efficiency of a machine is the ratio of the actual mechanical advantage (AMA) to the ideal mechanical advantage (IMA). Functioning physical machines are always less than 100% efficient.

                  Modern power tools, automated machine tools, and human-operated power machinery complicate the definition of "machine" greatly. Machines used to transform heat or other energy into mechanical energy are known as engines.

                  Hydraulics devices may also be used to support industrial applications namely, heavy equipment industries, automobile industries, marine industries, aeronautical industries, construction equipment industries, earthmoving equipment industries.

                  [edit] Types of machine
                  Types of Machine Simple machines Inclined plane, Wheel and axle, Lever, Pulley, Wedge, Screw
                  Mechanical components Gear, Rope, Spring, Wheel, Axle, Bearings, Belts, Seals, Roller chains, Link chains, Rack and pinion, Fastener, Key (lock)
                  Clock Atomic clock, Chronometer, Pendulum clock, Quartz clock
                  Compressors and Pumps Archimedes screw, Eductor-jet pump, Hydraulic ram, Pump, Tuyau, Vacuum pump
                  Heat engines External combustion engines Steam engine, Stirling engine
                  Internal combustion engines Reciprocating engine, Wankel engine, Jet engine, Rocket, gas turbine
                  Linkages Pantograph, Peaucellier-Lipkin
                  Turbine Gas turbine, Jet engine, Steam turbine, Water turbine, Wind generator, Windmill (Air turbine)
                  Airfoil Sail, Wing, Rudder, Flap, Propeller
                  Electronic machines Computing machines Calculator, Computer, Analog computer
                  Electronics Transistor, Diode, Capacitor, Resistor, Inductor

                  Biological machines Virus, Bacterium, Cell (biology), Plant and animal, DNA computers, Human being, The Mind

                  Miscellaneous Robot, Vending machine, Wind tunnel

                  [edit] References

                    1. Oberg, Erik, Franklin D. Jones, Holbrook L. Horton, and Henry H. Ryffel (2000). ed. Christopher J. McCauley, Riccardo Heald, and Muhammed Iqbal Hussain: Machinery's Handbook, 26th edition, New York: Industrial Press Inc.. ISBN 0-8311-2635-3.
                  < Machines >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  BIOLOGICAL MACHINES!  Right there in with all the other, NON-biological machines!

                  Hmmmm ...

                  (Nothing about analogous in there, see? )
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 16 2006,11:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:56)
                  * A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  what useful function does AIDS perform then?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,11:24

                  The Future of Industrial Automation

                  Article From automation.com

                  Brief Summary:

                     * The Since the turn of the century, the global recession has affected most businesses, including industrial automation.
                     * Because of the relatively small production volumes and huge varieties of applications, industrial automation typically utilizes new technologies developed in other markets.
                     * Automation companies tend to customize products for specific applications and requirements. So the innovation comes from targeted applications, rather than any hot, new technology.

                  Over the past few decades, some innovations have indeed given industrial automation new surges of growth:

                     * The programmable logic controller (PLC) –designed to replace relay-logic; it generated growth in applications where custom logic was difficult to implement and change.
                     * The PLC was a lot more reliable than relay-contacts, and much easier to program and reprogram.
                     * Growth was rapid in automobile test-installations, which had to be re-programmed often for new car models. The PLC has had a long and productive life and (understandably) has now become a commodity.
                     * Mini-computers replaced large central mainframes in central control rooms, and gave rise to "distributed" control systems (DCS). These were not really "distributed" because they were still relatively large clumps of computer hardware and cabinets filled with I/O connections.
                     * The arrival of the PC brought low-cost PC-based hardware and software, which provided DCS functionality with significantly reduced cost and complexity.
                     * The plethora of manufacturing software solutions and services will yield significant results, but all as part of other systems.
                     * Innovation and technology can and will reestablish growth in industrial automation.
                     * The automation industry does NOT extrapolate to smaller and cheaper PLCs, DCSs, and supervisory control and data acquisition systems; those functions will simply be embedded in hardware and software. Instead, future growth will come from totally new directions.

                  New Technology Directions

                     * Industrial automation can and will generate explosive growth with technology related to new inflection points:

                  * nanotechnology and nanoscale assembly systems
                     * MEMS and nanotech sensors (tiny, low-power, low-cost sensors) which can measure everything and anything; and the pervasive Internet, machine to machine (M2M) networking.
                     * Real-time systems will give way to complex adaptive systems and multi-processing. The future belongs to nanotech, wireless everything, and complex adaptive systems.


                  The Automated factory

                     * Automated factories and processes are too expensive to be rebuilt for every modification and design change so they have to be highly configurable and flexible.
                     * To successfully reconfigure an entire production line or process requires direct access to most of its control elements – switches, valves, motors and drives – down to a fine level of detail.
                     * The vision of fully automated factories has already existed for some time now
                     * The promise of remote-controlled automation is finally making headway in manufacturing settings and maintenance applications.
                     * Communications support of a very high order is now available for automated processes: lots of sensors, very fast networks, quality diagnostic software and flexible interfaces – all with high levels of reliability and pervasive access to hierarchical diagnosis and error-correction advisories through centralized operations.
                     * The factory of the future will be small, movable (to where the resources are, and where the customers are).

                  Hard Truths about Globalization

                     * Innovation is the true source of value, and that is in danger of being dissipated – sacrificed to a short-term search for profit, the capitalistic quarterly profits syndrome. Countries like Japan and Germany will tend to benefit from their longer-term business perspectives.

                  The Winning Differences

                     * In a global market, there are three keys that constitute the winning edge:
                     * Proprietary products: developed quickly and inexpensively (and perhaps globally), with a continuous stream of upgrade and adaptation to maintain leadership.
                     * High-value-added products: proprietary products and knowledge offered through effective global service providers, tailored to specific customer needs.
                     * Global yet local services: the special needs and custom requirements of remote customers must be handled locally, giving them the feeling of partnership and proximity.

                  To read the original article please click:

                  < ]http://www.automation.com/sitepages/pid1757.php[/quote] >

                  < The Future of Automation >
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 16 2006,11:25



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Could you define design as well? And more particularly could you tell us where the design for the watch in your analogy came from, and what this tells us about where the design for the butterfly came from?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,11:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:56)
                  DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)

                  * A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function

                  * A factory is simply a coordinated grouping of machines working together to produce a suite of products and/or services

                  * Biological Reproduction is nothing more than super high tech manufacturing in which the "widget production machinery" is integrated into the product itself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, is the sun a factory? It's a "coordinated grouping of machines (hydrogen atoms) working together to produce a suite of products and/or services (electromagnetic energy)." How is a sun any less a factory than a coal-fired powerplant? Or maybe you're saying a coal-fired powerplant is not a factory?

                  Is a volcano a machine? It certainly consumes energy (geothermal heat) and produces a product (many products, actually, and don't say they're not useful, unless you say soil is not a useful product).

                  Is the earth itself a factory? It consumes energy and certainly produces useful products.

                  What's your point, Dave? I already know what your point is: a living organism is a factory containing machines, and therefore must have been designed.

                  Ain't gonna wash, junior. Over and above proving that living organisms are factories containing machines, you need to prove that factories (even factories that are capable of reproduction, as distinct from production) necessarily require a "designer."

                  And just so you know, Dave: your "argument" already failed, 150 years ago. What new evidence do you now possess that will rescue this failed argument?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,12:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:41)
                  Knowing what I now know about some scientists, I can see more clearly now the wisdom of the AIG and DI strategy ...

                  (which is not what you think it is)

                  (which is why you think they are losing)

                  (and I'm glad you haven't recognized what that strategy is)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And what exactly is that strategy, Dave? To lie persuasively enough so that they can get people to believe a falsehood?

                  The only people AiG and the DI are persuading are people (like you) too ignorant to be qualified to hold a meaningful opinion on the subjects at hand. You'll note the lack of progress either organization has made in persuading people (scientists) who have the knowledge and training to actually hold a qualified opinion on the subjects at hand.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,12:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,11:24)
                  The Future of Industrial Automation

                  Article From automation.com
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is there a point to this post, Dave? To demonstrate that since humans are learning how to make really teeny machines, God must also know how to make really teeny machines?

                  Well, since you're clearly convinced God knows how to make really teeny machines, would you care to enlighten us as to how God makes those really teeny machines? I mean, we know how humans make them; or are you claiming now that we don't really know, we're just taking what journalists are telling us on faith, and we don't really know how humans make them?

                  That's got to be one of the strangest arguments you've ever made, Dave, and believe me, the competition is stiff.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 16 2006,12:50

                  Davey says,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BIOLOGICAL MACHINES!  Right there in with all the other, NON-biological machines!

                  Hmmmm ...

                  (Nothing about analogous in there, see? )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You did click on the Biological machines link right Davey? You did read the linked page right Davey? Did the linked page mention machines anywhere Davey? Hmmm? You read the Degenerate Mutant Dogs page with comprehension too, eh?

                  Try harder stud!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,13:00

                  Dave, dave, dave. Weren't you the one who was accusing someone else of confusing things by posting massive volumes of irrelevant stuff?

                  Focus, Dave. FOCUS.

                  How does any of this last dave-dump help you with the following facts (now stop me if you've actually absorbed any of this:)

                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T

                  Evolution applies specifically, exclusively (and, I might add ineluctably) to organisms that reproduce.  The notion that at some time, on some planet, some beings could conceivably (I guess?) make watches that reproduce is completely irrelevant.

                  In addition to the reproduction requirement, evolution requires, yes, chance genetic variation, and selection. Of these three essential elements, your little cartoon mentions exactly one: "chance".

                  This target audience of this cartoon is kids, the audience most vulnerable to slick word games and deceitful sales pitches.

                  What do you have to say for yourself?

                  [edit] I was going to ask about other "factories" and "machines" like volcanoes, hurricanes and such, but Eric beat me to it while the board software was munching on my earlier draft.

                  As for the AiG and DI "strategy". Is part of that strategy the defeats suffered in the court case in Dover, the subsequent school board election defeat in Dover, last month's school board election defeats in Kansas and Ohio and the ouster of Christian Right warriors like Rick Santorum? Will we come to see these as "brilliant sacrifices" when the Forces of Dumb triumph and get to write the history of the conflict?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 16 2006,13:02

                  Hey, Davey, what about speciation in watches? Did they diversify into millions of models after the flood?
                  :p
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 16 2006,14:09

                  Dave,

                  It's actually amusing to watch you build a strawman.

                  Now, cut to the chase and provide the evidence/proof that assumed complexity proves design.

                  You can save us alot of time reading your run around BS and answer the question.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,14:26

                  What's amusing is to watch grown men -- scientists, in fact -- squirm and dodge and hide from one of the most obvious facts to be uncovered by the molecular biological revolution -- that cells are not just blobs of goo ...

                  ... they are factories full of exquisite machines!

                  I understand ... to admit this would be to give up your prized religious philosophy (Naturalism).

                  And this you will never do.

                  ***************************************

                  "The Doctors from Oxford DO say cells came by chance."

                  True statement.

                  Ayala ... "... mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, ..."

                  Crow ... "My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. "

                  ************************************

                  So my poem line is correct ...

                  "The Doctors from Oxford DO say cells came by chance."

                  *************************************

                  Eric ... The sun and the earth as factories ... sure ... not as similar a comparison though as watches and cells.

                  Can you figure out why?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,14:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,10:56)
                  DAVE'S DEFINITIONS (Off the top of my head)

                  * A machine is the obvious definition -- simply a highly specific arrangement of parts which consume energy and perform some useful function

                  * A factory is simply a coordinated grouping of machines working together to produce a suite of products and/or services
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can a factory also be a machine, Dave? Are they interchangeable? I would think that a "factory" would have to produce a "product." What about a muscle cell? Is a muscle cell a machine, or a factory? As far as I can tell, a muscle cell doesn't produce any actual "product." Sure, it combines with other muscle cells to perform work, but "performing work" is generally the job of a machine, not a factory. Factories generally produce products, not services. Can you think of a factory that produces a service?

                  I think your analogy is breaking down even at this level.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 16 2006,14:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
                  Eric ... The sun and the earth as factories ... sure ... not as similar a comparison though as watches and cells.

                  Can you figure out why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  this aint kids4lies camp for 8 year olds you know davey.
                  Speak like you are speaking to fully grown people (scientists no less, remember?).
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 16 2006,14:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
                  dodge and hide from one of the most obvious facts to be uncovered by the molecular biological revolution -- that cells are not just blobs of goo ...

                  ... they are factories full of exquisite machines!

                  I understand ... to admit this would be to give up your prized religious philosophy (Naturalism).

                  And this you will never do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  oh, yes, the revolution in molecular biology brought about by hardworking YEC's, Intelligent Design Theorists, Creation labs like Biologic Institute and well funded groups like AIG.

                  For a moment there I thought you were serious.

                  People used to think cells were blobs of goo.
                  People used to think the sun went round the earth.
                  People used to think death was brought by bad smells.
                  People used to think that rational argument could potentially lead to changes in points of view. Until they read this thead anyway.
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 16 2006,15:55

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 16 2006,14:42)
                  People used to think death was brought by bad smells.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I was eating vindaloo and dupiaza last night and drinking many Double Diamonds.

                  There was a very bad smell this morning and I thought I was going to die.

                  I think I just presented more evidence than Davie has in both threads!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,16:06

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can a factory also be a machine, Dave? Are they interchangeable? I would think that a "factory" would have to produce a "product." What about a muscle cell? Is a muscle cell a machine, or a factory? As far as I can tell, a muscle cell doesn't produce any actual "product." Sure, it combines with other muscle cells to perform work, but "performing work" is generally the job of a machine, not a factory. Factories generally produce products, not services. Can you think of a factory that produces a service?

                  I think your analogy is breaking down even at this level.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's not an analogy.  Most people don't talk about factories as machines.  They talk about factories as collections of coordinated machines.  And this is precisely what a cell is.  But not only is a muscle cell a factory containing many tiny machines to make the muscle cell do its job ... it is also a higher order machine itself.  So yes, a muscle cell factory which contains all those little nano-manipulators--proteins--is also itself a higher order machine, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the muscle.

                  Pretty nifty stuff, huh!
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 16 2006,16:22

                  i'm deeply impressed.

                  Have you got the phone number of this bloke? I've got a drive that needs looking at, last bloke was a right cowboy. Could do with some nano-manipulation no doubt. Where's it mention nanobots in the bibble then davey? :)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,16:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
                  What's amusing is to watch grown men -- scientists, in fact -- squirm and dodge and hide from one of the most obvious facts to be uncovered by the molecular biological revolution -- that cells are not just blobs of goo ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, do you have any conception of when it was that scientists discovered that cells are not just "blobs of goo"? Do you think this something recently discovered, in like the last 30 years or something?

                  Microscopes have had the ability to resolve structures like mitochondria, chloroplasts, or golgi complexes, since the 19th century. Scientists have known at least since then that cells are extremely complex. Did that make them say, "Gee, these things look just like little factories! They must have been designed by God!" Um, not exactly. So why should we think the same thing now?

                  And it might be a good idea to come up with an answer to Steverino's question: what evidence do you have that complexity requires design? You haven't even begun to present any such evidence other than to say, gee some complicated things were designed, so therefore all complicated things must be designed—well, except for God. He might not have been designed.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... they are factories full of exquisite machines!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, an inclined plane is a "machine." Does that mean a hillside must have been designed?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The Doctors from Oxford DO say cells came by chance."

                  True statement.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, to paraphrase ExpertLinguistDave, Cells = chance + selection + reproduction + other factors. You left out a few terms.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala ... "... mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, ..."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really, Dave? I thought "genetic variation" was the source of all "genetic variation." But in any event, I thought you disagreed with this. We've been telling you all along that mutation is the raw material of evolution, which is then winnowed through natural selection. Are you now telling us you believed this all along?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow ... "My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Once again, Dave, are you agreeing with these statements or disagreeing with them?

                  Or maybe you're claiming everyone thinks that mutations all by themselves are sufficient to drive evolution. If that's what you think, you've been even more inattentive here than anyone would have suspected.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So my poem line is correct ...

                  "The Doctors from Oxford DO say cells came by chance."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nope. That's like saying, I got all the way from San Francisco to Hawaii just by getting out of bed. Sure, I had to get out of bed first, but it took a bit more than that. Are you familiar with the turn of phrase, "necessary but not sufficient?"

                  Or maybe you're just babbling. I thought you thought that was supposed to be my job.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... The sun and the earth as factories ... sure ... not as similar a comparison though as watches and cells.

                  Can you figure out why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, Dave, I can. You've broadened the definition of "factory" and "machine" to the point that they've lost meaning. You've done the same thing with "fundamentalism." You've broadened it to the point where you could describe Mahatma Ghandi as a "fundy."

                  But what's your point, Dave? If you think you can construct a syllogism that "factories require design; living organisms are factories; therefore living organisms require design," you're wrong. Why?

                  FACTORIES DO NOT REPRODUCE.

                  Do stars reproduce, Dave? How about planets?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,16:30

                  So davy. Let me get this straight. You think this:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala ... "... mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, ..."

                  Crow ... "My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  is exactly equivalent to    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Cells came from chance"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Because, if that's really your position, once again all I can say is

                  too stupid for words.

                  You really think that the omission of those other little details from your story (you know, reproduction and selection) is an honest representation of "evolutionists" (a.k.a. the < intelligent, educated segment of culture >)? If so, I may have to add:

                  too dishonest for words.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 16 2006,16:34

                  The funnier is that AFDave clearly admits that butterflies evolve, but it doesn't bother him at all. Butterflies are like watches.

                  Do watches evolve, Davey?  :)
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 16 2006,16:48

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 16 2006,14:32)
                   Factories generally produce products, not services. Can you think of a factory that produces a service?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sure. A university.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think your analogy is breaking down even at this level.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Might read better as:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think your delusion is holding up even at this level.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (I don't know how to do the strikeout thing)

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ --,--)
                  ...yes, a muscle cell factory which contains all those little nano-manipulators--proteins--is also itself a higher order machine, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the muscle
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the toe, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the foot, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the leg, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the body, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the community, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the society, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the species, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the biosphere, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the planet, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the solar system, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the galaxy, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the universe, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--God! I get it now! Wow, Davey, have you been in on this all along?  

                  I love long sentences. I'm going to try one here: If you consider that space and time are rushing out into something that is neither space nor time in a giant shock wave of orgasmic release; that from a singularity which could aptly be referred to as an idea, all the particles are born, eventually to be cooked in star ovens where they will become the wonderful cakes and pastries of planets and ultimately life; that if you are traveling the speed of light and you hold up a mirror, you can’t see yourself because you haven’t happened yet; that these are frightening thoughts because we are so small and helpless in the face of this awesome and terrible reality, then you begin to see that a god that can exist within these bounds, that can hold our hand as our parent should have when we were frightened children, that is big enough to be able to protect us as a powerful king should, that is not so big he isn’t concerned with us,   whether this god is a fancy is unimportant, this god must be there because we simply couldn’t bear it if it weren’t true

                  Is the opposite of a university a church? What about religious universities?

                  Dave, can you hear the ocean without a seashell?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,17:01

                  Oh and dave. I'm just back from a session at my microscope, and I still can't find anything that corresponds, even remotely, even metaphorically, to "electrical cable", which you assure the kids they'll find in cells if they look hard enough.

                  If there's anyone who can help me with this problem, surely it's Electrical Engineer turned Biology Educator AFDave.

                  So, how about it, dave? What's the "electrical cable" in a cell? Or is that something known only to "Creation scientists" - yet to be discovered in the reality-based community?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,17:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,16:06)
                  It's not an analogy.  Most people don't talk about factories as machines.  They talk about factories as collections of coordinated machines.  And this is precisely what a cell is.  But not only is a muscle cell a factory containing many tiny machines to make the muscle cell do its job ... it is also a higher order machine itself.  So yes, a muscle cell factory which contains all those little nano-manipulators--proteins--is also itself a higher order machine, which in turn is part of yet another higher order machine--the muscle.

                  Pretty nifty stuff, huh!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It is an analogy, Dave. You're analogizing between a human artifact, i.e., a factory or a machine, with a biological construct. It's just a freaking metaphor, for crying out loud! You have the same literalism fungus that any fundy has. It's why you believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

                  So what's the point of the analogy, Dave? Where are you going with it? Because you already know you're not going to get anywhere with your argument that because organisms are "factories," or "machines," that they therefore must have been designed.

                  Because there's a tiny little problem with your analogy, Dave. Neither factories nor machines reproduce. Whether you think that "reproduction" is merely "production" that happens inside a factory or not, your analogy is fatally flawed because neither factories nor machines are subject to selective pressure. There is nothing about a real factory or a real machine that in any way analogizes to how organism reproduces. Do you know of any factory that manufactures other factories, Dave? Are you aware of any machine that manufactures copies of itself?

                  No? Imagine my surprise.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,17:08

                  The Doctors from Oxford say ...

                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"

                  Sorry you don't like to face what you really believe.

                  ***************************************

                  Nerve cells have electrical cables, Russell ..

                  ***************************************

                  I'll tell you what ... we'll spend next week having a refresher course on biological machines ...

                  What do you say?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 16 2006,17:08

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 16 2006,16:28)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,14:26)
                  What's amusing is to watch grown men -- scientists, in fact -- squirm and dodge and snort meth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...      
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala ... "... mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, ..."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really, Dave? I thought "genetic variation" was the source of all "genetic variation." But in any event, I thought you disagreed with this. We've been telling you all along that mutation is the raw material of evolution, which is then winnowed through natural selection. Are you now telling us you believed this all along?
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Crow ... "My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. "
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Once again, Dave, are you agreeing with these statements or disagreeing with them?...
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... The sun and the earth as factories ... sure ... not as similar a comparison though as watches and cells. Can you figure out why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, Dave, I can. You've broadened the definition of "factory" and "machine" to the point that they've lost meaning. You've done the same thing with "fundamentalism." You've broadened it to the point where you could describe Mahatma Ghandi as a "fundy."
                  But what's your point, Dave? If you think you can construct a syllogism that "factories require design; living organisms are factories; therefore living organisms require design," you're wrong. Why?

                  FACTORIES DO NOT REPRODUCE.

                  Do stars reproduce, Dave? How about planets?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (Do they recycle?)

                  I love that dave has never mentioned his founders bit after he pointed out that, by "fundy" of course, he meant "Western European" and "Not religious necessarily" and "possibly quite in contempt of those who believe in the virgin birth and literal genesis and the divinity of christ".
                  What was your point again Dave? That the founders weren't "christian" but that they used the word to describe a culture? I forgot. I think I was laughing too hard.

                  Dave, you have c&p'd the word meiosis more than once. I'm curious, Do you know what it means?
                  Posted by: jupiter on Dec. 16 2006,17:30

                  AgletFabulistDave, you're defining the words "machine" and "complexity" so broadly that they've lost all meaning. Which can't be intentional, since that would indicate that you've A) decided to abandon all pretense of making a rational argument, B) completely lost your bottle, B) begun a pathetic attempt at typing in tongues, C) not only lost your bottle but smashed it against the bridge pilings and danced upon the shards, or E) any and/or all of the above.  

                  But then again -- you can determine, simply through your own powers of discernment, when your favored translation of the Bible is meant to be taken literally (Genesis 1:1-Revelations 22:21, except as noted) or figuratively (e.g., Ezekiel 26:14-21; additional citations provided only after posters here have deployed enough historical, scholarly, documentary, anthropological, geological, scatological, and Google-Maps information to bludgeon you into a weaselly half-admission, which leaves said posters feeling both exhausted by the effort and diminished by the result, as if they'd just spent 90 minutes cornering a possum in a suburban garage).

                  So odd that you have such a hard time understanding metaphors.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

                  'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

                  'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

                  Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

                  'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

                  'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

                  'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

                  'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

                  'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

                  'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

                  (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 16 2006,17:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,17:08)
                  The Doctors from Oxford say ...

                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What about selection?

                  You can't learn anything, can you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 16 2006,17:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,17:08)
                  The Doctors from Oxford say ...

                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"

                  Sorry you don't like to face what you really believe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, sorry to say it, but you're a lying bastard.

                  No scientist anywhere says cells are created by chance all by itself. Do you even read other peoples' posts? You've been corrected on this at least three times just in the past few hours, and it's like you complete ignore that fact. No one—NO ONE—claims that cells are created purely by mutations.

                  But once again, Dave is trying to tell us what we believe.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nerve cells have electrical cables, Russell ..
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Electrical signals do not propagate along axons through metallic conductors.  They're not "cables" in any sense of the term, unless you think a bathtub full of salt water is a "cable."



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'll tell you what ... we'll spend next week having a refresher course on biological machines ...

                  What do you say?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I say, maybe you should learn something—anything—about biology before you think you're going to teach actual biology Ph.Ds biology, Dave.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 16 2006,17:49

                  Dave, no one here needs no freaking course on "biological machines", especially from a middle-age YEC like you.

                  We want some positive evidence for you *cough* hypothesis, not just some "woa, it looks designed to me".

                  Let's have some fun, teach us "post flood ecology" instead. What did all those carnivorous "kinds" eat after they got off the Arch?  :p
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,17:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I notice that, in not being able to actually address the question, you have resorted to the nonverbal equivocation " => ".  What's " => " supposed to mean? Is that as close as you come to admitting that you're wrong? It sure as he11 does nothing to salvage any pretense of honesty your little cartoon might have hoped to get away with.

                  Let me be clear. Your strawman characterization of the mainstream science position is intentionally, knowingly deceitful, and your pretending otherwise in indoctrinating impressionable young minds is reprehensible.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nerve cells have electrical cables, Russell ..
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh do they indeed? Once again I guess we'll come down to one of your wacky definitions ("afdafinitions" if you will).

                  Nerve cells have extensions - axons and dendrites - along which a chemical/electrical membrane perturbation is propagated. But they don't conduct electricity, which I would imagine would be a minimal requirement for electrical cable.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'll tell you what ... we'll spend next week having a refresher course on biological machines ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Taught by, let me guess... you?

                  No, thanks.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,17:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Simple "Yes" or "No" to both questions would be uber-great.  If you say "No" please restrict your objections to the SPECIFICS of these particular statements--nothing more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Dave seems to be really good at giving instructions on the form we should use to answer his questions but really poor at giving answers in the form requested or, for that matter, even answering questions at all.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 16 2006,17:59

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 16 2006,17:50)
                  Quote (afdave @ --,--)
                  I'll tell you what ... we'll spend next week having a refresher course on biological machines ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Taught by, let me guess... you?

                  No, thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wonder if the generals feel that way when rumsfeld gives a presentation?  :O
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,18:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you telling me that if manufacturing became so sophisticated that we could actually store the plan within each manufactured object and enable those objects to manufacture duplicates of themselves simply by giving them access to the raw materials for assembly--if our 21st century technology could achieve this, then you are telling me that these smart products would not be a factory in themselves?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 16 2006,18:10

                  Ya know guys, maybe Davie’s on to something.  He told us this statement
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):  I've already given you Bruce Albert's quote in which he says that "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Proves that cells are REAL factories filled with REAL machines.

                  Well, look at this quote I found at SeaSky.org
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sharks are one of evolution's most perfect creations. Many of them have not changed in millions of years. They have evolved into the perfect hunting machine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Look Dave – that must mean sharks are REAL MACHINES!  They must have gears, and cogs, and motors, and hydraulic lines!  They must have been designed and built in a factory, right Dave?

                  And this book from the Audubon society
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Birds: Nature’s Magnificent Flying Machines
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whatta ya know – birds are REAL MACHINES too!  All this time I thought they were living animals, but the quote proves they are MACHINES!!  Designed and built in a factory too!!!

                  [/sarcasm]

                  Dave, besides your propensity for lying and your idiotic semantic games, you are without a doubt one of the biggest dumbsh*ts to ever put fingers to keyboard.
                  Posted by: jupiter on Dec. 16 2006,18:31

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 16 2006,18:04)
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes. That is what he's saying. Actually, he's saying more than that. If a butterfly is the same as a watch, only more complicated, then a watch is the same as a butterfly, only less alive.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 16 2006,20:26

                  I'm sure this must have come up in this thread before. But if the time has come for "refresher courses", let's refresh our memories on what St Augustine had to say about Biblical - specifically Genesis - literalists:
                  < St. Augustine of Hippo: >  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  (my emphases)
                  Why, dave! I believe he may have been speaking of you!
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,21:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 16 2006,18:04)
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  Yes. That is what he's saying. Actually, he's saying more than that. If a butterfly is the same as a watch, only more complicated, then a watch is the same as a butterfly, only less alive.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave does seem anctious to sacrafice the difference between living and non living on the altar of complexity.  I'm sure this is not his intention but, even though I discovered this site less than a week ago, I've already noticed that Dave is often trapped by the unentional consequences of his assertions.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,22:30

                  I've already said that I just discovered this site a few days ago, I've read the last few pages and begun to read some of the older pages.  Having just read page twenty I have a question.

                  In the intervening 109 pages has Dave ever answered this question?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How does AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (UCGH) explain the sequence variations outlined in the table?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If so would someone please let me know what page I should look on?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 16 2006,22:43

                  Wow ... Malum and Jupiter are one of the few who are starting to understand.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)

                  What are living things? (not including man)  They are automatons ... automatic, self-maintaining, self-feeding, self duplicating robots.  Are they not?  Why could our technology not produce something like this eventually?

                  (Meanwhile ... Aftershave is ... well ... he's Aftershave.  Gotta love him.  You're close OA ... your shark is made of cells which contain machines.  Keep reading ... you'll get it ... I have faith in you.)

                  BWE ... you sound like you think I'm done with Christianity and America ... boy are you gonna be surprised!  What happened to our friend, Carlson?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,22:49

                  Dave,
                  I'm still reading back around page 30 of this thread to catch up and I have a question for you (excuse me if you've already answered this question if so just give me a link to the answer).

                  What is your definition of 'geneticaly rich' as used in-



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  While we're on the topic, you claim that you will define the term 'kind' later.  Could you supply a link to where you defined 'kind'?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,22:58

                  An observation from by 'catch up reading'-



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why is it that every time a 'Creationist' doesn't understand something they call it a 'conundrum' that 'Darwinists' are faced with?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 16 2006,23:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wow ... Malum and Jupiter are one of the few who are starting to understand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ...the depths of your insanity maybe.  No, that can't be the thing that only Jupiter and I understand, that's common knowledge.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 16 2006,23:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,09:05)
                  Mike PSS is trying to bring the Bible back into the discussion, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wrong Dave.  Your the one who mentioned the Bible in the first place THEN tried to discard its use to your analogy.  I then showed how you can't discard it because....

                  You said evidence of watch making factories (your term) is needed UNLESS you trust the journalist (tv show, written article, etc....).
                  You then compared butterflies to watches and said the evidence is in the Bible, but we don't need that evidence BECAUSE YOU ARE TELLING US ALL ABOUT IT!.  YOU ARE ASKING US TO TRUST YOU ABOUT THE WHOLE BUTTERFLY STORY.

                  AND WE DON'T TRUST YOUR STORY!

                  So produce the evidence please.  The Wiki article didn't quite cut it.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 17 2006,00:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
                  What are living things? (not including man)  They are automatons ... automatic, self-maintaining, self-feeding, self duplicating robots.  Are they not?  Why could our technology not produce something like this eventually?

                  BWE ... you sound like you think I'm done with Christianity and America ... boy are you gonna be surprised!  What happened to our friend, Carlson?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not including man?
                  Huh? Why?

                  Carlson left when you stayed stupid. It's good that AIG has a plan that we don't know about. One less thing to ridicule.

                  I don't know if surprised is exactly the right word. Amused perhaps. Disgusted possibly.

                  The foot bone connected to the...leg bone. The leg bone connected to the...
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 17 2006,00:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AFDave:  (Meanwhile ... Aftershave is ... well ... he's Aftershave.  Gotta love him.  You're close OA ... your shark is made of cells which contain machines.  Keep reading ... you'll get it ... I have faith in you.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No Dave, the cites didn't say "made of cells containing machines", it said sharks ARE machines!  and birds ARE machines!  REAL MACHINES Dave!  I'm sure you agree that the authors weren't using analogies, right?

                  Wow!  I can't wait to tell my friends that Fundy Dave Hawkins agrees that sharks and birds are REAL MACHINES!

                  I'm just using your reasoning Dave, so if you have a problem with that, please explain how I could possible be wrong.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 17 2006,00:38

                  Reading through the earlier pages of this thread (where Dave demonstrated his total lack of understanding of any part of evolution), I was struck once more by the misunderstanding of how science works that is common to all creationsists.

                  Dave is convinced that the people who are picking the rocks to be dated are picking only rocks that give an old age for the earth because that's what biologists need to support evolution.  Creationists also insist that biologists won't look at any data that might disprove evolution because they don't want to be kicked ot of the Good Old Boy Biologists club

                  What they fail to understand is that any scientist who could falsify the ancient age of the earth, or evolution would become the most famous scientist in history.  Imagine every biologist in the world is passing up the oppurtunity to replace Darwin in the science history books just so he won't make the other biologists unhappy. :)
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 17 2006,01:08

                  AFD


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What are living things? (not including man)  They are automatons ... automatic, self-maintaining, self-feeding, self duplicating robots.  Are they not?  Why could our technology not produce something like this eventually?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So man IS NOT a living thing?

                  You are saying that life is separate from man.

                  That is not the case.

                  AFD GET A CLUE ..........HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

                  AFD you complete asswipe .......all living things reproduce grow and die.

                  Man BY DEFINITION is a living animal.

                  THAT MEANS BY DEFINITION that watches will never be classed as living things.


                  Dave if Toyota builds a factory that can make car that can reproduce itself in an embryo, grow itself would that that be a living thing ..........or a horse?


                  The whole ID wagon has gone crazy with Dembski regressing to puerile irrelevance and AFD showing he only has half a brain.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 17 2006,01:09

                  Still reading at the begining and would like to know if Dave ever answered this question-



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And the interesting thing, Dave, is that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over at least 10 million years, which is over two thousand times longer than the "Noachian Explosion" that your ridiculous "hypothesis" proposes. You still haven't answered how both of these statements can be  true:



                  4.5 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence;

                  4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence.


                  You say you you have an answer for this; what is that answer?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,01:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Dave, if Thomas Edison could have built a simple machine that was capable of building a duplicate of itself (which frankly wouldn't have been hard, even with 19th century technology), he would have created life in the lab?

                  Sure.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What are living things? (not including man)  They are automatons ... automatic, self-maintaining, self-feeding, self duplicating robots.  Are they not?  Why could our technology not produce something like this eventually?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, this human exceptionalism. Are we to assume from this that humans are not "alive"? Or that they're not automatons? And they're not automatons because why? Because they have "souls"? Great. Tell me where the "soul" is, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,01:40

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 17 2006,01:09)
                  Still reading at the begining and would like to know if Dave ever answered this question-

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And the interesting thing, Dave, is that the "Cambrian Explosion" took place over at least 10 million years, which is over two thousand times longer than the "Noachian Explosion" that your ridiculous "hypothesis" proposes. You still haven't answered how both of these statements can be  true:



                  4.5 billion years is not nearly enough time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence;

                  4,500 years is plenty of time for life to have diversified from a few thousand species to the 10 million currently in existence.


                  You say you you have an answer for this; what is that answer?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In general, I'm afraid you have every right to assume that Dave has never answered any difficult question about his "hypothesis." We have a hard enough time even getting him to discuss his hypothesis. All he ever really does is demonstrate his laughably wrong misunderstanding of virtually every branch of science that ever touches on why his biblical inerrancy beliefs are wrong.

                  Ask him how we can see things that are more than six thousand light-years away, and see if he ever even acknowledges the question, let alone answers it.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 17 2006,01:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Malum Regnat:  Still reading at the begining and would like to know if Dave ever answered this question-
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First Deadman_932, then Eric Murphy compiled a list of scientific questions that Dave in the last 6 months has refused to answer.  Eric especially did a thorough job, with over a hundred tough questions on dozens of scientific topics that ALL embarrassed Dave so much he cut and ran (or ignored) every time.

                  I don't have a permalink handy, but maybe Eric can point you to them.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,02:11

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2006,01:43)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Malum Regnat:  Still reading at the begining and would like to know if Dave ever answered this question-
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First Deadman_932, then Eric Murphy compiled a list of scientific questions that Dave in the last 6 months has refused to answer.  Eric especially did a thorough job, with over a hundred tough questions on dozens of scientific topics that ALL embarrassed Dave so much he cut and ran (or ignored) every time.

                  I don't have a permalink handy, but maybe Eric can point you to them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Ask > < and > < thou > < shalt > < receive. >

                  < And > < how. >
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 17 2006,03:55

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 17 2006,01:33)
                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Dave, if Thomas Edison could have built a simple machine that was capable of building a duplicate of itself (which frankly wouldn't have been hard, even with 19th century technology), he would have created life in the lab?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If a machine is capable of duplicating itself by incorporating without our help elements of its environment, and is also able of producing slightly altered copies, then it could evolve and anything could happen.
                  I would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

                  Of course, it wouldn't support intelligent design in the slightess.

                  I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 17 2006,05:59

                  Jeannot state



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If a machine is capable of duplicating itself by incorporating without our help elements of its environment, and is also able of producing slightly altered copies, then it could evolve and anything could happen.
                  I would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And the designer is?



                  The big difference between the creationist world view and how life actually IS ....is that they have a simplistic mechanistic view for mankind outside of nature.

                  If man is not part of the tree of life with a heritage going all the way back to the begining of life on earth 3.5 billion years ago then there is no nead to consider life other than gears and wheels , the bible is the catalogue of parts required to complete the robot, a thousand year old warehouse of out of date thoughts, obsolete plans and remaindered polemics.

                  AFD is the automaton from ####.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 17 2006,06:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
                  BWE ... you sound like you think I'm done with Christianity and America ... boy are you gonna be surprised!  What happened to our friend, Carlson?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Still here. I drop in once a day or so just to see if you have said anything interesting.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 17 2006,07:09

                  HEY ... PROGRESS ... I AM BEGINNING TO MAKE MYSELF BE UNDERSTOOD.

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Drop the "evolving" but then "yes."  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis.  Why? Because it would prove that "intelligence" was required to create life.

                  NOTE ABOUT HUMANS:  I made an exception with humans because I believe they are equivalent to "Animal life + Something Non-physical."  This "non-physical" stuff is variously described by people as a "spirit" or "soul" etc.

                  EMBARRASSED ABOUT QUESTIONS?  No.  I've answered many of these, and if you all will petition Steve Story to keep the thread open, I will answer many more.  I will also work on providing a better system for searching both my threads ... For now, you can go here and download both of them to a text file, then search with CTRL-F ...

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >


                  Here's Deadman's original list (salty language deleted for Steve's happiness and well-being) ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  (7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
                  (8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
                  (9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
                  (10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
                  (11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
                  (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
                  (13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
                  (14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
                  (15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
                  (16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
                  (17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
                  (18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
                  (19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
                  (20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
                  (21)  Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
                  (22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
                  (23)  How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
                  (24)  If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
                  (25)  Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft")
                  (26)  You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
                  (27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
                  (28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
                  (29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
                  (30)  Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
                  (31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
                  (33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
                  (34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
                  (35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
                  (36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
                  (37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.     Quote  
                  I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
                  > This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
                  (38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
                  (39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
                  (40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
                  (41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
                  (42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, Dave.
                  (43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
                  (44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
                  (45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
                  (46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
                  (47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave ..you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, Dave...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Dave refused to answer.
                  (48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
                  (49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 17 2006,07:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  HEY ... PROGRESS ... I AM BEGINNING TO MAKE MYSELF BE UNDERSTOOD.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Eric ... Quote  
                  I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Drop the "evolving" but then "yes."  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (maybe it's already been done BTW), No maybe about it , you're standing in it, it's called test tube earth.

                  The only step the  Harvard team needs to do is find the path ways for the random walk backwards through time for the first replicating cell.

                  That's all, everything else is already done.

                  It is only a matter of time as the mystery of life's building blocks are further unraveled before models give the actual details of how it could happen.

                  What we already know with 100% certainty is that IT DID HAPPEN without any input from any analogue of human intelligence which itself is the product of a biological process billions of years younger.





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So AFD your hypothesis is now evolution 3.5 billion years ago in an pre biotic oxygen free environment?

                  Keep in mind AFD that intelligence is the tool used to analyze the results NOT the ACT of setting up the conditions and raw materials to emulate a 3.5 billion year old earth.

                  You are hopelessly trapped by your incredibly weak logic, you conflate, draw false analogies, make ridiculous assertions based on  hearsay and incredulity.

                  It's a wonder you get through a day.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 17 2006,07:54

                  Hey AFD what do you think about Dembski finally admitting " ID is dead and real science killed it".

                  That just leave's the crazies at AiG etc...oh and you.

                  How much more progress will Dawkins make with his 'God Delusion' AFD?

                  Seems he's doing a lot better than AiG.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 17 2006,08:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,07:09)
                  HEY ... PROGRESS ... I AM BEGINNING TO MAKE MYSELF BE UNDERSTOOD.

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Drop the "evolving" but then "yes."  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis.  Why? Because it would prove that "intelligence" was required to create life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh it would? Man, you're really that dense.

                  Let me rephrase : if the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity, by simulating the condition of the early Earth, would it support your hypothesis?

                  And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?

                  And my name is Jeannot, btw.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 17 2006,08:33

                  SHARKS AND BIRDS AS MACHINES?  SURE ... WHY NOT?

                  Sorry Jeannot ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me rephrase : if the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity, by simulating the condition of the early Earth, would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  If it can be proven that life can spring from non-life simply by setting up the right conditions, then I would be convinced that ToE was plausible.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 17 2006,09:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,08:33)
                  SHARKS AND BIRDS AS MACHINES?  SURE ... WHY NOT?

                  Sorry Jeannot ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me rephrase : if the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity, by simulating the condition of the early Earth, would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  If it can be proven that life can spring from non-life simply by setting up the right conditions, then I would be convinced that ToE was plausible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Fine. Now I'd like to know your defintion of "life".


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is just nonsense. Where do you think this "pre-existing variabillity" come from? Do you also believe that the first replicating entity will be a diploid, sexually reproducing organism with 23 pairs of chromosomes?

                  And facts disprove your view. Ayala is refering to diversity within a population. But there are far more than 4 alleles at each nuclear locus among the average thousand of species which are supposed to descend from the same couple of individuals.
                  This is also a simple fact that post-zygotic isolation can't possibly evolve without at least two new mutations between populations.

                  And what about new genes? Remember my paper about this new protein found in social aphids? How did this new protein appear, if not by a gene duplication?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 17 2006,10:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis.  Why? Because it would prove that "intelligence" was required to create life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Interesting logic.
                  If the scientists at Harvard freeze water, does that prove that "intelligence" is required to make ice?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 17 2006,10:49

                  Hmm, it's hard to reconcile these two thoughts from afdave:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  < (permalink) >
                  and

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So, a 1000x increase in species without adding alleles.  I would ask Dave to expand on this hypothesis, but I'd rather he discuss my question on parasites or get into some post-flood ecology.  Of course, he won't, since he can't find the answers on AiG or ICR.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 17 2006,10:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... if you all will petition Steve Story to keep the thread open, I will answer many more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just do your thing, Dave. Nobody's martyring you yet.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's Deadman's original list [...]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Look at that, I got one right there. Number 27, baby!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,11:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,07:09)
                  Jeanot ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have a question for you Dave. If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating and evolving entity (maybe it's already been done BTW), would it support your hypothesis?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Drop the "evolving" but then "yes."  If the scientists who currently work on abiogenesis at Harvard managed to produce a self-duplicating entity that is able to feed itself, maintain itself, etc., then this would support my hypothesis.  Why? Because it would prove that "intelligence" was required to create life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why drop the "evolving," Dave? Because the idea makes you uncomfortable? What if they do evolve? What does that do for your "hypothesis."

                  And if you think duplicating the conditions of early earth, thereby causing self-replicating structures to begin to form and reproduce "proves" intelligence is necessary for the existence of life, then you're even dumber than we think you are. Such a result wouldn't even begin to "prove," or even suggest, that "intelligence" was required to create life.

                  Dave, I can create waves in a swimming pool with my hand. Does this "prove" that intelligence is required to produce waves in water?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  NOTE ABOUT HUMANS:  I made an exception with humans because I believe they are equivalent to "Animal life + Something Non-physical."  This "non-physical" stuff is variously described by people as a "spirit" or "soul" etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except that you have not the tiniest speck of evidence that this "non-physical stuff exists. Or that if it exists, it is exclusive to humans.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  EMBARRASSED ABOUT QUESTIONS?  No.  I've answered many of these, and if you all will petition Steve Story to keep the thread open, I will answer many more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you have answered zero of these questions. Not one. Oh, sure, you've claimed to have answered them, but we all know what those claims are worth. If you want us to actually believe you when you say you've answered them, go right ahead and post a permalink or a quote of your answer. If I can search these threads, there's no reason why you can't do the same.

                  And stop whining about how SteveStory is threatening to shut down your thread.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 17 2006,11:10

                  Oooooh boy.


                  Dave, I bet you must feel pretty relieved by now.

                  You managed to get the conversation away from all that big bad mean sciency stuff that had you backed into a corner (as usual), and took it to an argument from incredulity- one that has already been debated to death in the first pages of the first thread.

                  What you think we'd have forgotten? ;)

                  But it makes sense that you'd want to get back to it... The first time, you were eager to simply ignore our objections and move on, because you wanted to surprise us with all the awesome arsenal you had stored for us from AiG.

                  Now that you got TOTALLY SERVED in Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Genetics and Biology, you're eager to get back to your safe haven of incredulty. Sure, you can't win using such arguments, but you can't lose either- or be forced to admit you have lost, right dave?
                  All you have to do is shout "Nuh-uh" and "It is TOO" and "You just don't get it!" and "silly scientists, with your fancy titles and degrees (that I can't stop mockingly mentioning, to hide my own feelings of inadequacy), how can you not see the OBVIOUS?"...
                  ...And pretty soon, everyone gives up in flustration. Ergo, God exists. :p

                  But even THEN, you're doing worse than your average creo troll, and manage to get yourself cornered again.
                  Dave, is the SUN a factory? A REAL factory? If not, why not? If yes, what ISN'T a "REAL factory"?

                  Watch your answer, champ. I'll save it for posterity, just in case you provide a future display of dishonesty for me to put on my sig.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 17 2006,11:24

                  BTW Eric, I think Argy has two new questions to add to the List That Will Go On Forever, along with yours about biodiversity increasing/decreasing:

                  How did all those viruses and microbes and parasites GAIN a specific, distinct for each and extremely complex function after the Fall (becoming pathogenic), and

                  What use was the immune system to Adam in the Garden and, if he didn't have it, how did he get it after the Fall?

                  Oh and I almost forgot: Dave, According to your (Sanford's) model, with an initial population of 2, and way more than 300 generations, why are there ANY "higher genome" animals alive today?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 17 2006,12:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ... this chart is a more accurate representation of what YOU believe...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This quote is from mid October, but I wanted to comment on it.

                  Dave, like every other creationist, is too busy telling us what we believe to listen when we tell him what we know.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 17 2006,14:13

                  The unanswered questions are piling up faster than sediments in Noah's flood. But I don't want to let this one get lost in the heap. I think it's particularly important, because it concerns a specific lie that davy specifically targeted to an audience of kids. In his little "watchmaker" cartoon, he presents the science position as "cells came from chance". I contend that that's a blatant untruth, and I asked him to justify it. His response:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  to which I responded:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I notice that, in not being able to actually address the question, you have resorted to the nonverbal equivocation " => ".  What's " => " supposed to mean? Is that as close as you come to admitting that you're wrong? It sure as he11 does nothing to salvage any pretense of honesty your little cartoon might have hoped to get away with.

                  Let me be clear. Your strawman characterization of the mainstream science position is intentionally, knowingly deceitful, and your pretending otherwise in indoctrinating impressionable young minds is reprehensible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... whereupon dave went Gish-galloping off onto other mind-numbing inanities.

                  But I don't think he should be let off the hook on this one.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 17 2006,15:31



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The unanswered questions are piling up faster than sediments in Noah's flood. But I don't want to let this one get lost in the heap. I think it's particularly important, because it concerns a specific lie that davy specifically targeted to an audience of kids. In his little "watchmaker" cartoon, he presents the science position as "cells came from chance". I contend that that's a blatant untruth, and I asked him to justify it. His response:
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You just don't understand, saving their souls is so important that it justifies dishonesty.  He's doing it for the kids, don't you understand that?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,16:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 17 2006,08:33)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you continue to make claims that you know for a fact, beyond any possibility of doubt, to be false, what can we do but call you a liar?

                  You know for a fact that there would have been no "pre-existing variability" in any organisms after your "flood." For those organisms which were represented by a single mating pair, there would be at most four alleles. For those represented by four mating pairs, there would be at most 16 alleles. For those represented by seven mating pairs, there would be at most 28 alleles. You know this. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times. Your "flood" would have obliterated any "pre-existing variability," and you know it.

                  So when you say "pre-existing variability" allowed your several thousand "kinds" to evolve in a matter of centuries into tens of millions of species, you're lying, and you know you're lying.
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 17 2006,16:13

                  I'm not sure it's worth continuing this thread.  Dave seems unable to concede when he has lost the point.  Instead, he Bolds his misinformation and adds it to his list of misinformation.

                  Quite frankly, he is disingenuous in arguing his position and thus, not worthy of an honest debate.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 17 2006,16:26

                  Another note from the time machine-

                  Before the thread is cancelled I've got to know, how long did it take for Answers in Genisis to remove the article after Dave pointed out the error to them?
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 17 2006,16:28

                  The big problem that most anti-evolutionist seem to have, is that they can't understand what natural selection means. They believe it's some sort of magical thing that randomly decides what's good and what's not.
                  This may be why they also believe that, once an individual has been deisgnated as "the fitest", it's just the best regardless of the environment.

                  I'm pretty sure Dave has this conception of evolution.

                  Get that into you head Dave: selection is just the fact that in a population, some alleles happen to replicate more in their environment.


                  Now, if you have a problem with that, Dave, tell us.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 17 2006,16:31



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not sure it's worth continuing this thread.  Dave seems unable to concede when he has lost the point.  Instead, he Bolds his misinformation and adds it to his list of misinformation.

                  Quite frankly, he is disingenuous in arguing his position and thus, not worthy of an honest debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  On a related note: when you get a mosquito bite, you're much better off if you can resist the urge to scratch it. Scratching it just makes it more inflamed, and can lead to infection.

                  Great advice, of course. But how many of us can resist the urge to scratch? I discovered what may be a good way: ice it. My theory is that the cold dampens the self-amplifying inflammatory processes, enabling one to break the vicious cycle. I only stumbled on this at the end of last mosquito season, so I'm not 100% sure of the efficacy yet, but preliminary results were very encouraging.

                  You probably thought you'd never learn anything useful from this discussion!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,16:49

                  Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 17 2006,16:13)
                  I'm not sure it's worth continuing this thread.  Dave seems unable to concede when he has lost the point.  Instead, he Bolds his misinformation and adds it to his list of misinformation.

                  Quite frankly, he is disingenuous in arguing his position and thus, not worthy of an honest debate.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think it is. I'm learning all kinds of things about evolutionary biology. I'm also learning about how otherwise seemingly intelligent people can be lead disastrously astray by ideology, to the point where they start to look irrational and idiotic, but the science stuff is what makes it all worthwhile.

                  And I've certainly had confirmed for me just how enormously strong the evidence is in favor of the theory of evolution. I certainly didn't need to learn anything about how laughable the "evidence" is for young-earth creationism, but it's entertaining nevertheless.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 17 2006,18:51

                  Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 17 2006,16:28)
                  The big problem that most anti-evolutionist seem to have, is that they can't understand what natural selection means. They believe it's some sort of magical thing that randomly decides what's good and what's not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The strange thing is, they don't seem to have any problem with artificial selection. Given that the mechanism is exactly the same, the only thing I can think of is that they just can't accept that God didn't intervene personally in the genome of everything living today. The objections to evolutionary theory are ideological, not rational. Dave always likes to throw back in our faces that we're the ones blinded by ideology.

                  Nice try at projection, Dave.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 17 2006,22:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,22:43)
                  BWE ... you sound like you think I'm done with Christianity and America ... boy are you gonna be surprised!  What happened to our friend, Carlson?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What more could you possibly say? That if we had more xians like Ghandi the world'd be a better place?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,08:54

                  JEANNOT WINS THE PRIZE MONEY ... DING DING DING DING!

                  Some people are finally comprehending my argument which supports the idea of an Intelligent Designer requirement for living things.  

                  Let's review the high points ...

                  A good insightful question ... this guy understands where I'm headed ... Malum ...[quote]Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity? [/quote]

                  To which I answered thusly ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)

                  What are living things? (not including man)  They are automatons ... automatic, self-maintaining, self-feeding, self duplicating robots.  Are they not?  Why could our technology not produce something like this eventually?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Malum seems to think my movement in that direction is unintentional ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave does seem anctious to sacrafice the difference between living and non living on the altar of complexity.  I'm sure this is not his intention but, even though I discovered this site less than a week ago, I've already noticed that Dave is often trapped by the unentional consequences of his assertions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not trapped, Malum.  This is exactly where I want to be.

                  And Eric is having some good thoughts ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So Dave, if Thomas Edison could have built a simple machine that was capable of building a duplicate of itself (which frankly wouldn't have been hard, even with 19th century technology), he would have created life in the lab?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But it's Jeannot who wins all the prize money with this response to the following dialog ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric]
                  Dave, do you believe that, if our technology becomes sophisticated enough that we can build a car that could manufacture it's own replacement, we would have created a living entity?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Dave]We'd be well on our way, yes.  And I don't think that day is too far away ... did you read the article on the Future of Industrial Automation? (Instead of just pooh pooh it like our professor friend did)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric]So Dave, if Thomas Edison could have built a simple machine that was capable of building a duplicate of itself (which frankly wouldn't have been hard, even with 19th century technology), he would have created life in the lab?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  [Jeannot]If a machine is capable of duplicating itself by incorporating without our help elements of its environment, and is also able of producing slightly altered copies, then it could evolve and anything could happen.
                  I [sic] [he meant "it"] would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  YES ... PRECISELY!  YOU GOT IT!  PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO THE OTHERS
                  Alas, you jumped to the wrong conclusion in the next sentence, but at least you got this part right.  And what is that?

                  You admitted that IF humans could build a machine capable of duplicating itself by incorporating elements of its environment without our help, and is also able of producing slightly altered copies ...

                  ... then there is no fundamental difference between the man-made machine and the biological machine.

                  Did you hear that, Russell?  Jeannot disagrees with you.  You keep insisting that there is an absolute difference between man-made machines and biological machines in your oft repeated mantra that "BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T" but at least one person from your side now disagrees with you.

                  Actually, everyone would disagree with you if they thought about it long enough and were honest.  Congratulations, Jeannot, for having some clear thinking!

                  LIFE / NON-LIFE DEMARCATION LINE WILL BECOME FUZZY WITH TIME
                  The truth is that, thanks to our high technology, we will be able to create machines which are more and more automated, self-fueling, self-maintaining, etc., and our manufacturing will continue to become more and more efficient until we reach the ultimate in manufacturing efficiency and are able to duplicate biological reproduction in our own technology.

                  We are headed to this future ... fast!

                  And when we get there, all of you folks will have a really hard time explaining how, on the one hand, it took some brilliant intelligence to produce the man-made self-duplicating, self-feeding, self-maintaining machine, but on the other hand, the very similar biological one made itself!

                  Whoo boy!  That's gonna be ugly!  Egg on many faces.

                  What are the conclusions here?

                  Again ...

                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
                  2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
                  3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
                  4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?

                  Especially when the alternative idea, ToE, has ZERO experimental proof of new structures being formed by RM+NS.  In fact, the opposite has been proven experimentally ... "speeded up evolution" on fruit flies only produced dead and mangled fruit flies, not fruit flies with new structures.

                  *********************************************************

                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Evolution.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Creationism.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Bible.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Teleology.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of the Nature of the Putative Intelligent Designer - it could be an alien on some planet for all we know.


                  *********************************************************

                  Now ... let's see how many honest people there are on this board who can admit the truth of these four conclusions.

                  *********************************************************

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  Russell ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Chance=>Mutations
                  Mutations=>Cells

                  ... is equivalent to ...

                  "Cells came by chance"
                  I notice that, in not being able to actually address the question, you have resorted to the nonverbal equivocation " => ".  What's " => " supposed to mean? Is that as close as you come to admitting that you're wrong? It sure as he11 does nothing to salvage any pretense of honesty your little cartoon might have hoped to get away with.

                  Let me be clear. Your strawman characterization of the mainstream science position is intentionally, knowingly deceitful, and your pretending otherwise in indoctrinating impressionable young minds is reprehensible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I answered the question.  I showed you where two leading evolutionists, Ayala and Crow both say that mutations are the ultimate source of variability.  Do you want me to parse this for you?  OK.  Here's Crow ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Without mutation, evolution would be impossible."  How do mutations occur?  By chance, right?  So without chance, there would be no evolution, and there would be no cells.  Therefore, "Cells came by chance" is truly what the "doctors from Oxford" are communicating to us.  Notice the line does not say "The Doctors from Oxford say cells came by chance alone."  If I had used the word "alone" I would have been mischaracterizing the Doctors from Oxford.  But as the line is written, I am not.  Is it a mischaracterization to say that "weathermen tell us that rain comes from storm clouds"?  No.  Are there other factors involved?  Of course, but we are accurate in making this statement.  Possibly the mental stress you are experiencing might stem from the fact that I have presented the truth about ToE in such an entertaining and visually pleasing way, that my little poem has become an international hit - #3 in a Google search for "the watchmaker" and #5 for "watchmaker".  For those of you that have not seen it yet, click here

                  < The Watchmaker Multimedia Dynamtion >

                  Russell ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nerve cells have electrical cables, Russell ..
                  Oh do they indeed? Once again I guess we'll come down to one of your wacky definitions ("afdafinitions" if you will).

                  Nerve cells have extensions - axons and dendrites - along which a chemical/electrical membrane perturbation is propagated. But they don't conduct electricity, which I would imagine would be a minimal requirement for electrical cable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well ... read this article then and try to explain away "electrical cable."      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Electricity Makes It Happen
                  By Janice Valverde  

                  When your brain is stimulated, brain cells send millions of fast-moving electrical signals along the pathways of your central nervous system. These paths are nerves that branch out into all your muscles. Whenever you move a muscle, it is powered by electricity running through your nervous system!
                  < The Body Electric >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Is this another case of "science speak" where the author really doesn't mean what she says?  Sort of like "error" doesn't really mean "error"??

                  ***************************************************************

                  DAVE ANSWERS OLD QUESTIONS, DECEMBER 2006
                  A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK. Let's knock out a few of these every day.  If I already answered the question, I will give you a search term that will land you in the right spot in the discussion.  This assumes you have downloaded the two AFDave CGH threads to text files on your computer from here.

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This was discussed in early December (this month).  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH2 for 'falsifiability' WITH the single quotes.  Search "Popper" with no quotes for Deadman's acknowledgement.  He says ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This leads me to some very basic logic. If you choose to claim Popper's later revised version of falsification is untenable, that falsification is flawed, fine.

                  I will merely say this: the fact that evidence is CONSISTENT with a hypothesis can almost never be taken as **conclusive **grounds for accepting it....

                  BUT evidence that is INCONSISTENT with a hypothesis such as "the Earth is 6000 years old" or " A global flood wiped out 99.99% of all life on this planet 2300 years ago" ...evidence that is INCONSISTENT with that...provides solid grounds for REJECTING the hypothesis.  

                  What I will say is that there is no way you have shown of even theoretically rejecting your hypothesis. This removes it into the realm of the metaphysical. It reduces logic to meaninglessness and tosses out epistemic consistency.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Note that Creationism and ToE are on the same "epistemic ground."  Neither can truly be falsified because they are historical inquiries.  But we CAN (and I have) shown that much evidence is CONSISTENT with Creationism and INCONSISTENT with ToE.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Evidence only takes people so far.  You study living things and see that they change (micro-evolution).  From this, you make a leap of faith and say that all living things were created by this mechanism.  To me this is a big leap and a foolish one.  I make leaps also, but my leaps are smaller and (in my opinion) wiser and more justified by the evidence.  This is an example.  I read the historical records contained in the Bible.  I see that they are in agreement with archaeological finds and with secular history.  I see clear prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, ch. 53, Daniel 9, Zechariah 9 and 13, etc. which were clearly fulfilled even though written hundreds of years before the fulfillment.  I see the accurate portrayal of humanity in the Bible.  And on and on I could go.  In short, I see a collection of writings--the Bible--that is in a class by itself--supernatural it seems, which claims inerrancy. I have no reason to reject this claim and much reason to believe it, therefore I choose to.  This is a leap, yes, but in my opinion, it is only a small leap based on a tremendous weight of evidence.  Notice, however, that none of my discussion here at ATBC has hinged on "inerrancy."  Here at ATBC, I only use the Bible's historical sections and treat it as one would ANY history book.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Answered long ago.  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH1 for 'trinitysem' with no quotes and you will find this back in September ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MORE FODDER FOR 7 POPES AND TYRE

                  < http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html >

                  < http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/prophesy.html >

                  As anyone with an ounce of honesty and an ability to do Google searches can see, there are many explanations available in addition to the ones I gave from Josh McDowell, which may  explain the Tyre prophecy.  I cannot make a water tight argument supporting ALL things in the Bible.  But you as a skeptic also cannot make a watertight argument refuting anything in  the Bible.  Are you willing to risk your eternal  future with your skepticism?

                  The bottom line, as I have said before is ... if you want to be a skeptic, you can find a  thousand ways ... but if truth is your goal, you can find that also ... What's your goal 7 Popes?  Is it Truth?  Or is it Skepticism?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Answered long ago.  My answer is Dr. Don Batten's (quite successful plant physiologist) answer.  Go to www.answersingenesis.org and search "dendrochronology".  You will find his article.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sheep, but they didn't have adverse symptoms (discussed already).  www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  Actually, Henry Morris has already done so in The Biblical Basis for Modern Science in the chapter entitled "Babel and the World Population".  Already discussed long ago (July 5).  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH1 for the term 'c^(n-x+1)' with no quotes.

                  ************************************************************

                  OK?  Are we happy now?  So from this we see that ...

                  1) I have already answered many of the questions on this list already, so Deadman is wrong that they are "unanswered questions", and
                  2) I am not afraid to answer questions.

                  I will answer more tomorrow continuing through the list.

                  Have a nice day!
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 18 2006,09:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Especially when the alternative idea, ToE, has ZERO experimental proof of new structures being formed by RM+NS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Maybe if you keep saying it, it will become true. Stephen Colbert would approve.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 18 2006,09:51

                  This is just too tiresome to keep up. For now, let me just say that in dave's last post, every single point he addressed to me is wrong. Every one. Completely.

                  If anyone other than dave is at all confused as to why, or wants to see it laid out in detail - let me know. But if it's just for dave's benefit, I'm too busy today.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 18 2006,10:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,09:54)
                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
                  2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
                  3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
                  4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No.  If you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology, you conclude that it was created by humans.  You have no way to justify your leap from "humans" to "Intelligent Cause".  This is one of the many fatal flaws in your argument.  We have an abundance of empirical evidence of human technology, and ZERO evidence of any other "intelligence".  Your argument incorrectly assumes that this is not the case.

                  Your argument, at best, is that humans created all complex things.

                  Also, you have yet to make any attempt at a meaningful definition of "complex".  Can you think of even one thing that is not "complex" enough to have been "intelligently designed"?  Currently, that term is useless in your argument.

                  And you also assume incorrectly that an "inteligent cause" is somehow ruled out a priori by methodological naturalism.  This is not the case.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 18 2006,10:14

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 18 2006,07:51)
                  This is just too tiresome to keep up. For now, let me just say that in dave's last post, every single point he addressed to me is wrong. Every one. Completely.

                  If anyone other than dave is at all confused as to why, or wants to see it laid out in detail - let me know. But if it's just for dave's benefit, I'm too busy today.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No need.  The misrepresentations are obvious.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 18 2006,10:15

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 18 2006,09:51)
                  This is just too tiresome to keep up. For now, let me just say that in dave's last post, every single point he addressed to me is wrong. Every one. Completely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Truth be told, EVERY point Davey addressed is wrong. He's even stooped to quote mining posts from this thread, not that I'm surprised.

                  I especially love the comments about the degree of technological sophistication of butterflies and bacterium, and artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.

                  When is "Dr." Don gonna show up and refute dendrochronology Davey? Is anyone else from AiG or ICR gonna show up and "rescue" you Davey?


                  Baboon dogs Davey, we need to know.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,10:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,08:54)
                  JEANNOT WINS THE PRIZE MONEY ... DING DING DING DING!

                  Some people are finally comprehending my argument which supports the idea of an Intelligent Designer requirement for living things.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow! Dave thinks he's accomplished something with this line of argument! He's wrong! Wow! Imagine my surprise!

                  Let's think a little about your "logic" here, chumpy. Your argument basically boils down to this: if humans can create a self-reproducing system that bears a strong resemblance to biological life, then this proves life requires intelligent design.

                  Can you see a few gaps in your "logic"?

                  Dave, as Russell pointed out earlier, the fact that research scientists at Scandia National Laboratories can melt an ice cube does not imply in any way, shape or form that intelligence is required for the melting of an ice cube.

                  And that's your whole argument. Demolished. Even if humans could duplicate the creation of life in the lab, and could prove they were doing it exactly the way it happened back 4.3 billion years ago on earth, that gets exactly nowhere in proving life requires an intelligent designer.

                  You're mistaking proof that an intelligent designer could have created life (duh) for proof that an intelligent designer must have created life.

                  Do you have anything else to say about this incredibly broken argument, or are you just going to crow about your discovery of the obvious fact that someday, human beings probably will be able to create something that bears a strong resemblance to life?

                  So no, Dave, we're not "finally comprehending" your argument. I've known what your argument was going to be from the get-go. And it still remains true that your "watch" analogy is criminally misleading if you're going to use it with children. Watches in no way resemble butterflies because—wait for it—

                  WATCHES DON'T REPRODUCE

                  So Dave, no one here (other than you, unsurprisingly) disagrees with Russell (or me) that your "watch" analogy is fundamentally broken, dishonest, and misleading, because

                  WATCHES DON'T REPRODUCE.

                  Now, if someday, humans develop some sort of machine that is capable of reproducing, through whatever method, and is capable of introducing random variation, and then that variation is susceptible to selection pressure, than an analogy from that machine to a butterfly would be valid (and no doubt would confirm evolutionary theory). That does not change the fact that your "watch" analogy is fundamentally broken, dishonest, and misleading, because

                  WATCHES DON'T REPRODUCE.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 18 2006,10:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,09:54)
                  LIFE / NON-LIFE DEMARCATION LINE WILL BECOME FUZZY WITH TIME
                  The truth is that, thanks to our high technology, we will be able to create machines which are more and more automated, self-fueling, self-maintaining, etc., and our manufacturing will continue to become more and more efficient until we reach the ultimate in manufacturing efficiency and are able to duplicate biological reproduction in our own technology.

                  We are headed to this future ... fast!

                  And when we get there, all of you folks will have a really hard time explaining how, on the one hand, it took some brilliant intelligence to produce the man-made self-duplicating, self-feeding, self-maintaining machine, but on the other hand, the very similar biological one made itself!

                  Whoo boy!  That's gonna be ugly!  Egg on many faces.

                  What are the conclusions here?

                  Again ...

                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
                  2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
                  3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
                  4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?

                  Especially when the alternative idea, ToE, has ZERO experimental proof of new structures being formed by RM+NS.  In fact, the opposite has been proven experimentally ... "speeded up evolution" on fruit flies only produced dead and mangled fruit flies, not fruit flies with new structures.

                  ********************

                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Evolution.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Creationism.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Bible.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of Teleology.
                  * Notice that these four conclusions are separate from any discussion of the Nature of the Putative Intelligent Designer - it could be an alien on some planet for all we know.


                  ****************************
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I have to hand it to you Dave.  You caught me totally off gaurd with this bit of (il)logic and (non)reasoning.  Mainly because my brain isn't wired up in such a convoluted worldview as yours.

                  I'm beginning to see "your" light but my conclusions are not what you think.  Playing "your" game, I challange you (over the next 20, 50, he11 100 pages) to figure out what I'm actually saying in this statement (instead of coming out and stating it clearly and concisely without the semantics and misdirections you consistently use).

                  Your "four" conclusions are actually "two" comparisons.  Point 1) is a basis statement and Point 2) is purely clarification of Point 1).  Point 3) and 4) are the meat of your argument.  Unfortunately you haven't exhibited any logical underpinnings in your argument.  When I break down these statements I get the following.  And I'll show you where you are going wrong.

                  Point 3)....
                  If {archeological artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

                  Point 4)....
                  If {biologic artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

                  So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
                  The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.

                  And you want to tie this all together by comparing analagous (i.e. non-existent) automatons derived from human technology to biologic equivelence.  However, even if you pull this analogy off your conclusion statements in Point 3) and 4) STILL point to {humanity}={intelligent cause}.

                  I pointed this out a long time ago and your still missing the explanation.  Your problem with this argument is based upon your anthropocentric world view (as a guess).  You can't remove humanity from your thinking because it's too hard wired into your reality.  Take a step back and try and figure this out.  Otherwise your own twisted logic will continue to show everyone false and misleading conclusions when we parse your statements down to the basic points.

                  Also.....
                  This helps your UCGH how??

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,11:48

                  Mike PSS ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
                  The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So a logical explanation might be ...

                  1) An advanced alien civilization, or ...
                  2) Some sort of God ...

                  (Don't worry about how it helps my CGH at the moment.  Right now I'm interested in why you would disagree with this conclusion.)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,11:58

                  Dave, there's a difference between responding to a question and actually answering it. Let's show some examples here.

                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,08:54)
                  DAVE ANSWERS OLD QUESTIONS, DECEMBER 2006
                  A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK. Let's knock out a few of these every day.  If I already answered the question, I will give you a search term that will land you in the right spot in the discussion.  This assumes you have downloaded the two AFDave CGH threads to text files on your computer from here.

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This was discussed in early December (this month).  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH2 for 'falsifiability' WITH the single quotes.  Search "Popper" with no quotes for Deadman's acknowledgement.  He says ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This leads me to some very basic logic. If you choose to claim Popper's later revised version of falsification is untenable, that falsification is flawed, fine.

                  I will merely say this: the fact that evidence is CONSISTENT with a hypothesis can almost never be taken as **conclusive **grounds for accepting it....

                  BUT evidence that is INCONSISTENT with a hypothesis such as "the Earth is 6000 years old" or " A global flood wiped out 99.99% of all life on this planet 2300 years ago" ...evidence that is INCONSISTENT with that...provides solid grounds for REJECTING the hypothesis.  

                  What I will say is that there is no way you have shown of even theoretically rejecting your hypothesis. This removes it into the realm of the metaphysical. It reduces logic to meaninglessness and tosses out epistemic consistency.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Note that Creationism and ToE are on the same "epistemic ground."  Neither can truly be falsified because they are historical inquiries.  But we CAN (and I have) shown that much evidence is CONSISTENT with Creationism and INCONSISTENT with ToE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, we've been over this a million times. You could falsify the theory of evolution in 30 seconds. All you'd have to do is find unequivocal evidence of rabbits in the Precambrian. That would nail the coffin lid shut on the whole theory. So to say the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable is ludicrous.

                  Your claim that young-earth creationism is unfalsifiable is equally ludicrous. Not only is it falsifiable; it's been falsified. All it takes is proof that the universe is significantly older than 6,000 years. That proof is abundant and not subject to rational dispute. Therefore, young-earth creationism is false. That's a Q.E.D.

                  So you have two choices: you can stick with your answer that YEC is unfalsifiable, and therefore is not science. Or you can accept that it is unfalsifiable and has been unfalsified. Which is it going to be?

                  Just because a theory is an historical theory does not make it unfalsifiable. If your theory predicts that the Maya had internal combustion engines, and no evidence of such engines is ever found, the theory is falsified. Q.E.D.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Evidence only takes people so far.  You study living things and see that they change (micro-evolution).  From this, you make a leap of faith and say that all living things were created by this mechanism.  To me this is a big leap and a foolish one.  I make leaps also, but my leaps are smaller and (in my opinion) wiser and more justified by the evidence.  This is an example.  I read the historical records contained in the Bible.  I see that they are in agreement with archaeological finds and with secular history.  I see clear prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14, ch. 53, Daniel 9, Zechariah 9 and 13, etc. which were clearly fulfilled even though written hundreds of years before the fulfillment.  I see the accurate portrayal of humanity in the Bible.  And on and on I could go.  In short, I see a collection of writings--the Bible--that is in a class by itself--supernatural it seems, which claims inerrancy. I have no reason to reject this claim and much reason to believe it, therefore I choose to.  This is a leap, yes, but in my opinion, it is only a small leap based on a tremendous weight of evidence.  Notice, however, that none of my discussion here at ATBC has hinged on "inerrancy."  Here at ATBC, I only use the Bible's historical sections and treat it as one would ANY history book.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, if someone asks me how old I am, and I respond by saying, "Tuesday!" have I answered the question? No. You were asked how you know the Bible is inerrant, since you admit you've never seen an inerrant copy. You never even addressed the issue in your response. Other than to say you choose to believe it's inerrant, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. So I don't think you get to cross this one off your list either.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Answered long ago.  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH1 for 'trinitysem' with no quotes and you will find this back in September ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MORE FODDER FOR 7 POPES AND TYRE

                  < http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zeketyre.html >

                  < http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/prophesy.html >

                  As anyone with an ounce of honesty and an ability to do Google searches can see, there are many explanations available in addition to the ones I gave from Josh McDowell, which may  explain the Tyre prophecy.  I cannot make a water tight argument supporting ALL things in the Bible.  But you as a skeptic also cannot make a watertight argument refuting anything in  the Bible.  Are you willing to risk your eternal  future with your skepticism?

                  The bottom line, as I have said before is ... if you want to be a skeptic, you can find a  thousand ways ... but if truth is your goal, you can find that also ... What's your goal 7 Popes?  Is it Truth?  Or is it Skepticism?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, you're yelling "Tuesday" again, Dave. You were asked what was equivocal about biblical claims that Tyre would never be inhabited again, and how it was equivocal as to whether Tyre is in fact currently inhabited, thereby falsifying the prophesy. You failed to answer that question. So you don't get to cross this one off your list, either.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Answered long ago.  My answer is Dr. Don Batten's (quite successful plant physiologist) answer.  Go to www.answersingenesis.org and search "dendrochronology".  You will find his article.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which Deadman killed dead with one blow. You never came up with a counter-response. Another unanswered question, Dave.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sheep, but they didn't have adverse symptoms (discussed already).  <a href="www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp" target="_blank">www.trueorigin.org/virus.asp</a>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And what evidence to you have to support this bland assumption, Dave? I could say, "Noah had a vial of it he'd saved for his WMD program," and I'd have just as much evidence to support that assertion. More cries of "Tuesday," Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  Actually, Henry Morris has already done so in The Biblical Basis for Modern Science in the chapter entitled "Babel and the World Population".  Already discussed long ago (July 5).  Do a CTRL-F search of AFD_CGH1 for the term 'c^(n-x+1)' with no quotes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you posted Morris's formula. Do you know how he derived his formula? Whether the formula is valid? Whether the assumptions underlying it even make sense? This smells like another cry of "Tuesday," Dave. It's not an answer. It's noise.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  OK?  Are we happy now?  So from this we see that ...

                  1) I have already answered many of the questions on this list already, so Deadman is wrong that they are "unanswered questions", and
                  2) I am not afraid to answer questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Deadman is not wrong, because your "answers" to these questions are non-answers. Merely responding to question (and you have never even acknowledged the existence of the vast majority of the questions posted) does not necessarily mean you've answered it, Dave.

                  Give it another try. So far, all of those questions remain unanswered, and therefore remain on the list.

                  Also, Dave, will you learn to post a freaking permalink? How many times do I have to describe to you how it's done?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 18 2006,12:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave quoting Gates):   “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  See the "is like a" again Dave?  That means it's another ANALOGY.  

                  I fully empathize with Russell, who finds your stupidity sometimes too much to bear.

                  AFDave logic:

                  "Humans design flying machines.  Birds fly, so birds must be intelligently designed machines!"

                  "Humans design artificial waterfalls, so waterfalls we find in nature must be intelligently designed!"

                  "Humans are on the verge of creating self-replicating machines.  Cells we mind in nature self replicate, so they must be intelligently designed machines!"

                  Even a 5 year old can see the battleship sized hole in your logic Davie.  Why can't you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,12:11

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,11:48)
                  Mike PSS ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
                  The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the best that can be said for this argument, as I pointed out, is that it's possible that life could have been created by an intelligent designer. I don't think anyone, including Richard Dawkins, would disagree with this statement.

                  But saying an intelligent designer could have created life doesn't even begin to rise to the level of evidence for the assertion that an intelligent designer must have created life.

                  But Russell is right. Since you have no idea what the characteristics are of an intelligent designer more intelligent than humans (or even if it's possible to be more intelligent than humans), the only thing you can say is that since humans have designed every artificial machine we know of, they must have designed all the natural "machines" we know of. And, your claim that humans are close to being able to create life themselves actually undermines your argument that life must have been created by a designer more intelligent than humans.

                  But again, how do you respond to my claim that you have merely shown life could have been created by an intelligent designer, and not remotely shown that life must have been created by an intelligent designer?

                  And remember, arguments from either credulity ("it's easy to believe life was created by an intelligent designer") or incredulity ("it's hard to believe life was not created by an intelligent designer") aren't going to get you anywhere. You need to provide affirmative, believable evidence that life was created by an intelligent designer, not equivocal and easily-dismissible evidence (or even rock-solid and unimpeachable evidence) that it might have been created by an intelligent designer.

                  Or is this destined to be another question that goes forever unanswered?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 18 2006,12:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:48)
                  Mike PSS ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
                  The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So a logical explanation might be ...

                  1) An advanced alien civilization, or ...
                  2) Some sort of God ...

                  (Don't worry about how it helps my CGH at the moment.  Right now I'm interested in why you would disagree with this conclusion.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you just finished arguing that biological machines are exactly like (not "analogous to") human technology.  Now you're arguing the opposite.  So which is it?

                  And I'm still waiting for your example of something that is NOT complex enough to require a designer.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,12:23

                  Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 18 2006,12:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:48)
                  Mike PSS ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
                  The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So a logical explanation might be ...

                  1) An advanced alien civilization, or ...
                  2) Some sort of God ...

                  (Don't worry about how it helps my CGH at the moment.  Right now I'm interested in why you would disagree with this conclusion.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again Dave your butcherring the logical argument.  You just changed your statements with this clarification (moved the goal posts) and your equations become....

                  Point 3ver1)...
                  If {archeaological artifact}={human technology} then {intelligent cause}.

                  Point 4ver2)...
                  If {biologic artifact}={more high-tech than human technology} then {more intelligent than human cause}

                  Your original Points actually had comparible consistency.  The version2 of Point 4) doesn't have that because you now need additional conclusions to equate {human technology} to {more high-tech than human technology} AND {intelligent cause (humanity as I pointed out)} to {more intelligent than human cause}.

                  You can state that you ASS-U-ME that an alien or G0D are the {more high-tech than human technology} and {more intelligent than human cause} but you still need to equivicate this to terms in Point 3) by adding two more (at least) conclusions.  If you don't define these terms the logical conclusion is that you are just "stating" these terms into existance then "stating" that your comparison makes sense.  The proverbial "Goddidit" or "Unknown Telic Entity Didit" (whichever you prefer).

                  Logic is like mathamatics.  You can't have terms (variables) hanging around without some type of definition or equivication.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 18 2006,12:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:23)
                  Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Do living organisms contain human technology, or something analogous to human technology?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,12:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,08:54)
                  What are the conclusions here?

                  Again ...

                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave. You really need to keep better track of your own arguments.

                  For days now, you've been saying that the "fundamental difference" between watches and butterflies is "complexity." It's hard to classify this statement as true or false, because it doesn't make sense in the context of your argument, which is that because watches are complex were designed by humans, butterflies, which are also complex, must have been designed by, well, maybe not humans, but by someone.

                  Either way, you're wrong, because that's not the fundamental difference between the two, in the context of evolutionary theory. Once again, the real fundamental difference between the two is one can reproduce, and the other can't.

                  But now, suddenly, out of left field, you're claiming "There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch."

                  But you're still wrong, because why? Why are you wrong, Dave? Because

                  WATCHES CAN'T REPRODUCE.

                  I'd think this was a simple concept, but it really does appear to be beyond you.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 18 2006,12:40

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 18 2006,13:34)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,08:54)
                  What are the conclusions here?

                  Again ...

                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave. You really need to keep better track of your own arguments.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric,
                  Dave gets tripped over his own semantics all the time.  I said above that Point 1) and Point 2) of his "conclusions" were actually just statements to set up his conclusion comparison in Point 3) and Point 4).  Here's his quote...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Again ...

                  1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
                  2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
                  3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
                  4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Notice that Points 1) and 2) are (should) be one statement.  Or at least state in Point 1) that there is no difference in elements (i.e. same perodic table).

                  Back to your regularly scheduled parsing.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 18 2006,12:45

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 18 2006,13:34)
                  WATCHES CAN'T REPRODUCE.

                  I'd think this was a simple concept, but it really does appear to be beyond you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave is talking about the hyper-technological watches of the future.  Presumably, "reproduction" will just be another standard, built-in feature.  Like having a stopwatch or MP3 player.

                  So, Dave, can you think of anything that isn't complex yet?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,12:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:23)
                  Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I really wish you would stop mischaracterizing me as a "lawyer." I have taken pains to explain that I am not, in fact, an attorney. I've never even been to law school (or college, for that matter.) You do understand that it is illegal in most states to misrepresent yourself as an attorney, don't you?

                  So please knock it off.

                  But, in response to your statement: is "DNA like a computer program," or is it in fact a computer program. No one is confused about your waffling on this point; they merely want clarification. And Bill Gates certainly thinks it is "like" a computer program; that is, after all, what he said.

                  Bill Gates is not a geneticist, so he's not much of an authority on whether or not DNA is a computer program. Take a few lines of source code from Microsoft Windows, and duplicate them a few times. What do you think will happen? Will the software "evolve"? Will it even work? Doubtful.

                  So saying DNA is a software program is a dubious analogy at best. And it is most assuredly nothing more than an analogy. So it is not "real, honest-to-goodness software." It doesn't work at all like human-designed software.

                  You keeping thinking people can't understand your arguments, Dave. We understand them just fine. We just know they're wrong.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 18 2006,12:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave);  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  IS LIKE A computer program Dave, not IS a computer program.

                  DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.

                  DNA is NOT a set of abstract symbols Dave.  DNA is chemical substance that is just one step in a complex chemical reaction whose end result is the formation of a protein.

                  Computer programs are sometimes used as an ANALOGY for the function of DNA, but the way the processes work are fundamentally different.

                  This has been explained to you ad nauseum.  Why are you still too stupid to get it?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,12:52

                  Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

                  Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

                  Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 18 2006,12:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:23)
                  Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  if you are right, and the rest of the scientific world is wrong, how come nobody's listening to you?

                  If Darwinism is an "infection" then Creationism is getting your leg sawn off because of a mole.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 18 2006,13:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)
                  Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

                  Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

                  Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  we ALL get your point, you just dont get ours.

                  Eric says it best:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You're mistaking proof that an intelligent designer could have created life (duh) for proof that an intelligent designer must have created life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,13:02

                  OA ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.

                  Just like the biological software is also a physical (though different) reality.

                  You might need to ask for a refund on your EE degree.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 18 2006,13:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:02)
                  OA ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.

                  Just like the biological software is also a physical (though different) reality.

                  You might need to ask for a refund on your EE degree.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ah-ha. Now we're in my field.

                  Lets play.

                  So, this "biological software". What hardware does it "run" on?
                  Can we abstract the hardware layer and virtualise it? I.E can we run buffalo software on a horse hardware layer?

                  If not, why not? If we cannot, then your "biological software" requires a different name.

                  So, it's electical charges OR magnetic orinentation is it? How about clockwork computers? Ever hear of babbage (and they recently built his design and it works!;).

                  Forget about this tactic davey, it will not do you any good.

                  So, each bit of data represents 1 or 0 huh?

                  In my experence, if I "mutate" a single bit in a piece of compiled code it will usually not work. Ta-da. You've proved "the fall". Well done, it was a computer virus?

                  Are you talking about source code or compiled code btw? There's a major difference.

                  I could go on.


                  edit: And the point you missed is that what does

                  0101101010101

                  mean?

                  To computer A: It could mean "blow the hatches"
                  To computer B: It could mean "hatch the blowfishes"

                  It's meaning is "abstract" in the sense that what it means depends on (basically) the programe that's running! Or the OS, or the hardware.

                  Look, press ALT+F4 right now. See? On a spectrum that does nothing! But on a modern PC it closes your browser. Context. Otherwise it's just seemingly random noise.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,13:22

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:52)
                  Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

                  Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

                  Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I didn't "get" the statement that watches don't reproduce from Russell. That watches cannot reproduce is common knowledge (at least for people other than AF Dave).

                  I've read and re-read your posts, and I've seen absolutely no reason to think that your analogy between watches and butterflies is not completely invalidated by the fact that watches do not and cannot reproduce.

                  Jeannot has said nothing to indicate that your "watch" analogy is anything other than completely invalid. If you you think he has said otherwise, please permalink and/or quote.

                  If watches could reproduce, and had a mechanism by which variability could be introduced (e.g., random mutation), which was then subjected to selection, then we would expect watches to evolve, just as living creatures which are subject to introductions of variability (e.g. random mutation) and selection evolve.

                  If this were the case, your analogy would be valid. And, no doubt, it would confirm evolutionary theory. It's hard to imagine how it would not.

                  But, since watches do not reproduce, and therefore cannot be subject either to mutation or selection, your analogy is completely broken. Can you explain why this is not the case?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 18 2006,13:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

                  Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

                  Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.

                  we ALL get your point, you just dont get ours.

                  Eric says it best:
                  Quote

                  You're mistaking proof that an intelligent designer could have created life (duh) for proof that an intelligent designer must have created life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sweet!  That's progress.  I've got you admitting that an Intelligent Designer COULD HAVE created life.

                  I'll take that for now.  This is much more honest than all that nonsense about how Darwinism is a proven fact and such.

                  ***********************************
                  Eric ... Selection has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the present discussion about watches and butterflies.

                  ***********************************

                  Machine level code, Oldman ... love to play ball with this stuff.

                  Gettin' kinda hungry for lunch now, though.

                  More tomorrow  :D  :D

                  **************************************
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 18 2006,13:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,14:24)
                  Sweet!  That's progress.  I've got you admitting that an Intelligent Designer COULD HAVE created life.

                  I'll take that for now.  This is much more honest than all that nonsense about how Darwinism is a proven fact and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  An "intelligent designer" could have created life.  And evolution is a proven fact.

                  These are not contradictory statements, Dave.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 18 2006,13:34

                  I admit an Intelligent Designer could have created life.

                  Bippty, boppity boo. WOot. Teh Win.

                  There is a saying round my neck of the woods.

                  "If me aunty had bollocks, she'd be my uncle".

                  Hear what i'm saying?

                  If, perhaps, maybe. I thought you had "proof". Not just more god of the gaps verbage.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,13:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:02)
                  I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I see you know just as much about computer science as you do about information theory, i.e., nothing.

                  Computer software is completely abstract, and is affected not in any way by the hardware it runs on. Software that runs in one place on some version of hardware can always be emulated elsewhere (the same is emphatically not true of DNA, which is utterly dependent on simple rules of chemistry for its implementation). Do some research on Alan Turing, Universal Turing machines, etc., and see if your claim that software is a "PHYSICAL REALITY" holds up.

                  It doesn't.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 18 2006,13:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:52)
                  Eric, Eric, Eric ... my lawyer ... er ... lawyeresque friend ...

                  Your "Watches can't reproduce" thing that you got from Russell isn't working.

                  Quit  typing so much and re-read my posts and you will see why.

                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you all would to, if you were honest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Dave reads the logical challanges to his most recent attempt at logic.

                  AFDave:  "Biologic Machines have intelligent designers because we know that archeological discoveries have intelligent designers."  And Jeannot agrees with me.

                  Mike PSS:  "Ummm... Your "intellegent designer" is HUMANS in both cases if you look closely (logically) at your argument."

                  AFDave:  "Biologic Machines have HIGHER INTELLIGENCE designers because we know that archeological discoveries have intelligent designers".  How about them road-apples.

                  Mike PSS:  "Ummm...  Now you moved the goal posts.  You have to go back and define "HIGHER INTELLIGENCE designers" or equate them to "intelligent designers"".

                  AFDave:  "Jeannot already agreed with me and you would too if you were honest."

                  To which I will respond.... U-m-m-m-m-m-m-m....

                  I really don't have a response to this ad hominum (questioning my honesty).  I think I'll wait a little more to see if Dave actually responds to my logical argument.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,13:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:24)
                  Sweet!  That's progress.  I've got you admitting that an Intelligent Designer COULD HAVE created life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No it's not. No one has ever denied that life could have been created by an intelligent designer. Everyone told you on the very first day of your CGH thread that science has nothing to say about whether God might exist. So you're not making any progress. You're exactly where you were seven months ago.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'll take that for now.  This is much more honest than all that nonsense about how Darwinism is a proven fact and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except that no one ever denied it in the first place. That it's possible that life could have been created by an intelligent designer is in no way a contradiction of the statement that "Darwinism" (which I take to mean "the modern Theory of Evolution") is as "proven" as any scientific theory can be "proven."

                  Both of these statements are true:

                  Life could have been created by an intelligent designer.

                  The Theory of Evolution is as well-established as any other theory in science.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... Selection has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the present discussion about watches and butterflies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Selection has EVERYTHING to do with the present discussion about watches and butterflies. Selection is why life can evolve, and why watches cannot. It is why your analogy between watches and butterflies is fundamentally broken, and why using it to "teach" children is criminally misleading.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 18 2006,13:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... Selection has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the present discussion about watches and butterflies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,

                  Answer these questions :
                  - Do watches evolve?
                  - Do butterflies evolve?

                  If you dodge them, it will further prove that you are a dishonest coward, and you know it.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 18 2006,13:55

                  But wait... What are we doing here?

                  This argument was debunked 150 years ago, (and a has been again at Dover).

                  The guy who is unable to understand why is just a hopeless idiot.

                  Dave can't learn anything.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jeannot already agreed with me and you would too if you were honest.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Agree with you on what? :O
                  If it's on your comparison between watches and butterflies, please post a link to where I admitted it had some value. Liar.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 18 2006,14:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:02)
                  OA ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.

                  Just like the biological software is also a physical (though different) reality.

                  You might need to ask for a refund on your EE degree.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Even by your exalted standards, Dave, this is simply magnificent.

                  I have some software on my hard disk.  If I burn it onto a CD and delete the hard-disk copy, is the software the same or is it different, Dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,14:54

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 18 2006,12:40)
                  Eric,
                  Dave gets tripped over his own semantics all the time.  
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He sure does. That was evident from the very first post he made on his CGH thread, when he put his conclusion, i.e., "There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans," first in the elements of his "hypothesis."

                  So it's self-evidently true that Dave cannot construct a logically-coherent argument. But it's worse than that. He can't even keep track of what his "arguments" are. Dave just spent a week attempting to argue that the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is "complexity." (No further comments about how logically absurd even that statement is). But now, he's saying there is no fundamental difference between watches and butterflies.

                  So which is it, Dave? Is there a fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, or isn't there?

                  And Dave's confusion on this very point is due to his confusion about how to construct an argument from analogy. I think it's finally dawning on Dave, at least sub- or pre-consciously, that you don't construct an argument from analogy based on a difference, you base it on a similarity.

                  Which is why he's now saying there is no fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, despite the fact that at least half a dozen posters have pointed out that there is a huge, glaring, obvious, insurmountable difference between watches and butterflies. And, in case Dave has so far managed to skim over it all this time, I'll restate it:

                  BUTTERFLIES CAN REPRODUCE, AND WATCHES CANNOT.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 18 2006,14:54



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But wait... What are we doing here? ... This argument was debunked 150 years ago...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeah, but this is the AFD UCG "H" part deaux. When someone brought up the wee analogy "in passing", I just knew it was gonna blow up like that Portuguese thing -and I'm no Nostradamus. Strap yourself in for another 10 pages of talking past each other...
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 18 2006,16:48



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This has got to be one of the most idiotic references you have used to try to 'prove' your point.  When did Bill Gates become an expert on DNA?  Could you supply links to some of his peer reviewed published research papers on the subject?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 18 2006,17:40

                  Dave: I gave up on this thread about a week or so ago, I would suggest you do so as well. I realize that you're sincere, as sincere as you can be...in your claims about creationism.

                  But the fact remains this: if you cannot subject your claims to scrutiny, then you have nothing of scientific substance. You have faith. This isn't BAD, it's just not science.

                  SOME people here..I like to think of them as language-bound..claim that the VALUE of ideas can only be ascertained if the terms used are "within convention."  The uses of language should have been clarified by Wittgenstein and others. Yes, connotation counts. Yes, initial language IMPRESSION counts. But to say that specific terms are somehow beneath "science discussions" in an informal setting makes me want to tell those pedantic, pompous, POSING prickles to suck my fat rooster.

                  Let me make this clear: the value of an idea is only as good as the substance which backs it. All else is bullshit and frankly, the pitiful pukes that complained about MY language can go fornicate themselves. This forum is not the repository of all things science...it is intended as an INFORMAL place of argument and debate, not the  end-all-and-be-all of science. GET A GRIP.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,17:48

                  As I recall, Richard Dawkins (Dave Hawkins's favorite bete noire) described DNA as more of a recipe than a computer program. Computer programs (especially the source code) are extremely brittle and rigid. A single misplaced semicolon can prevent source from even compiling. Genomes are much more flexible than that.

                  And if you need any proof of that, Dave, just look at your own children. Supposedly they're all running the same program, right? Are they all identical?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 18 2006,18:08

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 18 2006,12:45)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 18 2006,13:34)
                  WATCHES CAN'T REPRODUCE.

                  I'd think this was a simple concept, but it really does appear to be beyond you.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave is talking about the hyper-technological watches of the future.  Presumably, "reproduction" will just be another standard, built-in feature.  Like having a stopwatch or MP3 player.?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, and if watches can reproduce, they will evolve. If errors in the reproduction process are very low, they will evolve very, very slowly. If the error rate is higher, you'll get more defective watches, but they'll evolve more quickly. (kind of makes you think of bacteria and eukaryotes, doesn't it?)  Which, of course, will mean two things: 1) Dave's "watch" analogy will finally be valid, and 2) Dave will have to admit that the Theory of Evolution was right all along.

                  I hope you live a really, really long time, Dave.

                  I can see watches scavenging around your house for raw materials with which to reproduce. You'd probably have to lock your sliverware drawer, and keep watches completely away from computers.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 18 2006,18:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As I recall, Richard Dawkins (Dave Hawkins's favorite bete noire) described DNA as more of a recipe than a computer program.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thank you, I've spent the last few minutes, while I was catching up with the posts, trying to remember who had used the recipe analogy.

                  I previously questioned Bill Gates' qualifications as an expert in the subject of DNA, lets be honest, he's not even an expert when it comes to software.
                  Posted by: jupiter on Dec. 18 2006,20:07

                  There's a guy out there < creating insects > all by himself -- without a factory! He's even posted < directions for making flies >, so anybody can do it!

                  It's only a matter of time until someone figures out how to make insects with very very tiny people inside, making more insects with very very very tiny people inside, and so on. Design, and reproduction, and intelligence -- but NO TECHNOLOGY! QED.

                  Also -- Horton Hears a Who. Discuss.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 18 2006,20:21

                  How's life on the sh!t pile? Davey Rooster.

                  I see you took your head out of your arse for second to get a breath ........but maybe you should keep it out a bit longer...and re-read my posts.


                  You would agree with me .....if you were honest that is.


                  Speaking of honesty AFD how DID that pastor at your chuch swindle the $16,000,000 ?


                  Come on....... you are our inside source...now is the time to be honest for once in your life.

                  Did it all go to the poor and the needy?

                  Do you have the receipts?

                  Tell us about the nice house your pastor lives in, how much did it cost again?

                  Ignoring these questions or giving false answers is a measure of your character AFD.

                  YOU HAVE NONE.

                  YOU SIR ARE A LYING WINDBAG.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 18 2006,20:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (OA):  DNA is NOT honest-to-goodness software Dave.  Software is a set of abstract symbols that are read and interpreted by another agency (the computer OS), then acted upon to produce a desired result.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (AFDave):  I beg your pardon, Mr. Masters in EE Space Scientist.  Software is NOT abstract.  It is a PHYSICAL REALITY in memory chips, hard drives and other storage devices.  Each bit of data represents either a "1" or a "0" (which is the abstraction), but it is a physical reality ... either an electrical charge or a magnetic orientation.

                  Just like the biological software is also a physical (though different) reality.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I guess we'll have to add computer science to the list of things about which AFDave is as ignorant as a tree stump.
                  (aside:  that's a METAPHOR Dave, it doesn't mean I think you're a REAL tree stump)

                  i was going to post a rebuttal with examples of just how stupid your claims that 'software is not an abstraction' are but I see quite a few knowledgeable folks have beaten me to it.

                  I swear Dave - SteveS asked me to stop calling you ShitForBrains so I did, but FSM help me IT FITS YOU TO A TEE :angry:
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 18 2006,21:02

                  And another thing AFD, just take your loving eyes off your mirror for a second please and answer this.

                  Please please please with sugar on, go and get jeanot's actual quote where he agrees with you that watches and butterflies are THE SAME.

                  Yes yes I know it's so hard .......no one understands you.

                  Why can't they all see what you do, when it is so obvious.

                  Psst Little Red Rooster .....they are all way smarter than you even the stupid ones.

                  Hard to believe isn't it, what with you being a top gun and all ..eh?

                  AFD you have to admit you never got on that boat before they pulled up the gangplank ...did you?

                  What was it AFD?

                  You told us some general changed the rules but there was a personality flaw there ...wasn't there Red Rooster?

                  Couldn't take an order? A falling out? A slip of the tongue? Personal friction? An indiscretion?

                  It wasn't your health, it couldn't be age unless you slipped behind, you loved flying, you fitted in OK didn't you?........ apart from pestering your buddies with Jesus Junk Mail.

                  You knew you were better than all of them.

                  You knew they were all wrong and you were right.

                  Let me guess .......you truly never found out, it just happened...one day everything seemed hunky dory then suddenly ...sorry fly boy, no top gun for you....but we do have this other great job for you.


                  Come on inquiring minds want to know...and don't give the same BS as before.

                  Think about it AFD, I'll bet it's a recurring nightmare for you, you must remember the moment your dream went out the window.

                  So Who, Where, When, How.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 18 2006,21:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I guess we'll have to add computer science to the list of things about which AFDave is as ignorant as a tree stump.
                  (aside:  that's a METAPHOR Dave, it doesn't mean I think you're a REAL tree stump)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Pff. That's a simile, not a metaphor.  Therefore, God.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 18 2006,21:48

                  And 'thick as a tree stump' is alliteration

                  and 'homophone home' is Onomatopea

                  --edit: but then again probably not.

                  It does however mix a postmodern phonetic justapostion as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of homophobia that runs throughout Dave Springers text.

                  Mix with ice and serve cold at a gay bath house...let the denial begin.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 19 2006,02:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  SOME people here..I like to think of them as language-bound..claim that the VALUE of ideas can only be ascertained if the terms used are "within convention."  The uses of language should have been clarified by Wittgenstein and others. Yes, connotation counts. Yes, initial language IMPRESSION counts. But to say that specific terms are somehow beneath "science discussions" in an informal setting makes me want to tell those pedantic, pompous, POSING prickles to suck my fat rooster.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you have nothing to say. If you want to discuss why you're wrong, great. If you want to invent scnarios in which you MIGHT be right, great. I'll kill you each time.
                  For the rest of you panty-waisted, language-parsing
                  suck-asses whining about me, well, let me know who you are. It's not as though your arguments on speech hold value until shown. Talk to me about how communication is to be conducted.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 19 2006,08:45

                  I predict that Dave will spend the next week on the comparison between genomes and computer programs.

                  Yawn. ???
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,10:18

                  HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE LIVING WORLD
                  I think by now every one is at least understanding my position ...

                  In a nutshell, I say that ...

                  1) Biological hi-tech resembles human hi-tech except that it is far more sophisticated.
                  2) In archaeology, when we find high tech artifacts, we attribute it to the highest form of intelligence we know about ... humans.  We would not be so foolish as to say it was made by chimps, or mosquitos or a chance arrangement of parts.
                  3) So with biological higher tech, it reasonable to assume that this higher tech was made by higher-than-human intelligence.

                  This could stated this way ...

                  ARCHAEOLOGY:  Equal tech => Equal Intelligence (=> means produced by)
                  BIOLOGY: Higher tech => Higher intelligence

                  Now ... what is so dumb about that?  Especially when the alternative (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection)
                  ... seems dumber and actually turns out to be dumber because it is refuted by all experimental evidence.  Remember the Fruit Flies?

                  Look ... you've already admitted that a Higher Intelligence is a possibility.  It's only a small step to then say that, given what we know about high tech machines, it is more probable that a higher intelligence is a better explanation for life than (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection).

                  You're almost there!

                  **************************************************************

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  Yes, K.E, Jeannot did agree with me ... he said ...[quote]I [sic] [he meant "it"] would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

                  And your attempt to attack my character because you have nothing to say to defend your scientific position is noted.  My church stole no money and I (and about 5 other fellow pilots) didn't get our promised fighters because the policy changed.  Go research it.  It's public record.  You've been told by the moderator of this forum to stop the personal attacks.  Again, I say, if you truly want to accuse me of criminal activity, give me your personal information and we'll do it in court.  You won't of course because you are a coward and you know you are lying.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The best guesses that I know about (and they are guesses--I am honest enough to admit that) come from Dr. Walt Brown at www.creationscience.com.  Dr. Brown's Hydroplate Theory and Dr. John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics are the two most well-known theories about HOW the waters of the Flood came about.  Google them.  Note that there is no controversy among creationists that the flood was global.  Thousands of feet of water laid sediment all over the earth is clear testimony of that.  The only controversy is HOW it happened.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Good question.  I don't know the answer.  Maybe there ARE some written records that you don't know about yet.  I intend to get Michael Oard's books on the Ice Age and share some of that material here.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, I defer to Baumgardner and Brown.  I have read their theories and they sound plausible to me.  Your Googling is as good as my Googling. :-)
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,10:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:18)
                  Now ... what is so dumb about that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.

                  Also, I notice you still can't come up with anything that isn't "complex", can you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,10:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,10:18)
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The best guesses that I know about (and they are guesses--I am honest enough to admit that) come from Dr. Walt Brown at www.creationscience.com.  Dr. Brown's Hydroplate Theory and Dr. John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics are the two most well-known theories about HOW the waters of the Flood came about.  Google them.  Note that there is no controversy among creationists that the flood was global.  Thousands of feet of water laid sediment all over the earth is clear testimony of that.  The only controversy is HOW it happened.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course there isn't, Dave. Creationists go into the argument assuming there was a global flood, and only then try to find evidence that it happened. So far they have come up with exactly zero evidence that it ever happened. And don't start with your "millions of dead things" screed. The fossil record is evidence that a flood didn't happen, not that it did.

                  So did you answer the question? No, of course not. The questions wer, how deep was the water, where it came from, and how was it distributed. You answered none of those questions, and you certainly didn't answer where Walt Brown's "guess" came from, and what evidence it's based on.

                  So did you "answer" these questions? What do you think? Do you think they're going to come off the list as "answered"?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Good question.  I don't know the answer.  Maybe there ARE some written records that you don't know about yet.  I intend to get Michael Oard's books on the Ice Age and share some of that material here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good to know you have at least some (albeit not very much) intellectual honesty. But Dave, unfortunately, even though you've said you don't know the answer to this question, we can't check it off as "answered." Why? Because the question is critical to your "hypothesis." You know, the one that's supposedly a "better" explanation for observation than the real theories? If your "hypothesis" has no evidence for one of its assertions, then there's a serious problem with it, which needs to be addressed. Until it is addressed, it remains as an outstanding issue.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, I defer to Baumgardner and Brown.  I have read their theories and they sound plausible to me.  Your Googling is as good as my Googling. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, we've read these guys, and they have nothing to say about the sources for the "waters of the deep." They can't even tell if the "waters" were fresh water, or seawater. Their "theories" sound plausible to you only because you want to believe them. For those of us with no dog in that fight, their "theories" are laughable.

                  So no, this question isn't answered either. And, in general, telling us to "go Google" some crackpot creationist isn't an answer to anything.

                  So far you're batting zero, Sluggo.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,11:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,10:18)
                  HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE LIVING WORLD
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow. Dave does have a talent for declaiming the obvious with an air of discovery, doesn't he?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think by now every one is at least understanding my position ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, get over yourself. If you think you've just labored for the past week to get us to understand your position, you're hallucinating. We've understood your position all along. We just know it's utterly vacuous.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In a nutshell, I say that ...

                  [blah blah blah (or words to that effect)]

                  Now ... what is so dumb about that?  Especially when the alternative (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection)
                  ... seems dumber and actually turns out to be dumber because it is refuted by all experimental evidence.  Remember the Fruit Flies?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming, and it amounts to a lot more then "Fruit Flies." Remember Theobald, that guy you never read? You should give him a read.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Look ... you've already admitted that a Higher Intelligence is a possibility.  It's only a small step to then say that, given what we know about high tech machines, it is more probable that a higher intelligence is a better explanation for life than (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection).

                  You're almost there!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the tooth fairy is a possibility. Santa Claus is a possibility. Science isn't based on "possibilities." And besides, is your task here to show us that God might exist? You could have saved yourself four hundred pages of drivel. Everyone here admits that God could possibly exist. No one here thinks God is an impossibility.

                  So could you please start discussing your "hypothesis." Like, today?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,11:05

                  Improv ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So you reject the proposition that the "Ram Caught in the Thicket" sculpture, for example, found by Woolley at Ur was a product of intelligent design  simply because you cannot quantify the qualitative differences between it and sculptures of modern times?  No, you do not.

                  Hmmm ... interesting quandary you put yourself in.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, I notice you still can't come up with anything that isn't "complex", can you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.

                  Eric ... I have an idea ... if I just say I agree with you, will you go away?  I haven't experienced such a motivated gnat buzzing around my head since my S. America days.  :p
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 19 2006,11:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:05)
                  I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  so we'll take that as a NO then?

                  ha.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,11:12

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, the tooth fairy is a possibility. Santa Claus is a possibility. Science isn't based on "possibilities."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, but you are wrong.  YOUR theory of (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection to produce all of life) is a possibility.  My theory of Creationism is also a possibility.  The problem with the science establishment today is that you think your "possibility" is a proven fact and that my "possibility" is actually NOT a possibility at all, yet now you say that it IS a possibility.

                  Now ... how can you disagree with this and be consistent with yourself?

                  Please explain ... more coherently than you usually do.
                  Posted by: Shirley Knott on Dec. 19 2006,11:12

                  I cannot imagine anything capturing antiFactDave's approach more perfectly than his latest post to Eric.
                  He is willing to adopt, or to feign adoption, of a position he does not like, does not understand, does not approve of, and certainly neither accepts nor believes, just to make a persistent challenge to his deeply held beliefs go away.

                  There is his honesty, his integrity, his 'character' if you will, in a nutshell.  (No pun intended, nothing nearly so large is required to encapsulate little Davey.)

                  And in all of this, Dave still does not understand why the artifact from Ur is not a problem to Eric, nor why this represents the fatal flaw in his silly little 'approach' to "reasoning".

                  Dave, give it up.  You've already determined what you want to be true and are simply struggling to find ways to make your prejudices plausible.  You are no more capable of an honest inquiry than an emu is of piloting an F-18.  The difference, of course, is the emu might be funny to watch.  You are merely pitiful.

                  no hugs for thugs,
                  Shirley Knott
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,11:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:05)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, I notice you still can't come up with anything that isn't "complex", can you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmm. "complexity tests" have nothing to do with Dave's argument that some things are too complex to have arisen without the intervention of an intelligent designer. Yeah. Makes perfect sense to me, Dave. You have no way of determining if something is "complex" or not, but you're going to use "complexity" to determine if something was designed by an intelligent agent.

                  Right.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... I have an idea ... if I just say I agree with you, will you go away?  I haven't experienced such a motivated gnat buzzing around my head since my S. America days.  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So says the guy who's posted 1,400 messages purporting to show the universe is only 6,000 years old.

                  But don't worry, Dave; I'm not going anywhere. I'll be pointing out the Mack-truck-sized holes in your "hypothesis" until the cows have come home, grown old, and died. I'm never going to get tired of showing how vapid your arguments are, Dave. And besides, I see it as my duty to keep the S/N ratio here as high as possible, by actually addressing your "arguments" and showing them for the worthless dreck they are.

                  And, it's pretty clear that I've been getting under your skin. Not exactly incentive to get me to go away, Sluggo.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,11:20

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,12:12)
                  The problem with the science establishment today is that you think your "possibility" is a proven fact and that my "possibility" is actually NOT a possibility at all, yet now you say that it IS a possibility.

                  Now ... how can you disagree with this and be consistent with yourself?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You seem to think that evolution is by definition in conflict with the general concept of "intelligent design".  

                  It isn't.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 19 2006,11:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So that whole butterflies must be designed because they're more complex than watches argument was just a red herring?  Is there any part of your "hypothesis" that isn't completely vacuous?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 19 2006,11:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave): do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, archaeologists determine if an object is a man made artifact by comparing it to attributes of other previously know man-made artifacts.  Does it show signs of workmanship (i.e. tool marks)? Does it match previously know patterns of human design?  There is no 'complexity test' that is independent of the context the object was found in, or independent of previously known patterns.

                  You're now just mouthing a bastardized form of the IDiot 'CSI' argument, and looking equally as stupid.

                  When you claim 'complexity indicates design', you are ignoring a few simple facts:

                  1. You have no 'pattern' with which to match your biological examples.  You can find only the most superficial similarities to human designs, which is NOT the same thing
                  2. It's a proven fact that processes involving positive feedback loops and imperfect replicators tend to increase in complexity.  RM+NS is a positive feedback loop with imperfect replicators, and it's had over 3 billions years to build up complex results.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,11:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,12:05)
                  Improv ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So you reject the proposition that the "Ram Caught in the Thicket" sculpture, for example, found by Woolley at Ur was a product of intelligent design  simply because you cannot quantify the qualitative differences between it and sculptures of modern times?  No, you do not.

                  Hmmm ... interesting quandary you put yourself in.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not at all.  We can determine that an artifact is man made by looking for qualitative similarities.  YOU are the one trying to turn this into a quantitative analysis.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 19 2006,11:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ... I have an idea ... if I just say I agree with you, will you go away?  I haven't experienced such a motivated gnat buzzing around my head since my S. America days.  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey, I like Eric's posts. Quitchyer bitchin' and answer his questions. Pretend every one of them is being asked by me as well.

                  (hehe, 400 pages of drivel to find out that God is a possibility...)
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 19 2006,11:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):  Oh, but you are wrong.  YOUR theory of (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection to produce all of life) is a possibility.  My theory of Creationism is also a possibility.  The problem with the science establishment today is that you think your "possibility" is a proven fact and that my "possibility" is actually NOT a possibility at all, yet now you say that it IS a possibility.

                  Now ... how can you disagree with this and be consistent with yourself?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  'Possible' doesn't mean 'probable' Dave.

                  It's possible that your T-38 flew because of the proper combination of lift and thrust overcame gravity and drag.  It's also possible that your T-38 flew because it was held aloft by tiny invisible pixies.  Which one should we teach to new aviation students?

                  That life has existed on this planet for over 3 billion years is a fact.  That life has continually evolved in that time is a fact.  That the mechanism of RM+NS produces complex biological structures is a fact.  The Theory of Evolution is the explanation that ties together ALL the known facts into one coherent picture.  It explains ALL the factual data Dave, and doesn't exclude the parts it doesn't like.

                  If you want your CGH to replace ToE, then your theory has to also explain ALL the factual data BETTER than ToE.  You CGH doesn't even come close Dave.  You've spent he better part of a year ignoring all the facts that your CGH can't explain.  That's why it's a worthless piece of crap.

                  I know you know that already, but your ego keeps your mouth running anyway.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,11:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:12)
                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, the tooth fairy is a possibility. Santa Claus is a possibility. Science isn't based on "possibilities."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, but you are wrong.  YOUR theory of (Chance/Abiogenesis/Mutations/Selection to produce all of life) is a possibility.  My theory of Creationism is also a possibility.  The problem with the science establishment today is that you think your "possibility" is a proven fact and that my "possibility" is actually NOT a possibility at all, yet now you say that it IS a possibility.

                  Now ... how can you disagree with this and be consistent with yourself?

                  Please explain ... more coherently than you usually do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Okay, Dave, a little probability lesson here. Something is either possible or impossible. I.e., it either has a probability of exactly zero, or a probability somewhere between zero and one (i.e., it's been normalized to be a positive real number between zero and 1, inclusive).

                  You're correct that abiogenesis theories and the Theory of Evolution have non-zero probabilities of being true.

                  You're also correct that the probability that God exists, and is in some sense responsible for the existence of the universe and everything in it, is non-zero.

                  However, the probability that your "hypothesis" of creationism (Dave, your "hypothesis" doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis, let alone a theory) has a zero probability of being true. Why? Because it proposes that the universe is 6,000 years old. The evidence that the universe is at least several orders of magnitude older than that is conclusive. It is simply impossible for the universe to be any less than a few hundred million years old, and it's extraordinarily improbable that it could be less than a few billion years old. Therefore, your "hypothesis" has been utterly ruled out by observation, and if there is some probability of it being true, it's probably about as close to zero as the cosmological constant is.

                  "Evolution" is a proven fact, Dave, not subject to dispute. The "Theory of Evolution," being a theory, cannot be proven to be true (although it can be proven to be false), but the evidence that it is true is at least as powerful and compelling as the evidence that the Theory of Relativity is true or that Quantum Theory is true.

                  Again, Dave, everyone here admits that the existence of God is a possibility. But that's not the same thing as admitting that your "hypothesis" could be true. They're two different things. Your "Creator God Hypothesis," in its totality, cannot possibly be true. It has a zero probability of being true, in other words.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,12:00

                  Argy ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So that whole butterflies must be designed because they're more complex than watches argument was just a red herring?  Is there any part of your "hypothesis" that isn't completely vacuous?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are not reading carefully.  I have no interest in quantitative complexity tests that Improvius is talking about.  I am only interested in shining a spotlight on the fact that no quantitative test is required to determine that a butterfly is "higher tech" than a watch.  Just as it is intuitively obvious to Improvius that an ancient artifact was designed--no quantitative test required.

                  Now ... what part of this do you not understand?  Or are you just being intentionally obtuse perhaps?

                  *******************************************

                  WHOA, WHOA ... CHECK THIS OUT ... LOOK WHAT IMPROV JUST DID ... HE JUST MADE MY POINT FOR ME!
                  Improv just agreed with me about qualitative comparisons!      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Not at all.  We can determine that an artifact is man made by looking for qualitative similarities. YOU are the one trying to turn this into a quantitative analysis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... which I am not.  He just can't read.

                  Did you see that??!!

                  He said ...  [Trumpet Blast]

                  We can determine that an artifact is man made by looking for qualitative similarities.

                  Yes, that's right ... thank you!  Thank you!  

                  I win!

                  Did you see what just happened guys?

                  Improv assumes [wrongly] I am making a quantitative comparison and says "you can't do that ..."
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:18)
                  Now ... what is so dumb about that?

                  Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Then he turns right around and says ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We can determine that an artifact is man made by looking for qualitative [with an "L"] similarities.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I see Aftershave is also admitting he uses qualitative comparisons.

                  I love this thread!

                  Let's recap ...

                  [Dave]Equal Tech in Archaeology => Equal intelligence to humans, therefore Higher Tech in Biology => Higher intelligence than humans.  Both are QUALITATIVE comparisons.  No quantitative test required.
                  [Improv]You can't quantify that comparison, so you're dumb.
                  [Dave]You can't either in archaeology.
                  [Improv] I know, but that's OK.
                  [Dave]Thought you said it wasn't OK.  Which is it?

                  I just looove this thread!
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 19 2006,12:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are not reading carefully.  I have no interest in quantitative complexity tests that Improvius is talking about.  I am only interested in shining a spotlight on the fact that no quantitative test is required to determine that a butterfly is "higher tech" than a watch.  Just as it is intuitively obvious to Improvius that an ancient artifact was designed--no quantitative test required.

                  Now ... what part of this do you not understand?  Or are you just being intentionally obtuse perhaps?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't understand the part where Improvius is making an inference based solely on his intuition.  You wouldn't want to misrepresent Him (her?), would you?

                  So now according to you, the amount of biological information is determined based on intuition, and the amount of complexity is determined based on intuition.  Bricks.  Hammers.  Toast.

                  Oh, and it takes quite a bit of intentional obtuseness to follow your arguments, Dave.

                  Psst... parasites... you said you'd be willing to discuss them.  Don't tell me we're going to spend another week on arguments from analogies.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 19 2006,12:14

                  One again, AFDave can't type two sentences without lying
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are not reading carefully.  I have no interest in quantitative complexity tests that Improvius is talking about.  I am only interested in shining a spotlight on the fact that no quantitative test is required to determine that a butterfly is "higher tech" than a watch.  Just as it is intuitively obvious to Improvius that an ancient artifact was designed--no quantitative test required.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Improvius did not say design was determined because it was intuitively obvious Dave.  He said exactly the opposite.  Objects are tested for their qualitative attributes and compared agains a known threshold of what indicates human design.  

                  Dave, you are the one who says we can detect design solely by quantitative means, intuitively estimating the amount of complexity.

                  As always, you resort to lying and equivocating when your asinine arguments get in trouble.

                  Liar Dave Hawkins true to form.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,12:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:00)
                  [Dave]Equal Tech in Archaeology => Equal intelligence to humans, therefore Higher Tech in Biology => Higher intelligence than humans.  Both are QUALITATIVE comparisons.  No quantitative test required.
                  [Improv]You can't quantify that comparison, so you're dumb.
                  [Dave]You can't either in archaeology.
                  [Improv] I know, but that's OK.
                  [Dave]Thought you said it wasn't OK.  Which is it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You just used the mathematical comparison operator "=>" and tried to claim that it wasn't a quantitative analysis.  You're an idiot.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,12:16

                  Aftershave ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's possible that your T-38 flew because of the proper combination of lift and thrust overcame gravity and drag.  It's also possible that your T-38 flew because it was held aloft by tiny invisible pixies.  Which one should we teach to new aviation students?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The more probable one--the former.  Ditto for how life came about, i.e. Intelligent Design ... why?  Because it is the more proabable explanation based upon what we already know from science and technology.

                  Thank you for making my point!

                  (Boy, you guys are really making my life easier by making my points FOR me now)
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,12:28

                  Aftershave...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Improvius did not say design was determined because it was intuitively obvious Dave.  He said exactly the opposite.  Objects are tested for their qualitative attributes and compared agains a known threshold of what indicates human design.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  That's what I said too.  Qualitative comparison.  You got it.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, you are the one who says we can detect design solely by quantitative means, intuitively estimating the amount of complexity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  I don't say that.  "Intuitive" and "quantitative" don't go together, OA.  And I don't mix them.

                  Again, I am making a QUALITATIVE comparison and I have been all along.

                  Improvius criticised me for doing so then turned around and admitted he does the same thing in archaeology!

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

                  (Oh ... my sides hurt! )

                  Improv ... I defined my "=>" sign as "produced by" in this context ... you are crashing and burning so often today, I can't keep track of it all!
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 19 2006,12:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The more probable one--the former.  Ditto for how life came about, i.e. Intelligent Design ... why?  Because it is the more proabable explanation based upon what we already know from science and technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your problem has always been Dave, 99.85% of people who have actually studied the subject (as opposed to a scientifically illiterate moron like yourself) disagree with you, and they have the facts to back up their conclusion.  What do you have besides your ignorance based personal incredulity and a titanic ego that keeps your gums flapping?

                  Wanna talk about those post-flood scavengers yet?  How about buried limestone canyons?  Or hydrodynamic sorting?  :D
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,12:35

                  Argy ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now according to you, the amount of biological information is determined based on intuition, and the amount of complexity is determined based on intuition.  Bricks.  Hammers.  Toast.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do you have a "Design Meter" to determine a hammer is designed?  If you do, I'd like to see it!  Fact is ... you don't ... it's not needed. This is my point!



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh, and it takes quite a bit of intentional obtuseness to follow your arguments, Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Fair enough, I guess.  I can be pretty obtuse myself, come to think of it.  :D



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Psst... parasites... you said you'd be willing to discuss them.  Don't tell me we're going to spend another week on arguments from analogies.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah yeah yeah ... but I'm having too much fun with this stuff right now ... gimme a day or two.  You wouldn't want to kill a guy's fun now would you?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 19 2006,12:40

                  Dave,
                  I've been trying to explain to you HOW to satisfy the logical argument your trying to make.

                  You just aren't listening.... at all.

                  I said you needed to equivicate (link, compare, quantify) your terms in your argument.

                  You need to explain to everyone how the leap from {Equal Tech in Archaeology} to {Higher Tech in Biology} is somehow comparative.  You need to do the same thing with {Equal intelligence to humans} to {Higher intelligence than humans}.  Since you have stated to everyone that you base this on complexity you can establish the equivelance statements by defining complexity in this context.

                  These equivecations are quantitative by definition (notice the mathy language in logic).

                  Once you make these equivecations, only THEN can you make further qualitative statements based upon the quantitative basis of your equivelence definition.

                  The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).

                  Improvious and OA are correct in their statements.  They're just feeding you these requirements one morsel at a time.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,12:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:28)
                  Improv ... I defined my "=>" sign as "produced by" in this context ... you are crashing and burning so often today, I can't keep track of it all!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's ok, you're still using plenty of quantitative terms like "higher tech", "higher intelligence", "more sophisticated", etc.

                  Maybe you just don't understand what "qualitative" and "quantitative" mean.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,12:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,10:18)
                  Yes, K.E, Jeannot did agree with me ... he said ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I (sic) (he meant "it") would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you implied that Jeannot agreed with your "watch" analogy. Everyone assumed that's what you meant. Turns out, Jeannot agreed with no such thing. If you think somehow you scored points by having people (including me) agreeing that if a watch could reproduce, using a method that resulted in imperfect replication, and then was subjected to selective pressure, it would be essentially alive, what point did you think you were making?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 19 2006,12:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:28)
                  Improv ... I defined my "=>" sign as "produced by" in this context ... you are crashing and burning so often today, I can't keep track of it all!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  In what way is "produced by" not quantitative.

                  I produce a number of widgets in a certain amount of time and it costs me money for raw materials but I make a profit at the end of the day because my widget sales are good.

                  Please elaborate.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 19 2006,12:57

                  Guys, this thread has gone haywire again.

                  I am of course referring to the bug that means that recent posts aren't viewable until they reach a "critical page mass" and cause a new page to be made (or until one leaves a comment).

                  I don't mean that it has gone haywire in any other sense other than it involves AirFarceDave. Which is simply haywire from day one. Although I have to admire your patience. One day, when I grow up, I want to be patient too. Until then I'll just continue being an intolerant bastard! ;-)

                  Louis
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,13:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,12:00)
                  [Dave]Equal Tech in Archaeology => Equal intelligence to humans, therefore Higher Tech in Biology => Higher intelligence than humans.  Both are QUALITATIVE comparisons.  No quantitative test required.
                  [Improv]You can't quantify that comparison, so you're dumb.
                  [Dave]You can't either in archaeology.
                  [Improv] I know, but that's OK.
                  [Dave]Thought you said it wasn't OK.  Which is it?

                  I just looove this thread!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, saying that one thing is "more complex" than another is making a quantitative comparison. In other words, what is the "amount" of complexity of one object, as compared to the "amount" of complexity of another object, and which is higher. That's a quantitative comparison.

                  But you say you're not interested in the quantitative analysis of complexity, which means you have nothing to say about the relative complexity of watches and butterflies.

                  The same is true of your comparison of intelligence. If you're saying one form of intelligence is "higher" than another form, that's a quantitative comparison. So neither one of these is a "qualitative" comparison. Both are quantitative comparisons.

                  In archaeology, to determine if an object is natural or manmade, you make qualitative comparisons. If you want to determine if a watch is more, less, or equally complex as a butterfly, you necessarily need to make a quantitative analysis.

                  And, if you claim somethings are so complex they need a creative intelligence, and other things are not, you need to quantify complexity. This is something you cannot do, and have no interest in attempting. Therefore, you really have nothing to say about whether something is complex enough to require a creative intelligence.

                  And, as I've pointed out before, you also seem to think that some things are so complex that they can create themselves. So you have three regions of complexity: not complex enough to require a designer, complex enough to require a designer, and too complex to require a designer. But since you can't and/or won't quantify complexity, you have no idea which things fit into which categories.

                  In other words, you are, as usual, talking out of your ass.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 19 2006,13:10

                  I always love the "This-guy-is-making-me-look-so-dumb-I-think-I'll-try-a-new-tactic" gig from Aftershave...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your problem has always been Dave, 99.85% of people who have actually studied the subject (as opposed to a scientifically illiterate moron like yourself) disagree with you, and they have the facts to back up their conclusion.  What do you have besides your ignorance based personal incredulity and a titanic ego that keeps your gums flapping?

                  Wanna talk about those post-flood scavengers yet?  How about buried limestone canyons?  Or hydrodynamic sorting?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "All scientists are smarter than you, Dave."

                  "Can we change the subject now, Dave?"

                  ***********************************

                  Mike PSS ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, precisely.  Thank you--yet another person--for making my point for me.  This is too cool! :p  :p  :p

                  We DO have readily established and published norms for doing qualitative comparisons with biological machines as well.

                  Did you not read this Bruce Alberts piece that I referred you to?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Most important for the future of our field, the departmental structures at most universities seem to have thus far prevented any major rethinking of what preparation in mathematics, what preparation in physics, and what preparation in chemistry is most appropriate for either the research biologists or the medical doctors who will be working 10 or 20 years from now. The result is a mismatch between what today’s students who are interested in biology should be learning and the actual course offerings that are available to them. It is largely for this reason, I believe, that so many talented young biologists feel that mathematics, chemistry, and physics are of minor importance to their careers.

                  It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.

                  Acknowledgments

                  I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines, Mei Lie Wong for preparation of the figure,and Teresa Donovan for manuscript preparation.

                  < Alberts on Cells >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Think of that!  The President of the National Academy of Sciences, consulting with an engineer to help him analyze marvelous protein machines!!

                  And Mike PSS seems to think we don't have established norms for analyzing them!

                  Whoo boy!  This thread gets funnier and funnier!

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 19 2006,13:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, K.E, Jeannot did agree with me ... he said ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I [sic] [he meant "it"] would be a living being to me. Organic molecules, cells, metabolism... don't matter to me. If something can reproduce and evolve indefinitely, it's alive or I don't see the fundamental difference.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't remember you mention anything about reproduction and evolution in your drivel about watches/butterflies.

                  Keep dreaming.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,13:13

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,12:41)
                  Maybe you just don't understand what "qualitative" and "quantitative" mean.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yep. That's the crux of the biscuit, as the talking dog would say.

                  If Dave cannot properly construct an argument from analogy (although I think he's starting to get the hang of it now after I hammered the technique into his noggin with the back of a shovel), it's certainly not particularly surprising that the distinction between "qualitative" and "quantitative" would be giving him trouble.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 19 2006,13:21

                  Eric,

                  Awww come on, give Dave some credit. He's come up with more ways than I thought possible of stamping his foot and screaming "IT'S COMPLEX BECAUSE I SAID SO" like a mentally deficient and heavily spoilt 4 year old.

                  Louis
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,13:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:10)
                  "Can we change the subject now, Dave?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Change the subject from what, Dave? What are you actually talking about now? You seem to be saying that because everything we know humans built that is complex was made my humans, therefore everything complex (whatever that means, because you can neither define nor quantify the term) that wasn't made my humans must have been made by God.

                  Let's just say your logic is a little lacking there, bunky.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, precisely.  Thank you--yet another person--for making my point for me.  This is too cool!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And what point is that, Dave? That we can determine that something was made by humans using qualitative analysis? That's your point? What does that have to do with whether it is possible to determine whether something was complex enough to require an intelligent designer using purely qualitative analysis? I can tell whether I like a painting based on qualitative analysis. Does that mean I can determine my weight in the morning using qualitative analysis?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We DO have readily established and published norms for doing qualitative comparisons with biological machines as well.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Qualitative analysis as to their complexity? Isn't that what you're supposedly talking about here? If you say a chloroplast is green, and a mitochondrion isn't, that's a qualitative analysis. Saying a chloroplast is more, less, or equally complex as a mitochondrion is a quantitative analysis.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Did you not read this Bruce Alberts piece that I referred you to?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, that quote has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about here. Where does Bruce say anything about quantitative analysis of the complexity of biological structures? Where does he say anything about the qualitative analysis of biological structures? Does he make any statements either way as to which is necessary, and when? Does this quote have anything whatsoever to do with your point, assuming arguendo that you even have a point?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Mike PSS seems to think we don't have established norms for analyzing them!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Analyzing what, Dave? And analyzing what property of them? You've left enough terms undefined here to leave your point impossible to discern!

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Whoo boy!  This thread gets funnier and funnier!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Finally we agree on something.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,13:50

                  Quote (Louis @ Dec. 19 2006,12:57)
                  Guys, this thread has gone haywire again.

                  I am of course referring to the bug that means that recent posts aren't viewable until they reach a "critical page mass" and cause a new page to be made (or until one leaves a comment).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This bug, while annoying, can be dealt with. There's a workaround. Look at the URL for the page you're on (which is one page earlier than the page you want to look at, which isn't visible yet). At the end of the URL is a four-digit number. Add 30 to the number (e.g., add 30 to 3990 to get 4020), and voilà! The last page will be visible.

                  Apologies if everyone already knows how to do this.

                  Strange that this bug seems unique to Dave's threads. Wonder if it's maybe caused by excessive vacuity.

                  Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure? If it's quantitative, I nominate an ISO unit for it: the AFD. Perhaps three non-sequitors is equal to one AFD, or something. Any ideas for how to quantify vacuity? On this thread, I think it would be a useful measure.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 19 2006,14:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do you have a "Design Meter" to determine a hammer is designed?  If you do, I'd like to see it!  Fact is ... you don't ... it's not needed. This is my point!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course, my method for detecting design says that the organism that caused this was not designed, whereas yours says it was.
                  Maybe you should use a method which might actually be somewhat objective for determining design, rather than "because I say so."
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,14:06

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,14:50)
                  Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I suspect you were being facetious, but I'll offer an answer that might help Dave out.  It's qualitative.  Either something is empty or it isn't.  If you compare 2 of Dave's posts and try to say that one is more vacuous than the other, you are saying that the "less vacuous" one actually has more content.  And if it has any content at all, it isn't vacuous.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,14:26

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,14:06)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,14:50)
                  Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I suspect you were being facetious, but I'll offer an answer that might help Dave out.  It's qualitative.  Either something is empty or it isn't.  If you compare 2 of Dave's posts and try to say that one is more vacuous than the other, you are saying that the "less vacuous" one actually has more content.  And if it has any content at all, it isn't vacuous.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, perhaps not. After all, one can say that one gas tank is "more empty" than another, can't one? If one tank is half empty, and the other is only a quarter empty, isn't the first one "emptier" than the second?

                  But yes, I was being facetious.

                  And I agree that it's not clear that any of Dave's posts are anything other than completely empty.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,14:34

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,15:26)
                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,14:06)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,14:50)
                  Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I suspect you were being facetious, but I'll offer an answer that might help Dave out.  It's qualitative.  Either something is empty or it isn't.  If you compare 2 of Dave's posts and try to say that one is more vacuous than the other, you are saying that the "less vacuous" one actually has more content.  And if it has any content at all, it isn't vacuous.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, perhaps not. After all, one can say that one gas tank is "more empty" than another, can't one? If one tank is half empty, and the other is only a quarter empty, isn't the first one "emptier" than the second?

                  But yes, I was being facetious.

                  And I agree that it's not clear that any of Dave's posts are anything other than completely empty.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As an English major, I'd say that "empty" is an absolute quality, and that "half empty" and "emptier" are technically incorrect uses of the language, and could perhaps be best classified as colloquialisms.  You're actually measuring content or space - not the quality of "emptiness" itself.

                  "Unique" is another such quality.  It means that there is only one of something.  So terms such as "very unique" are incorrect.  This particular example is one of my pet peeves.  I cringe whenever I hear it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,14:50

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,14:34)
                  As an English major, I'd say that "empty" is an absolute quality, and that "half empty" and "emptier" are technically incorrect uses of the language, and could perhaps be best classified as colloquialisms.  You're actually measuring content or space - not the quality of "emptiness" itself.

                  "Unique" is another such quality.  It means that there is only one of something.  So terms such as "very unique" are incorrect.  This particular example is one of my pet peeves.  I cringe whenever I hear it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How do you feel about "empty-headed"? :-)
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 19 2006,14:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,14:10)
                  Mike PSS ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The statue in Ur compared to a modern statue is a qualitative measure because there are readily established and published norms (definitions, equivelances, links, etc.) about the nature of these statues and their creators (human artisans in this case).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, precisely.  Thank you--yet another person--for making my point for me.  This is too cool! :p  :p  :p

                  We DO have readily established and published norms for doing qualitative comparisons with biological machines as well.

                  Did you not read this Bruce Alberts piece that I referred you to?      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Most important for the future of our field, the departmental structures at most universities seem to have thus far prevented any major rethinking of what preparation in mathematics, what preparation in physics, and what preparation in chemistry is most appropriate for either the research biologists or the medical doctors who will be working 10 or 20 years from now. The result is a mismatch between what today’s students who are interested in biology should be learning and the actual course offerings that are available to them. It is largely for this reason, I believe, that so many talented young biologists feel that mathematics, chemistry, and physics are of minor importance to their careers.

                  It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.

                  Acknowledgments

                  I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines, Mei Lie Wong for preparation of the figure,and Teresa Donovan for manuscript preparation.

                  < Alberts on Cells >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Think of that!  The President of the National Academy of Sciences, consulting with an engineer to help him analyze marvelous protein machines!!

                  And Mike PSS seems to think we don't have established norms for analyzing them!

                  Whoo boy!  This thread gets funnier and funnier!

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank You Dave,
                  You have taken the first step down this primrose path of knowledge.  However, you seem to have tripped at the first brick.

                  Now, all you have to do is answer this question.
                  HOW does that quote equivicate {human technology} to {higher than human technology} and {human design} to {higher intellegence design}.  You have to take what Alberts said, and how he defines what you say are his norms, and show how this statement supports your equivication.  

                  We are asking for this one bit of work from you so that we can understand how you can make this comparison between the above terms because it seems that the statement is very qualitative ("{cell contents} to {machines}") but the author doesn't quite take the next step and DEFINE what is meant with the statement.

                  Oh wait....  the author WASN'T stating that cells are machines, he was using an analagous concept to state that cells are like machines.  This is a qualitative definition and doesn't serve the purpose you need.  Unless you can show otherwise.

                  Unfortunately Dave, you are stateing an absolute.  You are CONCLUDING that...
                  If {Biologic Artifacts} then {Higher than human technology} therefore {Higher than human intelligence}
                  and you are deriving this CONCLUSION from the basis of known facts that...
                  If {Human Artifacts} then {Human technology} therefore {human intelligence}.

                  I see we need to keep explaining to you that to make this CONCLUSION you need to define the links between the CONCLUSION statement and the basis statement.

                  You haven't provided this link yet.  So therefore, all statements made about your present conclusion are ENTIRELY BASED UPON YOUR OWN IMAGINATION (qualitative measuring device).

                  Your victory claims are ringing more hollow on every post.  I hope your having fun playing in the sandbox of your own imagination (Wheeeeeee).
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,15:02

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 19 2006,15:57)
                  Your victory claims are ringing more hollow on every post.  I hope your having fun playing in the sandbox of your own imagination (Wheeeeeee).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ...even though everyone else keeps trying to tell him it's really the cat box.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 19 2006,15:06

                  Eric,

                  Thanks for that, I didn't know that.

                  One thing about your unit though, I think, based on the experience of this and other threads, the unit of vacuity should be taken back a few orders of magnitude. On this recent thread alone AFDavey has made more than 3 billion  non sequiturs and fallacious arguments. I've been counting. I think we are setting the benchmark arbitrarily too high. Vacuity of the magnitude exhibited by AFDavey is far in excess of the average level of vacuity. I'd say your average person is capable of a few nanoAFDs, whereas in this thread alone AFDavey has topped a whopping 3 AFDs, more than the vacuity output of AiG for a whole day!

                  Louis
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 19 2006,15:09

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,14:34)
                  As an English major, I'd say that "empty" is an absolute quality, and that "half empty" and "emptier" are technically incorrect uses of the language, and could perhaps be best classified as colloquialisms.  You're actually measuring content or space - not the quality of "emptiness" itself.

                  "Unique" is another such quality.  It means that there is only one of something.  So terms such as "very unique" are incorrect.  This particular example is one of my pet peeves.  I cringe whenever I hear it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I can't help but feel that forbidding "half empty" is going too far, if only because of the optimism/pessimism thing. I think the meaning of "empty" shifts as we go from the adjective to its comparative form; if "empty" means "has nothing in it", I regard "emptier" as meaning "has less in it". That may be something of an elision, philosophically speaking, but it feels like a natural use. Otherwise we'd always have to ask "which glass has less in it" instead of "which glass is emptier."

                  "Very unique" is a definite hackle-raiser- even typing it feels wrong. Yet I can't bring myself to condemn "almost unique" entirely; if there's only, say, two or three of something, "almost unique" seems quite natural. Thoughts?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 19 2006,15:21

                  Dave,
                  Maybe you picked this up already, maybe not.  But Bill Dembski has already tried to make the link between {human intellingence} and {higher than human intelligence} in all his works.  The ID movement used "CHANCE" as their equivication because they could use the basis of randomness in actual equations.

                  So Dembski started with Behe's idea of Irreducable Complexity (IC).  Since IC was qualitative (it's complex so must be designed) Dembski then created a concept like Complex Specified Information (CSI) then created a mechanism to measure CSI called the Explanatory Filter (EF).  So with years of "hard" work and three or four books (none peer-reviewed of course) the ID system that is ANALAGOUS to yours is....

                  If {Some Biologic system is IC} then {IC system contain CSI} therefore, using EF {Biologic system is designed}

                  That's a huge butcherring of the ID position, but it doesn't matter because no-one (not even the ID people) have clearly defined IC and CSI as it relates to real world biologic systems.  Nor have they clearly subjected the EF to proper testing to describe real world (or any world) biologic systems.

                  You want to shortcut ALL this work and go back to what Behe was saying ten years ago.  Basically that Biologic systems are complex so must be designed.

                  Well, sorry, but that ain't good enough.  You need to provide the proper equivications before that statement holds any substance outside of your imagination.  And it doesn't take anyone long to find out that a subjective stance like that holds no facts or basis in reality.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 19 2006,15:39

                  Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 19 2006,16:09)
                  I can't help but feel that forbidding "half empty" is going too far, if only because of the optimism/pessimism thing. I think the meaning of "empty" shifts as we go from the adjective to its comparative form; if "empty" means "has nothing in it", I regard "emptier" as meaning "has less in it". That may be something of an elision, philosophically speaking, but it feels like a natural use. Otherwise we'd always have to ask "which glass has less in it" instead of "which glass is emptier."

                  "Very unique" is a definite hackle-raiser- even typing it feels wrong. Yet I can't bring myself to condemn "almost unique" entirely; if there's only, say, two or three of something, "almost unique" seems quite natural. Thoughts?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You will not find a non-absolute definition for the word "empty", but you do have a point.  That's why I would classify "emptier" and "half empty" as useful colloquialisms.  They are indeed technically incorrect, but the intent is easily understood.  They're fine when used conversationally, but I'd try to avoid them in written language.

                  "Almost unique" would be acceptable, meaning something is "almost [but not] the only one of its kind".
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,16:11

                  Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 19 2006,15:09)
                  "Very unique" is a definite hackle-raiser- even typing it feels wrong. Yet I can't bring myself to condemn "almost unique" entirely; if there's only, say, two or three of something, "almost unique" seems quite natural. Thoughts?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not to derail this thread entirely (although I think it's already pretty derailed—can I use derailed as a comparative?), but I think some things can, in fact, be more unique than others, at least from a logical, if not semantic, perspective.

                  One thing is unique in North America, but not the world. Another thing is unique in all the world. Is one thing more unique ("uniquer"?) than the other? Or just more rare?

                  I leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 19 2006,16:30

                  As long as we're just hanging around, waiting for dave to say the next stupid thing (stupider, more stupid, yet more stupid, etc.), and parsing the meanings of words, I'm having trouble with the use of "equivical" and "equivicate."

                  First, unless those are hypertechnical terms in formal logic, not likely to appear in a general dictionary, the spelling would seemingly be "equivocal" and "equivocate."  Note that the second part of the word thus become "vocal."  Thus the meaning of "equivocal" is something like ambiguous--vouching for two statements to about the same degree, without being able to make up one's mind between them.

                  Here, the intended usage seems to be more along the lines of "equivalent" (having the same value or force) and "equivalence."

                  Again, my apologies if I'm unaware of a specialized spelling and meaning for these terms.  Pinheads aren't known for their extensive vocabularies, but we do like to try to keep up...!
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 19 2006,17:46

                  Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 19 2006,16:30)
                  As long as we're just hanging around, waiting for dave to say the next stupid thing (stupider, more stupid, yet more stupid, etc.), and parsing the meanings of words, I'm having trouble with the use of "equivical" and "equivicate."

                  First, unless those are hypertechnical terms in formal logic, not likely to appear in a general dictionary, the spelling would seemingly be "equivocal" and "equivocate."  Note that the second part of the word thus become "vocal."  Thus the meaning of "equivocal" is something like ambiguous--vouching for two statements to about the same degree, without being able to make up one's mind between them.

                  Here, the intended usage seems to be more along the lines of "equivalent" (having the same value or force) and "equivalence."

                  Again, my apologies if I'm unaware of a specialized spelling and meaning for these terms.  Pinheads aren't known for their extensive vocabularies, but we do like to try to keep up...!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  "Equivical" must be a typo- equivocal is correct, and it does come from speaking both sides of an issue, deliberate ambiguity. No relation to equivalence, which is from equal strength.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 19 2006,18:12



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):  I always love the "This-guy-is-making-me-look-so-dumb-I-think-I'll-try-a-new-tactic" gig from Aftershave...    

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (OA): Your problem has always been Dave, 99.85% of people who have actually studied the subject (as opposed to a scientifically illiterate moron like yourself) disagree with you, and they have the facts to back up their conclusion.  What do you have besides your ignorance based personal incredulity and a titanic ego that keeps your gums flapping?

                  Wanna talk about those post-flood scavengers yet?  How about buried limestone canyons?  Or hydrodynamic sorting?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You make yourself look dumb and dishonest Dave.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave) "All scientists are smarter than you, Dave."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave lies again.  What was said was those who are more knowledgeable that you on the subject disagree with you, and can back it up. You can't back up any of your claims Dave, because they were made from your abysmal ignorance.

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Can we change the subject now, Dave?"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave lies again.  What was asked was can we change the subject back to one of the many that you cowardly ran from before.  I was just checking to see if you had finally grown a backbone.  Apparently not.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 19 2006,21:16

                  Argystokes: Ouch! Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, I take it?

                  As for afdave's especially childish behavior today, whereby I suppose he's trying to convince us that he really believes he's scoring points...  pathetic.

                  Apparently this thread has been viewed more than 70,000 times. So far as I'm aware, in all those 70,000 views, afdave is the only one who thinks he's making any sense. I guess in his mind, that's a glorious testimony to "thinking outside the box".

                  As for me, I am, for now, going to continue to apply ice to, rather than scratch, the mosquito bites that are afdave. I have pressing "grownup" science to attend to.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 19 2006,21:56

                  AFD the perfect model of morality bites.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And your attempt to attack my character because you have nothing to say to defend your scientific position is noted.  My church stole no money and I (and about 5 other fellow pilots) didn't get our promised fighters because the policy changed.  Go research it.  It's public record.  You've been told by the moderator of this forum to stop the personal attacks.  Again, I say, if you truly want to accuse me of criminal activity, give me your personal information and we'll do it in court.  You won't of course because you are a coward and you know you are lying.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AFD in the immortal words of Jerry Falwell



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "God sent me there to bring an abrupt end to the immorality and financial fraud of this 'religious soap opera' that had become an international embarrassment to the Christian gospel."

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Who is calling me a liar and a coward?

                  AFD EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MAKE IS A LIE.

                  There is not a single ounce of truth in any of your statements.
                  Astute readers will note even AFD's quote fails a truth test.

                  Go ahead say something true, from you, it would be a nonsense.

                  And a coward?

                  AFD everyone who has revealed their real name and position here, you have tried to drag in  their professional reputation and discredit it. If someone were a rocket scientist YOU, A COMPLETE AND UTTER NOBODY says THEY are not qualified to comment!

                  AFD you are the person here laying your character on the line in support of the insupportable.

                  I am questioning your character, which whether you like it or not I understand better than you do yourself.

                  AFD in my long experience I have had the unpleasant honor of meeting some of the most cunning and ruthless scam artists and white collar crooks, who on first blush wouldn't let butter melt in their mouth. They make the ENRON crowd look like saints.

                  Those sorts of people whose characters you clearly emulate, in my opinion, by your repeated performance of lies, evasions, dodging, covering up  and outright falsehoods make it no more honorable by claiming to be associated with a religion.

                  You have so far been able to lie on matters which are ACCEPTABLE in normal society since religion is  a matter of personal opinion i.e. RELIGION HAS  ABSOLUTELY NO ACCEPTABLE TEST FOR TRUTH.

                  However, when it comes to the more prosaic matters of the temporal, the earthly dirty business of money and power, I suspect you are far more vulnerable to tests for truth.

                  As with all scam artists you want to create the impression that your falsehoods have more credibility than just hearsay, to do that you use the tried and true method of brand enhancement by association.

                  By using what seem like scientific and therefore true conclusions in the minds of your target audience that 'sciencewash' your lies to create the impression that you are being honest

                  Which leads me to make the only possible conclusion on your other activities.

                  You are in a position of power in an organization not answerable to its past and present benefactors that has created a financial tax free cashcow for those who control the investment. Technically you and your cohorts could blow away all the funds left in your so called church and get off scott free because no one is going to question people doing g$d's work. Whoever controls the accounts and has the power and the force of will to hold onto that power has [i]carte blanc [i] not even the government can equal. That position AFD, requires a level of honesty you have so far been unable to demonstrate.

                  You and your cohorts are immune from accountability and you #### well know it.

                  If I was in your position and the slightest scandal broke out in an organization where my reputation could be questioned I would resign.

                  There are well known precedents in recent history, as you well know.
                  Jim Baker was just unlucky,if he was smarter and made sure his papers were right he could have lived like a king for the rest of his life all he would have to do is write 'have sex with his secretary and buy whatever he wants' into the churches articles of association.

                  On your air force career you claimed to be beyond reproach with all the twisting and turning and red herring tossing of a pro.

                  AFD you were dumped, get over it, twit.

                  You are a lying, cowardly NOBODY.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 19 2006,23:31

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 19 2006,21:16)
                  As for me, I am, for now, going to continue to apply ice to, rather than scratch, the mosquito bites that are afdave. I have pressing "grownup" science to attend to.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It must be clear by now that, as much I would like to, sadly I have no grown-up science I must attend to.

                  So instead I just attend to playskool "science," AF Dave-style.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 20 2006,05:49



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I always love the "This-guy-is-making-me-look-so-dumb-I-think-I'll-try-a-new-tactic" gig from Aftershave...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Among the thousands of viewers and lurkers in this thread, not a single one has taken your defense (well, maybe this guy "bwee"). So if someone looks like a buffoon here, that's definetely you.

                  Let's try a poll: if you don't think Dave looks dumb, post it.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 20 2006,06:44

                  Jeannot,

                  I think AFDave should be declared non impediti ratione congitatonis*, non compos mentis** and pia fraus

                  And always remember quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur****

                  Louis

                  * Unencumbered by the thought process/rational thought.

                  ** Not in control of his mind

                  *** A pious fraud

                  **** That which has been said in Latin appears to be profound
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 20 2006,07:28

                  You know, checking this thread after three days, I was sure that dave would have devised yet another entertaining inanity for me, maybe some dishonesty worth changing my sig for. And he hasn't failed me.

                  He's now arguing that he was speaking about qualitative differences all along.

                  Amazing.

                  Dave, WHAT IS "QUALITATIVE" ABOUT THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY?

                  And don't pretend it was always about "it all looks designy to me", don't claim that you didn't use degree of complexity as the FUNDAMENTAL difference. I have the quotes (LOTS of them), and you know I have no problem pointing out your LIES again and again, when you make them.

                  Then again, you might not even understand the difference between "quantinative" and "qualitative". Nothing new, since you couldn't even comprehend what the word "PRIMARY" meant in context- remember that little gem, dave? "Fossils yield a primary age"? :p

                  It's more than obvious that you're arguing from sheer inertia now, dave. Unanble to understand even the "arguments" that you are using, you just copy/paste AiG and blabber on, often moving from one side of an issue to another, using terms you don't comprehend, arguments whose implications you can't even grasp, phrases that have no weight or meaning in your mind other than that one of your mentors said them- and that's why you so often switch to condradicting claims without even noticing.

                  All that matters is that you keep talking, as if you have a clue. I bet that's how you've been conducting debates all your life. Sad.

                  Still, that doesn't make it (or you) more ridiculous. So:

                  Dave, WHAT IS "QUALITATIVE" ABOUT THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY?


                  Oh and dave: Is the SUN a "REAL factory"? If not, why not? If yes, then what ISN"T a "REAL factory"?

                  Thanks in advance.  :D
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 20 2006,07:54

                  I couldn't help noticing that, after 450 pages or so, dave considers it a major win that we "admitted" there is a possibility of an Intelligent Designer...

                  ...Too bad that, if he had actually read Dawkins (instead of throwing the book away after page 8), he'd have saved himself the trouble. :p

                  Hey dave, I bet you'll LOVE this:

                  < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA >
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Dec. 20 2006,08:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let's try a poll: if you don't think Dave looks dumb, post it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't think he looks dumb.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,10:07

                  Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 20 2006,08:46)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let's try a poll: if you don't think Dave looks dumb, post it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't think he looks dumb.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You mean his physical appearance, or the content of his posts?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,12:11

                  Hmm...no posts this morning. I wonder how many people need to flush their DNS caches...
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 20 2006,13:47

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 20 2006,13:11)
                  Hmm...no posts this morning. I wonder how many people need to flush their DNS caches...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Tried a long post numerous times.  Now for a short post.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 20 2006,13:56

                  Hmmmmm....
                  My long post didn't work again.  I'll have to retype and try again.  Maybe the new server or something.

                  Anyway, in shorthand.

                  Dave,
                  Your wrong again.  You've been wrong every since you started this trainwreck of an argument (what... the fifth time this month, unlucky traveller or what).  I can show you exactly HOW you went wrong if I ever get this server to accept my stuff.

                  In the meantime.  TRUST ME.  YOU KNOW MY WORD IS GOOD FOR IT.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,13:57

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 20 2006,13:47)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 20 2006,13:11)
                  Hmm...no posts this morning. I wonder how many people need to flush their DNS caches...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Tried a long post numerous times.  Now for a short post.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whenever this site got (or, I suppose I should say, gets) weird, I always copy my entire post to the clipboard, and then if I simply cannot get it to post, I just e-mail it to myself.

                  Then again, I'm a pathological backer-upper. My main system gets backed up six times daily onto two different computers and four different sets of storage media.

                  What a geek.

                  But man, this site just flies today. Looks like the hangups were more connection-related than hardware- or software-related.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,14:10

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 20 2006,13:56)
                  Dave,
                  Your wrong again.  You've been wrong every since you started this trainwreck of an argument (what... the fifth time this month, unlucky traveller or what).  I can show you exactly HOW you went wrong if I ever get this server to accept my stuff.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm kind of losing track of what Dave's argument even is these days. I think, if he hasn't wobbled off-course, that his argument is that since every complex object that we know was built by humans was, um, built by humans, therefore every complex object that was not built by humans must have been built by, um, God. Or an intelligent designer more intelligent than humans. Or something.

                  Is that it, then, Dave? Or is there something more to your argument? Or something less? Maybe you're just arguing over the definition of "qualitative," vs. "quantitative."
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 20 2006,17:57

                  Thanks for the tip, Eric ... let me see ... are we up to 3 useful things you've said on this thread so far now?  

                  :D   :D

                  To flush your DNS cache, you go to "Start/Run/cmd" then "ipconfig/flushdns" ... that solved it for me.

                  No time for a post now ...

                  So I will just do a "Russell" ...

                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"

                  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 20 2006,18:08

                  :(    :(    :(    :(

                  Here's another very simple lesson for you to not learn, Dave:

                   Saying it doesn't make it so.

                  Repeat one million times or until it sinks in, whichever takes longer.

                  I hope you and your family have a great Christmas anyway, in between repetitions of your latest lesson.

                  And shoveling all that new snow!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,18:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 20 2006,17:57)
                  Thanks for the tip, Eric ... let me see ... are we up to 3 useful things you've said on this thread so far now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think that puts me three ahead of you, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 20 2006,18:17

                  Well, if we ever needed proof Dave is utterly impervious to sarcasm, this would be it:

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 20 2006,17:57)
                  So I will just do a "Russell" ...

                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 20 2006,22:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 20 2006,17:57)
                  No time for a post now ...

                  So I will just do a "Russell" ...

                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"

                  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OMG.

                  :O

                  Dave, are you really not getting it, or do you pretend not to?

                  Because I'm not sure which is silliest.

                  The entertainment value is high in both cases, though!
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 21 2006,03:52

                  Sorry, been out. Any development on what else you have to say about your xian america hypothesis (other than that by xian, you mean european)?

                  Ice cores?

                  You do know that Earth (may we celebrate the yuletide in her name) is more than 6k years old now, right?
                  Posted by: don_quixote on Dec. 21 2006,05:57

                  Is he still at it?!

                  I found this comment in the Pharyngula archive, and it seemed relevant:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  #2822: Virge — 05/28  at  02:04 AM
                  In another reality, in another leg of the trousers of time, in a universe not completely unlike ours, Susan is actually an autonomous agent running on a modest home computer. She is a Debate-Bot designed to play a role in on-line entertainment. This is the future of on-line gaming.

                  Where most of the computer games to date have pitted a player's intelligence against that of other players (or computer simulated players), this paradigm shift sets up truly formidable opponents -- human ignorance and self-deceit. The Debate-Bot is incredibly frustrating. It is resistant to the most elegant of rational arguments, all of which it shrugs off with glib chestnuts, appeals to non-existent authority, accusations of conspiracies and ad hominem exaggerations. The game is addictive. The bot will never concede, so you can only ever experience limited victory when the bot stops responding, and even then you can never be sure if it has given up or is merely collecting more facts to distort.

                  In this parallel universe, "'bating the bot" is understood by all to be a game. Even the most naive child knows not to take a Debate-Bot seriously. Science fiction writers construct frightening dystopian worlds where complete subcultures are gulled by entertainment bots and driven by self-supporting fantasies. They imagine what atrocities could arise if those game arguments were allowed to influence education policy, or even worse, international politics.

                  (from: < here >)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave is a Debate-Bot from a parallel universe!
                  (or maybe he's the afore-mentioned < Susan >?)
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,07:04

                  I remember seeing that a few months ago, yes. Susan (judging from her posts on Pharyngula, and Glen Morton's blog I believe?) Is so goddamn LIKE dave it's scary.

                  I'm not even kidding- just read the posts. Not just the arguments: Style, tone, lame irony, distorting and evading, silly emoticons... It's identical.
                  I can only imagine two things:

                  Either dave was "experimenting" with multiple IDs on the net once, seeing it as a chance to get in touch with his feminine side, or

                  There is a "School of YEC Internet Warriors" in some dungeon under the AiG headquarters somewhere- or a clone factory.

                  I wonder which is the creepiest.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,08:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 20 2006,18:57)
                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ahhh Dave.  You see, your arrogance got in the way of your sarcasm.  I only said....


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Your wrong again.  You've been wrong every since you started this trainwreck of an argument (what... the fifth time this month, unlucky traveller or what).  I can show you exactly HOW you went wrong if I ever get this server to accept my stuff.

                  In the meantime.  TRUST ME.  YOU KNOW MY WORD IS GOOD FOR IT.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You see the difference?  I'm not stating any superiority of intellect or knowledge.  I'm only stating that I have the facts on my side and will show them to you.  I then ask that you "trust" based upon my past behaviour.

                  Now, you can NOT trust me and ask for the facts.  I indicated I have them and will present them if required (i.e. you not trusting me that my position is correct).  In fact, this is the same thing I did to you recently.  I stated that I didn't trust your word and needed you to present the facts that you based your statements.

                  So....
                  Do you accept my trust and admit your wrong on this subject?
                  OR
                  Do you NOT accept my trust and require further facts to SHOW you how your wrong on this subject?

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  Dave.  Notice that I'm not calling you a moron, a loon, a mendicant, a bashibazook (thank you Tintin), or a slavering maniacal control freak.  I'm not calling you any of these things.  Nor am I indicating that my intellect and logical reasoning is superior to yours.  Not doing that at all.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,08:25

                  YOU ALL AGREE WITH ME ... MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T REALIZE IT YET
                  Think about it ...

                  I say that ...

                  1) You infer design in archaeology qualitatively ... there are no quantitative parameters to measure ... Argy knows a hammer is designed, we know that pottery is designed, etc.
                  2) You infer design by human intelligence in archaeology because the technology (pottery, written tablets, etc.) is comparable to, or less than, our own technology.
                  3) Living cells contain real machines (not figurative, not analogous, see Alberts) all of which are highly specialized, highly sophisticated, and highly miniaturized.
                  4) These machines represent much higher technology than any human technology if for no other reason that the incredible nano-miniaturization involved.
                  5) All our experience and logic dictates that this type of high technology does not happen by chance.  Don't tell me "ToE is proven, Dave, so obviously this stuff DOES happen by chance."  Remember, the ONLY part of ToE that is proven is micro-evo, i.e. change in PRE-existing organisms, which Creationists already agree with anyway.  There is no proof that you can extrapolate to macro-evo.  Much less abiogenesis.
                  6) Therefore we should admit the possibility of the Intelligent Design of Life and study it in our universities.

                  ****************************************

                  You say you admit the possibility of ID, and you know that micro-evo extrapolation doesn't work (Remember ... MacNeill said the Modern Synthesis is dead ... this extrapolation is what he is talking about), yet you bash Dembski and Behe day in day out because they want to talk about the Possibility of ID in the classroom.

                  What a bunch of hypocrites you are!

                  Jeannot has already agreed with me (and contradicted Russell) that there is no fundamental difference between human technology and living technology.  It is a matter of degree of sophistication. (Do a CTRL-F search of "I don't see the fundamental difference" in AFD_CGH2)

                  Improvius tried to force me into a quantitative test, but then admitted that in archaeology we use a qualitative test. (Search "similarities" - Dec 19, 11:35)

                  Aftershave says, "You're a liar.  You always lie.  Did I mention you are a liar?  Why are you such a liar?  Quit lying SFB Dave.  Those aren't real machines," but then changed the subject when shown that Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, says they ARE real.  Alberts even consulted an engineer to find out how machines are analyzed because he thinks today's science students are ill-equipped to study cellular machinery!

                  Mike PSS tried to tell me that there are established criteria for analyzing archaeological artifacts, but none for analyzing biological machines.  Oh really?  Why then did Alberts consult with an engineer to help him analyze cellular machines, pray tell?  Maybe because there ARE established criteria for analyzing machines?  Perhaps?

                  Now.  Let's see just how objective you really are.  Let's see if you can coherently refute ANY of the above points.  No "I think this or I think that or you're stupid, etc."  Be a real scientist and state clearly why you disagree with each point and support it coherently with something other than your opinions.

                  Again, here's the links for my threads.

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                  *****************************************************************

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one has yet to show me ONE company that "uses the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case."  What in the world are you thinking?  Do you think that because they say "We found oil in this Cretaceous layer," (or whatever) that this means they are using the Old Earth Paradigm?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not sure that there are ANY businesses in the world that CARE how old the earth is, unless you are talking about companies who sell books promoting one idea or the other.  But many scientific discoveries have been made because of Starting Assumptions in line with the Biblical Worldview.  Has it escaped you that Modern Science was birthed in Europe?  Where the Starting Assumption of Order in the Universe and a Creator prevailed?  Why did Modern Science not appear in other cultures where this was not a starting assumption?  Hmmm...  Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be honest now.  Guess what?  You were informed of this by a CREATIONIST.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Water Canopy?  No.  Flood, yes.  Brand at GRISDA has researched this and we already discussed it.  Do a Google Scholar search with "Brand" as the author and "Coconino" in the top subject box.

                  PS ... Mike PSS ... (RE your latest post) I wasn't talking about you ... I said I was doing a "Russell" ... when will you begin reading carefully?  And don't quote mine me please ... my entire quote was  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So I will just do a "Russell" ...

                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"
                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 21 2006,08:40

                  DAVE,

                  AGAIN,...Where does complexity prove assumed design?  Where is your science, your evidence...your proof???

                  You have nothing, period.  It's all just emotional, wishful thinking
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 21 2006,08:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,09:25)
                  Improvius tried to force me into a quantitative test, but then admitted that in archaeology we use a qualitative test. (Search "similarities" - Dec 19, 11:35)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you ARE using quantitative tests.  You simply refuse to define the criteria of those tests.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) You infer design by human intelligence in archaeology because the technology (pottery, written tablets, etc.) is comparable to, or less than, our own technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That is a quantitative statement.  "Comparable or to, or less than" is an expression of quantity.  You are saying that the "level of technology" exists on scale, but you don't have any way to measure it.  Now, we can certainly measure human technology quantitatively by a number of ways.  For example, we could determine when certain technological advancements first appeared in the historical record.  So we would be quantifying recentness.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) Living cells contain real machines (not figurative, not analogous, see Alberts) all of which are highly specialized, highly sophisticated, and highly miniaturized.
                  4) These machines represent much higher technology than any human technology if for no other reason that the incredible nano-miniaturization involved.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If something is "miniaturized", that means it has been greatly reduced in size from previous versions.  So where exactly are the examples of the preceding "real machines" that you think were miniaturized?  Or are you just pulling this out of your bunghole?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5) All our experience and logic dictates that this type of high technology does not happen by chance.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You're quantifying again.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,09:00

                  AVATAR REQUEST FOR AFDAVE

                  Dave.  It's Christmas time and the gift of giving is in the air.  For my gift in this season I can only offer you honest critisism (better than dishonest panderring to your ego however).

                  We had a collection of ideas about what type of avatar you should accept recently.  The ideas are split between what the submitter thought would best represent you (in the submitters eyes) and how they thought you would represent yourself.  In general terms here's the finalists....

                  What we thought you should look like.
                  Insertion of body item into body orifice.  3 submissions.
                  WINNERLess than average intelligence.  4 submissions.
                  Air Farce related scenes.  2 submissions.

                  How we thought you represent yourself.
                  WINNERGod's annointed messenger.  2.5 submissions.
                  Admitted Creationist.  2 submissions.
                  He-Man type Lord of the Universe.  1.5 submission

                  With these results I offer you the following options to insert as your Avatar on this board.
                  Right-click on the image you like below and select "properties".
                  Highlight the path of the image and copy to the clipboard (Ctrl-C).
                  Click on "Your Control Panel" at the top of the page.
                  Click on "Personal Info" tab.
                  Click on "Avatar Options".
                  At the bottom of the page paste (Ctrl-V) the path you copied into the "Your Avatar" block.
                  Choose a dimension (64x64 is max).
                  Happy avatar.

                  So.....  Here are the images to choose from.

                   




                  Happy avatar.  It will be interesting to see which one your choose.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,09:19

                  Finally got my syntax correct.  Tried to post this yesterday.
                  ********************************
                  Dave,
                  This whole train wreck (you must me an unlucky traveller, this is the fifth one this month) started after your feeble attempt to "prove" design".  Despite being pulped, misted, and dispersed to the nether regions you summarized your (fully refuted) points in a meanderring post that had no direct link between cause and effect.
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,15:48)

                  Look.  Let's simplify this even further.

                  1) Stone age ancestor has to get smarter, better lookin', more civilized, etc.
                  2) What's a Pithecanthropus supposed to do to achieve this?
                  3) Well mutate!  By golly!  
                  4) Mutate, mutate, mutate ... keep them dogies mutatin' (Note: recombination only makes varied Pithecanthropi, not Super-Pithecanthropi)
                  5) Problem: how do we keep the harmful ones from outrunning the good ones? (In spite of natural selection)
                  6) Truncation selection to the rescue!  Ta da!
                  7) Problem: Crow says it doesn't work -- proposes "Quasi" version.
                  8) OK, does quasi work?  No, not according to Schoen et al
                  9) Meanwhile:  mutate, mutate, mutate ...
                  10) Problem: We now have no mechanism for helping the good mutations outrun the bad ones
                  11) Problem: this will lead to genetic meltdown according to the geneticists
                  12) Hey wait a minute!  Didn't Crow say we are genetically INFERIOR to these ancestors?
                  13) How did we get to be genetically inferior if mutations made us smarter, better lookin', etc.?

                  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem.

                  Conclusion:  A Designer, not mutations and recombination, created humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You used this as a summary post about mutations (eating Crow indeed) but you felt if you simplified your argument then MAYBE the readers on this board would understand your point....
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,18:28)
                  Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

                  Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

                  What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

                  (This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So you posted this additional "challange" to the "evo's"...
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
                  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTERFLIES AND WATCHES (AND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE EVO/CREO DEBATE)
                  (Ooops!  Pardon me ... I forgot ... there IS no debate ... strike that!;)

                  "What is the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch?"

                  One word.

                  COMPLEXITY

                  All the answers given by you guys are correct, but they are not as fundamental as this key difference.  Think about it.

                  First, how are they similar?
                  1) Both are constructed from the exact same elements from the exact same periodic table, are they not?
                  2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.
                  3) Both get worn out over time
                  4) Both have intricate mechanisms and systems which are coordinated and work together to achieve the purposes stated above

                  So how are they different in the most fundamental sense?

                  COMPLEXITY

                  That's it really in the final analysis.

                  1) The butterfly can reproduce.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial implications if we could figure out how to make watches reproduce!
                  2) The butterfly has self-maintenance systems.  The watch has no such complex system.  Think of the commercial impact if someone would invent self-maintaining cars, washing machines and airplanes!
                  3) The butterfly can refuel itself automatically.  The watch has no such complex system.  We are now seeing some systems like this in man-made technology, i.e. the robot vacuum cleaner that can navigate itself to the charging station, etc.
                  4) The butterfly has all manner of highly sophisticated robotic systems--vision, touch, flight, navigation, taste, etc.  The watch has none of this.

                  On and on we could go, but you get the idea.

                  WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR THE EVO/CREO DEBATE?
                  Simply this ...

                  1) Complex systems like watches don't build themselves.  They require intelligence.
                  2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

                  Think about it ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, you've been flailing around this post for a week because you want to make qualitative conclusions from the quantitative basis of your argument.  Right in the last two points you actually state a quantitative measure ("MORE comlex systems...) yet you still don't get it.

                  You then blind-folded yourself and started arguing against your original post.  In response to Russel you used this twisted bit of illogic reasoning....  
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,22:52)
                  WATCHES AND BUTTERFLIES ... AN EASY PROOF FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

                  Dr. Russell Durbin says ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is not correct.  Let me explain why.  Think about what reproductive capacity is.  Break it down and analyze it like a good scientist should.  

                  What you will find is that it simply means that the replication system (machines, tools, plans) are external to the watch, but in the case of the butterfly, the replication system is internal.  And this simply boils down to complexity, i.e. more in the case of the butterfly.

                  Do you see?

                  So the fundamental difference between a butterfly and a watch is, as I said -- COMPLEXITY -- more in the case of the butterfly.

                  This being the case, then it should be quite obvious that IF the watch requires a designer, then the butterfly does also, but much more so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  When Russell says reproductive capability is a "difference" between and watch and a butterfly YOU DISAGREE.  But (but....but....but....but) in your original post you stated for everyone that reproduction capability WAS A DIFFERENCE.

                  Then you ramble on about MORE and LESS complexity (a quantitative measure) but you eventually seem to think this is a qualitative measure.

                  Dave,
                  You are absolutely lost in your attempt to present this idea based upon complexity.  You don't know what you said, don't know where your going, and don't know how to get there anyway.  Time to move on to the ice age.

                  Mike PSS

                  HINT:  Remember Dave.  All you have to give up is the 6000 year old thing and a lot of the arguments you make will have a better, more reasonable basis.  Think about it.

                  **Edit** Fixed the reference to quantitative.  Thanks Improv.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 21 2006,09:26

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 21 2006,10:19)
                  Right in the last two points you actually state a qualitative measure ("MORE comlex systems...) yet you still don't get it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm pretty sure you meant "quantitative" there.  And I'm sure everyone other than Dave is just assuming it was a typo.  But we have to be extra careful because he's already totally confused about this stuff.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,09:45

                  Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

                  You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

                  Do you disagree with this?  If so why?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 21 2006,09:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:45)
                  Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

                  You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

                  Do you disagree with this?  If so why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes.  Archeological tests would determine whether or not an object is man-made, and at what time period it was most likely created.  And I don't think you're trying to figure out if and when a person built a specific butterfly.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 21 2006,09:57

                  Afdave:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  YOU ALL AGREE WITH ME ... MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T REALIZE IT YET
                  Think about it ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  6) Therefore we should admit the possibility of the Intelligent Design of Life . . .

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS AGREED WITH THIS ... MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T REALIZE IT YET
                  Think about it ...

                  What we disagree with is that there is any reason to consider it to be either likely or a useful concept.

                  I find it an interesting glimpse into your mind that you consider it an irrefutable argument when you quote someone of stature in the scientific community who, on the surface, is in alignment with your views. That is not how scientists operate.  Firstly, I have seen enough sloppy and dishonest quoting from creationists that I always suspect that the quote is misleading. Secondly, the name and importance of the person is of minor interest. What is far more important is why they make that statement. What is their evidence? If they used an analogy (e.g., cells are like little factories stuffed full of little machines) just what point were they trying to make? Is the analogy of any use in addressing the current argument? The people you cite may be respected (some are not) but they are certainly not treated like Old Testament prophets.

                  BTW: I don't understand the criteria used to determine what constitutes a 'kind' of animal (and presumably plant, fungus, etc) that boarded the ark. After 200 years of creationists seriously considering the issue there must be a web site somewhere that clearly lays it out. Can you direct me to it? Come to think of it, how did cacti (found only in the Americas and notoriously water-sensitive) make it to the ark and back again (the March of the Mammillarians)?

                  Arrgh! I've just wasted more time! You won't respond to the questions and you'll keep on (mis-)quoting people without giving their reasons.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,10:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:45)
                  Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

                  You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

                  Do you disagree with this?  If so why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

                  I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 21 2006,10:22

                  AFDave sez:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Aftershave says, "You're a liar.  You always lie.  Did I mention you are a liar?  Why are you such a liar?  Quit lying SFB Dave.  Those aren't real machines," but then changed the subject when shown that Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, says they ARE real.  Alberts even consulted an engineer to find out how machines are analyzed because he thinks today's science students are ill-equipped to study cellular machinery!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davie, Davie, Davie...it's once a disingenuous moron, always a disingenuous moron for you, right?

                  Right now, you're equivocating over the definition of 'machine'.  The broad scientific definition of a machine is any device that transmits or modifies energy.  In that broad case, the inner workings of cells can be called machines. You then take that broad case and equate it with the much more narrow definition of 'machine' as a purposely designed and constructed mechanical apparatus.  You switch back and forth between the definitions, depending on which one suits you at the moment.

                  You stupid little semantic games don't fool anybody Davie, except maybe yourself.

                  BTW Dave, your propensity for lying is well known on this board.   Want to start a poll and see how many readers agree with me?  We'll give these two choices

                  1. AFDave has been guilty of lying in his posts to ATBC
                  2. AFDave has not been guilty of lying in his posts to ATBC

                  If 2 gets all the votes, I'll publicly apologize to you, but if anyone (excluding me) votes for 1 then you publicly apologize to me.  Deal?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,10:28

                  Whoa... You challenge us? Dave, it seems to me that you're having another one of your arrogance fits... It's OK though, that's part of the entertainment you provide.

                  So, let's see...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) You infer design in archaeology qualitatively ... there are no quantitative parameters to measure ... Argy knows a hammer is designed, we know that pottery is designed, etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, I couldn't agree more: Only allow me to add, it's not just archaeology. Design is an absolute, dave. Either it is designed, or it isn't; it can't be "a little designed", or "not designed enough". It may be hard to distinguish if something is designed sometimes(and here, quantitative methods come along), but there is no degree of design. Get that? good. So your first point is moot.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) You infer design by human intelligence in archaeology because the technology (pottery, written tablets, etc.) is comparable to, or less than, our own technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not quite sure what you mean by that, champ. If I find a piece of bone with holes and scratches on it, I make no claim of design just because of that. If, however, these scratches and holes are made by repeated strokes of sharp stones and burning pricks, instead of teeth and nails and even natural wear, I begin to see a pattern emerging, leading to a designer (say, Cro-Magnon). If I find Cro-Magnon bones next to it, the correlation becomes greater. If I find evidence of the tools used, I'm beginning to feel sure about the object's design; And, if I patiently glue all the pieces together and see it looks a lot like a flute, then I realize I hit the Jackpot.
                  See what science does, when they find an object worth studying? They don't just shout "technology!" and leave it at that, dave. "Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
                  Do you do that? Let's see...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) Living cells contain real machines (not figurative, not analogous, see Alberts) all of which are highly specialized, highly sophisticated, and highly miniaturized.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoa there, champ. What's all this about? You said you want us to be all "sciency" and not just use our opinions to rebut your "points", and your points are just that- opinions?
                  Can you provide a single scientific point to prove this wild assertion of yours, other than saying "because it's obvious"?
                  Alberts does not say cells are REAL machines, dave. YOU are the only one that does. In fact, it's kinda alarming: It shows you have serious trouble differentiating between terms. EVERYONE else speaks about analogies, whether you like it or not. Living organisms are, in their essense, extremely different than any machine we have ever made. Saying that it's "just advanced tech we don't get yet" is nothing but wishful thinking that pre-assumes what you are trying to prove. It's amazing that you can't see that.

                  Moving on...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4) These machines represent much higher technology than any human technology if for no other reason that the incredible nano-miniaturization involved.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What's there to say here that I didn't already? you are presuming what you want to prove, dave. "nano-miniaturization" is a term that only makes sense when applied to things we know are machines, dave.
                  Basically, what you are saying here is "these machines are machines because they are machines".
                  Congrats, champ, you nailed it! :D
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5) All our experience and logic dictates that this type of high technology does not happen by chance.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Same old, same old... "Technology doesn't happen by chance", as in "(I say) this is a thing that does not happen by chance, therefore it does not happen by chance". Woooo for reasoning!
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  6) Therefore we should admit the possibility of the Intelligent Design of Life and study it in our universities
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Therefore, dave, you have broadened the term "machine" so much it means absolutely nothing,to apply it to what you like, and then used the term's common use to argue for your point. Bad, BAD dave.
                  Once again: Is the SUN a "REAL factory"? If not, why not? If yes, what ISN'T a "REAL factory"?
                  Can you answer that? Do you even get it? :p
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You say you admit the possibility of ID, and you know that micro-evo extrapolation doesn't work (Remember ... MacNeill said the Modern Synthesis is dead ... this extrapolation is what he is talking about), yet you bash Dembski and Behe day in day out because they want to talk about the Possibility of ID in the classroom.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Religion is NOT going to be taught in your Universities, dave. Deal with it. The ID of life, as our friend Dawkins "admitted" (notice the quotes) is not impossible: It is very, very, VERY improbable. There is always a possibility for ID, simply because you cannot disprove it; An eternal, "outside time and space", omnipotent and omnipresent Designer, that cannot be detected or even conceived, is also UNFALSIFIABLE. It is an unfounded belief. It is RELIGION, and it belongs outside the class.

                  Oh and: before you get all uppity again and think you have a clue what McNeil says, READ his article dave. It will save you from future embarrassment.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What a bunch of hypocrites you are!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Suuuuure, Mr. "I'm here to present a scientific Hypothesis, I agree with 95% of science, and you can convince me if you have good arguments" Whatever.
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,10:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,09:45)
                  Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

                  You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

                  Do you disagree with this?  If so why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I suppose that is as close as dave will ever get to saying "OK, I goofed up on this whole complexity thing, let's discuss my new argument from incredulity now, shall we"?


                  Aaaah. I can feel the stress from work leaving me, wave after wave, with each laugh I get from dave's posts. This is better than foot massage!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,10:36

                  Richard ... yes, there has been creationist writing on 'kinds' which I have not shared yet.  Stay with me and it will be covered.

                  Richard ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If they used an analogy (e.g., cells are like little factories stuffed full of little machines) just what point were they trying to make?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Alberts was making the point that life science students should study some of the things that engineers study to help classify and understand cellular machines.  Watching people dodge this clear fact is hilarious.

                  Mike PSS ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

                  I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike-- As I told Improvius, I don't care how you label the test.  But I determine it with my eyeballs in the same way that you do.  This test would not work if the object was questionable.  We would need something more rigorous.  But it works great for stuff like arrowheads and pottery ... and many biological machines!

                  OA...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If 2 gets all the votes, I'll publicly apologize to you, but if anyone (excluding me) votes for 1 then you publicly apologize to me.  Deal?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't care about your polls ... I just like highlighting your "scientific" debating methods -- dog turds, cat pictures, "Liar, liar ... pants on fire", etc.

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Keep it up ... Steve Story obviously likes the way you are helping the image of the science community!
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,11:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:36)
                  Richard ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If they used an analogy (e.g., cells are like little factories stuffed full of little machines) just what point were they trying to make?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Alberts was making the point that life science students should study some of the things that engineers study to help classify and understand cellular machines.  Watching people dodge this clear fact is hilarious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave dave dave dave dave...

                  Nobody's "dodging" this fact. Everybody, on the other hand, is pointing out to you that it's a metaphor we're dealing with here, and understanding a metaphor depends in having at least a grasp of the mechanisms involved.
                  Is that SO hard to get?

                  So, dave... one more time:

                  Is the SUN a "REAL factory"?
                  If not, why not?
                  If yes, then what ISN'T a "REAL factory"?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,11:19

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.

                  **********************************************
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alberts does not say cells are REAL machines, dave. YOU are the only one that does.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Alberts ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.

                  Acknowledgments

                  I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines, Mei Lie Wong for preparation of the figure,and Teresa Donovan for manuscript preparation.

                  < Alberts on Cells >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p :p  :p

                  *************************************************

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Therefore, dave, you have broadened the term "machine" so much it means absolutely nothing,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not me ... Alberts.  Blame him for your current mental stress.  :D

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Same old, same old... "Technology doesn't happen by chance", as in "(I say) this is a thing that does not happen by chance, therefore it does not happen by chance". Woooo for reasoning!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  OUR technology does not happen by chance, therefore, why should we think OTHER technology happens by chance.  Just because all the science professor lemmings say so?  No thanks!

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Religion is NOT going to be taught in your Universities, dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... it already is being taught ... it's called Darwinism.

                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and: before you get all uppity again and think you have a clue what McNeil says, READ his article dave. It will save you from future embarrassment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I did.  He says the modern synthesis is dead.  What part of that do you not understand?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,11:20

                  [quote=afdave,Dec. 21 2006,08:25]YOU ALL AGREE WITH ME ... MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T REALIZE IT YET
                  Think about it ...[/quote]
                  Dave, we all agree with you about what? That it is not impossible that life could have been designed by an intelligent designer? When did you discover that? We've only been saying it since May 1st, the first day you posted on this thread.

                  The point is, Dave, that neither you, nor Dembski, nor Behe, nor Wells, nor Johnson, nor anyone else has the slightest evidence that such an "intelligent designer" exists, nor do you have the slightest evidence that macroevolution is impossible. And I've pointed out the < entire mountain ranges of evidence supporting macroevolution > often enough to you at this point to know that your claim that there is no such evidence is nothing short of a lie. Until you start going through the Theobald paper section by section and telling us why each one of those 29 different lines of evidence is not, in fact, evidence, then I'll ask you one more time to stop denying that there is, in fact, plentiful evidence for macroevolution.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I say that ...

                  1) You infer design in archaeology qualitatively ... there are no quantitative parameters to measure ... Argy knows a hammer is designed, we know that pottery is designed, etc.
                  2) You infer design by human intelligence in archaeology because the technology (pottery, written tablets, etc.) is comparable to, or less than, our own technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Great. We know how human beings design things. We have abundant examples of what human design looks like. We can make qualitative comparisons of artifacts to other objects we know were designed by humans, to see if they compare.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) Living cells contain real machines (not figurative, not analogous, see Alberts) all of which are highly specialized, highly sophisticated, and highly miniaturized.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you believe in the literal truth of the bible. You have a problem with literalism. There are no "literal machines" inside a cell, but even if there were, so what? Were they designed by humans? No? Then you have no rational basis for making any qualitative assessments about them, because you have nothing to compare them to.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4) These machines represent much higher technology than any human technology if for no other reason that the incredible nano-miniaturization involved.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, in using the term "technology," you're assuming what you're attempting to prove. "Technology" assumes something was designed. That's what you're trying to prove. Therefore, you cannot use the term "technology" to describe the workings of living organisms until after you're demonstrated that they're designed. You have no evidence that there is any "technology" involved in living organisms at all.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  5) All our experience and logic dictates that this type of high technology does not happen by chance.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Our experience is with human-designed technology. You've given us no evidence at all that this experience can be extended to non-human-designed things, like life. If you can do that, then you might have an argument. Right now, you don't even have an argument.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   Don't tell me "ToE is proven, Dave, so obviously this stuff DOES happen by chance."  Remember, the ONLY part of ToE that is proven is micro-evo, i.e. change in PRE-existing organisms, which Creationists already agree with anyway.  There is no proof that you can extrapolate to macro-evo.  Much less abiogenesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when are you get it through your two-inch thick skull that no theory can be "proven." Microevolution is no more "proven" than macroevolution. If you're claiming there's no evidence for macroevolution, see above.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  6) Therefore we should admit the possibility of the Intelligent Design of Life and study it in our universities.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why, Dave? We can admit the possibility that God created the entire universe last Thursday, including all our memories. Should we study the significance of the day Thursday for the Lord?

                  And besides, everyone here admitted the possibility of intelligent design almost eight months ago. Duh! Is it plausible? Is it probable? Does it have any explanatory power? No. That's why we don't study it in our universities.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You say you admit the possibility of ID, and you know that micro-evo extrapolation doesn't work (Remember ... MacNeill said the Modern Synthesis is dead ... this extrapolation is what he is talking about), yet you bash Dembski and Behe day in day out because they want to talk about the Possibility of ID in the classroom.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  We know no such thing. You have no evidence that the mechanisms of microevolution cannot be extended to macroevolution, and MacNeill made no such claims. But even if the mechanisms for macroevolution were different, so what? We have abundant (to put it mildly) evidence that macroevolution can, and does, occur.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jeannot has already agreed with me (and contradicted Russell) that there is no fundamental difference between human technology and living technology.  It is a matter of degree of sophistication. (Do a CTRL-F search of "I don't see the fundamental difference" in AFD_CGH2)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, what Jeannot and Russell were talking about have nothing to do with each other, and to say that they contradict each other is dishonest in the extreme. No one disagrees with you that if an artificial construct can reproduce (not "produce"), with imperfect replication mechanisms, which are then subjected to selective pressure, you'd have something indistinguishable from life (and you'd have further evidence for the veracity of the ToE). Jeannot entirely agrees with Russell that your analogy between watches and butterflies is fundamentally broken, because watches cannot reproduce, and butterflies can. That, and not level of complexity, is the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, a difference you now say does not exist.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Improvius tried to force me into a quantitative test, but then admitted that in archaeology we use a qualitative test. (Search "similarities" - Dec 19, 11:35)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are making a quantitative test. You claim butterflies are more complex than watches. That's a quantitative comparison, and there's no way around it. Improvius isn't forcing anything; you're doing it yourself.

                  That archaeology uses qualitative tests to determine if an artifact is of human origin is irrelevant.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS tried to tell me that there are established criteria for analyzing archaeological artifacts, but none for analyzing biological machines.  Oh really?  Why then did Alberts consult with an engineer to help him analyze cellular machines, pray tell?  Maybe because there ARE established criteria for analyzing machines?  Perhaps?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you provide evidence for the existence of established criteria for qualitative analysis for analyzing biological machines, then you'll have an argument. Evidence that biologists consult with engineers for advice on analyzing biological structures is not evidence of that.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now.  Let's see just how objective you really are.  Let's see if you can coherently refute ANY of the above points.  No "I think this or I think that or you're stupid, etc."  Be a real scientist and state clearly why you disagree with each point and support it coherently with something other than your opinions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think I've refuted them all, Dave. I doubt you'll agree, but then I'm not trying to persuade the unpersuadable anyway.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one has yet to show me ONE company that "uses the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case."  What in the world are you thinking?  Do you think that because they say "We found oil in this Cretaceous layer," (or whatever) that this means they are using the Old Earth Paradigm?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, that's exactly what it means, Dave. Every petroleum exploration company on the planet uses an old-earth paradigm.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not sure that there are ANY businesses in the world that CARE how old the earth is, unless you are talking about companies who sell books promoting one idea or the other.  But many scientific discoveries have been made because of Starting Assumptions in line with the Biblical Worldview.  Has it escaped you that Modern Science was birthed in Europe?  Where the Starting Assumption of Order in the Universe and a Creator prevailed?  Why did Modern Science not appear in other cultures where this was not a starting assumption?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But eventually everyone (except for a few crackpots like you) realized those starting assumptions were wrong. How surprising is it, Dave, that humans' first tentative stabs at understanding the cosmos were wrong? Are you the only one who is surprised by that?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hmmm...  Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be honest now.  Guess what?  You were informed of this by a CREATIONIST.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except that a claim by one person doesn't really amount to evidence, does it, Dave? Can you explain why viruses are "ESSENTIAL" to life on the planet? Because I don't think that's exactly the consensus opinion, and even if it were, that helps your "hypothesis" how?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Water Canopy?  No.  Flood, yes.  Brand at GRISDA has researched this and we already discussed it.  Do a Google Scholar search with "Brand" as the author and "Coconino" in the top subject box.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And this answers the question how, Dave? How does sandstone dry underwater? Water canopy or not, I don't think you've answered the question of how sandstone can dry while it's submerged under a mile of water. So you don't get to mark this one as answered, either.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  PS ... Mike PSS ... (RE your latest post) I wasn't talking about you ... I said I was doing a "Russell" ... when will you begin reading carefully?  And don't quote mine me please ... my entire quote was        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So I will just do a "Russell" ...

                  "You are all wrong about everything.  Completely.  Trust me.  I'm way smarter than you!"
                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What difference does that make, Dave? You were paraphrasing Mike, not Russell. If you'd like to explain why you think you're "doing a Russell," feel free. But it's Mike's words you're misusing, no matter who you think you're "doing" (and that's an unpleasant image).
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,11:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:36)
                  Mike PSS ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

                  I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike-- As I told Improvius, I don't care how you label the test.  But I determine it with my eyeballs in the same way that you do.  This test would not work if the object was questionable.  We would need something more rigorous.  But it works great for stuff like arrowheads and pottery ... and many biological machines!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So where in this figure does it work?  And where DOESN"T it work.  Be specific because that is what your trying to do... identify machines.


                  I guess we can look at the mitochondria like this...

                  But where do we store all the waste?
                  However, to put this in perspective we can't compare to a power plant since the chemical process for energy in a mitochondria is this...


                  So what "machine" is this process comparable to?
                  ***************************

                  Maybe Alberts was using an ANALOGY instead of absolutely stating that all the cell functions were machines.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,11:35

                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

                  Ancient stone tools ... and ... modern tools


                  ... and ...


                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

                  Flagellar motor (picture from NON-YEC source)..... and ...... electric motor

                  :D  :D  :D

                  No rigorous mathematical tests required!
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2006,11:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  what about a nuclear reactor? If you found one of those on the street davey, would you say it HAD to have been designed?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,11:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,09:45)
                  Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

                  You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

                  Do you disagree with this?  If so why?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No you are not, Dave. Regardless of whether archaeological tests for human design are qualitative or quantitative, your test for whether something is more, less, or equally complex than something else is unavoidably a quantitative test.

                  That you don't get this simple, self-evident truth is what has everyone here scratching their heads, wondering if you even know what the difference is between "qualitative" and "quantitative."

                  The "test" you think you're applying to biological "technology" is not even close to the same test improvius is appplying to determine if something is man-made or not. It cannot be, because your test is quantitative,, and Improvius's is not.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2006,11:47

                  < >
                  Natural.
                  < >
                  Designed.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 21 2006,11:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (OA): If 2 gets all the votes, I'll publicly apologize to you, but if anyone (excluding me) votes for 1 then you publicly apologize to me.  Deal?
                  (Liar Dave): I don't care about your polls ... I just like highlighting your "scientific" debating methods -- dog turds, cat pictures, "Liar, liar ... pants on fire", etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you admit I'm right, you have lied here repeatedly and are too embarrassed to have it confirmed by a public poll.  And you've never tried to debate me on scientific matters - every time I've presented scientific evidence you just wet your pants and ran away.  :D  :D  :D
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How did you know that what you found was a piece of pottery Dave?  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Tell us how.  Make a fool of yourself.  :p


                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,12:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:35)
                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

                  Ancient stone tools ... and ... modern tools
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
                  Your wrong though.  The ancient tools are metric so your "intuition" is wrong.
                  *******************

                  By the way.  You never did address my question about "which" parts of the cells we CAN'T identify as machines.

                  And if we can't identify these parts as machines then we can't "infer" design.

                  And if we can't "infer" design then these parts evolved by chance.  Q.E.D. I believe according to your past logic.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,12:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:36)
                  Richard ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If they used an analogy (e.g., cells are like little factories stuffed full of little machines) just what point were they trying to make?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Alberts was making the point that life science students should study some of the things that engineers study to help classify and understand cellular machines.  Watching people dodge this clear fact is hilarious.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, people should study human-made machines in order to understand biological "machines" (note the quotes) because one analogizes to another. Because the "machine" analogy is a potentially-useful analogy.

                  I don't understand why you're so hung up on this stupid point. So what if you define "machine" to include biological structures? If you think that's some sort of "proof," or even evidence, that biological structures were "designed," you're an idiot. It's been pointed out to you countless times that argument simply does not work. It's just another argument from analogy that's just as broken as your "watch" analogy, and for exactly the same reason: human-built machines do not reproduce, and biological "machines" do.

                  We've been going around and around in circles like this for a week now, and clearly you're dizzy and punch-drunk. I suggest you get off the merry-go-round.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave,
                  Let's say I find a rock with a sharp edge.  How can I qualitatively determine whether this rock is a designed tool or just a sharp rock?

                  I know how to quantitatively determine this but you state in your point 1) that we determine archeological design qualitatively.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike-- As I told Improvius, I don't care how you label the test.  But I determine it with my eyeballs in the same way that you do.  This test would not work if the object was questionable.  We would need something more rigorous.  But it works great for stuff like arrowheads and pottery ... and many biological machines!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It works it what way, Dave? What test are you talking about? You're not defining any terms here, but I'll do it for you. You're claiming you can make a qualitative test for complexity, but you're wrong. You can say if something is complex or not only in relationship to some other thing. Complexity is unavoidably a comparative term, and if you're comparing one object's complexity to another, then it has to be a quantitative test, regardless of whether you think it can be "eyeballed" or not. (At this point, Dave is clearly mistaking the distinction between "qualitative" and "quantitative" for the distinction between "more accurate" and "less accurate.")

                  But so what, Dave? Until you can demonstrate that above a certain point, complexity is required, you don't have an argument! You're going around and around about whether you need a qualitative or quantitative test for relative complexity, but without evidence that complexity requires design, your argument has no wheels. It's up on blocks with no engine.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,12:20

                  Yes, yes.  We could post many EQUIVOCAL examples now, couldn't we?

                  I'm only interested in the UN-equivocal ones ... such as those that I have posted.

                  Anyone that uses their eyeballs (and their noggins) to evaluate those two motor pictures I posted will have NO trouble at all determining that BOTH are designed.

                  And all it takes is ONE example ... at which point ID becomes very likely.

                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  This is such fun!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,12:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I simply cannot believe how often Dave thinks that because one example works, all possible examples work. If someone finds a piece of pottery, Dave, one can assume it was designed, because pottery does not occur naturally. Now, suppose one finds a bone with a hole in the end of it. Designed, or not? How do you know? Will just staring at it help? Or do you maybe need to get some context.

                  There, Dave. I disagreed. And somehow, I don't think I made a fool of myself. Disagreeing with you is rarely a recipe for making a fool of oneself.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alberts does not say cells are REAL machines, dave. YOU are the only one that does.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Alberts ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gee, Dave, I don't see anything in there to indicate that Alberts is not speaking metaphorically. You do understand the difference between a simile and a metaphor, don't you? You might want to consult wikipedia for a discussion of the difference.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Therefore, dave, you have broadened the term "machine" so much it means absolutely nothing,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not me ... Alberts.  Blame him for your current mental stress.  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're the one who wouldn't recognize a metaphor if it came up to you bit you on the ass with its razor-sharp carbide-steel machined teeth.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Same old, same old... "Technology doesn't happen by chance", as in "(I say) this is a thing that does not happen by chance, therefore it does not happen by chance". Woooo for reasoning!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  OUR technology does not happen by chance, therefore, why should we think OTHER technology happens by chance.  Just because all the science professor lemmings say so?  No thanks!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What other technology, Dave? Where's the technology in living organisms? "Technology" implies design, which is the thing you're trying to prove. You want to win the argument before you've even started arguing. Go out there and find some actual evidence (other than personal incredulity) that living organisms were designed, and then you can start talking about "technology."

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and: before you get all uppity again and think you have a clue what McNeil says, READ his article dave. It will save you from future embarrassment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I did.  He says the modern synthesis is dead.  What part of that do you not understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, try to figure out what MacNeill meant by "the modern synthesis." Since you don't know what that means, you don't know what MacNeill means.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2006,12:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:20)
                  Yes, yes.  We could post many EQUIVOCAL examples now, couldn't we?

                  I'm only interested in the UN-equivocal ones ... such as those that I have posted.

                  Anyone that uses their eyeballs (and their noggins) to evaluate those two motor pictures I posted will have NO trouble at all determining that BOTH are designed.

                  And all it takes is ONE example ... at which point ID becomes very likely.

                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  This is such fun!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  we could, but could you? You are yet to give us an example of an object that was not designed!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,12:28

                  Dave, you do know that the picture on the left





                  —is a computer-generated model of an idealized bacterial flagellum that bears almost no resemblance to the real thing, don't you?
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 21 2006,12:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:20)
                  Anyone that uses their eyeballs (and their noggins) to evaluate those two motor pictures I posted will have NO trouble at all determining that BOTH are designed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Using my noggin, I note that:

                  i) electric motors operate using the torque generated by changing magnetic fields. The flagellar motor operates using an electro_static_ mechanism based on the flow of hydrogen ions, an entirely different mechanism.

                  ii) the electric motor has clear signs of workmanship on it; it has marks of tool use and various forms of manufacture, it's held together by screws, and it's made of materials (copper wire, steel casing, vulcanised rubber insulation) that don't occur in nature, only by human manufacture; thus it's easily identified as human work. The flagellar motor, on the other hand, has no such signs of workmanship; it's made of biomolecular components that are commonly present in all living things (in fact the amino acid components are even present in space, let alone on earth), and it has no marks of tool use (which connects to the whole "design is a mechanism" canard). It also doesn't have a stamp and a barcode on the side saying "made by God Industries, please contact us at Valhalla if you have any complaints." Ergo, there are no grounds for considering it designed.


                  Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?

                  For bonus points, on what grounds can I identify the model as human-designed?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,12:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're still oblivious. You don't find "Pottery": that already implies design has been determined.
                  You find a piece of clay.
                  You have to find out whether it's pottery, and what kind. And HOW, pray tell, do you do that? By looking for and identifiying signs of HUMAN tampering.
                  It's the nature of the designer that gives meaning to the search for design, dave. Design means NOTHING separated from the designer- HUMANS.
                  Who's making a fool of himself again?

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alberts does not say cells are REAL machines, dave. YOU are the only one that does.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Alberts ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is my hope that some of the young scientists who read this issue of Cell will come to the realization that much of the great future in biology lies in gaining a detailed understanding of the inner workings of the cell’s many marvelous protein machines. With this perspective, students may well be motivated to gain the background in the quantitative sciences that they will need to explore this subject successfully. But they will need faculty in our colleges and universities to lead them.

                  Acknowledgments

                  I am indebted to Jonathan Alberts for his explanations of how engineers analyze machines, Mei Lie Wong for preparation of the figure,and Teresa Donovan for manuscript preparation.

                  < Alberts on Cells >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p  :p :p  :p

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's called a METAPHOR, dave. You know what that is? Look it up. Or ask your kids.
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Therefore, dave, you have broadened the term "machine" so much it means absolutely nothing,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not me ... Alberts.  Blame him for your current mental stress.  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Se above, dave. See the phrase "REAL machines" anywhere? No, because it's a METAPHOR. Hee hee, you're amazing.
                  As for "mental stress"... Why do you think I am here, dave? Like I said, your clownish posts entertain and relax me more than a foot massage. :D  :D

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Same old, same old... "Technology doesn't happen by chance", as in "(I say) this is a thing that does not happen by chance, therefore it does not happen by chance". Woooo for reasoning!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  OUR technology does not happen by chance, therefore, why should we think OTHER technology happens by chance.  Just because all the science professor lemmings say so?  No thanks!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And yet, you "agree with 95% of science". And you can't even comprehend that IMAGINING some inconceivable, non-human intelligence, attributing EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD to that and then USING IT AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS INTELLIGENCE EXISTS, is not (NOT) a valid logical (let alone scientific) argument. Ohhhhhhkaaaaaay. :)

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Religion is NOT going to be taught in your Universities, dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... it already is being taught ... it's called Darwinism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoohoo! you nailed me there, champ, I'm totally speechless. Got any more "sciency" arguments like this one?
                  Sour grapes, man. Sour grapes.

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:19)
                  Faid ...       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oh and: before you get all uppity again and think you have a clue what McNeil says, READ his article dave. It will save you from future embarrassment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I did.  He says the modern synthesis is dead.  What part of that do you not understand?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, I dunno- maybe the part where he EXPLAINS  what he means, and HOW ON EARTH you missed it again?
                  Face it, dave, it's a great time to be an evolutionary biologist, just like McNeil says!
                  Kinda sucks to be a creationist though.


                  hee hee hee. :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,12:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:20)
                  Anyone that uses their eyeballs (and their noggins) to evaluate those two motor pictures I posted will have NO trouble at all determining that BOTH are designed.

                  And all it takes is ONE example ... at which point ID becomes very likely.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, go find an actual photograph of an actual bacterial flagellum (and not a computer-generated cartoon of one), and tell me if you still think it looks "designed," or really anything like that pump you have next to it (which, by the way, doesn't even do what a flagellum does, so I'm not sure why you included it).

                  Does a mitochonrion look designed to you? Not a picture of one, an actual mitochondrion. How about a tree? Does a tree look designed to you?

                  Even if it does, so what? You have to prove something was designed, not that it looks designed. A teardrop looks pretty designed to me. Does that mean it was designed?
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 21 2006,12:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,11:35)
                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

                  Ancient stone tools ... and ... modern tools


                  ... and ...


                  BOTH DESIGNED ... HOW DO WE KNOW?  INTUITION

                  Flagellar motor (picture from NON-YEC source)..... and ...... electric motor

                  :D  :D  :D

                  No rigorous mathematical tests required!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AHHHHHHH.....No Proof Required!!!

                  I get how this works.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 21 2006,12:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:19)
                  Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Designed by humans, yes.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,13:04

                  Boy, dave's on a roll today...

                  "Screw you guys! You may be all "educated" and "smart" and have lots of fancy "degrees" and "credentials" to show... Well I have INTUITION! Beat THAT! HAH!"
                  "Oh and Russel, did you know that some visuseses can like, merge their DNA with that of the cell? I betcha didn't! Well guess what, they do- And a CREATIONIST toldya! Eat it, Mr. Virologerist or whatever you're called! Smilesmilesmilesmilesmile!"

                  ...OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.





                  ...Dave would never say "screw you".





                  PS: Dave, I noticed that you addressed every part of my post, except one in particular. So, here goes:


                  Dave, is the SUN a "REAL factory"?

                  If not, why not?

                  If yes, then what ISN'T a "REAL factory"?

                  Again, thanks in advance. :)
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,13:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are telling me that it's not a real motor because this is a computer generated model??!!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  

                  Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!

                  You Darwinist Fundies are highly entertaining!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,13:13

                  And how is this any different from Behe's utterly laughable claim that "if it looks designed, it was designed"?

                  You're gonna have to try a little harder than that, Dave.

                  But here's something to think about. When we decide that some artifact is human-manufactured, it's usually because we have some idea how humans manufactured it. Now, you think the bacterial flagellum was designed. Would you have any idea as to how it was designed, or manufactured? Any concept of how your putative designer actually implemented its designs?

                  Because this is where ID and creationism always run spang into the brick wall. Evidently you guys have absolutely no idea how these designs were implemented, nor are you ever even doing research in the area. You're alway harping on scientists to study the designs, which of course they are < doing, > but you never talk about studying how those designs were implemented. In fact, your buddy Bill Dembski says:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality or modality by which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. It is not an interventionist theory at all.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In other words, ID isn't even interested in how biological structures came to have the design they do. So what kind of point is there to it, other than some sort of constitutional end-run to get God taught in the science classroom?

                  Whether you believe it or not, Dave, scientists do not have any sort of knee-jerk resistance to even considering that God might have created life. What they do have is a resistance to having the inquiry end there. If you think Goddidit, you'd better start working on a theory of how Goddidit, or what's the point? Are you really satisfied just in knowing God created the universe, without any curiosity as to how?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,13:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,13:04)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are telling me that it's not a real motor because this is a computer generated model??!!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  

                  Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!

                  You Darwinist Fundies are highly entertaining!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You were showing us pictures dave, remember? And telling us to use our "intuition" and other sciency methods YECs often use to "prove" their points?

                  So..... I guess a diorama of a mountainpeak is NOT designed, right? I mean, how can it be?

                  Dave, do you REALLY think that's how a REAL flagellar "motor" looks?

                  Do you think atoms are like tiny metal solar systems, too? Each electron a tiny ball in orbit?

                  Do you think molecules are like multi-coloured balls, joined together with metal bars? I mean REALLY?

                  I hope I'm not overflowing you with questions, dave... Your sides are already splitting; I wouldn't want the same thing to happen to your poor head.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,13:20

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,13:04)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are telling me that it's not a real motor because this is a computer generated model??!!

                  Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!

                  You Darwinist Fundies are highly entertaining!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, your maniacal laughter is making you hyperventilate and act mentally retarded.

                  I'm not saying a flagellum is not a "motor," in the sense of some sort of propulsion device for bacteria. That's not the point, you idiot.

                  You say that because the flagellum looks like the electric motor you've got a picture of, it must therefore have been designed. Yes, your computer-generated model does resemble, in a superficial way, that motor (leaving aside for the moment any actual evidence of manufacture, which of course the human-designed motor has, in spades).

                  My point, genius, is that a real picture of a real flagellum would bear almost no resemblance to that motor at all, which, don't you think, would sort of defeat your "argument from resemblance"?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,13:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,14:04)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now, I'll give you this much: the _model_ of a flagellar motor in the picture was clearly human designed. But you wouldn't be silly enough to mistake design in a model for design in the original, would you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are telling me that it's not a real motor because this is a computer generated model??!!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  :p  :p  :p  :p  

                  Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!

                  You Darwinist Fundies are highly entertaining!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Keep laughing Dave.  We're laughing too, just not at the same thing.

                  Here's a flagella (a "schematic" drawing of the flagella actually).

                  Here's the source article.
                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  The author uses many references to "motors", "stators", "rotors" and other such terminology.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Escherichia coli is a single-celled organism that lives in your gut. It is equipped with a set of rotary motors only 45 nm in diameter. each motor drives a long, thin, helical filament that extends several cell body lengths out into the external medium. The assemblage of motor and filament is called a flagellum. The concerted motion of several flagella enables a cell to swim. A cell can move toward regions that it deems more favorable by measuring changes in the concentrations of certain chemicals in its environment (mostly nutrients), deciding whether life is getting better or worse, and then modulating the direction of rotation of its flagella. Thus, in addition to rotary engines and propellers, E. coli’s standard accessories include particle counters, rate meters, and gear boxes. This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream. I will discuss the features that make it so, from the perspectives of several scientific disciplines: anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and physics.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design.  But he does use one item that you are missing.
                  FUNCTION!

                  Why don't you tell me what you agree, or disagree with this article.  And does this author support your assertion about design versus evolution.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,13:32

                  Here's a picture of a bacterial flagellum really looks like:



                  Doesn't look much like your motor to me, Dave.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 21 2006,13:37

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 21 2006,13:13)
                  But here's something to think about. When we decide that some artifact is human-manufactured, it's usually because we have some idea how humans manufactured it. Now, you think the bacterial flagellum was designed. Would you have any idea as to how it was designed, or manufactured? Any concept of how your putative designer actually implemented its designs?

                  Because this is where ID and creationism always run spang into the brick wall. Evidently you guys have absolutely no idea how these designs were implemented, nor are you ever even doing research in the area. You're alway harping on scientists to study the designs, which of course they are < doing, > but you never talk about studying how those designs were implemented. In fact, your buddy Bill Dembski says:

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Intelligent design is not a theory about the frequency or locality or modality by which a designing intelligence intervenes in the material world. It is not an interventionist theory at all.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In other words, ID isn't even interested in how biological structures came to have the design they do.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'd love to see a car engineering department run on "ID" principles.

                  Designer: "And the engine block will be made of solid neutronium."

                  Engineers: "How are we supposed to _make_ an engine block out of solid neutronium?"

                  Designer: "By design!"

                  Engineers: "But what mechanism do we use to manufacture and work the neutronium?"

                  Designer: "Design _is_ a mechanism!"

                  (Collapse of stout party).
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,14:11

                  Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 21 2006,13:37)
                  I'd love to see a car engineering department run on "ID" principles.

                  Designer: "And the engine block will be made of solid neutronium."

                  Engineers: "How are we supposed to _make_ an engine block out of solid neutronium?"

                  Designer: "By design!"

                  Engineers: "But what mechanism do we use to manufacture and work the neutronium?"

                  Designer: "Design _is_ a mechanism!"

                  (Collapse of stout party).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's the least of their problems! How do they prevent the rest of the car (and, incidentally, the rest of the factory, along with most of the planet) just plating itself around the outside of the engine block?!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,14:23

                  Looks like a duck ... walks like a duck ... quacks like a duck ...

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a duck.

                  :D  :D  :D

                  Looks like a motor ... rotates like a motor ... has a rotor like a motor ... has a stator like a motor ...

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a motor!!!!

                  Trust us! (wink wink)  We're smarter than everyone else.

                  We've had 30 years of scientific training!

                  :D  :D  :D

                  ************************************

                  Not laughing at you Mike ... you're latest post actually indicates that you might be starting to understand.  I'll take a look at your article.  Looks interesting.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 21 2006,14:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,14:23)
                  Looks like a motor ... rotates like a motor ... has a rotor like a motor ... has a stator like a motor ...

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a motor!!!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, nobody says it's not a motor. Everyone agrees that it IS a motor; it goes round and round and propels a bacterium.

                  You're claiming that because it's a motor, it must have been designed by an intelligent entity, because motors designed by humans are designed by humans. That's the failure in your logic; the bacterial motor has none of the hallmarks of designed objects (particularly, no marks of manufacture). Instead it has all the hallmarks of naturally occurring, evolved, biological objects. You don't appear to believe in such objects, but that is, basically, your problem.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 21 2006,14:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,15:23)
                  Looks like a motor ... rotates like a motor ... has a rotor like a motor ... has a stator like a motor ...

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a motor!!!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So because it looks like a MAN-MADE motor ... rotates like a MAN-MADE motor ... has a rotor like a MAN-MADE motor ... has a stator like a MAN-MADE motor ...

                  YOU, Dave, think it's not a MAN-MADE motor.  Why is that?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 21 2006,14:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,14:23)
                  Looks like a duck ... walks like a duck ... quacks like a duck

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a duck.

                  Looks like a motor ... rotates like a motor ... has a rotor like a motor ... has a stator like a motor ...

                  .... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a motor!!!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you've really got to stop this stupidity, or everyone is going to think you really are stupid.

                  No one is saying a bacterial flagellum is not a "motor." They're saying THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DESIGNED.

                  If you can't afford to buy a clue, Dave, could you at least afford to rent one?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Not laughing at you Mike ... you're latest post actually indicates that you might be starting to understand.  I'll take a look at your article.  Looks interesting.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Also, please stop pretending no one understands your argument. We all understand it perfectly. We just know it's completely bogus, and utterly without foundation.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 21 2006,14:47

                  Any student in my classes that said
                  archaeologists determine the artifactuality of bone needles, stone awls, scrapers, spindle whorls and spear points "by intuition" would get a big fat zero on that question.

                  Add archaeological typology/stylistic systematics to the long list of things you need to learn about.

                  Artifacts are defined by evidence of human manufacture/alteration. All the artifacts you posted show this, down to minute microscopic detail, as well as context. Biofacts and ecofacts don't.

                  While the defining line between a water-tossed/chipped  "geofact" and a manufactured cobble chopper may be difficult to determine in some contexts, the vast majority of archaeologists would then leave the question unresolved as to attribution. Of course, there will always be some nut that claims they can "intuit" manufacture in such items. Such claims have been the target of criticism in the past, such as the Calico Hills site in California. Louis Leakey was embarassed by his assertions concerning items found at that site. Of course, Leakey was not educated under the quantitative- analytic mode of archaeology brought to the fore by people like A.C. Spaulding, G. Willey, my mentors James Hill, James Sackett and Clement Meighan, William Longacre and most importantly, Lewis Binford in his landmark 1962 paper "Archaeology as Anthropology" which stressed the hypothetico-deductive method, materials analysis, and quantitative/statistical approaches. So Leakey wound up looking foolish.
                   
                  The fact is that all the artifacts **you** posted, Dave...show unmistakable evidence of human manufacture which cannot be duplicated in nature. No intuition applies there.  

                  Suggested reading: "The History of American Archaeology" by Gordon Willey and Jeremy Sabloff, along with the thousands of papers it references.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 21 2006,15:00

                  Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 21 2006,14:37)
                  I'd love to see a car engineering department run on "ID" principles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The year is 2008. The vice president of R&D at Ford had 13 simultaneous Cerebral Infarctions and subsequently put Salvador Cordova in charge of new car design.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Salvador: Hi Everybody!
                  Design Team: Hi, Doctor Sal!!!!
                  Salvador: Okay. Today, I want you to build a car which gets a million miles to the gallon and is indestructable.
                  Design Team: (GASP) uh...that's impossible, sir.
                  Salvador: IMPOSSIBLE?!?!?!?! Listen here, I've got an Associates degree in Intelligent Design from the William Dembski Mail Order Institute of Book Larnins. I know design.
                  Design Team: No, you don't. You can tell us what you want, but that doesn't make it possible.
                  Salvador: (rolls eyes) Look. If you had the education I do, you would know something very crucial about your role as Intelligent Designers. When I tell you the goal, that sneaks in all the information you need. By telling you the desired peak on the fitness landscape, I implied the answer as a matter of course. If you can't figure out what it is, then I'll fire you and hire some competent IDers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 21 2006,15:28

                  I don't think we'll be hearing from Dave for a while.  As we all know, Dave doesn't do metaphors.  Therefore this:
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,13:04)
                  Oh ... my sides are splitting ... please keep going!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  must mean his sides really are splitting.  He'll be in no condition to type for a while.

                  Get better soon, Dave.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 21 2006,15:33

                  Dave:
                  You missed the point of what I was saying. I was not asking you what particular point Alberts was trying to make (clearly he was over-working the analogy of parts of cells functioning like machines to get biologists to think of things like energy flow and storage). Rather, I was saying we are not particularly interested in the who but in the why. Not in who made a particular (misinterpreted) statement but in their reasons for making it.

                  As for the hint that you will eventually produce some creationist criteria for distinguishing between 'kinds' - I'll believe that when I see them.

                  How did cacti get to and from the ark?

                  And, as Faid asks, is the Sun a 'real factory'?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 21 2006,15:51



                  "This is not a pipe."

                  I assume everyone,other than Dave, understands this.

                  The image doesn't seem to be linked properly, at least it's not showing up on the PocketPC I'm use during the day.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,16:01



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's the failure in your logic; the bacterial motor has none of the hallmarks of designed objects (particularly, no marks of manufacture).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's right ... no hallmarks of design in that baby! ... no rotor (just a fake one) ... no stator (just a pretend one) ... no rotation (it's just a mirage) ... Ah ... no marks of manufacturing, eh?  Didn't read up on how they are manufactured did you!

                  All this reminds me of a good limerick ...

                  There was a faith-healer of Deal
                  Who said, "Although pain isn't real,
                      If I sit on a pin
                      And it punctures my skin,
                  I dislike what I fancy I feel."


                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Whew boy!  What an entertaining day!
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 21 2006,16:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,16:01)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's the failure in your logic; the bacterial motor has none of the hallmarks of designed objects (particularly, no marks of manufacture).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's right ... no hallmarks of design in that baby! ... no rotor (just a fake one) ... no stator (just a pretend one) ... no rotation (it's just a mirage) ... Ah ... no marks of manufacturing, eh?  Didn't read up on how they are manufactured did you!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, of course it has a rotor, and a stator, and rotation. So?  How is that evidence of design? Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor? Show me the maker's marks on the flagellum.

                  You might have noticed that the picture of an electric motor you posted had a LABEL on the side. Where's the label on the flagellum? :)
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,17:26

                  It's incredible that you would ask that, but I will patiently explain ...

                  Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor?

                  Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.

                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.

                  IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.

                  Therefore, why would we make an exception for THIS motor--the flagellum driver--and say "Nope. No Designer required." ??


                  ESPECIALLY ...

                  When the idea of extrapolating micro-evo to create motors from something less complicated has NO experimental support whatsoever!!
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 21 2006,18:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Simply because we know of a case where a discus REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, official competition discuses.

                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a discus in nature might also require a designer.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  Or, perhaps not.  You know, that model Dave put up looks an awful lot like the Type III Secretion System.  Ever get cholera back in your jungle days, Dave?  Wasn't that an elegantly designed infection?
                  Posted by: creeky belly on Dec. 21 2006,18:33

                  We're back to butterflies and watches again, hooray! Do mechanical motors require a designer to reproduce? How about bacteria?

                  (Yawn) Argument by analogy, next!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 21 2006,18:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.
                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.
                  IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There are different kinds of "motors." At base, a motor converts energy into MOTION.

                  Dave is comparing a specific kind of electrical motor to an ion or proton "motor". Flagellar motors can be classified into two types: proton-driven and sodium-driven. The Vibrio group Argy mentioned (Vibrio alginolyticus, in this case)  CAN have two types of flagella in one cell: a lateral flagellum with a proton-driven motor and a polar flagellum with a sodium-driven motor.

                  There are additionally thermodynamic motors, pneumatic motors and hydraulic motors that can all be found in nature, even outside of living things. Frost heave is a "motor" which converts energy to motion. Wave action can create pneumatic "motors," etc. There are additional "motors" in nature that require no designer, so far as anyone has shown.  

                  Thus, from our experience, motors don't require designers, merely simple physics and chemistry.

                  I thought I'd just toss that in.

                  Oh, and there's lots of experimental work on flagella. All it would take is a Google search to discover that truth, but that's not what this is about, is it?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 21 2006,18:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,18:26)
                  It's incredible that you would ask that, but I will patiently explain ...

                  Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor?

                  Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.

                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.

                  IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.

                  Therefore, why would we make an exception for THIS motor--the flagellum driver--and say "Nope. No Designer required." ??

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  We know of a case where a nuclear reactor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer.  Namely a water moderated uranium fuel nuclear reactor.

                  So it is logical to think that the hypothesised(1956) and actual discovered (1972) natural nuclear reactor should show the hallmark of design also.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_natural_reactor >
                  < http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf >.

                  LOOK.  I USED MY INTUITION TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY ANOTHER ACT OF THE DESIGNER!
                  (By Using My Newly Discovered Skills In The Field Of AFDavology).
                  ********************
                  Dave, you then said....

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When the idea of extrapolating micro-evo to create motors from something less complicated has NO experimental support whatsoever!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In fact, the idea of extrapolating historical human designs that created more complex motors from prior motors has DOCUMENTED support.
                  Human designers have modified/improved/changed/altered/optimised almost every design ever spoken/written/built.

                  So we should then assign these same attributes (changes in designs to lead to new/improved/altered/optimised/surprise functions) to biologic systems if we are to compare them with human design systems.
                  *****************************
                  One final muse.
                  Why does Mitochondria contain its own DNA?  Why doesn't the cell nucleus control everything in the cell?

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA >

                  You got anything on that one?  Design maybe?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 21 2006,19:11

                  Hey AFDave, Mike's post got me curious

                  What is the YEC explanation for the Oklo natural reactor?  Did it form pre-Flood or post-Flood?  How could such a thing happen in only 6000 (or 4500) years?

                  A quick AIG search only turned up one mention of Oklo, as a side note in an Rb-Sr dating article, with no mention at all of the reactor history itself.  ICR also has a brief mention of it in an old article claiming that physical 'constants' of the Universe are actually 'variable', but doesn't say how or why.

                  Pretty please Dave, tell us the YEC story of Oklo.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 21 2006,20:23

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 21 2006,14:11)
                  Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 21 2006,13:37)
                  I'd love to see a car engineering department run on "ID" principles.

                  Designer: "And the engine block will be made of solid neutronium."

                  Engineers: "How are we supposed to _make_ an engine block out of solid neutronium?"

                  Designer: "By design!"

                  Engineers: "But what mechanism do we use to manufacture and work the neutronium?"

                  Designer: "Design _is_ a mechanism!"

                  (Collapse of stout party).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's the least of their problems! How do they prevent the rest of the car (and, incidentally, the rest of the factory, along with most of the planet) just plating itself around the outside of the engine block?!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The ID car factory?

                  Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha


                  The one drawn up by a lawyer and a bunch of would be theologians on Power Point that had a class action suit for faulty product against it before the first sod for it's factory was turned.

                  The one that cost it's first customer a million dollars and all they got was virtual flat tire and a DUI speeding ticket.  BEFORE the car was even designed.

                  The one where no one can agree if it is red or blue, runs on candle wax or dog turds but that everyone agrees that the  'ID car' makes the .< Trabant > look like a Rolls.


                  Oh and AFD they do teach ID at Universities, it's in the religion and mythology courses as creationism and sits along side Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Shintoism etc etc.


                  Finally AFD, if you think you are creating the image THAT BY MAINTAINING A STOIC FACADE/PERSONA YOU'RE ABLE TO CONCEAL YOUR DECIET AND LIES LET ANYONE READING THIS SPEAK UP AND SAY THAT AFD IS NOT LYING.

                  Even you're real god .....GWB seems to say he was wrong....take a hint.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 21 2006,22:09

                  It's no use trying to distract me with discuses (disci?) and natural nuclear reactors ...

                  Remember ...

                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.

                  Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Thus, from our experience, motors don't require designers, merely simple physics and chemistry.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Tell that to motor companies like GE and Westinghouse.  Maybe they can fire their design team and save some money.  :D

                  More on cholera tomorrow!
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,22:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, nobody cares what does it for you- you believe the Continents were rushing at a hundred miles an hour, for crying out loud. You believe scientists ditch thousands and thousands of measurements, and show only the ones they agree with Darwin Gestapo. You are not the brightest candle in the church chandelier, if you know what I mean.
                  The thing is, however, that what you say doesn't even make sense in principle. WHY does it take "only one example"? Is the altar of Palenque indisputable proof that the Aztecs had Jet Planes, because it LOOKS like one? You're not making sense -as usual.

                  Davesy, It's not a duck. You can't prove it's a duck, you can't even argue it's a duck in scientific terms- all you can do is blabber about "intuition" (HAH! ) and name everything you see "ducks", just because you NEED it to be that way..

                  Oh and, dave... daaaaaaveeeeee...

                  ...Is the SUN a "REAL" factory"?

                  Hee hee. Come on champ, give us some more smilies! Don't think your pitiful inadequacy doesn't show, though. It just shines through, and you know it.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 21 2006,22:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You don't keep up do you AFD?

                  .....check this out < Dembski and co's absolute crushing >

                  Not exactly paragons of virtue are they?

                  They had their chance in the only arena that counts, where evidence is tested according to RULES OF EVIDENCE. THEY LOST PERMANENTLY

                  Pssst .....Dembski and Co. are a footnote in the history of REALLY STUPID IDEAS.

                  Carry on with you're empty rhetoric and mental masterbation AFD.

                  NOTHING YOU SAY WILL MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 21 2006,22:38



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  More on cholera tomorrow!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Could we do malaria instead, if it's all the same to you?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 21 2006,22:42

                  You know what's awesome?  dave managed, using just one word, to make all of poor Dembski's and Behe's efforts flounder. They have been trying to prove that ID detection is based on the scientific method for years now, with books and papers and formulas and whatchoomightcallits- And then dave comes and says "It's all about INTUITION, baaaaaby!"

                  Keep it up dave. You have no idea how much you help our purpose.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 21 2006,23:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.

                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Because we know salt, common table salt, contains sodium, the logical conclusion is that all salts contain sodium.

                  What a moron.

                  Not that I think anyone else here is simple enough to need this explained, but as davy's latest attempt to play Aedes aegypti to my Homo sapiens seems to involve encephalon envy, let me just be very clear. Yes. I do consider myself a whole lot smarter than davy. But it's not that I'm all that intelligent or educated; it's just that I'm not willfully ignorant.  I certainly don't consider myself more intelligent or educated than anyone else involved in this conversation, other than afdave.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 21 2006,23:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here Dave, here's how it really happened



                  < source > if the hotlink is broken

                  Be sure to use this in your Lies4Kids, right next to that cartoon 'motor'  :D
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,00:16

                  following a fairly lengthy discussion of various kinds of motors and what a motor is at heart, I stated :    


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Thus, from our experience, motors don't require designers, merely simple physics and chemistry.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  Dave's response:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Tell that to motor companies like GE and Westinghouse.  Maybe they can fire their design team and save some money.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Given that neither Westinghouse or GE has an organic proton or ion motor that I know of, why should I bother to contact them?

                  Or do you think an electrical motor like you posted is organic?

                  You're merely flailing about for anything that you can use to try to boost your ego. The transparent part is that you have to play semantic games to do so.
                  Posted by: lawman on Dec. 22 2006,00:44

                  ...i just wonder how long Dave will go on with this, but it is proving interesting for the rest of us.
                  Just to share something, from Chapter 5 of "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But now we're depending more and more on systems where nobody's in charge; the intelligence is simply "emergent,"which is to say that it appears to arise spontaneously from the number-crunching. These probabilistic systems aren't perfect, but they are statistically optimized to excel over time and large numbers. They're designed to "scale," or improve with size. And a little slop at the microscale is the price of such efficiency at the macroscale.
                  But how can that be right whe it feels so wrong?
                  There's the rub. This tradeoff is just hard for people to wrap their heads around. There's a reason why we're still debating Darwin. And whyThe Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki's book on Adam Smith's invisible hand and how the many can be smarter than the few, is still surprising (and still needs to be read) more than two hundred years after the great Scotsman's death. Both market economics and evolution are probabilistic systems, which are simply counterintuitive to our mammalian brains. The fact that a few smart humans figured this out and used that insight to build th efoundations of our modern economy, from the stock market to Google, is just evidence that our mental software (our collective knowledge) has evolved faster than our hardware (our neural wiring).
                  Probability-based systems are, to use the writer Kevin Kelly's term, "out of control." His seminal book by that name looks at example after example, from democracy to bird-flocking, where order arises from what appears to be chaos, seemingly reversing entropy's arrow. The book is more than a dozen years old, and decades from now we'll still find th einsight surprising. But it's right.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Merry "Kitzmas" everyone.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 22 2006,01:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,22:09)
                  It's no use trying to distract me with discuses (disci?) and natural nuclear reactors ...

                  Remember ...

                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I KNEW IT.

                  Dilettard Dave the Taxi Driver is a closet Flagellant.

                  Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.

                  Not happenin' stud.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,01:31

                  And a very merry Giftmas..err...Kitzmas to you, too, Lawman.

                  And to everyone else, too -- except Dave, who gets coal to power his fantasy electromagnetic organic flagellum that he ...
                  well, nevermind -- in the True Spirit of The Solstice Season©, I'll even include little Dave, prevaricator though he be.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 22 2006,04:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be honest now.  Guess what?  You were informed of this by a CREATIONIST.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  OK, time for me to bust out the smileys too...
                  On second thought, forget smileys:

                  BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
                  *deep breath*
                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
                  HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHHAHAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA

                  Dave, please don't ever leave us.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,08:18

                  E. COLI MOTORS ... THE DARWINIST'S NIGHTMARE AND IDist'S FRIEND
                  Thanks, Mike PSS for the excellent article!

                  He relates this quote ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Escherichia coli is a single-celled organism that lives in your gut. It is equipped with a set of rotary motors only 45 nm in diameter. each motor drives a long, thin, helical filament that extends several cell body lengths out into the external medium. The assemblage of motor and filament is called a flagellum. The concerted motion of several flagella enables a cell to swim. A cell can move toward regions that it deems more favorable by measuring changes in the concentrations of certain chemicals in its environment (mostly nutrients), deciding whether life is getting better or worse, and then modulating the direction of rotation of its flagella. Thus, in addition to rotary engines and propellers, E. coli’s standard accessories include particle counters, rate meters, and gear boxes. This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream. I will discuss the features that make it so, from the perspectives of several scientific disciplines: anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and physics.
                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The whole thing was a fascinating read from a professor with interesting credentials ... a Harvard guy, with specialization in molecular and cellular biology, and in physics!  What a cool combo!

                  For those of you worried that the E. Coli motor isn't real because I posted a drawing instead of the real thing, here's an electron micrograph of the actual motor from Mike's article ...



                  On further looking, it was Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My point, genius, is that a real picture of a real flagellum would bear almost no resemblance to that motor at all, which, don't you think, would sort of defeat your "argument from resemblance"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... you're wrong again.  Maybe you think the electron microscope technician was a fraud or something.

                  And this knee-slapper from Faid ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You were showing us pictures dave, remember? And telling us to use our "intuition" and other sciency methods YECs often use to "prove" their points? Dave, do you REALLY think that's how a REAL flagellar "motor" looks?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  Sure do, Faid.  Are you saying you don't believe electron micrographs?

                  Then Mike PSS says ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design.  But he does use one item that you are missing.
                  FUNCTION!

                  Why don't you tell me what you agree, or disagree with this article.  And does this author support your assertion about design versus evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design."  Wonderful!  Nice to hear a Harvard professor giving us a nice "steak dinner" of scientific wonder for once without sprinkling his offering with the usual Darwinian horse-radish.  Not sure why he didn't, but I'm not asking questions.  I'm thrilled!

                  As for the word FUNCTION, you say I don't mention it.  I say it is assumed.  I have been comparing man-made motors to the E. Coli motor and I think it's safe to ASSUME that they both have the FUNCTION of rotating and applying torque to some device.  Hopefully Deadman will not give me a ZERO for making that assumption. :D

                  Here's another very good article on nanomachines and the growing interest surrounding them ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Molecular Machines

                  The term "molecular machine" first entered the vocabulary of science in the late 1980's. Today a search on Google™ for the term, or its derivatives (protein machines and molecular motors) yields over 60,000 hits. In the biosciences, the term refers to a complex biomacromolecule (or a localized assembly of biomacromolecules) that consumes energy in order to perform a specific action. According to the Foresight Institute, a non-profit devoted to educating society about nanotechnology; a molecular machine is, "A mechanical device that performs a useful function using components of nanometer scale and defined structure."

                  The Foresight Institute goes on to say that this definition, "includes both artificial nanomachines and naturally occurring devices found in biological systems," which leaves open the possibility that man made machines could function in the same way. However, there is a huge disparity between the specificity of natural machines and their man-made counterparts. The measure of a molecular machine’s specific action is nicely summarized by Thomas D. Schneider, “the precise measure of the specific action … is the number of distinct states which the machine can choose between.”

                  Even a simple biological molecular machine will chose between many states. For example the DNA cutting protein, EcoR1, cuts at a specific 6 base sequence, thus selecting 1 position out of 4^6 = 4096 possible positions, or gaining log2 4096 = 12 bits of information per operation in a one dimensional system comprised only of EcoR1 and random DNA (the actual information gained in a three dimensional system filled with competing binding sites is arguably much higher).

                  Examples of man-made molecular machines (nanomachines), such as the spinning nanotube of Alex Zettl at UC Berkeley, are crude in comparison to naturally occurring machines. Generally, these nanomachines have components that are much larger than the nanometer scale, and the action they perform only discriminates between two states, such as clockwise or counterclockwise spinning. Additionally, many nanomachines use DNA and other biomacromolecules as a starting point, and thus are hybrids of natural and artificial machines.

                  The growing interest in biological molecular machines over the past two decades can be traced to enthusiastic articles in leading scientific journals, such as the review written by Bruce Alberts, the National Academy of Science president, in the journal Cell. He and others helped explain (to otherwise design-language adverse biologist) the reason for using very design friendly terms such as "molecular machine", or "protein machine". In answer to the question, "Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines?" (emphasis in original). Alberts responds, "Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts"
                  < http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Molecular_Machines >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoo boy!  I bet there's a bunch of Darwinists out there that wish Alberts had kept his big mouth shut.

                  And who was that guy yesterday trying to make fun of a car engineering department run on ID principles?  You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  Design is design.  It's not a mechanism.  Mechanisms are designed.  All the time.  Every day.  And as my article above points out, nano-engineers are trying to understand God's designs and imitate them!

                  I love it!

                  LET'S TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT INTUITION
                  You guys pretend that you never use it and that Creationists invoke it constantly instead of using rigorous science.

                  Well, let me show you that you DO use intuition quite regularly ...

                  A (NOT SO) TYPICAL DAY IN THE LIFE OF DR. FAID ...
                  DR. FAID:  "Well, Mrs. Bloom, what seems to be the problem today?"
                  MRS. BLOOM (holding pet monkey): "My son keeps whining and crying and pulling his ear ... I think he has an earache."
                  DR. FAID: "Well, where is your son, Mrs. Bloom? And--ahem--we don't allow pets in the office."
                  MRS. BLOOM:  "This IS my son ... isn't he precious ... boo boo boo ... doesn't he just have the prettiest eyes?"
                  DR. FAID: "Excuse me?"
                  MRS. BLOOM: "He's 3 years old and he is my best friend!  Can you please help him Doctor?"
                  DR. FAID: "I'm sorry, Mrs. Bloom, but this is a MONKEY and I am not a vet.  Please take your monkey to the vet.  Thank you.  Have a nice day!"

                  LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN ... FAID HAS JUST USED ... THE HORRIBLE ... THE UNSPEAKABLE ...

                  "I-WORD" ... INTUITION!

                  NO SCIENCY TEST.  NO MATHEMATICS.  FAID WAS ABLE TO DETECT INSTANTLY THAT MRS. BLOOM'S "SON" WAS NOT HER SON, BUT A MONKEY.

                  Now granted, intution only gets us so far and we must come up with rigorous tests for many things.

                  But guys, guys, guys ... comparing an E. Coli motor to an electric motor is not rocket science. Intuition is all that's required for THIS example.  And it only takes ONE example to vindicate Behe and friends.  Think about it.

                  The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ... reason that you guys laugh at Behe and Dembski for saying it is designed is because you WANT to believe it wasn't.  You don't have a single shred of experimental evidence demonstrating a Darwinian method of building such exquisite structures.  I guarantee that if you had never hear the name of Darwin in school and had no ToE indocrination, you would not be pooh poohing the people who say this was designed.


                  WHAT IF RUSSELL USED "RUSSELL LOGIC" ALL THE TIME?
                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [dave]Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors. So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.[/dave]
                  [Russel]Because we know salt, common table salt, contains sodium, the logical conclusion is that all salts contain sodium. What a moron. [/Russell]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  RUSSELL'S YOUNG SON: "Dad, there's a helicopter flying over!  Let's go outside and see it!"
                  RUSSELL: "How do you know, son?"
                  SON: "Hear the wop wop wop?  That's a helicopter!  C'mon, dad! Hurry!"
                  RUSSELL: "Son, you must understand.  Just because something goes wop wop wop doesn't mean it's a helicopter."
                  SON: "Hurry, dad, it's gonna be gone!"
                  RUSSELL:  "I think we need to investigate further before we make any rash decisions, interrupt our dinner, and walk all the way outside."
                  SON: "Hey dad ... See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!"  (Bolts outside)

                  ***************************************************************

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  Improv ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  YOU, Dave, think it's not a MAN-MADE motor.  Why is that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I think it is a motor made by a much higher intelligence than mankind.  Why?  Because of the nano-miniaturization involved, because of the highly sophisticated manufacturing process involved, because of the ingenious energy flow system, etc. etc.  In the words of the guy in Mike PSS's article ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  IOW, humans don't have high tech like this.  This is advanced stuff.  Logical takeaway?  

                  There must be an advanced intelligence somewhere that caused this.  How about let's look for it, huh?  Duh!

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No one is saying a bacterial flagellum is not a "motor." They're saying THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Don't lie, Eric.  Plenty of people were trying to say that it's not a real motor, including YOU, who castigated me for posting a drawing (horrors) instead of a picture of the real thing.

                  Now you can SAY it wasn't designed till you are blue in the face, but just understand that you are saying the equivalent of ...

                  "This space ship we call the Space Shuttle was designed.  But this UFO that landed in Roswell was NOT designed."  (Hypothetical, guys. I'm not into the UFO stuff.)

                  If we run across a rotary motor ANYWHERE -- lying in the desert sand, at the bottom of the ocean, or a nano-sized one inside a little bacterium ... the MOST logical thing to say is ...

                  "Hmmm ... that's a motor.  I know about motors.  They are designed.  I wonder who designed this one!"

                  Let me be clear.  It is precisely this kind of mental obtuseness from the science community that motivates people like me (non-scientists) to get to our kids with the truth BEFORE you guys get to them and screw up their minds.

                  Steve Story ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Salvador: (rolls eyes) Look. If you had the education I do, you would know something very crucial about your role as Intelligent Designers. When I tell you the goal, that sneaks in all the information you need. By telling you the desired peak on the fitness landscape, I implied the answer as a matter of course. If you can't figure out what it is, then I'll fire you and hire some competent IDers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You have got to be kidding me!  Is this really how you imagine that ID guys think?  Wow.

                  Malum ... I cannot see your image ... try Photobucket.

                  Stephen Wells ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You might have noticed that the picture of an electric motor you posted had a LABEL on the side. Where's the label on the flagellum?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are telling me that you cannot detect if it's a motor or not unless it has a label on the side?

                  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

                  Come on, Stephen ... please ... spare me.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 22 2006,08:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:18)
                  LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN ... FAID HAS JUST USED ... THE HORRIBLE ... THE UNSPEAKABLE ...

                  "I-WORD" ... INTUITION!

                  NO SCIENCY TEST.  NO MATHEMATICS.  FAID WAS ABLE TO DETECT INSTANTLY THAT MRS. BLOOM'S "SON" WAS NOT HER SON, BUT A MONKEY.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh look, yet another word that Dave doesn't know the meaning of...
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 22 2006,08:37

                  Pretty pictures AFD do not prove your faulty inductions.

                  The only motors ever made on earth were made by humans.

                  The Flagellum may LOOK LIKE a motor and function like a motor just as an eye may LOOK LIKE a CCD camera and function like a CCD camera but everyone here knows that your definition of a motor means that it was designed by human intelligence ....even if that is some imaginary out of body intelligence.

                  Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.

                  And AFD you pathetic HYPOCRIT why do you believe the output from an electron microscope but not a mass spectrometer for radio metric dating?

                  How old is the earth again?

                  How did Humans evolve?

                  Stop lying to yourself.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,08:41

                  intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
                  www.answers.com/topic/intuition

                  Faid was able to use "immediate cognition" to determine that the monkey was not Mrs. Bloom's son.

                  C'mon, Improv ... try another approach.  Or better yet ... be humble and surrender!

                  :D

                  ****************************************

                  K.e ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 22 2006,08:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:41)
                  intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
                  www.answers.com/topic/intuition

                  Faid was able to use "immediate cognition" to determine that the monkey was not Mrs. Bloom's son.

                  C'mon, Improv ... try another approach.  Or better yet ... be humble and surrender!

                  :D

                  ****************************************

                  K.e ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're right.  I give up.  Trying to reason with you really is impossible.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2006,08:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
                  intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
                  www.answers.com/topic/intuition

                  Faid was able to use "immediate cognition" to determine that the monkey was not Mrs. Bloom's son.

                  C'mon, Improv ... try another approach.  Or better yet ... be humble and surrender!

                  :D

                  ****************************************

                  K.e ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  From < How to search a quantum phonebook >

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To get a glimpse of Deutsch's insight, consider an atom that has a lone electron on its outermost orbit. By shining light on the atom, it is possible to force this electron to jump to a higher orbit: the atom becomes excited. What happens if you shine the light on an atom in the ground state, but for only half the time needed to excite it? Where will the electron end up, knowing that quantum mechanics forbids it from lying anywhere between the two orbits? The counterintuitive answer is that the electron will find itself simultaneously on both orbits. If we associate the binary value 0 to an atom in its ground state and 1 to an excited atom, we have produced a qubit -- the unit of quantum information -- that is in a superposition of classical states 0 and 1.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This one is from your favourite resource, < wikipedia >
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Macroscopic systems (such as chairs or cats) do not exhibit counterintuitive quantum properties, which can only be observed in microscopic particles such as electrons or photons. This invites the question of when a system is "big enough" to behave classically and not quantum mechanically?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This quenching of spontaneous emission by quantum coherence provides yet another example of counterintuitive quantum effects
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < ScienceMag.org >

                  Or, to put it another way if we'd only followed intuitive results or reasoning like you propose, the modern computer would be impossible and you would not be able to have this "discussion".
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2006,09:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
                  K.e ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  what exactly was your problem with it? I dont have a degree in any sort of biology subject, but i've followed this whole story in detail. And if we judge soley on the quality of evidence, then you lose.

                  Have you not read all the research done on this one? Your side has had it's arguments destroyed in detail. And you think they are still right but can only say what a imagination. Well, from where I am looking, the person with the Alice in wonderland imagination is you! Considering what else you believe in. Global floods that moved cacti from mountaintop to desert, sheep with VD, 6000 year old universe...

                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,09:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 22 2006,09:23

                  Dave,

                  There are many different kinds of bacterial flagellum. Which one was the original designed one? How did the others arise? Or were they all independently 'intelligently' created? If so, why not just one kind?

                  I'm still waiting for an answer to my other questions, especially on the criteria used to distinguish between the original 'kinds' on the ark.
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Dec. 22 2006,09:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As opposed to your rigorously scientific *poof* scenario, for which you offer oodles of repeatable experimental data.

                  This guy couldn't get a clue if you ran up and stabbed him in the eye with one.  Why not just leave him to blather to himself?
                  Posted by: alicejohn on Dec. 22 2006,09:30

                  Dave,

                  Since we are talking about appearance of design have you ever seen in person (before it collapsed in 2003) or pictures of the Old Man of the Mountain rock formation in New Hampshire?  Everyone who has ever seen the rock formation says it looks like a bust of a man's head.

                  There are two possibilities:

                  1) Since we know a bust of a man's head can be made from stone by humans, the Old Man of the Mountain rock formation was intentionally made by ?????,

                  2) Random rock formation combined with random erosion resulted in a rock formation which appeared to look like the bust of a man's head.

                  In your opinion, which of the two possibilities created the Old Man of the Mountain?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 22 2006,09:37

                  Same-old same-old.

                  Dave: There is no way the flagellum could have evolved.  Therefore, it was designed.
                  Scientist: Well, here's one possible way it could have evolved...
                  Dave: You can't prove that's what really happened, therefore my previous argument still holds.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 22 2006,09:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  RUSSELL'S YOUNG SON: "Dad, there's a helicopter flying over!  Let's go outside and see it!"
                  RUSSELL: "How do you know, son?"
                  SON: "Hear the wop wop wop?  That's a helicopter!  C'mon, dad! Hurry!"
                  RUSSELL: "Son, you must understand.  Just because something goes wop wop wop doesn't mean it's a helicopter."
                  SON: "Hurry, dad, it's gonna be gone!"
                  RUSSELL:  "I think we need to investigate further before we make any rash decisions, interrupt our dinner, and walk all the way outside."
                  SON: "Hey dad ... See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!"  (Bolts outside)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I thought you were gonna say the kid ran outside into a hail of gunfire, but then again, we're not on the same wavelength...
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2006,10:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:22)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have been created by a higher power, they propose each of the holy steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by divine intervention.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Holy Scriptures"
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 22 2006,10:04

                  Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Dec. 22 2006,02:24)
                   Dilettard Dave the Taxi Driver is a closet Flagellant.

                  Pie Jesu Domine, THUD

                  dona eis requiem.  THUD

                  Not happenin' stud.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  There crabby.  A little embellishment.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2006,10:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:22)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  davey,

                  If you go to google, and search for

                  < site:http://www.answersingenesis.org/ postulated >

                  you will see a couple of hundred results. What a whole lotta postulation going on. What a shock, IF this THEN that. IF IF IF.

                  What are you, a basic programmer? Your overuse of "GOTO Miracle" has been noted.

                  < >
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 22 2006,10:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be honest now.  Guess what?  You were informed of this by a CREATIONIST.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah, Russell. And did you know that there are, like, zillions of beneficial bacteria in your gut?!  Ever heard of CRE recombinase before?!  Man, these creationists with undergraduate degrees sure know a lot more than you do!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,10:41

                  It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 22 2006,10:57

                  I suppose that next you're going to "inform" us that the majority of the species on earth are parasites?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2006,11:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,10:41)
                  It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's easier to concentrate on your percieved "slights" then answer any of the substantive points?

                  I did not see any meaningfull comeback on the DNA as software? AIG tell you to give up on that one?
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 22 2006,11:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,17:26)
                  IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So long as our only experience of motors was of human-designed motors, our experience was that motors require _human_ designers.

                  Now you've met the bacterial flagellum. Your experience- that motors require human designers- is no longer universally true; I think you'll admit that the flagellum is not designed by humans?

                  And you have no information on the designed (or otherwise) status of the bacterial flagellum. So now our experience is; motors may, or may not, require designers.

                  What you're doing is assuming that all motors (even bacterial ones) require designers, and then using this assumption to justify your claim that the bacterial flagellum requires a designer. Which is not so much a circular argument as point-like.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 22 2006,11:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:18)
                  E. COLI MOTORS ... THE DARWINIST'S NIGHTMARE AND IDist'S FRIEND
                  Thanks, Mike PSS for the excellent article!
                  {snip image}
                  He relates this quote ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Escherichia coli is a single-celled organism that lives in your gut. It is equipped with a set of rotary motors only 45 nm in diameter. each motor drives a long, thin, helical filament that extends several cell body lengths out into the external medium. The assemblage of motor and filament is called a flagellum. The concerted motion of several flagella enables a cell to swim. A cell can move toward regions that it deems more favorable by measuring changes in the concentrations of certain chemicals in its environment (mostly nutrients), deciding whether life is getting better or worse, and then modulating the direction of rotation of its flagella. Thus, in addition to rotary engines and propellers, E. coli’s standard accessories include particle counters, rate meters, and gear boxes. This microorganism is a nanotechnologist’s dream. I will discuss the features that make it so, from the perspectives of several scientific disciplines: anatomy, genetics, chemistry, and physics.
                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The whole thing was a fascinating read from a professor with interesting credentials ... a Harvard guy, with specialization in molecular and cellular biology, and in physics!  What a cool combo!

                  {snip electron micrograph discussion for Eric, Faid and others to beat up Dave with}


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeaaahhhh.  A non-YEC source that Dave enjoys reading and understanding.

                  Do I win a prize?
                  ********************
                  Dave,
                  The Harvard guy is a molecular/cellular biologist.  Notice in the quote that he is discussing the flaggeller system of E.Coli from the perspective of other fields of science (anatomy, genetics, chemistry and physics).  He ISN'T talking about biology in general.

                  He is also referenced by many other sources in other fields.  In fact, I was reading an article by Nick Matzke of NCSE fame and Berg was referenced.

                  Now, the article also has this...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The molecules of DNA in the members of a given set of descendants are identical except for mutations, which occur spontaneously for a given gene, at the rate of about 10-7 per generation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh Oh.  Dr. Berg is stating a measured mutation rate here.
                  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?  ARE MUTATIONS IN THIS CASE BAD, GOOD, OR NEUTRAL?
                  HOW CAN HE KNOW THE MUTATION RATE OF THIS ORGANISM?


                  Is the Dr. your "friend" now?  Or do you start to disagree with some of his statements.  Maybe he has swallowed the dogmatic Darwinist kool-aid and he is just spewing out boiler-plate comments when faced with this subject.

                  Moving on.....
                  You responded to my FUNCTION question...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Then Mike PSS says ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design.  But he does use one item that you are missing.
                  FUNCTION!

                  Why don't you tell me what you agree, or disagree with this article.  And does this author support your assertion about design versus evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "The author doesn't mention anything about evolution or design."  Wonderful!  Nice to hear a Harvard professor giving us a nice "steak dinner" of scientific wonder for once without sprinkling his offering with the usual Darwinian horse-radish.  Not sure why he didn't, but I'm not asking questions.  I'm thrilled!

                  As for the word FUNCTION, you say I don't mention it.  I say it is assumed.  I have been comparing man-made motors to the E. Coli motor and I think it's safe to ASSUME that they both have the FUNCTION of rotating and applying torque to some device.  Hopefully Deadman will not give me a ZERO for making that assumption.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, why didn't you read the author's specific reason for the flagella's existence in the first place.  Here is Dr. Berg again...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Detecting chemical gradients
                  The motor runs either clockwise (CW), as seen by an observer standing on the outside of the cell looking down at the hook, or counterclockwise (CCW), with protons continuing to flow from the outside to the inside of the cell. Switching direction involves the proteins FliG, M, and N.

                  In a cell wild type for chemotaxis, CW and CCW modes alternate (with exponentially distributed waiting times). When the motors turn CW, the flagellar filaments work independently, and the cell body moves erratically with little net displacement; the cell is then said to “tumble.” When the motors turn CCW, the filaments rotate in parallel in a bundle that pushes the cell body steadily forward, and the cell is said to “run.” The two modes alternate. The cell runs and tumbles, executing a three-dimensional random walk, as shown in figure 3.

                  When different flagellar motors in the same cell are studied under conditions in which they cannot interact mechanically, they change directions independently. Yet, when a flagellar bundle drives the cell forward, all of the motors have to rotate CCW. The events that bring about this coordination are not yet understood. The mean run interval is about 1 s, whereas the mean tumble interval is only about 0.1 s. Both of the times are exponentially distributed.

                  Although the change in angle generated by a tumble is approximately random, there is a slight forward bias. When, by chance, a cell moves up a spatial gradient of a chemical attractant or down a spatial gradient of a chemical repellent, runs are extended. When, by chance, it moves the other way, runs revert to the length observed in the absence of a gradient. Thus, the bias in the random walk that enables cells to move up or down gradients is positive.

                  Finally, the behavioral response is temporal, not spatial. E. coli does not determine whether there is more attractant, say, in front than behind; rather, it determines whether the concentration increases when it moves in a particular direction. Studies of impulsive stimuli indicate that a cell compares the concentration observed over the past 1 s with the concentration observed over the previous 3 s and responds to the difference.5

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You notice that the flagella actually has multiple functions depending on what stimulus the organism is acting upon.  CW, CCW, independent "tumble", directional movement with bundled filaments.  The "motors" are purely one component of this entire system.

                  Dr. Berg continues discussion the physics limitations of the flagella system, the chemical receptors, and some typical Frankenstein type experiments on the poor, lab E.Coli he worked with.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here is a sample experiment. Because shearing a dense cell suspension causes the filaments to tangle and fracture, we can break off most of a cell’s flagellar filaments and then cement the cell body to a glass slide. If the cell makes filaments that tend to stick to everything (because of a particular mutation in fliC), then it is easy to attach a latex bead to one of the flagellar stubs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Shearing off filaments!
                  Cementing the organism to a slide!
                  Attaching stuff to the amputated stubs!
                  THIS GUY IS A MONSTER!

                  **********************
                  My point is this Dave.  Knowing the integrated system required for the flagella to operate "correctly" within E.Coli....
                  WHY DO YOU ONLY ASSUME THE MOTOR IS DESIGNED?
                  WHY NOT THE CHEMICAL UPTAKE SYSTEM AND THE MOTION CONTROL SYSTEM TOO?


                  What is the obsession with ONLY the filament when all the other parts of the system are required to operate for the filament to have a USEFUL FUNCTION.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 22 2006,11:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
                  It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Indeed, I find it difficult to outright lie, unlike some people on this board.

                  You promised me parasites!

                  PfEMP1, Dave.  Now's the time, the time is now!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,11:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,16:01)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's the failure in your logic; the bacterial motor has none of the hallmarks of designed objects (particularly, no marks of manufacture).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's right ... no hallmarks of design in that baby! ... no rotor (just a fake one) ... no stator (just a pretend one) ... no rotation (it's just a mirage) ... Ah ... no marks of manufacturing, eh?  Didn't read up on how they are manufactured did you!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, as usual, you're missing the point. There's a rotor there, all right, but where's the evidence of manufacture? Its mere existence is not evidence that it was manufactured. It's just a group of freaking proteins. They self-assemble in a test tube. Is that what you consider to be "manufactured"?

                  As has pointed out to you to the point of stupidity, no one is denying that a flagellum is a motor, nor are they denying that it has motor parts. You're completely off-course on your argument here. You need to show that the flagellum must have been manufactured, and you're not even attempting to do that.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,11:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,17:26)
                  It's incredible that you would ask that, but I will patiently explain ...

                  Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor?

                  Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.

                  So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sorry, Dave, but this is the dumbest argument of all time. At least Behe's argument, while wrong, isn't completely stupid. It had occurred to Darwin 150 years ago.

                  But your arrgument—that since some motors were manufactured, all motors must be manufactured, is stupid to the point of self-refutation. If some arguments are right, does that mean all arguments are right? If I can make something that looks like a beach pebble, does that mean all beach pebbles were made by humans?


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ESPECIALLY ...

                  When the idea of extrapolating micro-evo to create motors from something less complicated has NO experimental support whatsoever!!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Except that there is such support. Look up Type III Secretory Systems sometime, Dave. Agree with it or not, you certainly can't say there's no support for the notion.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 22 2006,12:04



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn that, no, afdave has not told me anything I didn't know. (Outside of surprising "facts" like that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that we are not related to other primates, etc.)

                  EDIT: Just to be clear, Jerry Bergman hasn't told me anything I didn't know about virology, either.

                  Dream on, dave. Dream on.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,12:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,22:09)
                  It's no use trying to distract me with discuses (disci?) and natural nuclear reactors ...

                  Remember ...

                  All it takes is ONE example that was probably designed to vindicate Dembski and Co. ... the flagellum does it for me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the flagellum argument was dead in the water before Behe or Dembski ever even brought it up. No flagellum (and there are dozens) is irreducibly complex, and all are based on simpler structures that perform different functions.

                  It works for you, Dave, because you're frantically clutching at straws that will allow you to hang onto your tattered, frayed worldview.

                  But let me ask you this, Dave. If you and your ID buddies think the flagellum was designed, how far have they gotten in their researches into how it was designed? Remember, Dembski says "Intelligent Design is not a theory of intervention at all."

                  Great, Dave. So what's the point?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,12:24

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  E. COLI MOTORS ... THE DARWINIST'S NIGHTMARE AND IDist'S FRIEND


                  For those of you worried that the E. Coli motor isn't real because I posted a drawing instead of the real thing, here's an electron micrograph of the actual motor from Mike's article ...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, read the freaking captions, will you. That is not an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. It is a "Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies."

                  In other words, it's a reconstruction of many different electron micrographs that simplifies and clarifies the structure of the flagellum's structure. It's not what a flagellum really looks like.

                  Duh.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On further looking, it was Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My point, genius, is that a real picture of a real flagellum would bear almost no resemblance to that motor at all, which, don't you think, would sort of defeat your "argument from resemblance"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... you're wrong again.  Maybe you think the electron microscope technician was a fraud or something.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That is not an electron micrograph of a single baterial flagellum, Dave. Read the caption.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And this knee-slapper from Faid ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You were showing us pictures dave, remember? And telling us to use our "intuition" and other sciency methods YECs often use to "prove" their points? Dave, do you REALLY think that's how a REAL flagellar "motor" looks?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yup.  Sure do, Faid.  Are you saying you don't believe electron micrographs?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Read the freaking caption, Dave.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And who was that guy yesterday trying to make fun of a car engineering department run on ID principles?  You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  Design is design.  It's not a mechanism.  Mechanisms are designed.  All the time.  Every day.  And as my article above points out, nano-engineers are trying to understand God's designs and imitate them!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And how much time are IDiots spending trying to figure out how God implemented his designs, Dave? How far are they advancing the state of knowledge in that department? Because I'm pretty sure the human-built machines will not be made in the same sorts of factories God used...
                  Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Dec. 22 2006,12:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  
                  I love it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh really? The world-famous < ID advocate Joe G. begs to differ. > And he claims to be an engineer.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,12:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No one is saying a bacterial flagellum is not a "motor." They're saying THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Don't lie, Eric.  Plenty of people were trying to say that it's not a real motor, including YOU, who castigated me for posting a drawing (horrors) instead of a picture of the real thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I defy you to find a quote (and quote the damned thing, don't make us do a search through the whole thread, don't be so freaking lazy) where I or anyone else here ever denied that a flagellum is a motor. You can't do that, can you? Sure, plenty of people (including me) denied that a baterial flagellum looks anything like the picture of the electric motor you posted, because it doesn't look anything like it. But no one has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.

                  Your whole argument is an argument from physical resemblance, Dave. And a flagellum simply does not look like any human-designed motor except in the most general sense. That's what people have been telling you. No one here has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.

                  If anyone's lying here, Dave, it is, as usual, you.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now you can SAY it wasn't designed till you are blue in the face, but just understand that you are saying the equivalent of ...

                  "This space ship we call the Space Shuttle was designed.  But this UFO that landed in Roswell was NOT designed."  (Hypothetical, guys. I'm not into the UFO stuff.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, a baterial flagellum is a little simpler than a space shuttle. If you think you can analogize a flagellum to a space shuttle and have anyone take you seriously...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If we run across a rotary motor ANYWHERE -- lying in the desert sand, at the bottom of the ocean, or a nano-sized one inside a little bacterium ... the MOST logical thing to say is ...

                  "Hmmm ... that's a motor.  I know about motors.  They are designed.  I wonder who designed this one!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can you explain the logic of that, Dave? Because you haven't been able to so far. If I find a bowl that humans have designed, does that mean anything vaguely bowl-shaped must have been designed? Is a meteor crater "designed"?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me be clear.  It is precisely this kind of mental obtuseness from the science community that motivates people like me (non-scientists) to get to our kids with the truth BEFORE you guys get to them and screw up their minds.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here again, Dave thinks he's smarter than Nobel laureates who have elucidated the mechanisms of evolution. And he thinks he can do it by reading articles on AiG.

                  Yeah, whatever, Dave.

                  And in the meantime, how far are you getting in elucidating how God implemented his designs? Have any ideas? "Hypotheses"? "Theories"? Why ever not? Aren't you just the least bit curious? Or is that some "pathetic level of detail" you're not interested in?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,12:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
                  intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
                  www.answers.com/topic/intuition
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sometimes you should read before you type, Dave.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 22 2006,12:51

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,13:24)
                  Dave, read the freaking captions, will you. That is not an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. It is a "Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                  I KNEW you wouldn't let Dave get away with that.  In my post above I said...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  {snip electron micrograph discussion for Eric, Faid and others to beat up Dave with}
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I started to respond to this but deleted my response because I KNEW you and Faid would pummel poor Dave.  Although guilty myself at times, our poor Dave has fundamental Reading For Comprehension issues because he'll ASSUME things before he comprehends the reality.

                  And again.....

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   :D  :O  :D  :O
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,13:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:22)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What specific part do you have a problem with?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Simply that when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.  Pure "Alice in Wonderland."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And Dave, would you care to present for us the experimental evidence you have for the following items:

                  • continents racing around at hundreds of miles an hour
                  • "fountains of the deep"
                  • "genetic richness" in the ark survivors
                  • a global flood
                  • a post-flood ice age

                  Before you start flinging around accusations of lack of evidence, Dave, you might want to have a look at your own "hypothesis" and see what kind of evidence you have to support it.

                  Talk about "pure speculation."
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,13:42

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 22 2006,12:51)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,13:24)
                  Dave, read the freaking captions, will you. That is not an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. It is a "Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                  I KNEW you wouldn't let Dave get away with that.  In my post above I said...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  {snip electron micrograph discussion for Eric, Faid and others to beat up Dave with}
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I started to respond to this but deleted my response because I KNEW you and Faid would pummel poor Dave.  Although guilty myself at times, our poor Dave has fundamental Reading For Comprehension issues because he'll ASSUME things before he comprehends the reality.

                  And again.....

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And again, I already posted for Dave's edification an electron micrograph of what a flagellum really looks like:



                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,14:11

                  A word is a pure symbol and the meaning (s) attached to words are utterly arbitrary.

                  How sound-symbols came to represent ideas is irrelevant, but they obviously did. Humans attempt to "map" the universe around them via words and symbols, but, even at their most basic, words are ambiguous -- the word is not the referent, in a famous phrase .

                  Steven Pinker recounts the work of Laura Pettito with children. The words "you" and "me" are learned very early in childhood and refer to "self" and "not-self,"  but children mix those pronouns verbally, and will refer to their mother as "me."  This may not seem like a big deal..."So what, children mix-up words."
                  But this happens even in deaf children using American Sign Language. They will point to others and use it to mean "me," as if the OTHER were themselves.

                  Dave relies on this arbitrariness of word-symbols/meaning as an escape hatch constantly. Examples: his current abuses of the words "motor,"  "intuition," and corrollaries to them.
                  In one example, Dave imagines Faid and his son sitting down when a sound is heard. Dave fantasizes that the child recognizes a sound of a helicopter. This presupposes that the child has seen AND heard a helicopter before: he is associating the sound with the referent.
                  In this fantasy, Faid is claimed to say " A sound doesn't mean there's a helicopter outside" as the boy rushes out to view what Dave has assumed to be a helicopter. Dave smugly points to the boy's behavior as more rational.
                  But the sound is not the referent. The sound HAS to be known and associated FIRST, and the boy could in fact  be wrong. It could be a tape. It could even be a bird imitating a sound of a helicopter ( yes, this happens). Is the bird now a helicopter, really? For Dave, if he were consistent, the answer would be "yes." (it sounds like a helicopter, it flies in the air...it must be a helicopter)

                  This "smearing" of meaning is used by Dave in his flagellum = motor claim. Obviously, the flagellum is not an electromagnetic motor. Obviously the flagellum is organic and the human AC motor is not. Obviously the AC motor has wiring, magnets -- a huge array of parts that the flagellum does not: it differs in materials, construction, etc, in dozens of ways, both minor and major.

                  The WORD "motor" used to designate a machine which converts energy into motion wasn't even known before the 1850's...so, just like Faid's imaginary little boy who HAS to correllate sound with referent, anyone prior to that time would, if they "found" a organic motor such as the flagellum of a bacteria or a sperm cell...would call it a whip...a flagellum. They would analogize it to what they knew to exist.

                  Yet Dave insists that because the AC motor is KNOWN to be designed by humans, the flagellum must also be, even if they are not the same in terms of organic v. inorganic.

                  This smearing of meaning in analogizing can be applied ACROSS THE BOARD by Dave -- to nearly every object known/labelled by man. The sun is "like" a human-designed  factory, so it must also be designed. The eye is "like" a human-designed camera, so it MUST BE designed, too. Velcro is human-designed using an ordinary seed pod with barbs that can attach to fur or cloth as a "model"--so the seed must be designed, too. The human brain is like a computer that people designed so the brain MUST be designed, too.

                  Glass is made by humans. It is designed. Glass is also created by any heat intense enough to fuse minerals like quartz and feldspar. Quartz and feldspar are crystalline, like the glass humans make, so crystals must be designed. One can go on like this almost indefinitely, finding analogies and similarities while ignoring the differences.

                  Good thing this is not how science is done, nor is it logical enough to withstand scrutiny, nor would an unbiased observer be swayed by this breathtaking lack of consistency and logic.

                  Yes, human-designed motors are designed. But as noted previously, frost heave is a motor. The Sun's energy creates waves that form motors.

                  The eye appears to be a camera, but it is not a camera. it is ANALOGOUS to a camera, even down to some details, but that doesn't make the human eye glass and metal.

                  Physics and chemistry allow for some organic structures such as eyes and perhaps even brains to be vaguely "copied" in a human construct -- such as a computer-- that is ANALOGOUS to a brain. But it is not a brain.

                  Dave is essentially like the children described in Laura Pettito's experiments. He is merely smearing meaning like a two-year old playing with his own excrement, and yes, he can keep it up indefinitely -- Dave has lots of time on his hands, cannot be held accountable for his claims, can pick and choose what to respond to, is willing to use any fallacy, any rhetorical ploy, any lie, any fantasy constructs that he wishes while claiming they are "real."

                  This is what his claims have descended to and this is not debate -- this is essentially monologue that uses well-meaning or amused posters as props.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,14:28

                  Eric--  No one but you and Faid are stuck in the mud trying to say that these pictures are not an accurate depiction of an E. Coli motor.  Most people admit they are ... now they are just trying to say it's stupid to invoke ID as an explanation for it.

                  We've got past all the silly nonsense like "it's not a real motor, it's an analogy, that's just a picture not the real thing, etc." ...

                  ... at least with most people.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 22 2006,14:37

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:28)
                  We've got past all the silly nonsense like "it's not a real motor, it's an analogy, that's just a picture not the real thing, etc." ...

                  ... at least with most people.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No-one said it's not a real motor, Dave; stop lying.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,14:40

                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.

                  Normally, indication has a (usually tacit) negative component, which excludes some of the sensory/cognitive experience, leaving only the part of it we wish to refer to. We in effect say “this – but not that”.

                  The negative clause is as important as the positive one, in directing the mind to the precise referent intended. We cannot really understand a referent, if we do not realize the limits of its applicability, i.e. what we intend to exclude from consideration.

                  “This” by itself may include too much. We need the negative thought “but not that” to delimit it.

                  It is important to realize that, whereas the positive aspect of indication is a purely empirical act, the implicit negation is a rational act. It is this rational aspect that eludes Dave.

                  “This” as a referent only requires recognition, whereas “but not that” requires a mental ‘crossing off’ of some items, i.e. an understanding that part of the world is excluded

                  It is perhaps for this reason that babies (to about nine months) and most (or all) other animals seem unable to comprehend the pointed finger: it does not merely point towards something, but also away from other things.

                  There was no doubt a long evolutionary history, before the human species could grasp it. This seems to have eluded Dave's grasp, though.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,14:43

                  Nice try, Deadman ... very wordy post trying to say I'm the one smearing word meanings.

                  But you forgot that it was Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science, that said it before I did ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a basal body consisting of a reversible rotary motor embedded in the cell wall ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I win!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,14:50

                  What do you "win" exactly, Dave? Certainly not my agreement, certainly not a logical "victory." Certainly not affirmative evidence of your "hypothesis that is better than any other".

                  So ...what exactly did you "win?"
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,14:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:28)
                  Eric--  No one but you and Faid are stuck in the mud trying to say that these pictures are not an accurate depiction of an E. Coli motor.  Most people admit they are ... now they are just trying to say it's stupid to invoke ID as an explanation for it.

                  We've got past all the silly nonsense like "it's not a real motor, it's an analogy, that's just a picture not the real thing, etc." ...

                  ... at least with most people.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I can't speak for Faid, Dave, but what I am saying, as opposed to your paraphrase of what I'm saying, is that a flagellum bears only the most superficial resemblance to a human-made motor.

                  Since your "argument" is based on the similarities between a flagellum and a motor, this is a serious weakness in your argument.

                  A real flagellum doesn't really look like any human-designed motor, Dave. Nor does it work like any human-designed motor. So even if there were something to your argument that things that look similar must be of similar provenance, it would be an extremely weak argument.

                  But since similar appearance != to similar provenance, your argument is worthless anyway.

                  If you want to get me to believe that God manufactured the flagellum in any way remotely analogous to the way humans manufacture motors, you'd better get busy figuring out how God did it. Since you, along with the rest of the creationist community, don't seem to have the slightest interest in even making the attempt, you're not going to get me to believe it any time soon.

                  And Dave? News flash—you didn't get "past all the silly nonsense like "it's not a real motor, it's an analogy" thing. No one ever claimed the flagellum was not a motor. So you're exactly where you started out. You've made zero progress with this argument (or any of your other arguments).
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 22 2006,14:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,15:28)
                  MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  At the simplest level, the bacterial flagellum disproves this statement.  It is a motor, and we have no empirical evidence that it was designed.  Therefore, not all motors require designers.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,14:59

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, I defy you to find a quote (and quote the damned thing, don't make us do a search through the whole thread, don't be so freaking lazy) where I or anyone else here ever denied that a flagellum is a motor. You can't do that, can you? Sure, plenty of people (including me) denied that a baterial flagellum looks anything like the picture of the electric motor you posted, because it doesn't look anything like it. But no one has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... OK.  The easiest example is on this same page ... Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Retractions, please?  You and Mr. Wells I believe?  

                  I think Russell said it too a while back, but I'm not going to go chase it down.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,15:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:43)
                  Nice try, Deadman ... very wordy post trying to say I'm the one smearing word meanings.

                  But you forgot that it was Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science, that said it before I did ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is a basal body consisting of a reversible rotary motor embedded in the cell wall ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I win!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No you don't, Dave, and the point of Deadman's post went whizzing right by you.

                  Yes, a flagellum is a motor (that's the "this"), but it is not a DC or AC electric motor of the type humans make (that's the "that").

                  You lose.
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 22 2006,15:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:59)
                  Uh ... OK.  The easiest example is on this same page ... Deadman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Retractions, please?  You and Mr. Wells I believe?  

                  I think Russell said it too a while back, but I'm not going to go chase it down.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I agree: the flagellar motor is not a motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC motor. It is an organic, chemical motor.

                  Those words in italics there are not filler, Dave, they matter. Learn to read already.

                  Nice try at a quote-mine, but no dice.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 22 2006,15:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I win!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do you? You win... what? I think it's been pointed out to you that your current exercise in word games is of exactly zero interest in the whole "did it evolve or didn't it?" argument. I, for one, am perfectly happy to consider the bacterial flagellar apparatus a "motor": it takes energy and converts it into directed movement. I'm perfectly happy to call anything that does that a "motor"... including, say, a geyser. Proving... what?  I'm also happy to consider that reconstructed image of the flagellar subassembly a reasonably accurate picture of the bacterial structure. It still proves exactly nothing other than "it looks designed" to simple-minded and/or religiously blinkered people like afdave and Mike Behe.  An ice crystal "looks designed".

                  By the way, deadman: get it straight! Dr. Faid was the one trying to decide whether the monkey could really be Mrs. Bloom's child. It was my son that was sure "wop-wop-wop" indicated the helicopter overhead.

                  Oh, and dave: as long as we're going over the strengths and weaknesses of various analogies, let me just take this opportunity to remind you, in case we're losing sight of this key issue, that

                  BUTTERFLIES REPRODUCE, WATCHES DON'T

                  thus rendering your watchmaker cartoon a really bad analogy and a deliberate effort to mislead kids, of which you should be ashamed.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,15:13







                  The word is not the referent.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,15:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:59)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, I defy you to find a quote (and quote the damned thing, don't make us do a search through the whole thread, don't be so freaking lazy) where I or anyone else here ever denied that a flagellum is a motor. You can't do that, can you? Sure, plenty of people (including me) denied that a baterial flagellum looks anything like the picture of the electric motor you posted, because it doesn't look anything like it. But no one has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... OK.  The easiest example is on this same page ... Deadman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Retractions, please?  You and Mr. Wells I believe?  

                  I think Russell said it too a while back, but I'm not going to go chase it down.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, no retractions. As Deadman pointed out (and you missed completely), there is a "this" and a "not that" to Deadman's denial. Can you find it out? Even after I've pointed it out to you?

                  Deadman's point is that a flagellum is not a motor in the sense that your referent, an AC electric motor, is a motor.

                  One more time, Dave: a flagellum is not an AC or DC motor. Analogous to one, perhaps, but not one.

                  You really need to read the whole sentence, Dave, not just the first few words that leap out at you.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 22 2006,15:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think Russell said it too a while back, but I'm not going to go chase it down.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You lose.
                  Again.
                  Retraction, please?

                  Anyway, whether someone chooses to call it a motor or not falls under the category of what I call an exercise in word games. If your definition of motor involves electromagnetism or metal cylinders, then the flagellum is not a "motor". If, like me, you define "motor" more along the lines of its etymology (i.e. something that produces motion) then it is. So what?

                  Remember: an ice crystal "looks designed". Does that mean it is?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,15:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  By the way, deadman: get it straight! Dr. Faid was the one trying to decide whether the monkey could really be Mrs. Bloom's child. It was my son that was sure "wop-wop-wop" indicated the helicopter overhead.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You're quite right, Russell. I have to admit, I tend to place too little concern about the construction of Dave's multiple fantasies. Mea culpa and all that
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,15:36

                  Dave, does it ever bug you that, every time you make a really dumb statement, three or four people point out to you that it's a dumb statement in exactly the same way?

                  And before you say, "Well, that's just because you've all had your heads polluted with Darwiniamologism," I'll diffidently point out that I'm pretty sure I've never been indoctrinated with Dawiniologismianism. I'm essentially uneducated, Dave (by which I mean I have a high school diploma from an American high school). In my sophomore year biology class, we talked about the theory of evolution for approximately ten minutes, on one day. A ten-minute overview of one of the most complex and well-developed theories in all of science.

                  Why only ten minutes? Because our teacher didn't want to "step on anyone's religious toes." Where did I go to high school? Louisana? Alabama? Arkansas? Missouri? North Carolina? Dover, Pennsylvania? No; I went to high school in the People's Atheistic Republic of Massachusetts.

                  So why do Americans have such a poor understanding of the Theory of Evolution? Because of people like Absolute Farce Dave, who don't want their religious toes to be stepped on. Thus, Americans are forcibly kept ignorant of one of the most important theories in all of science.

                  How are your toes, Dave? Not black and blue, I trust? And your children's toes?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,15:49

                  A shoe has a toe, ergo the human toe must be designed, too.
                  A piano has a designed leg, so human legs must be designed. Common sense.
                  Boxes have lids, the eye has a lid. They're THE SAME.

                  Now I've got them wriggling in the crushing grasp of my indisputable logic...
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 22 2006,15:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You're quite right, Russell. I have to admit, I tend to place too little concern about the construction of Dave's multiple fantasies
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In this weird little zone where literal statements are mistaken for figurative and vice versa, I feel compelled to issue the explicit disclaimer that I was joking, and I assume that apologizing for insufficient attention to dave's creationist playpen is also meant facetiously. Just to be really clear.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,16:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,14:59)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, I defy you to find a quote (and quote the damned thing, don't make us do a search through the whole thread, don't be so freaking lazy) where I or anyone else here ever denied that a flagellum is a motor. You can't do that, can you? Sure, plenty of people (including me) denied that a baterial flagellum looks anything like the picture of the electric motor you posted, because it doesn't look anything like it. But no one has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh ... OK.  The easiest example is on this same page ... Deadman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Retractions, please?  You and Mr. Wells I believe?  

                  I think Russell said it too a while back, but I'm not going to go chase it down.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is a rather minor point, but I'll enjoy making you look like a fool anyway by bringing it up.

                  I want you to look at the following quote:

                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,12:40)
                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  Eric ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No one is saying a bacterial flagellum is not a "motor." They're saying THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Don't lie, Eric.  Plenty of people were trying to say that it's not a real motor, including YOU, who castigated me for posting a drawing (horrors) instead of a picture of the real thing.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I defy you to find a quote (and quote the damned thing, don't make us do a search through the whole thread, don't be so freaking lazy) where I or anyone else here ever denied that a flagellum is a motor. You can't do that, can you? Sure, plenty of people (including me) denied that a baterial flagellum looks anything like the picture of the electric motor you posted, because it doesn't look anything like it. But no one has ever denied that a flagellum is a motor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, look at this quote:

                   
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 22 2006,14:40)
                  A flagellar "motor" is not a "real" motor in the sense of an inorganic AC or DC  motor, it's analogous to one, vaguely, but it is certainly not one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Look real hard, Dave. Actually, I'll make it easy on you. Look at the timestamps.

                  Got it? Know what I'm going to point out now? No? Okay, here it is:

                  Did Deadman make this statement before, or after, I made mine?

                  Still not clear, Dave? Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Deadman made his statement after I made mine. Does that mean anything to you? No? Okay, I'll spell that out for you too.

                  Even if Deadman's statement was a flat-out denial that the flagellum is any sort of motor whatsoever (and it's not), his statement was made after I made mine. So unless you're imputing time-travel skills to me, I think we can all agree that at the time I made my statement, it was accurate, even if one assumes Deadman was denying that the flagellum is any sort of motor at all.

                  Which, for the record, would be an unsupportable assumption.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 22 2006,16:19

                  Dave,
                  Just wonderring.

                  Do you have any substance left behind your point?  Anything whatsoever?

                  Are we left with semantics and "Did Not!" "Did To!" ?

                  Or are you happy with Goddidit as your answer to the flagellum.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,16:29

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 22 2006,16:19)
                  Dave,
                  Just wonderring.

                  Do you have any substance left behind your point?  Anything whatsoever?

                  Are we left with semantics and "Did Not!" "Did To!" ?

                  Or are you happy with Goddidit as your answer to the flagellum.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, to be totally honest, I'm perfectly willing to accept your "Goddidit" argument, provisionally, as to the provenance of the bacterial flagellum.

                  But in order for me to actually accept it, you'll have to answer just one question:

                  How?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,16:40



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In this weird little zone where literal statements are mistaken for figurative and vice versa, I feel compelled to issue the explicit disclaimer that I was joking, and I assume that apologizing for insufficient attention to dave's creationist playpen is also meant facetiously. Just to be really clear.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No need at all, Russell. I recognize you as an intelligent adult able to deal with the vagaries/inexactitudes of language. I know you were being facetious, as was I. Most adults can grasp these things. Dave is apparently a different matter entirely.

                  Or, to be succinct, accurate and scatologically politically correct -- so as not to offend any tender souls out there --he's FUBAR.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 22 2006,16:51

                  Dave, dude, seriously--did you just fall out of a timewarp or something?

                  You are--supposedly--going to get around, one of these days, to producing some evidence and logic for your *cough! hack! dang hairballs!*--"hypothesis" that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years back, meaning, one guesses, that da Bibbel was right about that, so, one guesses, it musta been right about every single thing it says, including what it says about the great and mighty Gazoo...

                  Right?  (Notice that even if there were a humongous flood a few thousand years ago, it doesn't necessarily lead to any of these other conclusions, but let's not get ahead of yourself too far...)

                  So why are you wasting your time with the stupid flagellum argument?  I mean, that's so yesterday, already!  It's Behe's argument, the one that got minced through the vegematic in a federal courtroom last year and deservedly and definitively pronounced as vacuous.  None of these ID wimps can even define--much less quantify, as your service here surely shows!--what "design" means, how to distinguish it from non-designed things, what "complexity" is, what "specified" is, it's all just word games...

                  (Ignoring the whole problem with the flagellum having a plausible evolutionary history, which sinks the whole flotilla regardless of whether the postulated history turns out to be the actual one...)  

                  We thought you were made of sterner stuff.  We thought you were an unapologetic, unregenerate, unreconstructed veriable Young Earth Creationist,  a real man.  We didn't think you were just another one of those whiney poncy preening ID/OEC poofsters!  We were sure that you were in this for the long haul (well, OK, the short haul actually, in light of the whole 6K years thing...), the whole nine yards, the real magillah!

                  Don't tell us that, after all these hundreds of pages, all this talk about floods and kinds and Jesus and America, you're back-peddling, selling out, bailing, caving--that you were just another one of those milquetoast, compromising, Jesus-denying, ivory-tower, crybaby IDiots!  Say it ain't so, davey!  Stand up for your beliefs, not this weak-kneed, lily-livered, nervous nelly, a-religious pussulanimatin' pretend "creationism" of the far-left academic wing of the far-right fundy party!

                  Dave, I thought that you at least thought that you were made of the Right Stuff!  The "Real Thing"!

                  Don't tell us that you were pulling the wool over our eyes all these many long months!

                  Don't tell us that, after stepping pridefully up to the Big Plate in the Big Game bearing the Big Wood on your Big Steroid-Inflated Shoulders, you're going to do a pirouette and reveal, emblazoned across the rear of your pinstripes, that mincey, mousey little we-really-believe-in-common-descent, we-really-believe-in-billions-of-years, we-really-don't-"necessarily"-believe-the-Designer-is-supernatural ID logo!?!

                  Don't tell us that, after all this time, all you've got is the same old weaselly lame-ass "argument from design"!?!

                  Do you wear perfume too, dave?  Bliss by Behe?  Eau de Dembski?  Ooh, that's such a heavenly scent you're wearing tonight, darling!

                  Please, davey, say it ain't so!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,18:42

                  Just re-reading the last day or so of this thread, when I came up on this little Dave-gem:
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,16:01)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's the failure in your logic; the bacterial motor has none of the hallmarks of designed objects (particularly, no marks of manufacture).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's right ... no hallmarks of design in that baby! ... no rotor (just a fake one) ... no stator (just a pretend one) ... no rotation (it's just a mirage) ... Ah ... no marks of manufacturing, eh?  Didn't read up on how they are manufactured did you!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now, Dave, I would like you to show us how flagella were manufactured. Not the DNA->RNA->protein thing, but how the first flagellum was originally encoded into bacterial DNA. In other words, how God implemented his designs.

                  I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to dig this little piece of information up from either AiG or from legitimate published scientific research. You might actually have to do your own original scientific research. I'm okay with that. But no "speculation," m'kay?

                  Actually, okay, you can speculate. But I want some detail. Not, "Well, he just sort of...breathed...it into the DNA." I want a mechanism. Doesn't have to be the actual mechanism used. Just your best guess. Did it, for example, involve the use of tweezers?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,21:28

                  Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 22 2006,12:39)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  
                  I love it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh really? The world-famous < ID advocate Joe G. begs to differ. > And he claims to be an engineer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is Joe G really famous? I argued that guy to a standstill on Telic Thoughts for like two months last year. He's pretty much as bone-headed as Dave (although more of a Johnny One-Note, and doesn't have nearly as many completely wacky ideas as Dave).

                  His main thing was to insist on absolute proof of the Theory of Evolution, and anything short of "proof" was not even considered "evidence." Except, of course, when it came to Intelligent Design.

                  But his arguments re ID were essentially identical to Dave's. If you can't prove something evolved, it must have been designed.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 22 2006,22:06

                  Steviepinhead ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We thought you were made of sterner stuff.  We thought you were an unapologetic, unregenerate, unreconstructed veriable Young Earth Creationist,  a real man.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am indeed.  I'm the real thing.  Hard core, died in the wool, intractable YEC.

                  But I'm reeeeally interested in this flagellum motor thing because, frankly, it's the whole enchilada.

                  I'll illustrate what I mean with pictures tomorrow.     ;)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,22:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,22:06)

                  But I'm reeeeally interested in this flagellum motor thing because, frankly, it's the whole enchilada.

                  I'll illustrate what I mean with pictures tomorrow.     ;)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you going to explain to us tomorrow how God created the flagellum, Dave? Because if you want to get us to believe "Goddidit," you're going to at least have to come up with a plausible mechanism for it. Which doesn't, by the way, involve random mutation and natural selection. That mechanism's already taken.

                  And just so you know—the flagellum thing's been done to death. There's nothing you're going to tell us about it we haven't seen, and discounted, months if not years ago. You might want to read < this paper > from two years ago first, so you don't waste your time covering old and tired ground.

                  By the way, do you remember < this post? > You posted this on December 8th, which was two weeks ago:

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,14:15)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your own "hypothesis" predicts that [biodiversity is] increasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Close, but not correct.  Can you guess again?  Outta time today, but I'll give you the answer tomorrow, unless you think of it first.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is the < question > you were going to "answer":



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You forgot the other question I've been asking you for weeks, and which I finally just put in my signature: sure, 99% of everything that's ever lived has gone extinct, Dave, but where's your evidence that biodiversity is decreasing? Your own "hypothesis" predicts that it's increasing! But at the same time it predicts it should be decreasing!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You said you'd have an answer "tomorrow." "Tomorrow" was Saturday, December ninth. I think I've given you more than enough time to answer it. And you can't have forgotten the question, Dave: it's in my freaking signature, and you see it in every one of my posts!

                  Okay, new term: everyone knows the "Gish Gallop." Now, we have the "Dave Dance."

                  So enough with the Dave Dance, Dancin' Dave. The questions about your "hypothesis" are piling up so fast, you need wings just stay above them (with apologies to Francis Ford Coppola).
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 22 2006,22:34

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,19:28)
                  Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 22 2006,12:39)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
                  You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  
                  I love it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh really? The world-famous < ID advocate Joe G. begs to differ. > And he claims to be an engineer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is Joe G really famous? I argued that guy to a standstill on Telic Thoughts for like two months last year. He's pretty much as bone-headed as Dave (although more of a Johnny One-Note, and doesn't have nearly as many completely wacky ideas as Dave).

                  His main thing was to insist on absolute proof of the Theory of Evolution, and anything short of "proof" was not even considered "evidence." Except, of course, when it came to Intelligent Design.

                  But his arguments re ID were essentially identical to Dave's. If you can't prove something evolved, it must have been designed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OA has the info for sure, but Joe G is indeed famous for getting himself fired after he threatened someone over the internet.  I think he was booted off Telic Thoughts, and now spends his days dropping catchphrases on Uncommonly Dense.

                  Also of note, Dave's fellow YEC Troutmac also makes the < design IS a mechanism argument: >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hawks wrote:
                  "What mechanism did a supposed designer use?"

                  Design IS the mechanism, particularly for the production of information.

                  I'm a graphic designer. Since I do everything digitally, it only "exists" in the form of some sort of code stored on a hard drive. But the mechanism that produces that information is design. The mechanism for RECORDING that information is computer hardware and software. But that information is a product of my intelligence. The mechanism for producing that information is design.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He also argues that all mutations decrease information in that same thread, so I guess Dave's one step ahead of that guy, assuming that Dave has changed his mind and now agrees that mutations can increase information.

                  Dave, should I give up on my hope that you'll ever respond to my big long malaria post?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 22 2006,23:06

                  We need to convince AFDave, Joe G, and Troutmac to form a superblog. That would create some kind of Black Hole of Dumb.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 22 2006,23:19

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 22 2006,22:34)
                  OA has the info for sure, but Joe G is indeed famous for getting himself fired after he threatened someone over the internet.  I think he was booted off Telic Thoughts, and now spends his days dropping catchphrases on Uncommonly Dense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Fired, like, in reality? Like from his job? Or just banned? He got pretty personal with me, but I don't recall him ever threatening me.

                  One of my favorite arguments with Joe G was his claim that there was no evidence whales evolved from land animals, because there's no evidence evolution can even happen. (He claimed, somehow, at the same time, to not deny that macroevolution happens.)

                  I would say to him, Gee, Joe, there's a whole sequence of fossils demonstrating the evolution of land mammals, specifically from artiodactyls, and there's additional genetic evidence that allows us to determine which living mammals are most closely related to cetaceans. He would come back with, "where's your evidence that such a transformation is even possible?" I would present him with a bunch of string cites to scholarly papers setting forth the evidence for whale evolution from land mammals, and say, Joe, wouldn't you agree that the existence of aircraft is pretty strong evidence that heavier-than-air flight is possible? And he would come back with, "Where's your evidence that such a transformation is even possible?"

                  It got monotonous after a while.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 22 2006,23:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm the real thing.  Hard core, died in the wool, intractable YEC.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It wasn't all that long ago that Dave was upbraiding people for obvious typos. Then he was crying that he shouldn't be judged similarly.

                  Should I mention that if he died in the wool, it wouldn't be a loss? But perhaps he meant "dyed."

                  You're not an "intractable" YEC, Dave, you are merely a literalist/fundamentalist/absolutist which makes your claims of being "scientific" and "an investigative reporter" much like O.J. Simpson's "search for truth."

                  Except even O.J. had SOME positive evidence supporting SOME of his claims.

                  Having your cherished YEC "science" dissected and exposed as worthless for all to see, tsk. No wonder that ALL you have at this point are fallacies, rhetorical games and semantic sleight-of-hand.

                  So...you said you'd bring me "Dr." Don Batten as a dessert, Dave. Where is he? At least he MIGHT know a bit of actual science -- unlike the insubstantial, fluffy appetizer you provided. Hop to it, boy. Chop-chop.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 23 2006,00:08

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 22 2006,21:06)
                  We need to convince AFDave, Joe G, and Troutmac to form a superblog. That would create some kind of Black Hole of Dumb.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They could get someone with a few PhD's to put his picture at the top and add in a cranky 'agnostic' ex-marine, and give the blog a catchy name, like "Uncommon Descent."
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 23 2006,00:13

                  Eric, < here it is. > Joe G goes by Joseph on UD.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Joseph is actually Joe Gallien, a moronic legend in the C/E discussion world and a Tard’s Tard if ever there were one.  His exploits include:

                  Claimed to be a qualified “scientist” because he has a Bachelor of Science, Engineer Technology degree.
                  Claimed to be a Muslim so people wouldn’t call him a YEC
                  Got caught using an anonymizer and posting under *dozens* of multiple aliases so he could agree with himself and pat himself on the back
                  Claimed that there are alien cities on Mars and the Moon

                  His normal MO has been to C&P the standard antiscience crap, then get into insults and mud slinging with those who rebut his stupidity, escalating to him making threats of physical violence against his perceived “enemies”.  I know for a fact he has been kicked off of more than one board for this behavior.  He did the same thing with me before over at NAIG, but when I called his bluff and gave him a place and time to meet he chickened out, of course.  Funniest time was a few years ago when the tard was making physical threats from his work computer, and someone reported it to his company.  You never saw someone scramble and lie so much in order to cover his ass and avoid getting fired.

                  Looks like he’s finally found a home with the other ass kissers at UD.  Comments that point out his extraordinary stupidity get edited out, so JoeTard can keep his temper.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Maybe he wasn't fired after all.  But still, funny stuff.

                  I guess you should have warned Zachriel before allowing him to get in the exact same argument over < whale evolution. >
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 23 2006,00:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, should I give up on my hope that you'll ever respond to my big long malaria post?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I'm afraid davy may be dodging, or failing to dodge, too many bullets. So I'll step in and take care of this one for him. He would say:

                  "How anyone can think those plasmodiums are not carefully designed disease machines is beyond me. It just shows how moronic 'scientists' can be, with all their la-di-da degrees and Darwinian brainwashing"
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,02:12

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 23 2006,00:13)
                  Maybe he wasn't fired after all.  But still, funny stuff.

                  I guess you should have warned Zachriel before allowing him to get in the exact same argument over < whale evolution. >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yep. Looks like the same crap. He was more boring than Dave (no "genetic richness," "fountains of the deep," "reproducing watches," or "Portuguese moments," but on the other hand he wasn't any smarter than Dave, either.

                  I always wondered about the Muslim crap. Joe is supposedly from Maynard, MA, and the probability that there is even a single Muslim in Maynard would have to be expressed in scientific notation, unless you want to use an inconveniently-large number of zeros to the right of the decimal point.
                  Posted by: jeannot on Dec. 23 2006,04:30

                  I see we haven't made any progress in a week. Dave is still on his argument "it looks designed, therefore it must be".
                  Dave you're truly a pathetic coward.

                  Answer the question: do watches evolve?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 23 2006,07:44

                  Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 23 2006,04:30)
                  I see we haven't made any progress in a week. Dave is still on his argument "it looks designed, therefore it must be".
                  Dave you're truly a pathetic coward.

                  Answer the question: do watches evolve?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Careful jeannot AFD can't keep 2 thoughts in his brain at once.

                  He doesn't remember that watches can't have sex and electric or other mechanical motors are not biological analogues of machines or that love is a physiological process but never the less 'real' in the sense it exists as a collection of neurons firing.

                  You need to scope the design space.

                  Do watches evolve? (by sexual reproduction etc.)

                  Now over to the witness.....AFD?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 23 2006,08:33

                  LET ME JUST DEMONSTRATE TO YOU HOW SILLY THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY LOOKS RIGHT NOW
                  Please understand ... there are many things you do which are not silly and are quite useful, but when you talk about the Origin of Living Things, you look pretty silly ... let me show you.

                  Here we have 4 pictures of airplanes, 3 large ones and one small one (an RC model) ...
                  If I asked you about them, you would say ...

                  DESIGNED ...... DESIGNED ....... DESIGNED ...... DESIGNED


                  Yet, when I show you 4 pictures of motors, 3 large ones and one small one (flagellar motor) ... you say ...

                  DESIGNED ............. DESIGNED ............. DESIGNED ............. NOT DESIGNED


                  Do you see how silly you look?  Do you now see why the ID folks don't mind losing court cases?  ANY kind of publicity, negative or positive which exposes people to the issues will help our side.  The truth is that if the general public is shown stuff like this (and they are more and more), they will see how silly scientists are acting and the school boards and textbooks will take care of themselves.

                  WHY DO YOU SAY "DESIGNED ... DESIGNED ... DESIGNED ... NOT DESIGNED" ??
                  Best I can tell, at bottom, you admit it could have been designed, but you say this cannot be proven with real evidence, so you reject it.  So after nyah-nyahing the ID and YEC people for not being able to walk you back in time and show you live footage of God creating life, you turn around and embrace an idea which ALSO cannot be proven with live footage: the Extrapolation of Micro-Evo to Macro-Evo.  Will anyone here be intellectually honest enough even to admit this basic fact?  

                  SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE THE TWO COMPETING VIEWS OF LIFE?
                  When you boil it down, you really have ...

                  PROFOUND MYSTERY #1 .......  VERSUS ......... PROFOUND MYSTERY #2

                  PROFOUND MYSTERY #1 (Naturalism, Macro-Evo, etc.) ...
                  Defies all known science about the origin of functional, complex systems ... IOW, our only experience outside of biology is with man-made technology and NONE of this comes about by chance and selection.  So to propose that it does in Biology is a profound leap for the intellect.

                  PROFOUND MYSTERY #2 (ID, Theism, YEC, etc.) ...
                  Also defies all known science by proposing an Uncaused Cause, an Intelligent Designer who had no beginning as the source of all apparent designs in nature ... IOW, our minds cannot fathom an Invisible Being which possesses infinite intelligence and which itself was not caused by another entity.

                  So, on the surface, it appears that both views have enormous obstacles to believability.

                  WHICH VIEW IS MOST LIKELY?
                  If both views are a challenge to the intellect (and they are), one has to ask why one is currently tax-funded and the other is not.  And this gets into the politics of scientists and such.  We won't go there.

                  But again, which view is most likely?

                  Of course you know my answer, but I think it's important to understand WHY I think #2 is most likely.  It comes down to this.  What we really have in this debate is ...

                  ETERNAL MATTER ........ VERSUS ......... ETERNAL PERSONAL GOD

                  The truth is, for me NEITHER view is without problems for my intellect or for yours.  How can you conceive of an infinite regression of matter?  Especially when they are telling us that the universe is dying a heat death? How can you not have some mental distress when you consider supposed human evolution?  Considering Crow's statements, considering the fact of only 6000 years of written history, considering the fact that Russell says humans will go extinct, and on and on we cold go, citing intellectual problem after intellectual problem with the ETERNAL MATTER view.

                  But to be honest, the ETERNAL GOD view has intellectual problems also.  How can there be an Uncaused Cause?  Why are there parasites?  How could a good God allow evil?  How could a good God send people to He11?  and on and on.  You all are quite familiar with all of these very real problems for the intellect.

                  So how does one choose?

                  The only way I know of is to adopt the view with the least amount (and the smallest) obstacles to intellectual satisfaction.  The ETERNAL GOD view readily explains much more of the phenomena we see in the world than does the ETERNAL MATTER view.  Yes, there are some things I cannot explain like starlight (I'm told Russ Humphreys has a good theory on that, but I've not read it) and other things.  But there are many, many, many things I CAN explain (and have here).  An objective look at the evidence shows that it is very heavy on the side of the ETERNAL GOD view and very light on the side of the ETERNAL MATTER view.

                  And it seems quite proud to me to say "There cannot possibly be such a thing as an Uncaused Intelligent Designer of all things."  I understand the temptation to say this.  And I agree with you that it seems quite fantastic.  But wait a minute.  Do we not accept many things already that we do not understand?  Is not the navigation system of the monarch butterfly an unsolved mystery?  Yet we believe that they can do it.  How do protons hold together in the nucleus of atoms?  Does anyone really know?  It seems impossible, yet it happens.  Look at genetics.  We do not have the slightest understanding of 90% (?) of the genome.  We say that this is junk DNA, but, as Zuckerkandl pointed out, we truly don't know this.  It's looking more likely that NONE of it is junk at all.  We just don't understand how it works.

                  Personally, I choose the humble route.  I choose to admit that I don't know everything and that it would be foolish to say "There cannot possibly be such a thing as an Uncaused Intelligent Designer of all things."  And to those who ask, "HOW did He design all things?" I must humbly say, "I don't know, and niether does anyone."

                  But is it right to tell our public school children, "You evolved from a little pool of chemicals which existed billions of years ago" when we cannot prove this?  My whole beef with the present state of science teaching is simply the WRONG ATTITUDE of scientists.  Regardless of how PC and flowery you may phrase it, our kids are hearing  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Real scientists believe that you evolved from a little pool of chemicals which existed billions of years ago.  Those goofy, outdated religionists say that Goddidit, but come on, kids.  That's 150 year old thinking.  Get out of the Dark Ages! That view is for grandmas and weak minds.  If you REALLy want to succeed in the world, believe our view."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's what you are really saying.

                  But what you SHOULD be saying is something like this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "There are two broad categories of views of how life began on planet earth: the Materialistic View and the Intelligent Design View.  The Materialistic View is the view subscribed to by most practicing scientists today, but the Intelligent Design View has a strong following among non-scientists worldwide and a minority of credentialed scientists (insert best estimate of percentages of PhD's in all countries who believe one or the other).  Neither view can be proven per se, but both sides have many arguments which they put forward favoring their view.  Experimental science necessarily deals with phenomena which can be tested and this places both views outside the scope of empirical, testable science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If you said something like this in the textbooks, then I probably wouldn't even be in this fight at all.

                  ************************************************************

                  Eric--  I already spent a good deal of time answering you biodiversity question, but I'll give you the short answer again.  

                  The short answer is from Ayala ... In his opinion, mutations provide only "a mere trickle" of diversity compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic diversity."  You need to really let Ayala's statements, combined with everything I have shown you about VSDMs sink into your head.  When you do this, it will suddenly dawn on you why the Ark bottleneck was no problem at all for preserving radical genetic diversity.  All that was needed on the ark was a fair amount of heterozygosity (what I termed "genetic richness"), then subsequent dispersal and geographic isolation of of sub groups to allow the full potential of diversity to be expressed.  This huge diversity can happen quite rapidly (< 1000's of years) as shown by our experience in domestic animal breeding.

                  The mental stress you are having with this question stems from your uncritical acceptance of the Darwinist Dogma that Mutations are the Ultimate Source of all Variation.  This has proven false as Ayala himself admits ... it's just that YOU haven't accepted that it's false yet.  Hopefully you will in time.

                  ****************************************

                  I won't be posting much over Christmas Eve and Christmas ... I hope you all have a wonderful celebration--whether you are celebrating Christmas, or Solstice Day, or Hannukah, or Whatever Day ... I hope you all have a great time!

                  More long posts Tuesday!
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 23 2006,08:44

                  Dave,

                  AGAIN, before you assume anything that looks complex or like a real man-built machine...where is your proof that complexity proves design.

                  Everything you have posted regarding complexity has been explained through natural means so, you have yet to get off first base. So, lets cut to the chase and you just provide us with your evidence that assumed complexity proves design.  Evidence that is outside of your emotional desires.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 23 2006,09:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everything you have posted regarding complexity has been explained through natural means so, you have yet to get off first base.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Absolutely false.  

                  MICRO-evo is proven.  But the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  AGAIN, before you assume anything that looks complex or like a real man-built machine...where is your proof that complexity proves design.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I never said complexity "proves" design and I don't get into equivocal examples--I'll leave that to Dembski and Behe and their rigorous math.  I am simply saying that if we are consistent, then it is logical to say about my pictures ... "All four airplanes are probably designed" and "All four motors are probably designed."
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 23 2006,09:44

                  AFD get it through your brain.

                  Mans mechanical toys cannot reproduce by having sex.

                  THAT IS THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR THE VAST BULK OF THE 15 Million or so species of LIVING THINGs on earth  TO EVOLVE.

                  Your childishness on this borders on insanity.

                  And who the h€ll are you to say something is false?


                  You can't even lie straight in bed.

                  Your repeated quote mining (mis quoting to support your lies) of MacNeill just proves it.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 23 2006,09:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [WHY DO YOU SAY "DESIGNED ... DESIGNED ... DESIGNED ... NOT DESIGNED" ??

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  For several reasons, none of which you seem prepared to understand. Let me just list two key reasons.
                  (1) The first three are photographs showing actual objects that we all recognize and can make reasonable guesses about. The fourth is an artist's rendering of an object that, in real life, doesn't look like that. Little things like the color, the regularity, the smoothness... these are all things that speak to your intuition, and are fictional.
                  (2) The fourth one REPRODUCES; THE FIRST THREE DON'T



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Best I can tell....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...is not very good at all. It reflects your inability to pay attention and willful ignorance (actually two sides of the same coin)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Personally, I choose the humble route.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Easily the most hilarious quote in this discussion so far. Your arrogant, smug declarations of knowing more, and seeing more clearly, than entire scientific disciplines (biology, physics, geology...) is "taking the humble route"? Your facile dismissals of the most basic information in those fields is "taking the humble route"? Wow. I wonder what your blather would look like if you hadn't chosen the "humble route".


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The short answer is from Ayala ...[blah, blah, blah]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not going to waste cyberspace repeating, yet again the willfully ignorant, desperate torture of facts and logic that follow. Suffice it to say, yet again, that Ayala's argument is that in a large population the amount of variation that can be had from reshuffling the mutations becomes larger than the amount of variation that arises from new mutations. Did you get that? In a LARGE POPULATION. One pair, or seven pairs, or eight pairs of individuals is not a large population. The maximum number of alleles you'll get from the one-pair "kinds" is four per locus. FOUR (4). We now have hundreds. How did that happen?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 23 2006,09:58

                  AFD have a look at the link below and 'peer review' it.....oh that's right you are not a 'peer' you're a nobody ...a broken down T38 has been.

                  Well why don't you get one of your creationist experts to 'peer' review it...uh like your hero Dr. Dr. 2 farts Dembski, he's looking for a new challenge since he lost the last one at Dover.

                  < The evolution of the flagellum Youtube video based on Nick Matzke's hypothesis. >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,10:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,08:33)
                  LET ME JUST DEMONSTRATE TO YOU HOW SILLY THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY LOOKS RIGHT NOW
                  Please understand ... there are many things you do which are not silly and are quite useful, but when you talk about the Origin of Living Things, you look pretty silly ... let me show you.

                  Here we have 4 pictures of airplanes, 3 large ones and one small one (an RC model) ...
                  If I asked you about them, you would say ...

                  Yet, when I show you 4 pictures of motors, 3 large ones and one small one (flagellar motor) ... you say ...

                  DESIGNED ............. DESIGNED ............. DESIGNED ............. NOT DESIGNED

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Let's do it right, Dave. Not your bogus fakes. This is what your comparison really looks like.

                  One of these things is not like the other:



                  One of these things just doesn't belong.

                  Can you figure out which one it is, Dave?
                  Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 23 2006,10:13

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 23 2006,02:12)


                  I always wondered about the Muslim crap. Joe is supposedly from Maynard, MA, and the probability that there is even a single Muslim in Maynard would have to be expressed in scientific notation, unless you want to use an inconveniently-large number of zeros to the right of the decimal point.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The probability is less than the Universal Probability Bound, so it must be by design that there are no Muslims in Maynard, MA!  :p
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 23 2006,10:29

                  but you can generate novel items via evolution

                  < http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm >
                  < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html >

                  so, lets compare evolved to designed antennas. Can Behe or Dembski tell the difference?
                  < >< >< >< >< >< >
                  Which one evolved?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,10:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,08:33)
                  Eric--  I already spent a good deal of time answering you biodiversity question, but I'll give you the short answer again.  

                  The short answer is from Ayala ... In his opinion, mutations provide only "a mere trickle" of diversity compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic diversity."  You need to really let Ayala's statements, combined with everything I have shown you about VSDMs sink into your head.  When you do this, it will suddenly dawn on you why the Ark bottleneck was no problem at all for preserving radical genetic diversity.  All that was needed on the ark was a fair amount of heterozygosity (what I termed "genetic richness"), then subsequent dispersal and geographic isolation of of sub groups to allow the full potential of diversity to be expressed.  This huge diversity can happen quite rapidly (< 1000's of years) as shown by our experience in domestic animal breeding.

                  The mental stress you are having with this question stems from your uncritical acceptance of the Darwinist Dogma that Mutations are the Ultimate Source of all Variation.  This has proven false as Ayala himself admits ... it's just that YOU haven't accepted that it's false yet.  Hopefully you will in time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you may not actually be an idiot, but you sure do act like one.

                  First, you have never, ever spent the tiniest amount of time explaining away the contradiction in your hypothesis regarding biodiversity: how it can be that biodiversity can be both increasing and decreasing, which is what your "hypothesis" predicts. You've never addressed the issue before, and this post doesn't address it either. So to say you've "spent a good deal of time answering" the question is, quite simply, a lie. You spent zero time answering it.

                  Second, you think you're answering a different question here—how life got from a few thousand species to a few million species in what you now claim is less than a thousand years—but you're not. I've told you at least a dozen times that Ayala's "genetic variation" helps you not at all. Why, Dave? Can you at least tell me what I've said to you before even if you disagree with it? No? You can't remember what I've said before? Or maybe you just "skimmed" over it because your pea-brain couldn't process it? Okay, I'll post it ONE MORE TIME:

                  Your "flood" DESTROYED all of that "much larger reservoir of stored genetic diversity". All of it was GONE after the flood. The reason it's called a "genetic bottleneck," Dave, is because it WIPES OUT genetic diversity. Your remaining organisms—you know, the ones on the ark?—didn't HAVE any genetic diversity!

                  Heterozygosity simply doesn't get you there, Dave. We've been pounding this into your head for months now. Here's what you get for heterozygosity, Dave:

                  For "unclean" animals: 4 alleles per gene, MAX.
                  For "clean" animals: 28 alleles per gene, MAX.
                  For humans: 16 alleles per gene, MAX.

                  Ayala does you absolutely no good, Dave, and you know it. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this mentally-retarded argument here. You're certainly not fooling me, you're not fooling anyone who knows the slightest thing about genetics, you're not fooling any of the lurkers, not one of which has ever de-lurked and said you're anything but an idiot, and I don't even think you're fooling yourself.

                  So Dave, one more time: how is it that biodiversity is simultaneously decreasing and increasing under your "hypothesis"? Either actually answer the goddamn question, or admit you cannot. Actually, don't bother. We already know you cannot.

                  But that doesn't mean it's gonna come out of my signature any time soon.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,10:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Interesting, Dave.

                  You are unqualifiedly saying you "know" what MacNeil is thinking even at this moment? That you KNOW your "interpretation" is precisely what he thought when he wrote that?

                  Care to back that up, Dave? Or is it just another of your many lies?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 23 2006,10:33

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For several reasons, none of which you seem prepared to understand. Let me just list two key reasons.
                  (1) The first three are photographs showing actual objects that we all recognize and can make reasonable guesses about. The fourth is an artist's rendering of an object that, in real life, doesn't look like that. Little things like the color, the regularity, the smoothness... these are all things that speak to your intuition, and are fictional.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Russell-- In case it has not occurred to you, the ONLY possible way a scientist can show a picture of a flagellar motor is with representative drawings or computer simulations.  Has it occurred to you that one cannot see a flagellar motor with the naked eye because it is so small?  You would think that a professor with a PhD in life sciences would not be arguing such an inane point.  Do you actually dispute that these diagrams I have posted (some from a Harvard professor) are not very close to the real thing? (yes, we realize that molecules are bumpy, OK)

                  You are truly the poster boy for a Willfully Ignorant Science Professor.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (2) The fourth one REPRODUCES; THE FIRST THREE DON'T
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is all you can say, isn't it?  Even after a member of your own "team", Jeannot, admitted that the only difference in "reproducing" and "non-reproducing" is degree of hi-tech, all you can do is bull-headedly repeat the same vacuous line over and over again ... "Watches don't reproduce.  Butterflies do."

                  You are an embarrassment to our universities.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,10:43



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But what you SHOULD be saying is something like this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "There are two broad categories of views of how life began on planet earth: the Materialistic View and the Intelligent Design View.  The Materialistic View is the view subscribed to by most practicing scientists today, but the Intelligent Design View has a strong following among non-scientists worldwide and a minority of credentialed scientists (insert best estimate of percentages of PhD's in all countries who believe one or the other).  Neither view can be proven per se, but both sides have many arguments which they put forward favoring their view.  Experimental science necessarily deals with phenomena which can be tested and this places both views outside the scope of empirical, testable science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  If you said something like this in the textbooks, then I probably wouldn't even be in this fight at all.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is another lie, Dave. You've been offered similar concessions (not exact, but similar) ---such as people saying that they have no problem with YOU claiming God as a Prime Mover...but that they disagreed with your YEC claim.

                  It is that YEC claim that people have pointed to MANY TIMES as being the ONE POINT that separates you from even a modicum of decency and rational/logical respectability...this is WHY ID ITSELF  disavows the YEC position--Dembski has made this quite clear.

                  Thus your claim above is simply false. It is another lie.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 23 2006,10:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Defies all known science about the origin of functional, complex systems ... IOW, our only experience outside of biology is with man-made technology and NONE of this comes about by chance and selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Except, of course, when it DOES. Like < Avida >, or < SELEX >
                  Now here's the thing I've never got a clear answer from a creationist on: Once you admit that evolution - the whole descent with modification, mutation/selection thing - makes sense, has been observed, and you label it "micro-evolution" and that the more generations you follow, the more of this "micro-evolution" you see; what's the more arbitrary and unjustified assumption:
                  (1) Somewhere, for unknown reasons, when you extend the time beyond an individual human's attention span, you run into a limit beyond which this evolutionary process can't take you, or
                  (2) The process is open-ended, with no logical barriers to where it can wend, as long as each of the steps is, well, stepwise?
                  So when I see statements like this:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MICRO-evo is proven.  But the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ...misinformed, anti-intellectual, just plain wrong, and not in a humble way, wrong statements like that, I'm inclined to wonder
                  (1) why was there no reference given to such a startling "fact", and
                  (2) why, if this alleged refutation is so thorough and final, and has been referred to by creationists for decades, why does this tectonic shift in understanding not merit so much as a mention in any professional academic journal?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You mean, "This is what MacNeill would mean if he knew what he really means", because you know as well as I do that MacNeill would not agree with you. Not very humble, dave. I think I'll decide what MacNeill means by reading MacNeill, rather than afdave, thank you very much. And I've seen nothing that MacNeill (or Ayala, or Kimura, or Crow...) has written that says macro-evolution can't occur.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,10:47

                  So, Dave, care to take up a wager on what you claimed about MacNeil?

                  You seem eager to chastise others -- put your courage on the line, brave boy...or run your cowardly rear away as you have so often in the past, on wagers and challenges
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 23 2006,10:47

                  Amazing.

                  Ayala says Darwin was wrong about mutations.  He says they are a mere trickle compared to pre-existing variability.  

                  And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.

                  I'm beginning to think that intelligence is inversely related to # of years in secular life sciences education.

                  It's people like you that energize me in this fight.

                  *******************************************

                  Deadman--  I've posted MacNeill's comments several times.  No need to again. It's quite obvious that he is saying precisely what I quoted him as saying.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,10:51

                  I say your interpretation is a lie, Dave. I'm flat-out calling you a liar.

                  Now, would you care to take me up on that? An HONEST man, faced with a challenge to his integrity , would have no problem. I'm calling you a liar. Take up a wager with me.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,10:56

                  Ayala says diversity in a species lies in a POOL of diverse members. If that pool is drained to a few members, you have no great diversity. All your allelic diversity is reduced...through a BOTTLENECK.

                  Here are your EXACT words that YOU claim MacNeil will agree to, Dave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I say you are a liar, there, too. CARE TO TAKE ME UP ON THAT?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,11:10

                  And once again, faced with a direct challenge, Dave "mysteriously" is no longer on the user list.

                  Will he return to later claim that he was "busy" or that it's laughable to think he should respond in real time to what I have set before him?

                  Sure.

                  Will he back his claim? Well, if we are to take his past behavior as a guide, no, he won't. He has run from every direct challenge and wager set before him -- whether on radiometric dating proper, dating of the Grand Staircase sediments, or MANY other direct challenges.

                  For a person claiming to have such good evidence backing you, you seem to be quite unable to support any of it, Dave.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 23 2006,11:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell-- In case it has not occurred to you, the ONLY possible way a scientist can show a picture of a flagellar motor is with representative drawings or computer simulations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh? What's wrong with electonmicrographs?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Has it occurred to you that one cannot see a flagellar motor with the naked eye because it is so small?  You would think that a professor with a PhD in life sciences would not be arguing such an inane point.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Not surprisingly, I believe you have missed my point altogether, and are in no position to "humbly" deem it inane.  Your whole point is - now correct me if I'm wrong, because I certainly wouldn't want to tell you what you mean even though it's 180° opposite from what you think you mean - is that we can tell something is designed if it looks designed. The first three pictures accurately show what the objects look like. The fourth doesn't.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are truly the poster boy for a Willfully Ignorant Science Professor.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm... seems rather rude, and angry, and not very "humble". Perhaps if you calm down a bit, take a few deep breaths, unclench those impotent fists of rage, you can explain what I'm being Willfully Ignorant of. You wouldn't, by any chance, just be childishly taking the observation I made of you, and mindlessly turning it around "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" style, would you?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This is all you can say, isn't it?  Even after a member of your own "team", Jeannot, admitted that the only difference in "reproducing" and "non-reproducing" is degree of hi-tech, all you can do is bull-headedly repeat the same vacuous line over and over again ... "Watches don't reproduce.  Butterflies do."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hardly. But there's no point moving on to the more interesting, complicated stuff if you don't get the absolute most basic, fundamental concept. I believe you are critically micharacterizing what Jeannot said. It's possible you don't even know it. Most likely it's another instance of willful ignorance. I'm losing patience with you, though. I'll let Jeannot straighten you out if he thinks it's worth it.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You are an embarrassment to our universities.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Temper, temper, dave! Remember: you've taken the humble route.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala says Darwin was wrong about mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong again, dave. Remember: Darwin said nothing about mutations. Darwin didn't know about mutations. Darwin didn't now about DNA, chromosomes, or Mendelian genetics. How could he be "wrong" about mutations? ? ? Dave? Dave... are you there? Could you supply a quote, or reference, or some clue that you're not just pulling this stuff from where the sun don't shine?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.

                  I'm beginning to think that intelligence is inversely related to # of years in secular life sciences education.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course, to be technically accurate, there is at least a formal possibility that the people who have spent a lifetime studying this stuff understand it more thoroughly than afdave, and that it's afdave that doesn't "get it". I mean, just to include the full range of possibilities, however unlikely. After all, you have chosen to take the humble route.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,11:37



                  Let's get Shakespearean and ask : "How do they differ? Let us count the ways.." Rather than Elizabethan, I'll just go medieval on you -- to use a film reference.

                  Give me a list of "similarities" Dave...make it as extensive as you possibly can. Let's see if I can't find MORE differences.

                  Oh, and I see you're back on the user list now, Dave. Still unable to muster the courage to accept my offer on MacNeil?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 23 2006,13:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,09:33)
                  Eric--  I already spent a good deal of time answering you biodiversity question, but I'll give you the short answer again.  

                  The short answer is from Ayala ... In his opinion, mutations provide only "a mere trickle" of diversity compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic diversity."  You need to really let Ayala's statements, combined with everything I have shown you about VSDMs sink into your head.  When you do this, it will suddenly dawn on you why the Ark bottleneck was no problem at all for preserving radical genetic diversity.  All that was needed on the ark was a fair amount of heterozygosity (what I termed "genetic richness"), then subsequent dispersal and geographic isolation of of sub groups to allow the full potential of diversity to be expressed.  This huge diversity can happen quite rapidly (< 1000's of years) as shown by our experience in domestic animal breeding.

                  The mental stress you are having with this question stems from your uncritical acceptance of the Darwinist Dogma that Mutations are the Ultimate Source of all Variation.  This has proven false as Ayala himself admits ... it's just that YOU haven't accepted that it's false yet.  Hopefully you will in time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave.
                  Our HLA-B gene discussion is still open.

                  You CANNOT claim what you stated because we still have to find out how 61 HLA-B alleles appeared in the population in less than 250 years.  I think we agreed to stop the discussion around page 35.

                  BUT THE DISCUSSION IS STILL OPEN.  MY PRESENT POSITION DESTROYS YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT AYALA.  YOU CAN'T USE AYALA WITHOUT TAKING UP THE HLA-B DISCUSSION AGAIN.

                  Do you want me to summerize our positions so we can continue the discussion?

                  Sorry Dave.  In the whole "genetic richness" case you are still in the middle of the minefield.  Blindfolded.  Without a metal detector.  And advanced leprosy in your limbs.

                  STOP USING THE POST-FLOOD GENETIC RICHNESS SHENANAGINS UNTIL YOUR READY TO TALK ABOUT HLA-B ALLELES SOME MORE.

                  Ready?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 23 2006,14:19

                  I just can't seem to stop scratching the mosquito bites that are afdave today.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to really let Ayala's statements, combined with everything I have shown you about VSDMs sink into your head.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And yet Ayala doesn't seem to doubt that evolution occurred and still occurs, does he? SOMETHING's wrong with this picture. Afdave understands the implications of what Ayala says better than Ayala? Not very likely. (Certainly not a very humble claim to make). Afdave is imposing on Ayala (and every other serious scientist) the conclusion that afdave learned in Sunday school, and ascribing all obvious inconsistencies with that absurdity to Ayala's (and every other serious scientist's) putative theophobia? Hmmmm.... something to consider.

                  And VSDMs? Have you shown us anything at all about VSDMs that helps your case? I must have missed that. All I caught was you having a Portuguese moment over the graph in the Kimura paper, a spectacular missing of the whole point of the Crow article, a profound lack of understanding of the various mechanisms that theory predicts to counter the accumulation of the theoretical VSDMs, and a whole lot of Homer Simpsonesque reveling in your triumphal ignorance. But feel free to post a link to the reference that helps your case - the one I apparently missed.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 23 2006,14:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.

                  I'm beginning to think that intelligence is inversely related to # of years in secular life sciences education.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You know Dave, you've lost all the high ground that you might ever have had.  You've begun flinging insults (sure, you didn't exactly start it*), so you've lost the politeness high ground.

                  You've been caught blatantly lying, so you obviously don't have the honesty high ground.

                  All that's left for you to try and salvage is the science.  So enough of this tedious argument from analogy.  Why don't you pick up on some post flood ecology, or finish the HLA-B discussion.  Or better yet, the PfEMP1 discussion.  Do you need a permalink?  It's interesting that you've stopped responding to me now that my posts have gotten more sciency.


                  *though you did say many things at the outset that would be considered insulting to any scientist, so don't quote me as saying that the insults were started by those on the "evo" side.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,15:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:47)
                  Ayala says Darwin was wrong about mutations.  He says they are a mere trickle compared to pre-existing variability.  

                  And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you can refute my argument re "genetic variation," then I'll stop calling you an idiot.

                  You keeping bringing up Ayala, despite the fact that I've patiently explained to you that there WAS NO "genetic variation" after your "flood." But you keep using it as a way to somehow drive an explosive increase in biodiversity in less than a millennium. Now, are you going to address the utter lack of genetic diversity among the survivors on the ark, or aren't you? Because it's a fatal flaw in your argument, and I'm not going to let you forget it. You'll see it in my signature in every message I post.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,16:32

                  I know Jeannot can handle this himself, but I couldn't resist.
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:33)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (2) The fourth one REPRODUCES; THE FIRST THREE DON'T
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is all you can say, isn't it?  Even after a member of your own "team", Jeannot, admitted that the only difference in "reproducing" and "non-reproducing" is degree of hi-tech, all you can do is bull-headedly repeat the same vacuous line over and over again ... "Watches don't reproduce.  Butterflies do."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is the kind of blatant, shameless misrepresentation that lets me, and essentially everyone else here, think nothing of referring to you as a liar. Normally, I don't accuse people of blatant lying, but in your case, there simply isn't any more polite term that fits.

                  Jeannot admited no such thing, Dave, and you know he didn't. Essentially, Jeannot said that IF watches could reproduce, using a method that allowed for imperfect reproduction, and were subjected to selection pressure, THEN he would have no problem conceding that he would consider such watches to be alive.

                  But watches DON'T reproduce, Dave. They may, someday, but they do not today. And being made in factory does not in any way equate to "reproduction."

                  Therefore, when you claim that Jeannot "agrees" that the only difference between "reproducing" and "non-reproducing" is "degree of high-tech," not only is that a lie, but you know it's a lie, you know we know it's a lie, and you know that you're gonna get busted for saying it.

                  What are we to make of this sort of pathological dishonesty, Dave?

                  So there's nothing vacuous about saying "Watches don't reproduce and butterflies do." What's vacuous is your repeated denial that it amounts to a significant difference. Which is just further dishonesty.

                  And in the meantime, how are you doing refuting my "no genetic variation" argument, Dave? Are you even going to make an attempt?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,17:57

                  Is it just me who observes that AF Dave is becoming increasingly short-tempered, abusive, insulting, and condescending? I think all this being wrong pretty consistently for the past eight months might be starting to take its toll on him.

                  Maybe I'll post the current list of unanswered questions, just to see what will happen.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 23 2006,18:26

                  When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,18:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,18:26)
                  When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nothing else is failing, Dave. I'm just wondering how you're doing being consistently wrong for eight months.

                  Now, since you've got enough time to be on here in the first place, how are you doing refuting my claim that your "flood" WIPED OUT all the "genetic variability" in the critters on your ark?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 23 2006,19:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,19:26)
                  When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How about drown them in details.  Lets see where we stand.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
                  A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can't argue with this one.  I think you have "proven" A just with this statement.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ahhhh.  AFDave as the messenger of "his" God.  Notice the first words.  Still no arguments about this.  I look at B. as an embellishment to A.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And here is where Dave is stuck.  We have (AFAI can remember)....
                  Adam and Eve as genetic source - Not discussed yet.
                  Great Flood - Rebuked and proven wrong.
                  Single continent before the flood - Not discussed yet.
                  Discussion of kinds - Mentioned but Not discussed yet.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Part D is bad for Dave so far.  We have....
                  Early man was (genetically perfect, taller, fecund, aged, defect free even within family) - Not discussed yet.
                  In fact the ante-diluvian world is rarely mentioned.  Why?
                  Genetic Mutations/Richness - Trashed

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  More Theology mixed in with Dave's apparent insight into the "Mind of God" (or "his God" would be more correct).  Still more embellishment to Part A.  Not Discussed Yet.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  More embellishment with miracles sprinkled here and there.  Is this supposed to be the ante-diluvian world here?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What a wonderful story retold for us here.  Fire and brimstone, dishonesty and murder, finally a flood.  Quite the gripping tale.  

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ooooops....  We just went off the deep end here.
                  Global Flood - disproven in Oh so many ways
                  The Ark - disproven in so many more ways
                  Genetically Rich - shot down so far.  Still some discussion left in this one.
                  And the genetic dispersion tale - shot down so far but still open for more discussion.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ah, more claims.  We have....
                  Ice Age - Not really discussed yet.  Only mentioned.
                  Dinosaurs - Not discussed yet.
                  Plates whizzing about - soundly refuted
                  Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism - A red herring discussion.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Back to the story telling via magic and miracles.  Except...
                  All language roots at the Tower of Babel - Not discussed yet.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  More stories of what happened.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Chapter 23 or so of the story so far.  I hope everyone is keeping up on this.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A claim about Graf-Wellhausen Theory - Not discussed yet.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave again reveals his personnal expertise with this story.  However....
                  Inerrent Bibles - Under discussion, Dave has to answer the latest challanges.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ahhh, the prophesies in the OT.
                  Tyre - disproven.
                  Others - under discussion or not yet discussed.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The story as the basis for life, the universe, and everything.  We have a couple points....
                  American as Christian Nation - under discussion but Dave has to respond to some hard eveidence counterring this.
                  *****************************
                  Wow Dave.  A bunch of claims that you either have not discussed or have been totally handed your A$$.  Let's see where you went wrong....
                  Great Flood - Rebuked and proven wrong.
                  Genetic Mutations/Richness - Trashed
                  Global Flood - disproven in Oh so many ways
                  The Ark - disproven in so many more ways
                  Plates whizzing about - soundly refuted
                  Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism - A red herring discussion.
                  Tyre - disproven.


                  And here is where your flounderring about...
                  Genetically Rich - shot down so far.  Still some discussion left in this one.
                  And the genetic dispersion tale - shot down so far but still open for more discussion.
                  Inerrent Bibles - Under discussion, Dave has to answer the latest challanges.
                  Others (prophesies) - under discussion or not yet discussed.
                  American as Christian Nation - under discussion but Dave has to respond to some hard eveidence counterring this.


                  And here is where Dave has yet to venture....
                  Adam and Eve as genetic source - Not discussed yet.
                  Single continent before the flood - Not discussed yet.
                  Discussion of kinds - Mentioned but Not discussed yet.
                  Early man was (genetically perfect, taller, fecund, aged, defect free even within family) - Not discussed yet.
                  In fact the ante-diluvian world is rarely mentioned.  Why?
                  Ice Age - Not really discussed yet.  Only mentioned.
                  Dinosaurs - Not discussed yet.
                  All language roots at the Tower of Babel - Not discussed yet.
                  A claim about Graf-Wellhausen Theory - Not discussed yet.

                  ****************************
                  And there you have the UCGH so far.  I hope to see more discussion on this topic in the new year.

                  Merry Xmas Everyone.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 23 2006,20:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,18:26)
                  When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  or, more accurately:
                  When all else fails, avoid direct challenges and pretend they don't exist. :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  You're not exactly a Profile In Courage, are you, Dave? -- More like exhibit one as to why Creationism/ID loses in court. Disgusting.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 23 2006,20:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  When all else fails ... call 'em liars and psychoanalyze 'em!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Exactly AFD nailed it in one, Judge Jones reached that conclusion of Bonsel and co. in Dover.

                  You have proven to be no different with practically every post you make.

                  'Breath taking inanity' he called it.

                  Most people can recognize that as pathological lying bordering on insanity.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 23 2006,21:31

                  It's just occurred to me AFD; do you even know what a lie is?

                  Did you follow the trial in Dover?

                  Do you agree the creationist Bonsel lied or not?

                  If not why not? (To both questions)

                  The reason AFD thinks he can get away with his Farfaman-esque attack on honest scholarship, is because science and the men and women involved assume the highest humanly attainable level of integrity on behalf of the players.

                  AFD the cunning rat he is, knows that it’s impolite to question the honesty of a scientist...they play by the 'rules of heaven' as it were.

                  Theologians, creationists and god pimps on the other hand have no such rules. There are no tests for honesty on things that don't exist.

                  AFD foolishly exploits sciences lack of a court to test character before the facts are presented since he thinks it is a weakness that is validly open for exploitation; and since there is no money involved and it is a victimless crime there are no laws against it.
                  Just think what would happen if Santa Claus was outlawed or if car salesmen were able to be taken to court for fibbing.

                  In the free market that exists for ideas, any ideas themselves are free to be promoted provided they are not illegal. The teaching of Creationism is illegal as science fact since it has been determined to be in fact, NOT A FACT ERGO IT IS A LIE.

                  The wonderful paradox is that honesty and integrity are the greatest strengths of science.

                  The people who have to follow the scientific method and its test for truth have more honesty and integrity than a train load of Popes.


                  AFD can only ever be regarded as a science felon promoting Creationism which has been determined by many courts to be a lie.

                  AFD you are on the run from justice.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,22:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:47)
                  Deadman--  I've posted MacNeill's comments several times.  No need to again. It's quite obvious that he is saying precisely what I quoted him as saying.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  All well and good, Dave. Clearly MacNeill is saying what he's saying. But he's NOT SAYING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HE'S SAYING.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 23 2006,23:20

                  You know, I just never get tired of pointing out the USDA Grade "A" tard Dave keeps posting.

                  Today, Dave claims that the only way one can depict a bacterial flagellum is with a drawing or a diagram:
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:33)
                  Russell-- In case it has not occurred to you, the ONLY possible way a scientist can show a picture of a flagellar motor is with representative drawings or computer simulations.  Has it occurred to you that one cannot see a flagellar motor with the naked eye because it is so small?  You would think that a professor with a PhD in life sciences would not be arguing such an inane point.  Do you actually dispute that these diagrams I have posted (some from a Harvard professor) are not very close to the real thing?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But just yesterday, he posted what he thought was an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum:



                  Of course, now he know this isn't really a picture of a bacterial flagellum, after he was corrected on it.

                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,12:24)
                  Dave, read the freaking captions, will you. That is not an electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. It is a "Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies."

                  In other words, it's a reconstruction of many different electron micrographs that simplifies and clarifies the structure of the flagellum's structure. It's not what a flagellum really looks like.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And, he knows that there actually are electron micrographs of a bacterial flagellum, because I helpfully provided one:



                  So Dave first screwed up by posting what he thought was a picture of a flagellum, until someone pointed out that it was just a computer-generated diagram of one. Then he tried posting another one which he thought was an electron micrograph of one. Then, he was corrected on that, and shown what a real electron micrograph of a flagellum looks like, he now claims there's no such thing as an electron micrograph of a flagellum.

                  You know, there's just nothing more fun on a Saturday evening than kicking the snot out of another one of Dave's hilariously wrong arguments.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 24 2006,02:39

                  Eric, I wonder if everyone else is having the fun I am with dave... I just got home after two days at the hospital, and a quick look here sent all my fatigue away! I'll go shopping with a smile on my face.

                  Dave, dave... "Dr. Faid" was using his "INTUITION" to differentiate between humans and monkeys, eh? I'd say that you simply don't understand the word, much like "primary" and "qualitative" and metaphor" and many others, and would suggest that you asked your kids to explain it to you-
                  But then I noticed you actually posted the definition!
                  So you can't claim ignorance here. Tell me dave, does "Dr. Faid" NOT use LOGICAL REASONING to see the false claim that lady makes? Does he use his "intuition"?
                  Does he say "Nurse, something just feels wrong here. I can't quite place it- maybe it's the way that baby moves its tail, I dunno... but I don't think it really is her baby. Call it a hunch, but I think we should call the police".

                  ....Aaaaaand here come the smileys:
                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Dave, you're a blast.
                  I could go on, about your silly attempt to post models and CGI as the real thing, and base your claims on design on their appearance (all the time while Eric had posted actual pictures of the real thing)...
                  I could even ask you that question again: You know, the one you are so scared shitless of, you pretend it doesn't exist? about the SUN? ;)
                  But then I saw you arguing about Ayala and McNeil again, and realized what you're up to.
                  Sneaky, sneaky dave.  :p

                  You see, I was wondering: We were supposed to be somewhere around point G in your "Hypothesis" by now. All this crap about things looking "designy" was discussed back in point B, waaay back in the beginning of the first thread.
                  Back then, when you were faced with many of the very same questions posed to you here, you simply ignored or discarded them as trivial, and moved on- obviously eager to display your large AiG arsenal of "sciency" arguments for your next points.
                  And now, 300 pages later, you suddenly return to those arguments, and this time insist with a childish stubborness and lots of argument-free ironical comments (and fake laughter :) ), holding on to that for pages, as if it suddenly became the cornerstone of your "scientific" hypothesis, "the whole enchilada" as you distinctively said.

                  What happened, dave?

                  I'll tell you what happened (although you know better than any of us).
                  You were hopelessly, desperately cornered without any means of escape, dave. All your silly claims, about Kimura, Crow, Ayala and everyone else you and your mentors quotemined were obliterated, and you couldn't defend them without demonstrating your ignorance.
                  It was the end of the maze for you, lil' mouse.
                  Faced with arguments you had no hope of refuting, your defense had dwindled to desperate evasion tactics:

                  "I'll read up on that and get back to you, Russel"...

                  "I'll answer your question, Eric, but not now, I don't have time"...

                  "Relax, I'll see if I can get Sanford to come and explain that for you, Faid"...

                  You were looking pathetic, and you knew it.

                  So what did you do? The only thing a good old dishonest debater would. "I'll just drive the conversation away to something I can talk about without using facts or evidence", you thought. "Maybe the good old "Looks like Design to me" shtick? Yes, I'll blabber about that for a few pages, and then go on with my claims, pretending I have succesfully argued for all those other points as well! Who will remember?"

                  Well, WE will, dave. Face it, you're not the smartest around. Your arrogance makes you think that you are a genius (always by the grace of God, of course :) ) and therefore everyone else must be a total fool, to fall for your superior tactics- but, unfortunately, reality once again disproves you.

                  So come on, dave. ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE PROMISED YOU WOULD. See it as a small christmas present for those that try to open your eyes to the truth (the REAL truth, not the "Truth™")

                  Or admit you cannot, and stick to "teaching" little children, who are unable to see you for the fraud you are (unfortunately).


                  PS. And a merry Christmas to you, dave! Who knows, maybe we'll see a new AFDave after the 25th? One who actually tries to discuss rationally, and has perhaps worked a little on his inferiority complex (that he so clearly demonstrates with posts like the one about viruses to Russel)?

                  But it will take MUCH MORE than just three ghosts...
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 24 2006,02:53

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 23 2006,11:28)
                  Dave? Dave... are you there? Could you supply a quote, or reference, or some clue that you're not just pulling this stuff from where the sun don't shine?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He's getting this stuff from Seattle?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,06:51

                  THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED

                  I wasn't going to post at all today but this is just too funny for words ...

                  FAID (a doctor who should know better) AND ERIC (who we could forgive because he's not a scientist)

                  ... are going up against ...

                  Dr. Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science.

                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!  (And don't forget ... it was your teammate, Mike PSS, of Talk Origins fame that posted the picture and article ... not me)

                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Oh my goodness!!!  This thread gets funnier and funnier.

                  ****************************************

                  Who you gonna believe, lurkers?

                  A Harvard prof with a PhD in molecular and cell biology?

                  Or a Greek Darwinist Fundy and a Legal Assistant?

                  Think they're not getting desperate?  Think again.  Even other-wise-level-headed Argystokes is finally jumping on the "Liar-liar-pants-on-fire" bandwagon.  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You've been caught blatantly lying, so you obviously don't have the honesty high ground.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course, he doesn't bother to say WHAT I lied about, much less prove it.

                  The thing is Argy, when your team calls me a liar almost every day for 8 months, sometimes several times a day, it kinda loses it's force.  Honest people begin to recognize that I'm not a liar at all.  They realize that you're just miffed and can't think of a substantive thing to say at the moment.

                  ***************************************

                  And this for Deadman ... you can pay me whatever you see fit since I won, but I'm not holding my breath ...  
                  "MICRO=MACRO DOCTRINE" = MODERN SYNTHESIS = DEAD
                  Sorry to burst your bubble!


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm
                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.

                  This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centennial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.

                  However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.

                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 24 2006,07:47

                  Dave,

                  Quote  
                  UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
                  A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

                  If there is such a being, with all kinds of power....why all the drama of a flood and all....why not just a snap of this his fingers...or noodles (trying to be PC) and just do a cosmic do-over?

                  Was it an attempt on His part to mislead?  Do it make logical sense to you?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,07:58

                  Many things that Humans (Independent Beings with their own free will) do defy logic.

                  Why should I expect something different from the Divine Being who reportedly created us? (also independent with a free will)

                  No, I cannot explain WHY God did certain things ... but I would not expect to be able to either.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 24 2006,08:25



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So does Dr. Berg. He says it is a rotationally averaged reconstruction. Did you actually look at the caption? You certainly did not take it in.

                  When I first saw your incoherent and nonsensical posts and your inability to take in any concept that was not front-loaded into your mind, I just thought you were a creationist with a spectacularly closed mind. Now, however, I realize you are either supremely dishonest or your mind is divided into rigid compartments, one fact per compartment, with no interaction between them.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,08:30

                  Of course I read the caption ... it doesn't change a thing ... he's talking about how the micrograph was made.

                  Do you think this Harvard prof is such an idiot that he would post a picture in his article that does NOT resemble the real thing?

                  Whoo boy!  The Darwinists are desperate!
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 24 2006,08:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,06:51)
                  THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED

                  I wasn't going to post at all today but this is just too funny for words ...

                  FAID (a doctor who should know better) AND ERIC (who we could forgive because he's not a scientist)

                  ... are going up against ...

                  Dr. Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science.

                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!  (And don't forget ... it was your teammate, Mike PSS, of Talk Origins fame that posted the picture and article ... not me)

                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Oh my goodness!!!  This thread gets funnier and funnier.

                  ****************************************

                  Who you gonna believe, lurkers?

                  A Harvard prof with a PhD in molecular and cell biology?

                  Or a Greek Darwinist Fundy and a Legal Assistant?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yaaaay! I'm a "Greek Darwinist Fundy"!  

                  Do I also shag sheep during rituals in the name of our lord Darwin, dave?

                  Does it really hurt so much that people are onto you? Did you expect it would never happen?

                  Dave, we're not going against "Dr. Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science".

                  We're going against YOU.

                  Berg is no omre on your side than McNeil, Ayala, Kimura, Kondrashov and Crow were. And you know it; that's why you DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS what Eric and Mike and many others told you and showed you- you just saying "who you gonna believe, lurkers"? as if lurkers can't click on a link, see an argument and see for themselves...

                  Oh, but I forgot- you don't even HAVE any arguments, have you now? :D

                  Here's what Berg says:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You can't argue against that, can you dave? And, since you've seen all the other pictures of flagellae when you were googling for that one, you already know we are right- Or isn't that so, Honest dave?

                  And you call yourself a "Christian"... Sheesh. Christians don't LIE, dave.
                  Speaking of which...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The thing is Argy, when your team calls me a liar almost every day for 8 months, sometimes several times a day, it kinda loses it's force.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, it might lose its force, if you didn't keep lying all the goddamn time.

                  See, for instance, your McNeil quote: Highlighting snippets (and hoping lurkers won't read the rest) doesn't help you, dave. It just shows you are DELIBERATELY trying to mislead people. Everyone can read this article, and see that McNeil does NOT claim "Macro" does not happen: He says that


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is the thing that has been disproved.
                  And guess what: Biologists have known that,way, WAY before you even knew what a gene (let alone an allele)is, dave. Ever heard of Neutral Theory? Of course not. News are slow to reach La-La Land. :)
                  Say it loud, Mr. McNeil:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Seems like it's not a good time for you, HonestDave.

                  Now, How's about answering some questions?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 24 2006,09:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,07:51)
                  THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED
                  They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!  (And don't forget ... it was your teammate, Mike PSS, of Talk Origins fame that posted the picture and article ... not me)

                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

                  Oh my goodness!!!  This thread gets funnier and funnier.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mike PSS of Talk Origins fame??

                  Wh-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t?

                  Dave, what's this then.  When have I ever claimed I'm associated in any way with Talk Origins.

                  I would like a reference or a retraction for this one.  I wouldn't want myself to be misrepresented on this item.

                  I state today that I have never in the past been associated or contributed (etc. and so on) to Talk Origins.

                  Dave, please correct and/or retract this statement.

                  Thanks,
                  Mike PSS

                  p.s. Dave, why don't you quote reference the picture caption.  It would help a lot of readers to get the proper referent to your point.  Just an idea.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 24 2006,09:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,08:30)
                  Of course I read the caption ... it doesn't change a thing ... he's talking about how the micrograph was made.

                  Do you think this Harvard prof is such an idiot that he would post a picture in his article that does NOT resemble the real thing?

                  Whoo boy!  The Darwinists are desperate!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Translation:

                  "I have no idea about what that prof says- he uses some big words like "rotertinlaly averoiged" and such... Probably something to do with the way he used them electrotubes to take the pic.

                  But it can't be anything else (like, I dunno, a reconstruction that smooths out and displays the various proteins more simply, to show their function related to the sketch next to it)... it's GOTTA be an actual picture, EXACTLY the way it looks! Because it's the ONLY picture I found in my Google search of a flagellum that looks somewhat "designy" (all others are like weird gooey stuff), and that just CANT BE! My INTUITION says so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                  Who's desparate again, dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,10:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,06:51)
                  THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED

                  I wasn't going to post at all today but this is just too funny for words ...

                  FAID (a doctor who should know better) AND ERIC (who we could forgive because he's not a scientist)

                  ... are going up against ...

                  Dr. Howard Berg, professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  See, Dave, here's the root of your stupidity: You go and post these things (diagrams of flagella that only vaguely represent the real appearance of them, quotes from Ayala and MacNeill) that undermine your own arguments, and then wonder why we think you're laughable!

                  Faid and I aren't going up against Dr. Howard Berg, Dave. He agrees with us! And if you could somehow get him to visit this thread, he'd think you were just as much of a clown as we do!

                  Same thing with MacNeill. If you could get him to visit this thread, he'd think you were the same jackass as we think you are!

                  Same thing with Dr. Ayala. He doesn't agree with you, Dave. If you could get him to visit this thread, he'd get the same belly-laughs at your expense we all do!

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They say Dr. Berg's pictures aren't really what a flagellar motor looks like!  (And don't forget ... it was your teammate, Mike PSS, of Talk Origins fame that posted the picture and article ... not me)

                  < http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm >

                  Oh my goodness!!!  This thread gets funnier and funnier.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Gee, Dave, did you just sort of skip over my posts that completely demolished your extraordinarily vapid "argument from resemblance"? Did you get a gander at what a flagellum really looks like? I mean, come on, Dave. It's like you're not even trying. You're re-using arguments that have already been comprehensively obliterated. Why? Whom do you think you're kidding?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Who you gonna believe, lurkers?

                  A Harvard prof with a PhD in molecular and cell biology?

                  Or a Greek Darwinist Fundy and a Legal Assistant?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Dave, they're going to believe the pictures. The real pictures. Not your "simulations." What do you think this is, Flagellum-Mania? Not the real flagellum; just an amazing simulation?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The thing is Argy, when your team calls me a liar almost every day for 8 months, sometimes several times a day, it kinda loses it's force.  Honest people begin to recognize that I'm not a liar at all.  They realize that you're just miffed and can't think of a substantive thing to say at the moment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Dave, given the fact that you've been caught repeatedly in lies on an almost daily basis, it's not losing its force. Are you saying I didn't point out your lies about Ayala and "genetic variability"? Are you saying Deadman didn't point out your lies about MacNeill and the "death of the ToE"? Are you saying Russell didn't point out your lies about Crow? Are you saying I didn't point out your lies about dealing with the question of biodiversity increasing and simultaneously decreasing?

                  You may not see stuff like that, Dave, but everyone else does. It's right here, on this thread, in black and white, where the lurkers see it every day.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And this for Deadman ... you can pay me whatever you see fit since I won, but I'm not holding my breath ...  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is the fourth time you've posted your MacNeill quote, Dave, and it still says the same thing it's always said:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (my emph.)

                  Gee, Dave, did you just skip over that part of the quote, even though it's the bulk of the quote? Not exactly sounding the death knell for evolutionary theory, is it, Dave? Or are you simply incapable of reading anything that contradicts your worldview?

                  So why again was it that you thought MacNeill's quote supported your claim that the ToE is dead? And why, exactly, do you think you won Deadman's bet? The same reasons you think you won your "Portuguese" bet?

                  And in the meantime, how are you doing addressing my claim that the "flood" destroyed the "genetic variation" you keep thinking Ayala will save your bacon with for explosive increases in biodiversity in 800 years following the flood? Another thing you're just going to skip over? Another think you're going to lie repeatedly about?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 24 2006,11:11



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE DESPERATE DARWINISTS UNMASKED
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Desperate? Who can blame us? What with the unbroken string of court victories of the creationists, and the already infinitesimal and rapidly diminishing ratio of evolutionist to creationist papers in academic journals and conferences?

                  And if that weren't scary enough, Jeez! Did you see all those  :D 's and exclamation points afdave is using? Omigod! He must be supremely and justifiably confident of the strength of his position. I don't know about you guys, but I'm quaking in my boots!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,13:27

                  Once again, Dave, you didn't answer what I asked. You do this each time you are faced with a direct challenge. I said I would make a wager with you, Dave. You didn't accept any terms, but claim it was about money. I don't want money, Dave.
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 23 2006,10:33)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Interesting, Dave.
                  You are unqualifiedly saying you "know" what MacNeil is thinking even at this moment? That you KNOW your "interpretation" is precisely what he thought when he wrote that?
                  Care to back that up, Dave? Or is it just another of your many lies?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And:
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 23 2006,10:56)

                  Here are your EXACT words that YOU claim MacNeil will agree to, Dave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted.  This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I say you are a liar, there, too. CARE TO TAKE ME UP ON THAT?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't want money, Dave.I have money. So I didn't offer to make a wager based on money. I want you to accept my challenge to you, and take me up on a wager. I want your worthless word that you will TAKE A PUBLIC WAGER...YES OR NO, DAVE. THAT IS ALL I ASKED. YES OR NO.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,14:21

                  Well ... let's see ... so far it's only Faid and Eric that have jumped on the "That's Not What a Flagellar Motor Really Looks Like" bandwagon.

                  Anyone else?

                  Mike PSS ... I was working from memory about Talk Origins ... I thought you said you wrote some articles for Talk Origins back when first joined my thread ... No?  Ok, then.

                  Faid ... I'll set you straight on MacNeill another day.

                  Russell ... I meant "desperate" regarding the flagellum argument and I was only referring to the Darwinists here--specifically Eric and Faid.

                  Deadman ... your public wagers have proven worthless, but I'll argue the point all you care to.  There's no getting around it ... MacNeill said what he said.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,14:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,14:21)
                  Well ... let's see ... so far it's only Faid and Eric that have jumped on the "That's Not What a Flagellar Motor Really Looks Like" bandwagon.

                  Anyone else?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gee, Dave, I see your selective reading skills are still in top shape. Just about everyone here agrees that flagella barely even resemble human-designed motors. If you think that's incorrect, then I'd ask you to post a list of people here whom you think agree with you that flagella bear a close physical resemblance to human-designed motors. It will be interesting to see how people react to seeing their positions stated thusly.

                  Do you have the cojones to do that, Dave? Or is this just another one of your utterly foundationless claims?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ... I'll set you straight on MacNeill another day.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No you won't, Dave. You're utterly, desperately wrong with your MacNeill quote, everyone here knows it, and I think even you know it. If you thought you had a prayer of persuading anyone that you know what MacNeill means better than MacNeill knows what MacNeill means, you'd state it right here.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ... I meant "desperate" regarding the flagellum argument and I was only referring to the Darwinists here--specifically Eric and Faid.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, first, you don't have a "flagellum argument." The flagellum doesn't look particularly like any human-designed motor, it doesn't work particularly like any human-designed motor, but even if it did, that is exactly zero evidence that any flagellum was ever designed by anyone, not even humans. So the only scent of "desperation" wafting around here is coming from your general direction.

                  And what's this? Now Faid and I are the only "Darwinists" here? Whatever the $%^* "Darwinist" even means. If you mean people who believe the Theory of Evolution is a correct accounting for observation at least in its broad outlines if not in every single detail, then the only person here who is not a "Darwinist" is YOU.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman ... your public wagers have proven worthless, but I'll argue the point all you care to.  There's no getting around it ... MacNeill said what he said.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's not the wager, Dave, and you know it. The wager is, how are you going to back up your claims that you know what MacNeill meant when he wrote that quote you so tirelessly repost (despite the fact that it undercuts your argument)? There's no doubt MacNeill wrote what he wrote. What's in dispute is your interpretation of what he wrote. I would bet a month's salary that MacNeill is not claiming that the ToE is falsified. Would you take me up on that bet, Dave? Would you put your monthly income up on being able to get a verifiable statement from MacNeill himself where he states that in his opinion the Theory of Evolution has been falsified?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,14:58



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman ... your public wagers have proven worthless, but I'll argue the point all you care to.  There's no getting around it ... MacNeill said what he said.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Again, that's not what I asked, Dave. I asked if you were willing to accept a wager. You have yet to answer that with a "yes" or a "no."  I am not interested in "arguing" because you will retreat into one of your well-worn hiding holes:
                  You will pretend not to understand, you will ignore questions,
                  you will pretend to have answered things that you have not answered,
                  you will try to cover a lack of response with mockery,
                  you will reverse your position and claim it was what you thought all along,
                  you will try to find shelter in ambiguity, fallacies, rhetorical games and semantic sleight-of -hand.

                  I am asking you directly for a yes or no response to my offer of a wager, Dave. I am willing to discuss the terms of the wager, but for now, I just want your word that you will accept it. You have never done this. If you say you have , show me where you have directly accepted a challenge and agreed to terms.

                  And on that note, Dave: My public wagers have included what, Dave? And you deem them "worthless" because of what? You seem to avoid specifics every time you feel threatened by a direct challenge, Dave. BE SPECIFIC, cite actual incidents and provide links, Dave. Don't claim you can't copy and paste a link to a page, Dave: you've done that before.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 24 2006,15:33

                  *sigh*

                  You are easier to read than a childrens' book, dave. Do you think we don't understand what you're going to do now?

                  You're going to turn about, and claim that you were never discussing about how smoothed out and rounded and symmetrical the flagellum appeared, just about his assembly and function, and how that resembles man-made motors.

                  There, that wasn't that hard, was it?

                  You'll be lying again, of course, since you relied heavily on "appearance" and "intuition" on your previous posts but, well, that hasn't stopped you before, has it now?
                  And, of course, it will be equally pointless to switch to that argument -but I'll let you find that out for yourself. :)

                  Anything to keep the discussion away from all those questions you can't (or won't) answer, I see. Oh well, nothing new. And don't worry: You can NEVER avoid questions like these, no matter which subject you choose (remember the SUN question?).
                  They don't appear to haunt you because of this or that issue. They appear because you are hopelessly, fundamentaly WRONG about EVERYTHING. There are NO safe issues for you.

                  And that's why your fate is to constantly run away- like now:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Faid ... I'll set you straight on MacNeill another day.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Suuure you will, dave. Sure you will. :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,16:07

                  And while you're pondering whether you actually have to testicles to even agree to a wager, Dave, let's have a look at the question of mine you claim to have already answered. You know, the one that's at the bottom of every message I post?

                  Well, here's one of the many, many, many ways your "hypothesis" fails, Dave. Usually, when a scientist (or even a person with a brain) proposes a hypothesis that leads to two mutually contradictory predictions, that's a pretty good, nay conclusive, sign that there's something fatally wrong with the hypothesis.

                  Well, where are the two mutually contradictory predictions your "hypothesis" makes, Dave? Glad you asked. Here they are:

                  • The genomes of complex eukaryotes are degenerating, leading to the extinction of such organisms within approximately 300 generations;
                  • The several thousand "kinds" present on Noah's ark diversified out into the several million species in existence today due to the "genetic richness" of those "kinds" in approximately 800 years.

                  Now, you're not the most rational person (or even creationist) I've ever met, Dave, but I'm hoping you'll agree, at minimum, that the above two predictions (whether or not you agree that they're predictions of your "hypothesis") are, in fact, mutually contradictory. They cannot possibly both be correct, can they?

                  [ ] Y
                  [ ] N

                  Okay, now let's see if either one of these predictions is actually correct. Let's take the first one first. Now, you claim that the genomes of complex eukaryotes are degenerating rapidly (I would say virtually instantaneously, on any sort of realistic geological timescale), leading to the extinction of most of these organisms within 300 generations or so.

                  It may surprise you to find out, Dave, that the vast majority of complex eukaryotes have a mean generation time of one year or less. Virtually all (with the exception of a very few examples of megafauna) have a generation time of less than five years, and an even smaller number have a generation time measured in decades.

                  What this implies, of course, is that most complex eukaryotes should have been extinct within half a millennium of the "flood," or approximately four thousand years ago. Basically all we should be left with is a few species of megafauna with generation times measured in decades. All the bunnies, kittens, puppies, etc., should be gone, leaving a few species of, e.g., parrots, reptiles, great apes, elephants, etc. The planet should be mostly barren of life, shouldn't it? Even humans, who have been around for a bit more than 200 generations since the flood, should be genetic basket cases, with huge numbers of fatal genetic defects and a very high infant mortality rate as a result.

                  Isn't this what we should see, Dave? I mean, is there a flaw in my logic? You said 300 generations, didn't you? Even if you said a thousand, or two thousand, we'd still be left with precious little in the way of biodiversity. And I'd think, given your unshakeable faith in written records, that we'd see lots of musings in written records about how there used to be so many more organisms out there, and now there are hardly any left. Are you aware of any such written records, Dave? Sure, we hear about unicorns, griffins, dragons, etc., but hardly any of these even appear in the fossil record, so either they never existed, or they only existed after your "flood." But there are still plenty of bunnies, kittens, puppies, etc., and these organisms all have a generation time of a year or so. Why are they still here?

                  Okay, so it at least appears that your first prediction is in trouble. What about your second prediction?

                  Well, that one appears to be on life support, too.

                  You claim, via Ayala, that there's no problem with getting huge amounts of biodiversity from tiny amounts of biodiversity in record time by relying on the pre-existing "genetic variability" present in the organisms that lived before the "flood." I'm not going to spend too much time demolishing this argument, because I've already done it a dozen times, but I will give you the opportunity to try to defeat my argument, which is that virtually all, probably 99.999%, of that "pre-existing genetic variability" was wiped out by your slate-wiping "global catastrophic flood," which presumably wiped out everything that couldn't live submerged under a mile of water for a year. Of the organisms which couldn't survive such long-term immersion in some sort of water (fresh or salt; Dave isn't sure which), the only ones which survived were the ones on the ark. According to Dave, there were at most seven mating pairs of such organisms, but more typically one mating pair. Given that one mating pair is the smallest genetic bottleneck it is even theoretically possible to survive, pretty much the maximum amount of "genetic variability" possible to eliminate without eliminating the species (or is it "kind"?) was, in fact, eliminated. Therefore, the amount of "genetic variability" remaining after the Noachian flood was very close to the theoretical minimum amount of genetic variability possible without driving the species (or is it "kind") instantly to extinction.

                  And to make matters even worse for this prediction, there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that biodiversity has ever increased during historical times (which, according to your "hypothesis" is all the time there is). Humans were certainly literate during the time after the flood, or at least had some sort of oral tradition (although admittedly they seem to have completely missed the boat on your "ice age"), so one would expect some of them to have noticed an extraordinary increase in biodiversity in a few centuries. I believe it would take about ten doublings of biodiversity to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species in 800 years. That's a doubling every 80 years, Dave, and it seems hard to believe such a sustained increase could have gone completely unnoticed by the humans who lived through it.

                  So. It looks like neither one of your predictions can survive even the most cursory inspection, Dave. But it's even worse for your "hypothesis" if both were to survive, because they cannot possibly both be true.

                  Now, this post took a while to type up, Dave, so I'd really appreciate it if you could take some time out from dodging and tap-dancing around all the other questions you cannot answer, and see if you can give this question some time:

                  How is it possible that biodiversity can be both increasing and decreasing at the same time?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 24 2006,16:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Gee, Dave, I see your selective reading skills are still in top shape. Just about everyone here agrees that flagella barely even resemble human-designed motors. If you think that's incorrect, then I'd ask you to post a list of people here whom you think agree with you that flagella bear a close physical resemblance to human-designed motors.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, the funny thing here is that dave doesn't even know that not even Dembski and Behe say that. On the contrary: They are desperate to show that detecting design is NOT just a "looks designed to me" argument, because they know noone would take them seriously in that case (much like AFDave :) ). So they try to invent probability thresholds and "CSI" calculations and terms like "Irreducibly complex" and such, to make it look like there's a shred of science in what they preach...

                  ...And people like Dave simply say "all I need to know is that it looks designed to me" and ruin everything. :)




                  Hey dave, why just the flagellum? Why not the secretion system? its models are nice and roundish, too. why not ANY cellular organ?

                  ...But wait, you think those ARE designed, too. You think EVERYTHING is designed...
                  ...Including the SUN? :p
                  What ISN"T designed, dave? And how can you TELL?


                  PS. Eric, I would only wish for your patience. Not many of us have the stamina to thoroughly explain to dave, word for word, fact for fact, just how illogical and ridiculous and just plain stupid he's being... all the time knowing how pointless banging against the concrete wall of his pride and ignorance is. I admire you sir.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 24 2006,16:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,15:21)
                  Mike PSS ... I was working from memory about Talk Origins ... I thought you said you wrote some articles for Talk Origins back when first joined my thread ... No?  Ok, then.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank You Dave.  Wouldn't want to misrepresent myself even at the fault of others.

                  Remember, the PSS stands for "Project Steve Sibling".  My brother is < on this list. >
                  Here's a little bit about < Project Steve. >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,16:53

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 24 2006,16:07)
                  PS. Eric, I would only wish for your patience. Not many of us have the stamina to thoroughly explain to dave, word for word, fact for fact, just how illogical and ridiculous and just plain stupid he's being... all the time knowing how pointless banging against the concrete wall of his pride and ignorance is. I admire you sir.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, remember: I'm not doing it for Dave's sake. I've long since concluded he's unreachable.

                  But I want to make sure any casual lurkers (some of whom might actually be creationists, or have creationist leanings) don't think there's actually any substance to Dave's arguments. Because there isn't any.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,17:19

                  Mike ... ah yes ... that was it ... it was your brother ... I thought I remembered something like that.

                  Remember, boys ... "Bacterial flagella are NOT rotated by motors!  Hail Darwin!"  That's your party line ... don't forget it!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,17:28

                  Wait a minute, Dave. You seem to be congenitally confused about whether the referenced picture is, or is not, an actual electron micrograph of a bacterial flagellum. Today, you seem to be pretty sure it is one:

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,08:30)
                  Of course I read the caption ... it doesn't change a thing ... he's talking about how the micrograph was made.

                  Do you think this Harvard prof is such an idiot that he would post a picture in his article that does NOT resemble the real thing?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  But only yesterday, you seemed pretty sure you couldn't represent a flagellum except with "representative drawings or computer simulations."

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:33)
                  Russell-- In case it has not occurred to you, the ONLY possible way a scientist can show a picture of a flagellar motor is with representative drawings or computer simulations.  Has it occurred to you that one cannot see a flagellar motor with the naked eye because it is so small?  You would think that a professor with a PhD in life sciences would not be arguing such an inane point.  Do you actually dispute that these diagrams I have posted (some from a Harvard professor) are not very close to the real thing?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, which is it, Dave? You don't seem to really know one way or another. Or, you just change your position depending on whatever seems appropriate at the time, or allows you to duck the question.

                  I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: you can't even keep track of your own claims.

                  This is a common problem liars have, Dave. It's a dead giveaway.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,18:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,17:19)
                  Remember, boys ... "Bacterial flagella are NOT rotated by motors!  Hail Darwin!"  That's your party line ... don't forget it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, are you saying this, or do you think we're saying this? Either way, you're wrong.

                  No one here denies that the bacterial flagellum is some sort of motor, in that it converts some sort of energy into some sort of motion. What everyone here is denying is that 1) the bacterial flagellum (any of them; there are dozens) bears anything more than the most superficial resemblance physically, and hardly any resemblance at all in terms of operation, to human-designed motors; and 2) even if there were a resemblance, either physically or in terms of working principles, that wouldn't even begin to rise to the level of proof, or even evidence, that the bacterial flagellum would also have to have been designed.

                  This is about the dumbest strawman argument (i.e., this claim that we don't believe a flagellum is any sort of "motor") you've ever raised, Dave. Why? Because you've been informed over and over and over again that no one here denies that the flagellum is some sort of motor.

                  You really should stop basing your assumptions as to others' intelligence on your own intelligence, Dave. You're going to keep underestimating everyone else.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 24 2006,20:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,04:51)
                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  Think they're not getting desperate?  Think again.  Even other-wise-level-headed Argystokes is finally jumping on the "Liar-liar-pants-on-fire" bandwagon.  Argy ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You've been caught blatantly lying, so you obviously don't have the honesty high ground.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course, he doesn't bother to say WHAT I lied about, much less prove it.

                  The thing is Argy, when your team calls me a liar almost every day for 8 months, sometimes several times a day, it kinda loses it's force.  Honest people begin to recognize that I'm not a liar at all.  They realize that you're just miffed and can't think of a substantive thing to say at the moment.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good thing for me Faid keeps your lies nice and handl-y...otherwise I might need to search the thread for a few minutes:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

                  "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I will note that the second quote is from the day after the first quote. So yes, I don't have any trouble backing up my claim that you've blatantly lied on this thread.

                  Why do you have to lie, Dave, if you have the truth on your side? A lurker wouldn't even need to understand the science to know you're full of it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,20:21

                  Oh I see ...

                  Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.

                  I forgot that there are special Darwinist definitions for many words ... now we have proprietary definitions for

                  LIE
                  ERROR
                  MOTOR
                  INTUITION

                  ... anything else?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,20:30



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, like you saying you KNEW about my work, my religious views,  my charity, claiming that I had said that sediments could NOT be dated even when I posted up FIVE times that you were falsely using that--and you ACKNOWLEDGED it twice.Yeah, little things like those are outright lies.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 24 2006,20:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,18:21)
                  Oh I see ...

                  Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.

                  I forgot that there are special Darwinist definitions for many words ... now we have proprietary definitions for

                  LIE
                  ERROR
                  MOTOR
                  INTUITION

                  ... anything else?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, you're saying that you can neither keep track of your own arguments nor remember what you said the day before? I'll retract my most recent liar claim if you admit both of those.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 24 2006,20:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,15:21)
                  Faid ... I'll set you straight on MacNeill another day.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why don't you just ask him to come here and clarify his statements himself?  That would certainly settle things.  Allen is no stranger to Panda's Thumb, so it shouldn't be too difficult getting him to comment here.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 24 2006,21:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,20:21)
                  Oh I see ...

                  Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Dave, are you saying you unintentionally misrepresented Ayala's statements about "genetic variability," even after I pointed out to you the problems with it? You're saying you didn't realize you were wrong about Ayala's point, even after I explained to you that you were wrong?

                  You don't really expect us to believe that you were unintentionally misrepresenting Ayala's views, do you? I mean, you can't be that idiotic. Can you?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,21:16

                  There's a few "universal" excuses used by humans -- things like " I didn't know" or " I didn't mean to," or "I must have forgotten." These things are used by people across the board to excuse almost every lie.

                  Theoretically, almost every lie you've told here can be said by you to be "not lies" by using one of those excuses, Dave. And why shouldn't you? You certainly don't have the moral fiber to do otherwise.

                  But IF...**IF** I said right now that I KNEW you were a child-killer, Dave, just based on your words here on this board...would that be a lie? I have never met you, I don't KNOW you personally, nor do I have ANY evidence to back my accusation. Such things would mark me as a liar. I could rightly be sued for such a claim, Dave, and a judge would find me a liar if I used any excuses like you use.

                  When YOU claimed to KNOW about my work and religious views, you lied flat-out, Dave. It is JUST the same as the scenario I laid out above. I COULD NOT KNOW ANY SUCH THING, I DON"T KNOW YOUR PERSONAL LIFE...but YOU claimed to know MINE.

                  Why do you think I despise you, Dave? It's not because you're a creationist...I have 2 "friendly" acquaintances  that are creationists, it's not because you're a Christian -- I adore my neighbor who is a good and decent Christian, as as are several others that I know.

                  It's because you are willing to say that you KNOW things that you CANNOT KNOW. You are willing to LIE about me...and a great many other things. Yes, you can find excuses for the vast majority of those..but there is no excuse for claiming that you KNOW things about a stranger that you DO NOT KNOW personally.

                  This is why I view you as the scum of the Earth, Dave, and why I KNOW you're a liar. You're just another nutcase religionist claiming to "know" and willing to lie about virtually anything to gain power over others.

                  You know how this could have been avoided, Dave? By you apologizing at the time and saying " ah, I was wrong"...but you never did, nor have you even come close to that in the months following. You just pretend it never happened. Well, great. You're a liar. Deal with it.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,21:40

                  So the Darwinists are once again reduced to whining about what a liar I am ... Deadman thinks a wrong guess about his personal life is a lie.  Argy thinks a misstatement about minutia is a lie.  Minutia, I might add, he never followed up on because he didn't even have a point. (Ames test, remember?  You were going to tell me why this helps ToE but you never did?)

                  You're representing the science establishment well, guys ... keep up the good work.  You're making my task easier.  :D

                  Improv ... I just might invite Dr. MacNeill to this thread.  Couldn't hurt to ask!

                  Again ... Merry Christmas to all the honest folk here.  :D

                  Bah Humbug to all the dishonest ones.   :angry:
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,22:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman thinks a wrong guess about his personal life is a lie.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It wasn't a "wrong guess" and it wasn't ONE. It was you claiming to KNOW about something you did not and could not know.

                  **If** I said I KNEW you were a child molestor, that is " a wrong guess?." If I said it many times and you asked me to stop, pointing to where YOU SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE...would that be " a wrong guess?"

                  You have some real mental problems, Dave. I knew this a while back, based on the same sorts of claims you made...but this is simply beyond the pale.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 24 2006,22:24

                  Oh good ... now I'm a liar AND I have mental problems ...
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 24 2006,22:46

                  Alright, let me state this clearly Dave...

                  IF I went to the police and said I *knew* ( a positive statement of knowing about a given thing) that you had killed a person...and the police were credulous enough to believe me, arrested you...and it was found that I had "guessed" that it MIGHT be "true" even though I didn't KNOW you and I didn't ever SEE a body, and I had NO evidence to back my claim...could I and should I be prosecuted for filing a KNOWINGLY false police report?

                  The answer is YES. And such things have happened MANY times in the past. This is a LIE and should be treated as such. IF any such accusations could be tossed around and excused by " well, it was JUST A GUESS" then there would BE NO LAWS avaliable to deal with such lies. But there are laws dealing with precisely such lies.

                  Another example: suppose your neighbor's kid came over and said your son had done something wrong. You punish your child appropriately based on the neighbor child's word....you find out later that the neighbor child had "guessed" and did NOT know. Is it a lie? Do you tell YOUR child that it's not anyone's fault, because " well, it was a GUESS and that's just as TRUE?"

                  Imagine a man walks up to Jesus and says " this man David ben Judah is a thief" and Jesus then questions him and finds the man's utterly positive statement was " a guess" ...what do you think Jesus' view would be of the honesty of the accuser? You are kidding yourself if you believe that Jesus would say " a guess is just the same as a positive accusation"

                  You can excuse yourself by claiming " well, it was just a GUESS," but a GUESS is not the same as saying "Dave killed a person." I KNOW is not the same as I GUESS, unless you are some insane relativist that thinks the very way that you deride others for. This is also hypocrisy.

                  This is the last I will say on this matter. Feel free to excuse yourself as you see fit. It just makes it plain that your claims about religion and morality were equally false. Just because you claim to be religious...doesn't mean a #### thing about your morals or ethics. YOU claim to be religious and you have none -- what you DO have are excuses. People like you do disgust me, you make a mockery of all that IS good in your own religion.

                  My last note on this: The Greek word 'diabolos' means 'false accuser, slanderer'. It is a compound word, from dia, 'thru', and ballo, 'to cast'. In a metaphoric sense it means "to strike with an accusation or evil report." Strong's trnaslates it as "traducer," which means "false accuser." Parkhurst's translates it as "slanderer."

                  Jesus applied this to Judas. Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 24 2006,23:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] Ames test, remember?  You were going to tell me why this helps ToE but you never did?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  WHAT!? You're back on that?!
                  In what way was this not settled weeks ago?

                  Let's review:

                  You were claiming that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation. Obviously the Ames test wouldn't work if that were the case.

                  Then you were claiming that the frequency of beneficial mutations, if they occur at all, is so low it is, for any practical purpose, zero. The beneficial mutations the Ames test typically detects are on the order of one in a billion.

                  You were claiming that these two alleged problems were rendered ToE impossible. The Ames test blows that claim out of the water.

                  Do you actually have memory problems? Or is this just another round of the DaveDance, where you're going to deny the discredited claims you've made and claim that we misunderstood all along?

                  You are indeed a piece of work, afdave.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 24 2006,23:18

                  Um, I brought up the Ames Test specifically to contradict your claim that mutations couldn't increase information. You caved on that point. It also demonstrated the ability of a beneficial mutation to quickly spread through the population, but that was explained by Russell, not me.

                  And you know what it'll take for me to retract my claim that you lied about the information thing. The two choices are exhaustive, you know. It's your choice.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 25 2006,00:19

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 23 2006,13:51)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 23 2006,10:47)
                  Ayala says Darwin was wrong about mutations.  He says they are a mere trickle compared to pre-existing variability.  

                  And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you can refute my argument re "genetic variation," then I'll stop calling you an idiot.

                  You keeping bringing up Ayala, despite the fact that I've patiently explained to you that there WAS NO "genetic variation" after your "flood." But you keep using it as a way to somehow drive an explosive increase in biodiversity in less than a millennium. Now, are you going to address the utter lack of genetic diversity among the survivors on the ark, or aren't you? Because it's a fatal flaw in your argument, and I'm not going to let you forget it. You'll see it in my signature in every message I post.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Like virtually all religious fanatics Dave practices 'magical thinking'.  He has learned the phrase 'pre-existing variability' as a magical incantation.  He has no understanding of what this phrase means but it comes from a member of the 'Darwinist Priesthood' so it must be terribly powerful.  He repeats it over and over hoping that if he says it just right the magic will work and his enemies will be defeated and humiliated.

                  Dave is a modern day Cargo Cultist trying to co-opt the power of Science by copying forms and phases he doesn’t understand.  Just like the native hunched over his bamboo model of a radio trying to get the airplanes full of ‘cargo’ that the ‘gods’ obviously intended for him to land at his ersatz landing strip.  
                  :)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 25 2006,01:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,21:40)
                  So the Darwinists are once again reduced to whining about what a liar I am ... Deadman thinks a wrong guess about his personal life is a lie.  Argy thinks a misstatement about minutia is a lie.  Minutia, I might add, he never followed up on because he didn't even have a point. (Ames test, remember?  You were going to tell me why this helps ToE but you never did?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave. Not minutiae. Your "hypothesis" has huge, gaping holes in it that have been pointed out to you again and again and again. These are not minutiae. They are absolutely fatal to your argument.

                  But you keep pretending either that they don't exist, or that you've already addressed them. By doing so, you are continuing to lie.

                  Frankly, Dave, I couldn't care less whether you lie or not. Who cares? The validity of your "hypothesis" doesn't stand or fall depending on whether you, personally, are a liar. Your "hypothesis" stands on whether it can withstand scrutiny. As it happens, it cannot.

                  We're not "reduced to whining about" your lying, Dave. We laid waste to every single argument you've ever advanced. I just posted a huge long message about your problems with biodiversity. I practically begged you to address the issue. Did you?

                  Of course not. You completely ignored it, as if I hadn't said anything. And you continue to pretend that my challenges to this aspect of your "hypothesis" don't exist, or that you've already dealt with them. In so doing, you are clearly, unambiguously, and indisputably lying.

                  And as to the Ames test, Dave: you were told at least four or five times how the Ames test is conclusive evidence of the ability of the ToE to explain adaptive mutations, but you ignored those explanations. They could only be given to you so many times before people gave up on your obtuseness. Your claim that this was never explained to you is in itself a lie.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 25 2006,03:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,20:21)
                  Oh I see ...

                  Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoa Whoa WHAT?

                  So, you definitely and indisputably claimed that "ALL mutations REDUCE information"...
                  ...And then, ONE DAY LATER, you UNINTENTIONALLY said "I NEVER said that"??????????


                  :O


                  Congrats dave. According to your own words, you are not a liar.

                  You are an oblivious imbecile, who has absolutely NO IDEA what he's talking about, doesn't know (or care) what his OWN ARGUMENTS are, and loses track of them within a day.

                  (and, of course, that still makes you insincere. A honest debater would admit his ignorance- not make shit up as he goes and forget about them immediately).

                  But hey: whatever works for you! :D


                  I could go on about your stupid use of the word INTUITION like before, or ask you the SUN question (that has you changing pants three times a day, apparently), but...

                  ...I think you made a fool of yourself enough for one day- especially such a joyous one.

                  So merry Giftmas, dave! I hope Santa delivers some common sense your way this year. And some humility, too.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 26 2006,08:38

                  AFD makes another empty boast.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Improv ... I just might invite Dr. MacNeill to this thread.  Couldn't hurt to ask!

                  Again ... Merry Christmas to all the honest folk here.  

                  Bah Humbug to all the dishonest ones.    
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Go ahead AFD, invite MacNeill,


                  But just so you don't squirm.

                  DEFINE MICRO and MACRO evolution with an example .......say monkey to man.

                  You're dead.....chicken.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,09:26

                  WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN A REAL UFO AT ROSWELL?



                  WHAT IF ... you lived in Roswell and you saw this spaceship land ...?
                  WHAT IF ... you watched it come to a hover, and strange life forms came beaming out the bottom then disappeared into thin air ...?
                  WHAT IF ... this happened just 3 days after a SETI Institute announcement that they had made radio contact with aliens ...?
                  WHAT IF ... you examined their spaceship and found it was made in a much different way than our technology ...?

                  What would you think?

                  You would think that this spaceship was the product of some Alien Intelligence ... that's what you'd think.  Or you would at least investigate this possibility thoroughly.

                  No IF's AND's or BUT's about it.

                  And yet, when you are shown high-technology in the cell ... you say the most empty-headed thing that can possibly be said about ANY technology.



                  "It just happened by chance and billions of years!  It's proven!  You're an idiot if you think otherwise!  That flagellar motor doesn't really look like that ... it looks like this blob picture here!"

                  ... and other non-sensical things.  

                  "UNBELIEVABLE!"  is all I can say.  When I came to ATBC I had only heard of people like you.  I had never experienced you up close and personal.  Now I see what you are really like and this will motivate me even more to educate the public.

                  ************************************************************

                  A REMEDIAL COURSE ON POPULATION GENETICS
                  One of my favorite quotes, as you know too well is Ayala's where he says that Darwin was wrong about most of the genetic variation in populations arising from new mutations at each generation.  He says they are a "mere trickle" compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."

                  Now, of course, Ayala is a committed evolutionist and he recites the Primary Religious Doctrine of ToE that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" (as opposed to my view that God is the ultimate source of all genetic variation) so I am not saying that he has become a creationist or anything.

                  What I am saying is that Darwin was wrong about mutations and Ayala says so.

                  Further, what I am doing is pointing out that Ayala acknowledges the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  He and I disagree as to the ultimate source of that "stored genetic variation" but at least we have dispensed of this commonly believed nonsense (Eric and others) that "most of the genetic variation in populations arises from new mutations."


                  WHAT ABOUT BOTTLENECKS?
                  Now Russell says, "You're a moron ... Ayala is talking about large populations, not small bottlenecks like you would have had on your ark!"

                  To which I reply ... "I agree.  why don't you try arguing something I don't agree with you on.  What's your point?"

                  And I think his point is that he thinks that you lose all the variability if you just select 2 individuals out of the population.

                  Which of course, reveals Russell's fundamental ignorance of population genetics.  He obviously hasn't bothered to read Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study which is extensively documented with non-YEC sources showing just how feasable Noah's Ark really was.

                  If Russell had read Woodmorappe's book (or my previous posts), he would know that ...

                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

                  Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Look at that, Russell ... right their in one of "your own" journals -- Evolution.

                  And you call ME a moron?

                  *************************************************************

                  THE DESPERATE DARWINIST'S EXPANDABLE WORD DEFINITIONS
                  Darwinists have gotten so desperate these days, thanks to an awakening public, that they have to resort to all kinds of low tactics to try to push their viewpoint on the rest of us.  Richard Dawkins' approach is to write books slamming religious people and proposing that we outlaw religious teaching of our kids.  Great move, professor.  Keep the stupidity flowing.  You are one of the best things that can happen to our movement!

                  A tactic used here at ATBC has been to redefine words to one's own liking ...

                  Russell once said that ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Molecular geneticists often speak, in shorthand, of “errors” in replication. This does not imply that there is a “correct” version and an “incorrect” version, relative to some ideal sequence. “Error”, in this context, means a difference between the template and the copy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I love it!  Fine, Russell, then if your geneticist friends don't mean "Error" then please ask them to use a different word.  Try "difference" maybe or, here's a thought ... why don't you get them to say it's an "improvement", huh?  After all, those mutations are the ultimate source of all variability, right?  

                  So Russell, I'll thank you if you and your fellow scientists could please not borrow words from my lexicon.  Write your own lexicon if you like, but don't hijack mine.

                  Another interesting one has been the redefinition of the word "LIE" ...

                  Best I can tell, everything that creationists say about Origins is defined as a lie, and I have recently discovered that minor misstatements of facts and wrong guesses are also defined as "lies" if they come from a creationist.

                  For example, Deadman says ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, like you saying you KNEW about my work, my religious views,  my charity, claiming that I had said that sediments could NOT be dated even when I posted up FIVE times that you were falsely using that--and you ACKNOWLEDGED it twice.Yeah, little things like those are outright lies.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  He claims I KNEW about these things about him and made up lies about him.  Here's what was really said ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Deadman... Quote Dear f-ed up DaveTard2:  "You're  going to die and MY  god is going to torture for eternity for DOUBT" makes your god look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty. You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as  you? I prefer to think that the Bible is completely wrong than to believe the existence of such an ugly little god.  The part that disgusts me at your true nature is this:   I'd bet a great deal of money you direct this  same nasty little strongarm blackmail tactic...  towards tiny kids that can't defend themselves against your terroristic shit. [AFDave]So you are concerned about kids?  Tell me ... what do you do for kids now to prove to me that you care for them?  Or are you just pretending to care about them because you don't like my beliefs? Deadman... Quote  Much like in the instance where you called my  relatives "devolved," Dave -- be glad you're not in my arm's reach. Sanctimonious hypocritical  lying power-mongering egotistic scumbag. [AFDave]Don't get mad at me. It's just historical fact [that the ancestors of the American Indians probably were able to write soon after the Tower of Babel, but later lost the ability].
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Then he answers my questions ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THere's two parts to that, so I'll actually do what you can't and won't do, DaveLiar: I'll answer you directly.  I donate money, time and my own labor each and  every year, as I have each and every year of my life since I was 24. That was many years ago,  DaveTard.  Now I'll respond to your bullshit about "you don't  even believe that the God of the Bible exists.." Really, Dave? So point to where I said that here.  Show me you have ANY honor at all, scumbag.  Show where I unequivocally rejected all concepts of god. You can't-- you hypocritical , lying, false  accuser.  I specifically rejected your cartoon version of god, Dave, and I am not like YOU.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So he says I'm lying about him because I asked what he does for kids to demonstrate his great care and concern for them.  He says I'm lying about him because I said he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists, which he agrees with.  He pretends that I accused him of rejecting all concepts of god, which I clearly did not.

                  Deadman has a real problem with word meanings, twisting of reality and anger, to name a few things.  The God of the Bible could help with all of that.  You, science student or science worker should ask yourself what other kinds of Twisting of Truth you have been subjected to by associating with people like Deadman, AKA Joseph Padilla.

                  THE REAL STORY ON THE AMES TEST AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE CONTROVERSY
                  Argystokes wants to jump on the "Liar, liar pants on fire bandwagon" ...

                  AFDAVE: "Mutations are bad for organisms... they cannot build new structures needed for macro-evo."
                  OA: "Dave, can a mutation ever add information?"
                  AFD: "I suppose it could by accident, but you'd have to have zillions of lucky accidents in a row to make anything useful." (Didn't know about Ames test at the time)
                  AFD: "The truth is that ALL mutations [taken as a whole] REDUCE information" -- the statement WITH the part in brackets is what I meant.  (The statement I typed is technically incorrect as I have now found out ... the Ames test shows that lost info can be restored -- a 1 in 4 chance.  
                  AFD: "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible." (Not technically correct since I did not include "taken as a whole".)

                  So yeah, boys, I mistyped.  Happens sometimes.  Will happen again, no doubt.

                  But a lie?  Not even close.  Can't keep track of my arguments?  No.  I know my arguments very well.  This is my argument in this case ...

                  "Mutations are bad for organisms... they cannot build new structures needed for macro-evo."

                  Can't always keep track of my exact words, sure, but my arguments are quite clear to honest people.  And I've noticed that you are speechless when it comes to answering this argument.

                  Boy you guys are desperate for anything aren't you!

                  *************************************************************

                  AND ONE LAST ITEM ... MACNEILL
                  Deadman, I'm not interested in your wagers anymore.  But why do you think my statement is wrong?  My statement that MacNeill says that the Modern Synthesis which is "Microevo=Macroevo" is dead?  He says this quite clearly and unequivocally.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 26 2006,09:46

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
                  "UNBELIEVABLE!"  is all I can say.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And here we have Dave's argument in its entirety.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 26 2006,09:50

                  Ah AFD put up or shut up.

                  It has been stated here many times your spin on MacNeills statement does not support your 7 day creation or your flud or your insistance that Adam and Eve actually existed.

                  In fact your egregious quote mining of MacNeill may not actually be appreciated by him.

                  NOW please define what you think MacNeill means by Micro and Macro evolution and I WILL invite him to refute your lies.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 26 2006,10:00

                  We're still waiting AFD.

                  What's the problem?

                  Cat got your tongue?
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 26 2006,10:13

                  Ok!...I give in and agree!...Moron's do exist!!!

                  Dave, thanks for the proof.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,10:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
                  AND ONE LAST ITEM ... MACNEILL
                  Deadman, I'm not interested in your wagers anymore.  But why do you think my statement is wrong?  My statement that MacNeill says that the Modern Synthesis which is "Microevo=Macroevo" is dead?  He says this quite clearly and unequivocally.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  It is your fevered imagination that has twisted MacNeill's words into your quoted definition of "Microevo=Macroevo is dead".

                  I've read the MacNeill quotes posted by everyone and it clearly doesn't say, imply, or even hint at the above conclusion.  Nowhere does MacNeill equate "Modern Synthesis" with "Microevolution" or "Macroevolution".

                  You're interpreting MacNeill's statement incorrectly.  THAT is why people challange you to bring MacNeill to this board.  His words are in "stone".  The interpretation of his words is what is in question here.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,10:58

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
                  A REMEDIAL COURSE ON POPULATION GENETICS
                  One of my favorite quotes, as you know too well is Ayala's where he says that Darwin was wrong about most of the genetic variation in populations arising from new mutations at each generation.  He says they are a "mere trickle" compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."

                  Now, of course, Ayala is a committed evolutionist and he recites the Primary Religious Doctrine of ToE that "mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation" (as opposed to my view that God is the ultimate source of all genetic variation) so I am not saying that he has become a creationist or anything.

                  What I am saying is that Darwin was wrong about mutations and Ayala says so.

                  Further, what I am doing is pointing out that Ayala acknowledges the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  He and I disagree as to the ultimate source of that "stored genetic variation" but at least we have dispensed of this commonly believed nonsense (Eric and others) that "most of the genetic variation in populations arises from new mutations."


                  WHAT ABOUT BOTTLENECKS?
                  Now Russell says, "You're a moron ... Ayala is talking about large populations, not small bottlenecks like you would have had on your ark!"

                  To which I reply ... "I agree.  why don't you try arguing something I don't agree with you on.  What's your point?"

                  And I think his point is that he thinks that you lose all the variability if you just select 2 individuals out of the population.

                  Which of course, reveals Russell's fundamental ignorance of population genetics.  He obviously hasn't bothered to read Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study which is extensively documented with non-YEC sources showing just how feasable Noah's Ark really was.

                  If Russell had read Woodmorappe's book (or my previous posts), he would know that ...

                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

                  Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  May I remind you that your interpretation of Ayala is clearly refuted by my outstanding question about 61 HLA-B genes appearing in less than 250 years.

                  ******************************
                  Here's where we stand on that argument at present.  My present challange to you...
                   
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 10 2006,10:39)
                  DECONSTRUCTING DAVE'S ASSERTIONS REQUIRES CAREFUL READING.  SOMETHING DAVE DOESN'T DO WITH MY ASSERTIONS (SEE PREVIOUS POST WHERE DAVE STATES THINGS I'VE REBUTTED TWO DAYS AGO).    
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,06:44)
                  Now that I've shown them that there are only 18 alleles in N. Am. occurring at a frequency greater than 1% (and we could add that there are only 74 in the chart at all), I'm not sure what the problem is any more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Here's the HLA allele table again.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Click this underlined < link to the front page. >
                  On the left there is titled Pre-defined Queries.
                  Click on 'Class I Allele Frequencies' to get the table.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Click on the arrows at the left side to expand the allele tables out.
                  There are 74 alleles present in the North American column.  My contention was that 90% of the NA alleles matched alleles from Asia-Africa-Europe.  When you compare each allele to the presence in the Europe, North-East and South-East Asia, and Sub-Sahara Africa column you find only B*3911 (also found in South America also), B*4015 (found only in NA), and B*4404 (also found in Other column).

                  So.... I count only 3 alleles out of 74 that are unique to North (or South) America.  That is a 95.9% similarity in allelic presence.  I still stand by my approximation of 90%.

                  Also,
                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
                  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.


                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your feeble attempt at rebuttal...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.
                  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.

                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Search Criteria
                  Population Area:   North America

                  Submitter: MEXGOR
                   Population: Lacandon
                     Report:  Lacandon Mayan Indians from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Carmen Alaez, M. Vazquez-Garcia, Angelica Olivo, and Clara Gorodezky  
                   Population: Seri
                     Report:  Seri from Sonora, Mexico  
                     Authors:  Infante E, Alaez C, Flores H, Gorodezky C.  
                  Submitter: USAERL
                   Population: Canoncito
                     Report:  Cañoncito Navajo from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Maya
                     Report:  Maya from Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 17
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Pima 99
                     Report:  Pima from Arizona  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Sioux
                     Report:  Sioux from South Dakota  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                   Population: Zuni
                     Report:  Zuni from New Mexico  
                     Authors:  Steven J. Mack, Rosario Castro, Andrea J. Jani, Laura N. Geyer, Gary M. Troup, Alan Keel, Edward T. Blake, Robert C. Williams, and Henry A. Erlich  
                  Submitter: USALEF
                   Population: Yupik
                     Report:  Yup'ik Eskimo from Yukon-Kuskokwim delta, Alaska  
                     Authors:  Mary S. Leffell, M. Daniele Fallin, Henry A. Erlich, Marcelo Fernandez-Vina, William H. Hildebrand, Steven J. Mack and Andrea A. Zachary  
                  Submitter: USAMFV
                   Population: Amerindian
                     Report:  Native American from the United States  
                     Authors:  K. Cao, M.A. Fernández-Viña
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  My counter to your feeble attempt...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,11:38)
                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  PROGRESS.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on! ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AND REGRESSION.
                  Dave, don't talk to me about the table.  DISPROVE IT YOURSELF.  POST A COGENT REBUTTAL.
                  I AM saying there was no hanky panky (not sure if all the tribes subscribe to your definition of mairriage in this case) related to the sampled population.  The Citation specifically eliminates this posibility.
                  GO AND REFUTE THE CITATION.  I BELIEVE THEM UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.  IF YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD CAN PROVE WITH DATA AND REFERENCE THAT THIS CITATION IS INVALID THEN I'LL TREAT THAT AS A PROPER REBUTTAL.
                  YOUR APPEAL TO INCREDUALITY IS NOT CONVINCING.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  I can read into data a little better than you apparently.  If indigenous North America only has 3 alleles independent of Euro-Asia-Africa between the end of the ice age and 1492 (~3700 years) then how do you explain 61 mutations in only 250 years.
                  Did the end of the ice age depress the mutation rate?
                  Did the ice age accellerate the mutation rate?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And my supporting source data to back up my counter-point...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's a reference for you Dave.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  American Indian mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Data: A Comprehensive Report of their Use in Migration and Other Anthropological Studies
                  < http://www.iiirm.org/publica....DNA.pdf >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Although the article is a little long in detail, look at the Appendix pp.45-133.  Read some of the Study Summaries to see how each study population was selected as indigenous.  This type of analysis is done to verify the the individuals as valid sample participants.

                  Hope this helps,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And finally you running away...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,17:26)
                  Argy ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't think 61 alleles arose in 250 years.  I think it was much fewer than this, the balance being due to admixture (i.e. Mike's indigenous people aren't quite as purebred as he imagines).  My point has simply been to show that this "500 alleles in 250 years" stuff is nonsense.  At this point, I have investigated this topic enough to see that, once again, most of the objections to the Biblical account of Origins are hot air.  Have I made a watertight case for believing the Biblical account?  No.  And I don't think I'm going to go to the effort to get my PhD in "HLA-B Studies."  But I think anyone with an ounce of honesty can see the nature of some of the objections to the Biblical account posed on this thread, and can further see that, upon closer inspection, they simply do not hold water.  COULD some of them hold water?  Yes, possibly.  But when you've been investigating various objections for 6 months and all but one of them turn out to be weak at best, you become a bit jaded and tend not to want to go chasing all the rabbits down every trail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Declaring victory already.  Unfortunately it's all in your own mind at present.  If "61 alleles in 250 years" is no problem I suggest you get the points of this thread over to AIG so they can post it on their site.  We can have another article on their website with glaring obvious holes in reasoning.

                  Is this your "moving on..." statement or are you going to try and explain the appearance of 61 mutations appearing in a population in 250 years?

                  OR, are you going to address the admixture issue you so want to cling to (but I have reinforced at every post of additional information)?

                  No sweat Dave,
                  We can put this one to bed at the point it's at.  This board knows EXACTLY where we stand so far.  We can pick this up at any time you need.

                  However, leaving this point open means the whole earth settlement/migration issue after the flood can't be used to support your UCGH.  This issue presents a direct anomoly in this point.

                  I'm afraid you can't complete your C&D points at the present time.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,11:01

                  Ah, the sweet irony. Dr. Dave is now going to give us a "remedial course in population genetics." This from a guy who'd never heard of the term "allele" until a few months ago.

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,07:26)
                  A REMEDIAL COURSE ON POPULATION GENETICS
                  One of my favorite quotes, as you know too well is Ayala's where he says that Darwin was wrong about most of the genetic variation in populations arising from new mutations at each generation.  He says they are a "mere trickle" compared to the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, do you even read anyone else's posts? Is this going to be another situation where you have to be told five, or twenty, or a hundred times that Darwin wasn't "wrong" about mutations; he didn't even know mutations exist. Darwin had no idea where variation came from; he only knew that it exists. So how could he have been "wrong" about it?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Further, what I am doing is pointing out that Ayala acknowledges the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  He and I disagree as to the ultimate source of that "stored genetic variation" but at least we have dispensed of this commonly believed nonsense (Eric and others) that "most of the genetic variation in populations arises from new mutations."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, where do you think that "stored genetic variation" came from in the first place? It came from mutations! What Ayala is really saying is that in any given generation, the amount of pre-existing genetic variation is much larger than the number of mutations in that generation. This helps your "hypothesis" how?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHAT ABOUT BOTTLENECKS?
                  Now Russell says, "You're a moron ... Ayala is talking about large populations, not small bottlenecks like you would have had on your ark!"

                  To which I reply ... "I agree.  why don't you try arguing something I don't agree with you on.  What's your point?"

                  And I think his point is that he thinks that you lose all the variability if you just select 2 individuals out of the population.

                  Which of course, reveals Russell's fundamental ignorance of population genetics.  He obviously hasn't bothered to read Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study which is extensively documented with non-YEC sources showing just how feasable Noah's Ark really was.

                  If Russell had read Woodmorappe's book (or my previous posts), he would know that ...

                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

                  Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Look at that, Russell ... right their in one of "your own" journals -- Evolution.

                  And you call ME a moron?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Except for two things, Dave: 1) you have zero evidence that heterozygosity was high to begin with. It certainly wasn't large among the humans, since many of the (eight) individuals were related. 2) None of these investigators are talking about anything remotely similar to a single pair of organisms diversifying into an average of a thousand species in less than a millennium. Did Nei's macaques radiate into 500 separate species in 400 years, Dave? Do you have any evidence of anything remotely similar happening anywhere in the world, at any time?

                  You're not talking about a species surviving a genetic bottleneck (sure, it can happen that a species will survive reduction to a single mating pair, but how likely is it to happen not just with one species, but with thousands of species). It's just not survival you need here; it's an explosive increase in biodiversity that makes the Cambrian "explosion" look like a wet firecracker.

                  So it's still true, Dave, that Ayala doesn't help you. Remember, you were claiming "genetic richness" that you still don't have. No matter how you slice it, virtually all of whatever "genetic richness" you had before the "flood" was gone after the flood. That most species didn't go extinct due to the genetic bottleneck doesn't save your bacon.

                  And you still haven't explained why, with all these degenerate genomes, there's hardly any complex life left.

                  So again, while you may not actually be an idiot, Dave, you sure do sound like one.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,11:02

                  I'm the one with the fevered imagination ... ??

                  Here's MacNeill's words ...

                  Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis” ...

                  How much more clear can you get?

                  Or how about this ...?

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  Fevered imagination!  C'mon Mike ... how about some of of that intellectual honesty that you all say you have and say I don't have.

                  And no, I didn't bring up HLA again.  I showed you long ago how baseless your assertions were.  Not going there again.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,11:08

                  And by the way Dave,  here's the unanswered Rb-Sr Isochron argument you've been avoiding for quite some time.

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 10 2006,18:16)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
                  AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
                  {big, mondo snip}
                  Mike PSS...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

                  Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Here's your original question that I answered in my < response > you quoted above.  Compare the bolded statements and tell me where I got your claim wrong WHEN I RETYPED YOUR RESPONSE QUESTION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD.  The only words missing are "Deep Timers cannot prove" and I've told you time and again that I'm not discussing time.  I've also avoided the words "prove/proven" and "truth/truthiness" because in my eyes they are loaded statements.      
                  Quote (afdave @ (Oct. 06 2006 @ 23:40))

                  Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

                  "Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

                  You fill in the blank.

                  Or ...

                  "Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Moving on from another Portuguese moment.....

                  Before I made my summary on page 7 of this thread, I read ALL the references you cited with Arndts and Overn.  I then read Dalrymples five point rebuttal.  Then I read Arndts and Overns reply to Dalrymples rebuttal.  I then searched my textbooks, the web, and one other source (which I shall remain quite about for now) to find cross-referenced sources for both sides of the claim.  I then prepared my summary after researching ALL (both sides) of the information.

                  I answered Arndts and Overns mixing claim in my < summary > and expanded on this information with a < reply > to clarify some questions you had.  My summary and reply (click on those underlined words for the Permalink) are a DIRECT REFUTATION of Arndts and Overns WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON CLAIMS.

                  Dave, I know this whole Isochron thing is WAYYYYYY in the past (started at least two weeks ago, long time on this thread) but the only response I've got from you is sidestep and obfuscation when I meet your stated format.

                  If you don't understand the material in my summary and replies then please ask directly.  I am answerring the claims of Arndts and Overn dealing with whole rock Isochrons, you just may not recognize it if you don't understand all the material I presented.

                  At least we are making progress and your positon with Mineral Isochrons is clear.  I think I can work with this, but give me a day or so.

                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,11:13

                  Mike--  You seem like a decent guy, so I'll be easy on you.  But you might want to keep track of what you say.  You wouldn't want people laughing at you when you say this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS Oct. 19 2006,21:20    

                  So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which I totally refuted.

                  And now you say this ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You were way, way off on the 500 thing, which you now admit.  And I explained the 61 thing to you already.  I'm not going through it again.  Buy the book, please.

                  This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

                  It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 26 2006,11:23

                  I thought this thread was about ADave's Creator God Hypothesis! When are we going to get back to that?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 26 2006,11:28

                  afdave:
                  You're recycling the same old garbage, giving absolutely no indication that you're making any attempt to understand any of our efforts to guide you as to why (not just that) you are at odds with the entire scientific world. (Hint: it's not because the entire scientific world is blind, brainwashed, or stupid.)

                  It's for this reason that I've resolved to < check in on this thread for the last time on December 31 >.

                  It's also for this reason that I'm not going to waste time explaining in detail, yet again, all the errors (intentional or otherwise) in your last post. Instead, I'm just going to recycle the same objections you never acknowledge.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And yet, when you are shown high-technology in the cell ... you say the most empty-headed thing that can possibly be said about ANY technology.

                  "It just happened by chance and billions of years!  It's proven!  You're an idiot if you think otherwise!  That flagellar motor doesn't really look like that ... it looks like this blob picture here!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one said that. Remember? Evolution requires variation ***PLUS SELECTION***

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A REMEDIAL COURSE ON POPULATION GENETICS

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Taught by... you??? Davy? Have you ever even taken a course on population genetics? Have you ever taken a course on genetics at all?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  One of my favorite quotes, as you know too well is Ayala's where he says that Darwin was wrong about most of the genetic variation in populations arising from new mutations at each generation...
                  What I am saying is that Darwin was wrong about mutations and Ayala says so.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Darwin was wrong? We're talking here about Charles Darwin, right? The guy who, as I pointed out, and you ignored, two days ago, didn't know what DNA was, didn't know that chromosomes existed, had no idea about Mendelian genetics? That Darwin? In light of all that, what do you suppose he could possibly have even meant by "mutations"? What exactly, did Darwin (whom, you admitted, you have never read except in carefully quote-mined snippets) say about mutations that was wrong? What did he say about mutations at all?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Which of course, reveals Russell's fundamental ignorance of population genetics.  He obviously hasn't bothered to read Woodmorappe's book
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What more can I say? This quote is distilled, crystallized, humor itself. Pointing out why would just be gilding the lily.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Look at that, Russell ... right their in one of "your own" journals -- Evolution.

                  And you call ME a moron?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, I guess I do. Perhaps I was being a little harsh, though. Tell you what. If you assure me that you have actually read the Evolution article you cite, and not just the snippets quote-mined by your creationist friend Woodforbraines, I take it all back. Otherwise, yes, I'm afraid you are a moron... at best.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Darwinists have gotten so desperate these days
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right. It's that unbroken string of legal defeats and infinitesimal and rapidly shrinking ratio of evolution to creationism articles in academic journals and professional conferences that has us scared poopless.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I love it!  Fine, Russell, then if your geneticist friends don't mean "Error" then please ask them to use a different word.  Try "difference" maybe or, here's a thought ... why don't you get them to say it's an "improvement", huh?  After all, those mutations are the ultimate source of all variability, right?

                  So Russell, I'll thank you if you and your fellow scientists could please not borrow words from my lexicon.  Write your own lexicon if you like, but don't hijack mine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  YOUR lexicon? Oh, brother! If I didn't know better, I'd say you've gone off the deep end. This is the kind of pathetic word game that convinces me you are not worth my time. Lurkers: one last chance. If there's anyone out there that thinks this line of argument is worthy of anyone older than 10 years old, speak up now or forever hold your peace.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave: ]"The truth is that ALL mutations [taken as a whole] REDUCE information" -- the statement WITH the part in brackets is what I meant.  (The statement I typed is technically incorrect as I have now found out ... the Ames test shows that lost info can be restored -- a 1 in 4 chance.  
                  AFD: "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible." (Not technically correct since I did not include "taken as a whole".)

                  So yeah, boys, I mistyped.  Happens sometimes.  Will happen again, no doubt.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah. No doubt it will.

                  See, this is the kind of dishonesty that not only convinces me that your particular act here is unworthy of further attention, but that tends to prejudice folks like me against your religion as a moral system, as well as a science text. It's plain to everyone, including you, dave, that "ALL" is incompatible with "[taken as a whole]". The two expressions contradict one another. You're asking us to believe that you inadvertantly omitted "taken as a whole"? And you inadvertantly used the word "ALL"? And inadvertantly put it in all caps? (I can't remember whether you inadvertantly bolded it; can't be bothered to check.)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But a lie?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Absolutely.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Boy you guys are desperate for anything aren't you!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, in light of the pathetic position of creationism in the reality-based community, your repeated use of "desperate" is just Black Knight bluster and bravado. I suppose it would arouse pity if it weren't so darn hilarious.

                  I'll let Deadman straighten you out on MacNeill. For now let me just not that:
                  MacNeill does not equate ToE and "modern synthesis"
                  MacNeill does not equate "modern synthesis" with "micro = macro"
                  MacNeill does not know less about what MacNeill "really means" than you do.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,11:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:02)
                  I'm the one with the fevered imagination ... ??

                  Here's MacNeill's words ...

                  Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis” ...

                  How much more clear can you get?

                  Or how about this ...?

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  Fevered imagination!  C'mon Mike ... how about some of of that intellectual honesty that you all say you have and say I don't have.

                  And no, I didn't bring up HLA again.  I showed you long ago how baseless your assertions were.  Not going there again.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK Dave.  Let's parse your favorite MacNeill passage then.  
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714#more-1714 >

                  Your contention is...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "MICRO=MACRO DOCTRINE" = MODERN SYNTHESIS = DEAD
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So we start off with...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Allen_MacNeill  // Oct 17th 2006 at 6:35 pm
                  Before people on this list start hanging the crepe and breaking out the champagne bottles, I would like to hasten to point out that evolutionary theory is very much alive. What is “dead” is the core doctrine of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” that based all of evolution on gradualistic changes in allele frequencies in populations over time as the result of differential reproductive success.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, well, well.  It seems that MacNeill has DEFINED what he means my "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" in the first paragraph.  Good for him.  Now, everytime we read "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" in the following comments we know what it means.

                  Modern Evolutionary Synthesis = gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.

                  Continuing...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This idea was essentially based on theoretical mathematical models originally developed by R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, with some experimental confirmation (using Drosophila) by Theodosious Dobzhansky and field observations (chiefly of birds) by Ernst Mayr (with some supporting observations on the fossil record by G. G. Simpson and plants by G. Ledyard Stebbins). Its high water mark was the Darwin centennial celebration at the University of Chicago in 1959, which most of the aforementioned luminaries attended, and which has been chronicled by Ernst Mayr and William Provine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So MacNeill then clarifies his definition with some historical facts surrounding the term.

                  Let's continue...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  However, cracks were already showing in the “synthesis” by 1964, when W. D. Hamilton proposed his theory of kin selection. They widened considerably in 1969 when Lynn Margulis proposed her theory of serial endosymbiosis. Then, in 1972, the dam broke, when Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould published their landmark paper on “punctuated equilibrium. Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis”, Gould went on to publish yet another landmark paper with Richard Lewontin, this one undermining the “Panglossian paradigm” promoted by the founders of the “modern synthesis”:
                  that natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolutionary change at all levels, and that virtually all of the characteristics of organisms are adaptive.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So from 1964 onward, further researchers discovered kin selection, serial endosymbiosis, and punctuated equilibrium.  These discoveries overturned the DEFINITION of "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis".

                  And finally we have...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So the discovery of the neutral theory of genetic evolution disproved the MODELS UPON WHICH THE "MODERN SYNTHESIS" WAS FOUNDED.

                  Let that statement sink in a little Dave.

                  Along with the other discoveries mentioned above, the "Modern Synthesis", as defined above, was REPLACED with a BETTER EXPLANATION of what was occurring in the natural world.

                  Let's see what MacNeill says about this...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But what has come out of all of this is NOT the end of the theory of evolution, but rather its further integration into the biological sciences. Darwin only hinted at (and the founders of the “modern synthesis” mostly ignored) the idea that the “engine of variation” that provided all of the raw material for evolutionary change is somehow intimately tied to the mechanisms by which organisms develop from unicellular zygotes into multicellular organisms, and the mechanisms by which genetic information is transferred from organism to organism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It seems that MacNeill applauds the recent discoveries in evolutionary biology.  In fact, he says the recent discoveries provide a BETTER EXPLANATION for evolution than the "Modern Synthesis" did in 1959.

                  In conclusion...


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  We are now in the beginning stages of the greatest revolution in evolutionary biology since the beginning of the last century, perhaps since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. Rather than dying away to a trickle as the field of evolutionary biology collapses, the rate of publication on all aspects of evolution is accelerating exponentially. IDers and YECs who hail the “death of Darwinism” are like the poor benighted souls who hailed the death of the “horseless carriage” and the return to “normal equine transportation” in 1905 or thereabouts: they are either ignorant of the most basic principles of current evolutionary theory, or they see the onrush of the juggernaught and close their eyes to avoid witnessing the impending impact.

                  It is indeed a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist, and a wonderful time for anyone whose curiosity about nature exceeds their fear of the unknown.

                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 17, 2006 @ 6:35 pm

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think MacNeill's conclusion stands on its own without embellishment needed from me.

                  So let's review.  MacNeill states that the "Modern Synthesis" was a description of evolution before 1960.  Recent discoveries listed above have refuted the "Modern Synthesis" (as defined above) into a BETTER EXPLANATION of evolution.

                  Reading for comprehension is a skill you have yet to learn Dave.

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,11:40

                  Darwin's conception that Ayala was talking about was that small changes occur in species over time giving rise to new species.  What did those small changes come to be called?  Mutations.

                  And guess what ... Ayala says Darwin was WRONG.

                  It's pretty clear, Russell, to people who are not blinded by Darwinist Fundamentalism.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,11:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,09:02)
                  I'm the one with the fevered imagination ... ??

                  Here's MacNeill's words ...

                  Not content to pull the rug out from under the “micro=macro” doctrine lying at the heart of the “modern synthesis” ...

                  How much more clear can you get?

                  Or how about this ...?

                  And then Motoo Kimura and Tomiko Ohto dealt the “modern synthesis” its coup de grace: the neutral theory of genetic evolution, which pointed out that the mathematical models upon which the “modern synthesis” was founded were fundamentally and fatally flawed.

                  Fevered imagination!  C'mon Mike ... how about some of of that intellectual honesty that you all say you have and say I don't have.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, if you'd actually read what MacNeill says, rather that what you think he says, you'd know that the number of different mechanisms driving evolution is now known to be much larger than it was under the "modern synthesis" that MacNeill is talking about. So this is a problem for evolutionary theory how?

                  You always end up getting lost in minutiae. Your claim has always been that MacNeill is saying that the Theory of Evolution is dead. That conclusion is so utterly laughable, so demonstrably at odds with what MacNeill is really saying, that it's simply dumbfounding that you would continue to post a quote from someone, anyone, who so thoroughly undermines your argument.

                  Why do you keep doing it, Dave? It's got to be that intellectual honesty that you don't have that makes you do it.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And no, I didn't bring up HLA again.  I showed you long ago how baseless your assertions were.  Not going there again.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes you did, Dave. You claim that all the genetic variability in organisms today was there immediately after your flood. This is demonstrably incorrect. There were at most 10 HLA-B alleles among the surviving humans on the ark. There are now 500 alleles. Therefore, you need 490 alleles to have come into existence between now and then. Now, are you claiming you've proven there were more than 10 HLA-B alleles on the ark? Or that there are less than 500 now? Because if you think you've done that, you're going to need to quote where you did it, because I've read every message you've ever posted on this thread, and it's not there.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,11:45

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:13)
                  Mike--  You seem like a decent guy, so I'll be easy on you.  But you might want to keep track of what you say.  You wouldn't want people laughing at you when you say this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS Oct. 19 2006,21:20    

                  So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which I totally refuted.

                  And now you say this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You were way, way off on the 500 thing, which you now admit.  And I explained the 61 thing to you already.  I'm not going through it again.  Buy the book, please.

                  This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

                  It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Geez Dave.  In my long post above I admit that you found out that only "61 alleles" were indicated in the one source I used.  You parsed the data to come up with the correct number and I applauded you on that fact.

                  I also stated that other sources are available but you never asked for any of them.

                  Now you only have to explain how 61 HLA-B alleles showed up in the population in less than 250 years (the time between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age in the UCGH timeline).

                  YOU HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THIS AT ALL.  YOU'VE JUST PROVEN YOU CAN USE MS EXCELL TO COUNT COLUMNS AND ROWS.

                  And which book would explain this type of allelic appearance in the population?

                  Enlighten me please.  Because nowhere in your past posts have you explained anything related to the question.  Read my summary above if you have forgotten the details of this discussion.

                  You wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts about this subject to anyone else.  Would you?

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,11:48

                  CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

                  Nice performance, Mike PSS ...

                  BUT ...

                  MacNeill doesn't just say the old models of the Modern Synthesis are dead ...

                  He says "THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS DEAD"...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!
                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 16, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Squirm, Darwin Fundies!  Squirm!  Run and hide from the spotlight of truth!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,12:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:48)
                  CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

                  Nice performance, Mike PSS ...

                  BUT ...

                  MacNeill doesn't just say the old models of the Modern Synthesis are dead ...

                  He says "THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS DEAD"...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!
                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 16, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Squirm, Darwin Fundies!  Squirm!  Run and hide from the spotlight of truth!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nice post Dave.  Why don't we let MacNeill's definition sink in again.

                  Remember, this is the evolutionary MODEL prior to 1960.

                  Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.

                  This is what we're referencing here.

                  Do you disagree?   Hmmmmmm?

                  And also, can we agree that when MacNeill says "evolving synthesis" he is talking about all the recent discoveries (since 1960) that have overturned the above definition of "Modern Synthesis".

                  Hmmmmmm?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,12:08

                  Dave, with posts like this, it's pretty clear that you're living in a different universe than the rest of us. So let's see just how different that universe is:

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,09:13)
                  Mike--  You seem like a decent guy, so I'll be easy on you.  But you might want to keep track of what you say.  You wouldn't want people laughing at you when you say this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mike PSS Oct. 19 2006,21:20    

                  So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which I totally refuted.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Really, Dave? How do you think you refuted it? Did you demonstrate that somehow the eight individuals on the ark, five of whom were related to each other, had more than 10 alleles, total, for the HLA-B gene? You didn't do that, did you, Dave?

                  Or perhaps you think you've demonstrated that there are less than 500 alleles presently for the HLA-B gene. But you didn't do that, either, did you, Dave?

                  Maybe you're claiming there are more than 200 generations separating us from the flood. Well, maybe there are. Maybe there are 225, or maybe 300. There certainly aren't 400, unless you think the average human generation is less than 12 years.

                  So how did you "disprove" that you need almost 500 alleles in 200 generations, Dave? Permalink or quote; I'll be happy with either one.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And now you say this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DAVE.  IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN.  I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS.  ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS.  CHAMP.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You were way, way off on the 500 thing, which you now admit.  And I explained the 61 thing to you already.  I'm not going through it again.  Buy the book, please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. No. No. Mike was not "way, way off" with the 500 thing. There definitely are about 500 alleles for the HLA-B gene. That's not even in dispute. The whole point of Mike's argument was to find out how many different alleles would have to have arisen before humans radiated out via land bridges after the "flood" under your "hypothesis." The chart Mike referred to, which was not exhaustive, showed that an absolute, irreducible minimum of 61 alleles that were expressed in Old World and New World populations that had never admixed. So, on top of having to explain the creation of 490 alleles between the end of the flood and the present day, your "hypothesis" needed to account for an absolute bedrock-minimum of 61 alleles that appeared before humans radiated to the New World, which you seemed to agree was within a few hundred years of the end of the flood.

                  If you think you've somehow "explained" any of this, you're wrong. You never have. I can't prove you're lying about this, because it's entirely possible you think you've explained it. But you haven't. Not even close.

                  So you still need to explain the existence of all 490 alleles that have appeared in the human population since the end of the "flood," Dave. You haven't done this. You cannot do this. And it's an absolutely fatal flaw in your "hypothesis."
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,12:10

                  Mike PSS--  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmmm hmmm ...

                  AND IT'S DEAD.

                  D - E - A - D

                  DEAD.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,12:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,13:10)
                  Mike PSS--  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmmm hmmm ...

                  AND IT'S DEAD.

                  D - E - A - D

                  DEAD.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And it's been superceded by what?

                  THAT is where you fall flat on your face.

                  "Victory is Mine!" says Dave to himself.

                  The rest of us are watching in bemused pity.

                  Waterlooooooo....
                  Waterlooooooo....
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,12:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,09:40)
                  Darwin's conception that Ayala was talking about was that small changes occur in species over time giving rise to new species.  What did those small changes come to be called?  Mutations.

                  And guess what ... Ayala says Darwin was WRONG.

                  It's pretty clear, Russell, to people who are not blinded by Darwinist Fundamentalism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except Ayala says no such thing, Dave. All Ayala is saying is that at any point in time, the natural variation in a given gene pool is much larger than the number of novel mutations. How is that in any way a refutation of anything Darwin ever said? Is Ayala saying that mutations don't exist? Or that they have nothing to do with evolution? I just don't get why you think Ayala helps you, Dave.

                  It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to evolution, Dave. And besides, why are you talking about evolution? Don't you have a "hypothesis" you're supposed to be supporting? Or have you given up on that project?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,12:22

                  At this point I think Dave is only mocking himself.

                  This is beyond semantics and into morning cartoons (not the good past-primetime stuff on Adult Swim, Comedy Central).

                  I asked this before Dave.  Do you have anything else to support your UCGH.  I listed all the topics you have yet to comment on.

                  We're losing Russel in a few days.  Eventually you'll be as popular as our hero zero.  Can't wait for that.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,12:36

                  Mike PSS ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And it's been superceded by what?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The EVOLVING synthesis!   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D (My sides hurt! )

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis!
                  Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 16, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
                  < http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1711#comment-69014 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (Did someone mention a comedy show?  Boy you got that right! )
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,12:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:10)
                  Mike PSS--    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (before 1960)= gradulistic changes in allele frequency in populations over timeas the result of differential reproductive success.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmmm hmmm ...

                  AND IT'S DEAD.

                  D - E - A - D

                  DEAD.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So what, exactly, does that mean, do you think, Dave? Do you think it means that the Theory of Evolution is dead, too? Gee, from what MacNeill is saying, it sure doesn't seem so!

                  So the pre-1960 version of the "modern synthesis" is dead, replaced by the post-1960 version of the "modern synthesis." How is that different from pre-1960 models of particle physics being replaced by post-1960 models of particle physics? Why do you think this is remarkable?

                  The thing is, Dave, you have this weird idea that somehow it's a bad thing that the knowledge accumulated over the past 45 years or so in evolutionary biology supersedes earlier models. Why do you think this is a bad thing? For that matter, why do you think it's a bad thing that Darwin was wrong about some things? Of course he was wrong about some things; many things, even.

                  Unlike your claims of biblical inerrancy, no scientist makes any claims about inerrancy. And what does any of this have to do with your fatally-flawed "hypothesis," in any event?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,12:49

                  And in the meantime, you've got some 'splainin' to do of your own, Sport.

                  You still haven't explained how you get from 10 HLA-B alleles to 500 alleles in 200 or so generations.

                  You still haven't explained how it's possible, if complex eukaryotic genomes are degenerating to the point of extinction in 300 generations, there are still any complex eukaryotes left.

                  You still haven't explained how you get from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark to a few million species today, especially while those same "kinds" are all being driven to extinction at the same time.

                  And these are just the unanswered questions since the weekend, Dave. There are plenty more where that came from.

                  So instead of actually addressing the gaping holes in your own "hypothesis," you're playing word games with MacNeill, trying to get him to say something you already know there's no way in he11 he's actually saying.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,12:54

                  Hey dave, have you heard the news? Lamarckism is dead too!

                  Oh noes! What are we to do? The YECs are marching on!

                  Everybody run for the hills!


                  (hee hee hee)
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 26 2006,12:54

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ ,)
                  you're playing word games with MacNeill
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which basically boils down to being a quote mine, which is among the lowest of the low. Didn't dave learn what a bad thing quote mining is a long time ago??
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,13:00

                  Whoa whoa now just wait a minute here, dave...

                  Is your new twist going to be "When I said that ALL mutations reduce information, I meant as a whole, I didn't mean that NO mutation increases info"?

                  Seriously, is that what you're saying? CLear, definite answer, please.

                  (Because if you are- oh boy... :D )
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,13:10

                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 26 2006,10:54)
                  Which basically boils down to being a quote mine, which is among the lowest of the low. Didn't dave learn what a bad thing quote mining is a long time ago??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is kind of a long story, but I think it's germane to Dave's MacNeill post.

                  I was working on witness cross-examination prep on this trial I worked on. One thing we had noticed in earlier trial testimony was that, when we impeached a witness with deposition testimony, the government attorney would often continue reading deposition testimony into the record at trial, ostensibly to show we were taking things out of context (the trial equivalent of quote-mining) regardless of whether the additional context helped or hurt his case.

                  I came up with the idea of leaving out the last few sentences of what we would read into the record from the deposition transcript, because we knew the government attorney would keep reading for us. And it worked like a charm! We'd get the witness to say something at trial that we knew would contradict his earlier deposition testimony. Then we'd read the deposition testimony into the record, leaving out the last sentence or two, which would help our case if it were in the record, but leaving it out wouldn't particularly hurt us. And every single time, the government attorney would read in those last couple of sentences. It was really hard to keep a straight face in court.

                  But Dave's essentially done the same thing with MacNeill. He's taken a statement by MacNeill that current evolutionary theory is a better explanation for observation than 45-year-old theories, which is a completely unremarkable statement for any scientist to make in any branch of science. This statement helps Dave not at all.

                  But then he leaves in huge swaths of text that completely obliterate the point Dave is trying to make! It's obvious that MacNeill is very satisfied with the current state of affairs in evolutionary theory, and that there's no better time to be an evolutionary biologist than the present!

                  In other words, Dave can't even get his quote-mining straight.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,13:15

                  Faid ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hey dave, have you heard the news? Lamarckism is dead too!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm hmm ... and the "Evolving Synthesis" is dead too.  But MacNeill is not ready to admit that yet.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,13:20

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 26 2006,13:00)
                  Whoa whoa now just wait a minute here, dave...

                  Is your new twist going to be "When I said that ALL mutations reduce information, I meant as a whole, I didn't mean that NO mutation increases info"?

                  Seriously, is that what you're saying? CLear, definite answer, please.

                  (Because if you are- oh boy... :D )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Daaaaave... Oh Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaveeeeee...

                  Since you are still here, can I get an answer please?

                  (Oh boy this is going to be good)
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,13:25

                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 26 2006,10:54)
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ ,)
                  you're playing word games with MacNeill
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which basically boils down to being a quote mine, which is among the lowest of the low. Didn't dave learn what a bad thing quote mining is a long time ago??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Our modern-day Cargo Cultist justifies his quotes this way-

                  He quotes the parts that seem to agree with him because, well because they are obviously right.  After all they agree with him.

                  He leaves out the parts that don't agree with him because they are obviously wrong.  I mean really, how could they be right?  They disagree with Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,13:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,11:15)
                  Faid ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hey dave, have you heard the news? Lamarckism is dead too!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm hmm ... and the "Evolving Synthesis" is dead too.  But MacNeill is not ready to admit that yet.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But Dave! You need evolution more than we do! After all, we only need to get to ten million species in four billion years! You need to do it a million times as fast!

                  If there's no evolution, Dave, then where did all those critters come from? Because they sure weren't all on the ark.

                  You're not going to duck this one, Dave, because I'm going to keep bringing it up until you either try to answer it (and Ayala's off the table; there are only so many different ways to tell you you're wrong), or admit that it's a fatal flaw in your "hypothesis."

                  Since I can't even imagine you doing either, I think I'm going to be bringing this point up with you until you stop posting here.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,13:31

                  Oh come on, Eric. Cut HonestDave some slack.

                  He did say he'll get to that "when he has time", and now he obviously doesn't even have time to give a simple YES or NO to my question above. Give him a chance.

                  [smilesmilesmilesmilesmilesmile]
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,13:36

                  Ladies and Gentlemen, AFDave has left the building.

                  Dave, shall I take your hasty escape as a sign that the answer to my question:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is your new twist going to be "When I said that ALL mutations reduce information, I meant as a whole, I didn't mean that NO mutation increases info"?

                  Seriously, is that what you're saying? CLear, definite answer, please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Is YES?

                  Don't worry, I can wait.  :D
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,13:39

                  I think Dave got catnip in his stocking.

                  This type of dialogue is what I would expect from my cat after partaking in massive quantities of catnip.

                  A few "kitty downers" may do the trick Dave.  Seek vetrinary help if this affliction continues.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 26 2006,13:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's pretty clear, Russell, to people who are not blinded by Darwinist Fundamentalism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Right. Well, you let me know when one of those people manages to publish something in a reputable journal. Meanwhile, I will continue to accord you and your co-religionists the scientific respect you have earned.  0.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,14:01

                  I wonder what Dave means by the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism."

                  If one were to equate it with such terms as "Christian Fundamentalism," one would suppose a "Darwinian Fundamentalist" is someone who believes in the literal inerrancy of "On the Origin of Species." Now, by that definition, there is unlikely to be a single "Darwinian Fundamentalist" on the planet.

                  What Dave simply doesn't get about science is that it's contingent, tentative, and always subject to falsification. What he also doesn't get is that the Theory of Evolution has passed every observational test it's ever been given.

                  Dave has spent essentially no time in the past eight months defending his own "hypothesis." In those eight months, he's spent all of his time trying to find a falsification of, among other things, neodarwinian evolution. He's never been able to do it. He's never found a single observation out there for which there is no conceivable accounting under the modern Theory of Evolution.

                  But in the meantime, he's been presented with dozens of observations for which his "hypothesis" has no accounting at all. The easily observed diversity of life is only the most obvious observation his "hypothesis" cannot account for.

                  And yet somehow he thinks his "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation than the standard theories. Dave sure has a strange definition of "better."
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 26 2006,14:36

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,15:01)
                  Dave has spent essentially no time in the past eight months defending his own "hypothesis."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave just made it pretty clear that he has given up on defending it:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

                  It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,14:46

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,12:01)
                  I wonder what Dave means by the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism."

                  <snippity></snip>

                  And yet somehow he thinks his "hypothesis" is a better explanation for observation than the standard theories. Dave sure has a strange definition of "better."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Cargo Cultist Dave doesn't know what he means when he uses the term "Darwinian Fundamentalism".  All he knows is that ‘Christian Fundamentalism’ is a powerful epitaph when used by his enemies.  He tries to reformulate this incantation and use it against them, hoping without understanding that if he uses it correctly its magic will still be potent.

                  Cargo Cultist Dave has no understanding of what a hypothesis is.  Again, to him, it is just one of the powerful magical words used by his enemies and he hopes that if he recites his misunderstanding of his religion’s creation myth and anoints it with this magical word learned from his enemies that, somehow, the magic will work for him and it will become all 'scientifical' like their writings.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,14:52

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 26 2006,12:36)
                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,15:01)
                  Dave has spent essentially no time in the past eight months defending his own "hypothesis."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave just made it pretty clear that he has given up on defending it:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

                  It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You know, it's always bothered me that Dave uses the term "skeptics" to describe people who don't believe in his biblical fairytale. I think it goes a bit beyond skepticism.

                  It's not that we have our doubts as to the biblical account of creation. It's more like we know it cannot possibly be true, as the evidence contradicting it is truly galactic in size. Dave doesn't seem to realize that, contrary to his assertion that he's got "overwhelming" evidence in support of his "hypothesis," virtually all of science stands in direct opposition to his Sunday school worldview.

                  "Skeptic" doesn't really capture the flavor, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,15:01

                  And I guess what's really funny about Dave is that he thinks his "hypothesis" is somehow even in the running as any sort of accounting for observation. His "hypothesis" has essentially no explanatory value whatsoever, and it certainly can't explain anything the standard theories cannot. In fact, it can't even explain the things the standard theories can explain. Like, you know, the existence of the rest of the universe, out beyond 6,000 light years. Or the existence of the sun. Or of the earth, for that matter.

                  What's your explanation for the existence of the earth, Dave? How did it get here? Did God just press his fingers to his temples, squint his eyes up, think really hard, and "poof" it into existence? Is that the sum and substance of your explanation for the existence of the earth? Or is there more to it?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 26 2006,15:22

                  Quote (improvius @ Dec. 26 2006,14:36)
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,15:01)
                  Dave has spent essentially no time in the past eight months defending his own "hypothesis."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave just made it pretty clear that he has given up on defending it:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

                  It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Was there ever a doubt?

                  Dave has shot his load, and it turns out it was all blanks. With his "big guns" plastered, and all those points waiting to be supported in his thread (Ice age, dinosaurs living with humans etc), he has finally realized he never had a chance.
                  This point in the "discussion" is about the point where, always in his mind, he had thought he'd have demoished the arguments of his most serious opponents and have them admitting the plausibility of his theories- and he'd get all teachy and holier-than-thou, slowly swaying our hearts and gaining support...
                  ...Just like in all the prosyletizing books and pamphlets and comics he was raised reading.

                  Instead, he finds himself running away from one issue to another, having his "mentors" exposed as ignoramuses or frauds, goofing up again and again when he tries his hand at actual reasoning... Not to mention getting caught LYING all the time, especially when he tries to cover up his bloopers. Instead of the gradual but inevitable triumph he was fantasizing, he resorts to constant evading, ignoring, distorting arguments, changing claims halfway into debating them, only to face similar dead ends that only lead to embarrassment.
                  This is clearly not going the way he had planned...

                  So, what does he do? Does he even consider the possibility that he may not be correct? He11, he's a Christian (although "not religious" :p )... Does he even consider the possibilty his God might be trying to tell him something, by letting him look like a fool?

                  Naaah. He's too arrogant for that.

                  So, he has finally resorted to the only thing he could do: Become a troll.
                  He has realised that he has no chance of ever scoring a single point in this discussion- but, on the other hand, he can't just go away. His peers know of this thread: What will they say?

                  So, he'll up the "exessively annoying" factor. I predict that these childish, smiley-heavy, void of context posts by dave will become more and more common, until, pretty soon, he'll turn into another Thordaddy- posting nothing but "NYAH NYAH SILLY DARWINIST FUNDY HYPOCRITES I AM TOO WINNING SMILE SMILE SMILE NYAH NYAH"...

                  ...And, of course, to his great relief, he will be banned. And he will immediately claim martyrdom, to save some face among his YEC friends (which is all he can hope for at this point).

                  Aaah. Sic transit gloria mundi, dave... Oh well. You can always play high and mighty to the poor children you "teach", right?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,15:28

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,13:01)
                  What's your explanation for the existence of the earth, Dave? How did it get here? Did God just press his fingers to his temples, squint his eyes up, think really hard, and "poof" it into existence? Is that the sum and substance of your explanation for the existence of the earth? Or is there more to it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'd be willing to bet that is pretty much how Dave believes the world got started.  Dave has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does not know what a hypothesis is.

                  Dave, don't bother to c&p a definition of 'hypothesis' to prove otherwise.  The truth will set you free only if you can understand the truth.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 26 2006,15:39

                  My wife, who is about as religious as I am, says she does believe in miracles. Not the magical kind, as in turning mud into living, breathing, talking, adult humans, parting seas, or conceiving boy-children with no human fathers. But that, ever rare now and then, people can change. People have been known to shake addictions, self-destructive behaviors, thralldom to bizarre cults. In some cases, they go from one addiction to another (alcohol to religious fanaticism, for instance); I don't think she counts that as a "miracle" so much as a rerouted tragedy. But every now and then someone does come out from under a seemingly hopeless shadow into the light of reason.

                  Now if someone as far gone as afdave were to overcome his disability, his addiction to magical thinking, his thralldom to his bizarre cult... I think - ironically enough - I might begin to wonder if maybe there is a god.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Aaah! sic transit gloria mundi dave...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  or sic transit gloria fundi, as the case may be. !;)
                  Posted by: shadowcatdancing on Dec. 26 2006,17:13



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I love it!  Fine, Russell, then if your geneticist friends don't mean "Error" then please ask them to use a different word.  Try "difference" maybe or, here's a thought ... why don't you get them to say it's an "improvement", huh?  After all, those mutations are the ultimate source of all variability, right?  

                  So Russell, I'll thank you if you and your fellow scientists could please not borrow words from my lexicon.  Write your own lexicon if you like, but don't hijack mine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,
                  Many words mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes the exact opposite meaning, depending on context, for example "I will cleave your skull with my battle axe."  and "I will cleave to you forever."

                  When reading, you must consider context, including who is speaking.

                  When a police officer (or crime victim) says something happened "quickly" he means in seconds or at most minutes.
                  When a doctor says as disease progressed "quickly" she means hours or days, or perhaps weeks, depending on the disease.
                  When a geologist says something happened "quickly"  he means in a few million years.

                  The use of errors in this context is a perfectly correct and ordinary use of the word in that it refers to a copying error, that is the copy is not the same as the original.  What it does not do is make a value judgement on whether the copy is "better" or "worse" than the original.

                  I am a college English teacher.  I read many freshman essays, and see a lot of copying errors.  A few actually improve the papers they are in (or at least make them more amusing) but they are still errors in that the copy is not the same as the original.

                  Every field of study has its specialized vocabulary.  If you want to debate scientists it your obligation to learn the vocabulary.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,17:20

                  On the previous page, Dave tried to (once again)  fake his way through a lie.
                  My response to Dave will be in three parts. First, a preface, giving context. Second, I will show him lying. Thirdly, I will show why it is a lie in a way that anyone, even Dave , can understand.
                  PREFACE
                  (1.) Dave made this claim. Note that it is unqualified. There are no qualifiers such as "maybe" or "perhaps" or "I think. " It is presented as a statement of fact about what Allen MacNeill "means" :
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MICRO-evo is proven. But the extrapolation of micro-evo to macro-evo has been thoroughly refuted. This is what MacNeill means when he says "the Modern Synthesis is dead". < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=43523 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (2.)  As it stands, the statement is a lie. It is NOT what Allen MacNeill "thinks" it is what DAVE THINKS. On that point, I challenged Dave to a wager. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....st=4200 > and < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=43675 >
                  (3.)  Dave evades and pretends to not have lied. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=43763 >
                  (4.)I tell Dave he has.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43764  In that post, I specifically mention Dave saying he KNEW about (A) my work,    (B) my religious views,  ( C ) my charity,  (D)claiming that I had said that sediments could NOT be dated even when I posted up FIVE times that was falsely falsely using it. I continued by saying this :
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There's a few "universal" excuses used by humans -- things like " I didn't know" or " I didn't mean to," or "I must have forgotten." These things are used by people across the board to excuse almost every lie.
                  Theoretically, almost every lie you've told here can be said by you to be "not lies" by using one of those excuses, Dave. And why shouldn't you? You certainly don't have the moral fiber to do otherwise.

                  But IF...**IF** I said right now that I KNEW you were a child-killer, Dave, just based on your words here on this board...would that be a lie? I have never met you, I don't KNOW you personally, nor do I have ANY evidence to back my accusation. Such things would mark me as a liar. I could rightly be sued for such a claim, Dave, and a judge would find me a liar if I used any excuses like you use.
                  When YOU claimed to KNOW about my work and religious views, you lied flat-out, Dave. It is JUST the same as the scenario I laid out above. I COULD NOT KNOW ANY SUCH THING, I DON"T KNOW YOUR PERSONAL LIFE...but YOU claimed to know MINE.

                  Why do you think I despise you, Dave? It's not because you're a creationist...I have 2 "friendly" acquaintances that are creationists, it's not because you're a Christian -- I adore my neighbor who is a good and decent Christian, as as are several others that I know.

                  It's because you are willing to say that you KNOW things that you CANNOT KNOW. You are willing to LIE about me...and a great many other things. Yes, you can find excuses for the vast majority of those..but there is no excuse for claiming that you KNOW things about a stranger that you DO NOT KNOW personally.
                  This is why I view you as the scum of the Earth, Dave, and why I KNOW you're a liar. You're just another nutcase religionist claiming to "know" and willing to lie about virtually anything to gain power over others.

                  You know how this could have been avoided, Dave? By you apologizing at the time and saying " ah, I was wrong"...but you never did, nor have you even come close to that in the months following. You just pretend it never happened. Well, great. You're a liar. Deal with it.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43769
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (5) Dave responds by claiming this: " Deadman thinks a wrong guess about his personal life is a lie."  REMEMBER THAT HE CLAIMS HIS STATEMENTS WERE ALL FRAMED AS "GUESSES" I responded to this by showing how an unqualified statement that is shown false is not merely a "guess" it is a lie:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alright, let me state this clearly Dave...

                  IF I went to the police and said I *knew* ( a positive statement of knowing about a given thing) that you had killed a person...and the police were credulous enough to believe me, arrested you...and it was found that I had "guessed" that it MIGHT be "true" even though I didn't KNOW you and I didn't ever SEE a body, and I had NO evidence to back my claim...could I and should I be prosecuted for filing a KNOWINGLY false police report?

                  The answer is YES. And such things have happened MANY times in the past. This is a LIE and should be treated as such. IF any such accusations could be tossed around and excused by " well, it was JUST A GUESS" then there would BE NO LAWS avaliable to deal with such lies. But there are laws dealing with precisely such lies.

                  Another example: suppose your neighbor's kid came over and said your son had done something wrong. You punish your child appropriately based on the neighbor child's word....you find out later that the neighbor child had "guessed" and did NOT know. Is it a lie? Do you tell YOUR child that it's not anyone's fault, because " well, it was a GUESS and that's just as TRUE?"

                  Imagine a man walks up to Jesus and says " this man David ben Judah is a thief" and Jesus then questions him and finds the man's utterly positive statement was " a guess" ...what do you think Jesus' view would be of the honesty of the accuser? You are kidding yourself if you believe that Jesus would say " a guess is just the same as a positive accusation"

                  You can excuse yourself by claiming " well, it was just a GUESS," but a GUESS is not the same as saying "Dave killed a person." I KNOW is not the same as I GUESS, unless you are some insane relativist that thinks the very way that you deride others for. This is also hypocrisy.

                  This is the last I will say on this matter. Feel free to excuse yourself as you see fit. It just makes it plain that your claims about religion and morality were equally false. Just because you claim to be religious...doesn't mean a #### thing about your morals or ethics. YOU claim to be religious and you have none -- what you DO have are excuses. People like you do disgust me, you make a mockery of all that IS good in your own religion.

                  My last note on this: The Greek word 'diabolos' means 'false accuser, slanderer'. It is a compound word, from dia, 'thru', and ballo, 'to cast'. In a metaphoric sense it means "to strike with an accusation or evil report." Strong's trnaslates it as "traducer," which means "false accuser." Parkhurst's translates it as "slanderer."

                  Jesus applied this to Judas. Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  **************************************************************************************
                  PART ONE
                  Dave's claim on the previous page was :    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  he [Deadman_932]  says I'm lying about him because I asked what he does for kids to demonstrate his great care and concern for them. He says I'm lying about him because I said he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists, which he agrees with. He pretends that I accused him of rejecting all concepts of god, which I clearly did not.
                  Deadman has a real problem with word meanings, twisting of reality and anger, to name a few things. The God of the Bible could help with all of that. You, science student or science worker should ask yourself what other kinds of Twisting of Truth you have been subjected to by associating with people like Deadman, AKA Joseph Padilla. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=43822 >  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Read the carefully edited version of posts that Dave presents there. Now look at the following unedited quotes. LOOK AT THE TIME STAMPED DATES.

                  Deadman_932 June 23 2006,21:50 THere's two parts to that, so I'll actually do what you can't and won't do, DaveLiar: I'll answer you directly.
                  I donate money, time and my own labor each and every year, as I have each and every year of my life since I was 24. That was many years ago, DaveTard. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22533 >

                  Deadman_932 June 24 2006,11:11    I volunteer time, money and effort at the local,national and global level. In los angeles, for the AIDS Project Los Angeles, because a young friend died of it. At a National level, The American Indian Education Foundation, at a global level, UNICEF. And yeah, I donate money for other things in regard to the environment and political activism that directly or indirectly benefits kids.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22605

                  AF Dave June 25 2006,02:19 My suspicion was that you have no great love for kids at all ... you are just an academic who loves to moralize and pontificate about other people and what they should or should not do, but you don't do any of it yourself.
                  Come to find out, I was right. You don't care 2 hoots for kids.  You were just pretending that you did. When I ask you to demonstrate your great love for kids, you just say you give money to people with AIDS.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22658

                  Why did Dave leave the last two posts out of his "summary" of what he CLAIMS I had said (  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43822   )?

                  Perhaps it's because even AFTER I HAD DETAILED MY CHARITY, DAVE CONTINUED TO CLAIM POSITIVELY THAT HE WAS RIGHT.... THIS IS NOT A "GUESS," IT IS A CLAIM OF FACT. AND A FALSE ONE. IT IS A LIE.

                  Additionally, Dave made the following claims:
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513

                  Note what I DID say on the subject of MY ACTUAL BELIEFS:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I'll respond to your bullshit about "you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.." Really, Dave? So point to where I said that here. Show me you have ANY honor at all, scumbag...
                  Show where I unequivocally rejected all concepts of god.


                  I specifically rejected your cartoon version of god, Dave, and I am not like YOU. I don't have to wear God like a status symbol, I don't have to threaten people with a sick nasty little god like the one you have , Dave. And don't try to say that's "my" god, too---no it's not. Your god is solely a product of your f-ed up mind, DaveScum < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22533 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I rejected DAVE's VERSION of the Biblical God. But he had already said I was an unbeliever, based on no information at all.

                  Dave also made this false claim (lie):    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 25 2006,02:19You have ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe ... you've just read some books about it    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22658
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ******************************************************************************************



                  **********
                  PART TWO
                  Why are Dave's claims lies? Because of the reasons I had already laid out for Dave. Supposing Dave's assertion were true...that he was "guessing" on all the things he mentioned. He didn't SAY he was guessing, and none of the statements were qualified as such. BUT...suppose it's true that ANYONE could excuse ANY unqualified statement as being " a guess."

                  By Dave's criteria, I could go to his church and hand out leaflets stating in bold :

                  DAVE HAWKINS' WIFE IS A PROSTITUTE WHO HAS SEX FOR DRUGS AND DAVE HAWKINS RAPED HIS OWN SON

                  I realize that may seem harsh to some, and it is...but remember, by DAVE's VERSION,ALL I HAVE TO DO TO ESCAPE CLAIMS THAT THESE ARE UTTER LIES...IS SAY "WELL,  IT WAS MY GUESS"  

                  This alone puts the lie to Dave's excuses, along with full versions of what Dave actually said and WHEN he said them.

                  In closing, I will repeat what I said to Dave earlier: The Greek word 'diabolos' means 'false accuser, slanderer'. It is a compound word, from dia, 'thru', and ballo, 'to cast'. In a metaphoric sense it means "to strike with an accusation or evil report." Strong's trnaslates it as "traducer," which means "false accuser." Parkhurst's translates it as "slanderer."

                  Jesus applied this to Judas. Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."

                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 26 2006,17:22

                  It appears you are a Darwinist English Teacher. Kind of like the Darwinist Geologists we saw a while back.

                  ;-)
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,17:26

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 26 2006,13:28)
                  I'd be willing to bet that is pretty much how Dave believes the world got started.  Dave has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does not know what a hypothesis is.

                  Dave, don't bother to c&p a definition of 'hypothesis' to prove otherwise.  The truth will set you free only if you can understand the truth.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's funny how Dave still tries to find naturalistic causes for things (like using "genetic richness" to get from a few thousand species to a few million species in a few weeks (or centuries—the difference isn't important). It's like he's trying to get away with as few miracles as possible. But why? If God can "poof" the entire universe into existence, why would he need to conserve on the miracles? What difference does it make whether he uses a few miracles, or a few dozen, or a few thousand?

                  Dave doesn't seem to understand that if you're going to introduce a few miracles here and there, there's no logical reason why you shouldn't use miracles to explain every phenomenon.

                  Miracles are like a fungus: they tend to spread. Surely if God could use a miracle to create Adam out of some lake-bottom, he could have repopulated the globe instantly after the flood with a wave of the Holy Scepter of Fecundity.™
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 26 2006,18:17

                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?

                  My understanding is that you're comfortable with a date of 4,500 ya (+/- how many years? A few thousand either way?). That's around 2,500 B.C., right?

                  Well, let's see.  < This site > gives a date of 2,560 B.C. for the construction of the pyramid. So does < this site. > So does < this one. > And < this one. > And < this one. >

                  Seems to be a bit of a consensus, Dave. At least, if you stay away from the sites which argue it was built by space aliens.

                  So. Let's see. Work on the Great Pyramid started a bit after 2,600 B.C. How long was this after the "flood," Dave? How long do you think it would have taken Egyptian society (which, as Deadman has pointed out, must have somehow survived your "flood") to have recovered to the point where it was capable of building such an artificial mountain? Looks like it must have been a few decades at most, right?

                  Right?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,18:18



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  My response to Dave will be in three parts. First, a preface, giving context. Second, I will show him lying. Thirdly, I will show why it is a lie in a way that anyone, even Dave , can understand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Never overestimate Dave's ability to understand nor underestimate his ability to misunderstand.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,18:22

                  To show just one more example of how Dave lies, all that one has to do is look at what he claimed on the previous page:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  he [Deadman_932]  says I'm lying about him because I asked what he does for kids to demonstrate his great care and concern for them. He says I'm lying about him because I said he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists, which he agrees with. He pretends that I accused him of rejecting all concepts of god, which I clearly did not.
                  Deadman has a real problem with word meanings, twisting of reality and anger, to name a few things. The God of the Bible could help with all of that. You, science student or science worker should ask yourself what other kinds of Twisting of Truth you have been subjected to by associating with people like Deadman, AKA Joseph Padilla. < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=43822 >  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Remember what Dave claimed BACK IN JUNE , without qualifiers:

                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513

                  Note what I DID say on the subject of MY ACTUAL BELIEFS, again, BACK IN JUNE:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I'll respond to your bullshit about "you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.." Really, Dave? So point to where I said that here. Show me you have ANY honor at all, scumbag...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  AND:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I specifically rejected your cartoon version of god, Dave, and I am not like YOU. I don't have to wear God like a status symbol, I don't have to threaten people with a sick nasty little god like the one you have , Dave. And don't try to say that's "my" god, too---no it's not. Your god is solely a product of your f-ed up mind, DaveScum < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=22533 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Dave never DID that, nor can he point to me saying I reject the Biblical God entirely. I HAVE rejected what people CLAIM about that God, certainly. I'll say that even now. But Dave never showed that I had specifically rejected Yahweh ... because I never said that in any post prior to **him*** claiming that I "don't believe that the God of the Bible exists."

                  And he KNEW this, before he reposted the same claim again today.

                  He KNEW that I had not said that, but he posted the same lie anyway. And he claims that I "agreed" with him, when in fact, I didn't.

                  Oh, yeah, you're a liar, Dave. Pretend you were "just guessing" today -- AFTER you had already posted me denying your claim, Judas Dave.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 26 2006,18:26

                  AFD .....Do you really want to continue this?



                  Creationism is dead D-E-A-D, flood geology is dead  D-E-A-D, your whole idea (whatever it was) is  D-E-A-D.

                  Tested in the courts (many times) and found to be hogwash by a bunch of lying liars telling lies.


                  Now back to MacNeill where did he say The Theory of Evolution was dead again?

                  I'm still waiting for your definition of Micro and Macro evolution, the one you say supports McNeill’s definition.

                  AFD has already stated that micro-evolution is true ...(well he has to, since the fantasy ARK MYTH didn't have the 15,000,000 species currently on earth not to mention the countless extinct species)

                  AFD creationism was DEAD long before Darwin, only the truly rusted on backwash crazies support it now they make the Roswell loonies look sane.

                  AFD if you read this I promise you will lower your stupidity from 100%.

                  < http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm >
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,18:38



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Never overestimate Dave's ability to understand nor underestimate his ability to misunderstand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I DO try to keep that in mind...

                  but if Dave says he CAN'T understand my final example, then he should be willing to accept me sending out mailers about his wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that Dave raped his own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess."

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 26 2006,20:33

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 26 2006,19:26)
                  AFD if you read this I promise you will lower your stupidity from 100%.

                  < http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  k.e
                  I have that one saved to my archive.  Good historical account.

                  I also have this one saved because of the great historical account and all the references all in one place.

                  < http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/waterloo_in_dov.html >
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 26 2006,21:49

                  Wow!  A dissertation to defend his honor complete with a "Preface" and "Part 1" and "Part 2" ...

                  And after all that, it turns out that my guesses were right (or very close) after all ... he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists and his false accusations of me being mean to kids do not stem from any demonstrable great altruism for kids of his own.  

                  QED.

                  *********************************************

                  Eric...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,22:01

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, in 180 years eight people turned into the hundreds of thousands it took to build the pyramids?  What about the additional thousands that were working on Stonehenge Part I?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,22:11

                  Dave claims...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And after all that, it turns out that my guesses were right (or very close) after all ... he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I didn't say that at all, Dave. I said I didn't accept YOUR VERSION of that God. GOT IT? Don't lie on top of other lies, Dave.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I rejected DAVE's VERSION of the Biblical God. But he had already said I was an unbeliever, based on no information at all.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There is nowhere on this thread or any other on this board that you can say I claimed to be either an atheist or an agnostic, Dave.

                  I don't mention my religious views to others when discussing  the YEC-world fantasies. The only thing that counts is science in that regard, and you're now trying to claim that you can tell ME what I "think," after I said that I SPECIFICALLY rejected YOUR views on that God,  both now and initially?
                   
                  Care to lie about being supernaturally privy to anything else that I think, Dave?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,22:32

                  You also failed to address another of your lies, Dave:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 25 2006,02:19 You have ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe ... you've just read some books about it    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22658
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Is this another "guess" on your part that should be excused from being a lie...because months afterwards, you say it's a guess?

                  You also didn't answer (once again)  what I asked, Dave:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  if Dave says he CAN'T understand my final example, then he should be willing to accept me sending out mailers about his wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that Dave raped his own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess."

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you going to read my mind and tell me what I think about that, again, LiarDave?

                  Or are you just too gutless/hypocritical/mental and aware of your own box of lies that you can't respond?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 26 2006,23:06

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
                  And after all that, it turns out that my guesses were right (or very close) after all ... he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  'Humble' Dave believes that 'his' enterpretation of the God of the Bible is the only possible one.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 26 2006,23:44

                  .
                  .
                  Just so you don't try to pretend these posts don't exist,  Dave :

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 26 2006,22:11)
                  Dave claims...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And after all that, it turns out that my guesses were right (or very close) after all ... he doesn't believe the God of the Bible exists
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I didn't say that at all, Dave. I said I didn't accept YOUR VERSION of that God. GOT IT? Don't lie on top of other lies, Dave.      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I rejected DAVE's VERSION of the Biblical God. But he had already said I was an unbeliever, based on no information at all.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There is nowhere on this thread or any other on this board that you can say I claimed to be either an atheist or an agnostic, Dave.

                  I don't mention my religious views to others when discussing  the YEC-world fantasies. The only thing that counts is science in that regard, and you're now trying to claim that you can tell ME what I "think," after I said that I SPECIFICALLY rejected YOUR views on that God,  both now and initially?

                  Care to lie about being supernaturally privy to anything else that I think, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And this one:

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 26 2006,22:32)
                  You also failed to address another of your lies, Dave:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 25 2006,02:19 You have ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe ... you've just read some books about it    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22658
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Is this another "guess" on your part that should be excused from being a lie...because months afterwards, you say it's a guess?

                  You also didn't answer (once again)  what I asked, Dave:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  if Dave says he CAN'T understand my final example, then he should be willing to accept me sending out mailers about his wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that Dave raped his own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess."

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you going to read my mind and tell me what I think about that, again, LiarDave?

                  Or are you just too gutless/hypocritical/mental and aware of your own box of lies that you can't respond?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 27 2006,00:09

                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked: ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,00:41

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 26 2006,22:01)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So, in 180 years eight people turned into the hundreds of thousands it took to build the pyramids?  What about the additional thousands that were working on Stonehenge Part I?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just tell us all AFD how that happened (without incest).


                  Or are you going to give another one of your 'MacNeill Moments'

                  Speaking of which tell us all again how 'micro evolution' which YOU AGREE WITH did not produce ooze to man over billions of years ..again ...you know Evolution, the one MacNeill says is alive and well.

                  Creationism is dead AFD
                  D.E.A.D.
                  Dead.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,03:27

                  Well well well... It seems I'm back on dave's ignore list- gee, I wonder why. :D

                  Dave, since you deem me unworthy of a simple YES or NO to my plain and clear question, I'll try to provoke you a bit by telling you what I'm going to do (not that you don't know already, of course), JUST in case that triggers some spark of courage in you.

                  Dave, I am about to show how, not only did you LIE about mutations and information (not mistype, not forget, LIE), but also how you are LYING NOW by saying you made an "honest" mistake.

                  Do you have ANYTHING to say, before I make you look like a cowardly lying fool?

                  I'm waiting. But not for long.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,06:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,21:49)
                  Eric...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  waaaaa????????????????????

                  So 8 People became hundreds of thousands in a few dozen years, who then went built the pyramids?????

                  As they must have been totally inbreds, how does that work out?

                  "Hey Sister, you are looking great tonight!"
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,07:37

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,06:44)
                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,21:49)
                  Eric...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  waaaaa????????????????????

                  So 8 People became hundreds of thousands in a few dozen years, who then went built the pyramids?????

                  As they must have been totally inbreds, how does that work out?

                  "Hey Sister, you are looking great tonight!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well he did say it was a FUN TOPIC.


                  But even the early story tellers had trouble with that one.  Those 8 people were getting up to some serious bonking.

                  While the original Australian's were painting rocks 20,000 to 50,000 years ago that show no evidence of being submerged by any flood, they  were also completely unaware  of the MASSIVE INCEST some ancient writers were having wet dreams about,  back in Ur or wherever.


                  Neither were the Chinese who have evidence of continuous habitation going back much more than 6000 years or the countless other ethnic groups around the world with histories greater than 10,000 years old.

                  Let’s see 4 women producing 1 child per year for 20 years each with 50% of their children being female with their first child at say 15. How about a 50% mortality rate to keep it real.

                  Hey AFD you know how to use Excel just give us a quick report (for a good laugh) to prove your theory that 180 years was enough time to give birth to  thousands of Egyptian MALES OF PRYAMID BUILDING AGE.

                  Ah...even a child can use their intuition on that one AFD...your idea is less than pathetic.

                  Are you even capable of thought?

                  All you seem to do is (mis)quote others.

                  Better yet AFD just post ONE LAST HONEST POST.

                  Admit it you are a loser and a complete moron.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,08:48

                  Here AFD a little bit of info on the size of the workforce in Ancient Egypt around 2150BC  NEVER MIND THE WHOLE POPULATION IT WAS DRAWN FROM which would have to have been well over a MILLION PEOPLE (From Encarta....)



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The size of the funerary monuments of Egypt’s royalty still impresses visitors today. These huge burial complexes provide a wealth of information about the society and culture of the people who produced them. Imhotep, the architect for Djoser, second king of the 3rd Dynasty, constructed what appears to be the world’s first monumental stone building for the eternal resting place of a king. Djoser’s Step Pyramid at &#350;aqq&#257;rah is perhaps one of the earliest in a series of burial complexes that culminated in the pyramids at Giza, which date to the 4th Dynasty. The largest of these pyramids, known as the Great Pyramid, was built for King Khufu, the second king of the 4th Dynasty.

                  These construction projects required a huge workforce of several hundred thousand laborers over a period of many years. The successful completion of the pyramids depended on a stable and well-developed economy, a well-established administrative bureaucracy, and immense public support. Moreover, Egypt had to be at peace with its closest foreign neighbors to provide the necessary concentration for this work. Unskilled workers toiled on the projects during the months of the Nile flood, when they could not farm, but craftspeople, artisans, stonemasons, managers, and others worked year-round. Devotion on the part of all the people to the king and his burial project was an important element in the success of the project. The royal office was considered divine, and the ruling king was believed to be a god on Earth, a mediator between humankind and the deities. Working for this god and securing his place among the divinities for all eternity could be interpreted as an expression of the religious devotion of the people.

                  From the end of the 5th Dynasty in about 2323 bc, the interiors of the pyramids contained texts carved on the walls. This collection of hymns, spells, instructions on how to act in front of the gods, and rituals, now called the Pyramid Texts, is the oldest body of religious literature yet discovered. As time went on, the size and the quality of pyramid construction diminished, in large part as a result of financial strain on the treasury. In addition, the nation had to deal with hostile neighbors, and a change in climate apparently caused serious droughts, references to which are found in texts and scenes.

                  By the end of the 6th Dynasty in about 2150 bc, the chiefs of the provincial areas, or nomes, were becoming increasingly powerful. Eventually the chiefs, called nomarchs, established hereditary offices and became local rulers, thus paving the way for internal rivalries and hastening the breakdown of the central administration. The First Intermediate Period ensued. It lasted from about 2134 to about 2040 bc and included the next several dynasties. During this period the nomarchs of Herakleopolis, in the northern part of Upper Egypt, rose to power. However, another rising power, based in the south at Thebes, challenged their authority and succeeded in reuniting the land.


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

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Another MacNeill moment AFD.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,09:20

                  Hey AFD add 'can't count' to your list of failures (can't think, can't tell the truth)

                  More from Encarta.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The population of ancient Egypt varied greatly during its history. Some scholars estimate that only a few hundred thousand people lived in Egypt during the Predynastic period (about 5000-3000 bc). Others believe, based on archaeological evidence and reevaluations of how many people the floodplains could support at the time, that the area had a much higher population. In any case, the population had probably risen to close to 2 million during the Old Kingdom (about 2575-2134 bc). It increased during the Middle Kingdom (about 2040-1640 bc), and by the New Kingdom (about 1550-1070 bc) the population had grown to between 3 and 4 million. This figure almost doubled under Hellenistic rule (332-30 bc), with perhaps as many as 7 million people inhabiting the country at the time it was annexed to the Roman Empire.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 27 2006,09:25

                  Boy, afdave's god really farked up. I mean, he destroys practically the whole earth with all it's old wicked cities, unmistakably revealing his awesome power to the 8 people left on the planet... and then, 180 years later (a hundred and eighty years later!!! ) we've got the Egyptians, the immediate descendants of witnesses of the flood, building monuments to their own god-kings! I think afdave's god picked the wrong man to preserve his message.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,09:27

                  k.e ... Congratulations ... you brought up a valid point.  What a refreshing event!

                  I could be off by a couple hundred years on the Flood date, but before we go adjusting any dates, consider this ...

                  1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood
                  2) Brothers married sisters and half sisters routinely
                  3) Families were large.  Tradition says that Adam had a total of 56 children (Whiston notes in Josephus, p. 32)

                  If you do some rough calculations with only HALF that many kids per family and a generation length of 40 years, you get MILLIONS of people by 2170 BC without moving the Flood date at all.  Move it 100 or 200 years (which is no problem) and the numbers are even easier.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,09:49

                  OK AFD I'll play your stupid game.

                  Do up a spread sheet to support your theory.

                  That the mythical Ark survivors could parent 2 million people in JUST Egypt not to mention the rest of the world in 180 years.

                  If not 180 years then how many, come on give it your best shot.

                  Don't forget all the other people on earth at the time 10 million say?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 27 2006,09:53



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):
                  1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood
                  2) Brothers married sisters and half sisters routinely
                  3) Families were large.  Tradition says that Adam had a total of 56 children (Whiston notes in Josephus, p. 32)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Got any evidence for this Dave, or are you just pulling this from your ass like all your other 'Biblical facts'?
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave):  
                  If you do some rough calculations with only HALF that many kids per family and a generation length of 40 years, you get MILLIONS of people by 2170 BC without moving the Flood date at all.  Move it 100 or 200 years (which is no problem) and the numbers are even easier.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So Dave, how did all of those millions of descendants end up in Egypt?  What about those millions of people that existed in China at that same time, which had a quite large and advanced civilization?  Or the populations in the Americas, or Central Asia, or N. Europe, or Australia?

                  What did those people do for food while they were bonking like rabbits Dave?  Remember, the post-flood ecology was devastated with no plant life, and only a couple of hundred  breeding pairs of animal 'kinds'?  Maybe they caught and ate those plentiful but elusive post-flood scavengers, is that it?  :D  :D  :D

                  I sense another rash of Dave lies, denials, and evasions coming.  I know that's as tough as predicting the tide will come in, but let's see.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,10:05

                  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 27 2006,10:19

                  AFD what is the maximum population (starting out with 2 breeding pairs of humans) that can be produced in 200 years 500 years and 1000 years.

                  Using real figures not inflated nonsense figures.

                  Use peer reviewed population, living condition, mortality  studies for anceint Egypt.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 27 2006,10:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave) :  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mt. Saint Helens had an abundant supply of flora and fauna from immediately outside the eruption damaged zone (as well as surviving life inside the zone) to draw from Davie  According to your little saga, the entire Earth was totally laid completely barren.

                  Walk us through the development of the post flood ecology, will you Dave?  Tell us what all those millions of long-lived sister-bonking folks lived off of.  Then tell us how they all ended up in Egypt.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,10:28

                  Aftershave, Aftershave ... you jump to so many false conclusions ... where to begin?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,10:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:05)
                  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You never did say how those Cacti got up and down the mountain did ya?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Aftershave, Aftershave ... you jump to so many false conclusions ... where to begin?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, so explain how when water (was it salt or fresh btw?) covered the entire globe, every ecosystem was not wiped out? How did a cactus get up a mountain to survive the flood and back to the desert?
                  Oh, I forgot, GODDIT! Of course, silly me. This is why you and yours will only lose lose lose.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,10:33

                  Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:19)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (AFDave) :  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mt. Saint Helens had an abundant supply of flora and fauna from immediately outside the eruption damaged zone (as well as surviving life inside the zone) to draw from Davie  According to your little saga, the entire Earth was totally laid completely barren.

                  Walk us through the development of the post flood ecology, will you Dave?  Tell us what all those millions of long-lived sister-bonking folks lived off of.  Then tell us how they all ended up in Egypt.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  davie, dont you have any response to this, other then to shake your head at the "ignorance" of it?

                  You lack of substantial response says more then any wordgames you can come up with. You just dont have an answer to that do you? And your masters at AIG dont have one either.

                  How are the mutant baboon dogs doing anyway? Of course, I only mean the females AS THE MALES DIE BEFORE MATURING! LOL LOL LOL.

                  Who's telling fairy tales now?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,10:37

                  Hahahaha suuure, dave. Everything is explained; All you have to do is ASSUME that people lived to be 900 YEARS OLD at the time (WHY, dave? Didn't the Fall happen thousands of years before?), and had 56 CHILDREN each!(And that's NOT what your pal Jan Peczkis claims, btw)

                  :D

                  Tell you what: Why not just drop the complicate fairytales and claim that God, I dunno, cloned them or something?

                  That's what the < Deucalion > myth did, sort of, and it's way more convincing (well, it's a better story at least, and it shows that -unlike the poor sheperd folk whose bedtime stories you revere as the inerrant truth- Ancient Greeks had a firmer grasp of the possible problems in their fairytales).

                  Oh and, dave, since you're here:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, since you deem me unworthy of a simple YES or NO to my plain and clear question, I'll try to provoke you a bit by telling you what I'm going to do (not that you don't know already, of course), JUST in case that triggers some spark of courage in you.

                  Dave, I am about to show how, not only did you LIE about mutations and information (not mistype, not forget, LIE), but also how you are LYING NOW by saying you made an "honest" mistake.

                  Do you have ANYTHING to say, before I make you look like a cowardly lying fool?

                  I'm waiting. But not for long.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  :)


                  Oh and dave: Last time I checked, Mt.St.Helens didn't wipe out the entire life on Earth (or even America) save one pair of each animal. Just FYI.

                  Hee hee. Ah, dave, what would I do without you?  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,10:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,19:49)
                  Eric...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here's another question for you, Dave: how long after your "flood" was the Great Pyramid of Giza built?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Flood was about 2350 BC.  Gizeh Pyramid was about 2170 BC.  Built by humans.  Smart ones.  Fun topic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  References, Dave, for your figure of 2170 B.C. I provided you with five for my figure of 2560 B.C. Did your figure come out of your butt, or out of an AiG "article" (which amounts to the same thing)?

                  So the pyramids, according to actual historical records, not your bogus records, were built about 200 years before your "flood." Amazing that they could spend a year immersed in a mile-deep layer of water and show no signs of water damage at all.

                  But even if your bogus figures were right (which they aren't), humans went from four breeding pairs to over 100,000 workers (which presumably only a fraction of the total population), just in Egypt, in 180 years. Nine generations.

                  Right.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,10:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,07:27)
                  I could be off by a couple hundred years on the Flood date, but before we go adjusting any dates, consider this ...

                  1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood
                  2) Brothers married sisters and half sisters routinely
                  3) Families were large.  Tradition says that Adam had a total of 56 children (Whiston notes in Josephus, p. 32)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Except, Dave, that these "facts" are all fantasies dreamed up by you and your creationist brethren. You have not the tiniest scrap of evidence for any of them. You have zero evidence of longer lifetimes, zero evidence that those lifetimes decreased later, zero evidence of incest on a massive scale at any point anywhere in human history, zero evidence of large families, or anything else your "hypothesis" requires.

                  You don't have a clue how science works, Dave. You can't just point to some random passage in the Bible and claim that proves anything. The Bible is not self-authenticating, your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding, and without corroborating evidence (which you are lacking entirely), it's worthless as any sort of historical record.

                  Again, the fact that some things the Bible says are true is no evidence whatsoever that all things the Bible says are true. We've been through this with you a million times before.

                  So there's no way you can get from eight humans to four million humans in 180 years. What do you think we're talking about here? Rabbits?

                  And besides, your figure for the age of the pyramids is wrong. Either they were built before your "flood," or your "flood" happened earlier (or not at all, as is actually the case).
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 27 2006,11:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,09:27)
                  I could be off by a couple hundred years on the Flood date, but before we go adjusting any dates, consider this ...

                  1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood
                  2) Brothers married sisters and half sisters routinely
                  3) Families were large.  Tradition says that Adam had a total of 56 children (Whiston notes in Josephus, p. 32)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  1)evidence please?  And not from the bibble either.  Current evidence from tribal populations living in primitive pre-literate conditions suggests that living into one's 40s is extraordinary.
                  2)Who cares, it still means that women had to have lots of kids?
                  3)Again, evidence please.

                  Use your head Dave.  Do some math.  Babies mean a 9 month gestation, and then after that there's some ovulation suppression from nursing.  Assume that each baby takes about a year from the ol' humpa-humpa until it's out and suckling at the teat.  Even allowing some twins in that 56, are you really expecting us to believe that women gave birth year-in and year-out for a period of 30 or 40 years?  Assuming further that maternal age at first birth is around 15 or so, you're saying that women had serial pregnancies well into their 50s?  What about menopause Dave?  Did women not go through menopause until much later either, because of the miraculous effects of their pre-flood perfection?

                  I have some friends who come from large families.  With 11 brothers and sisters, the mothers look positively burned up.  Did the men take many wives to have those 50 children, like the fundy mormons do?

                  I also want to know how this explosive population growth was sustained.  If you plant in the spring, and then harvest in the fall, how could eight people have planted enough to sustain their exponentially growing families?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 27 2006,11:24

                  Using a generation of 15 years, average life expectancy of 30 years, 50% mortality before age 15, and one child per year for each female for 15 years, I come up with about 1.5 million living descendants in 180 years.

                  And, yes, I realize this is a completely impossible scenario--it would be hard to imagine all females remaining fertile while nursing, traveling great distances, etc.

                  It also makes the maximum labor pool very small:  750K total males.  Half would still be children under 15 and you have to figure those over 15 have some who are unable to work due to some disability.

                  Let’s say that leaves 300,000 men.

                  But it would take most of those men to grow the crops for all those hungry babies.  That means you are looking at a maximum labor pool of less than 75,000—and probably much lower.

                  Edit:  Longevity has little impact on this scenario unless individual women were giving birth to MORE than 15 children.  I don't think even the Bible paints that picture.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,11:43

                  You guys are too funny ... just keep 'em coming.  I'll devote tomorrow's post to filling in some of your early post-Flood era knowledge gaps.
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 27 2006,11:47

                  Yeah, how about your "credibility" gap.  Start there.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,12:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,09:43)
                  You guys are too funny ... just keep 'em coming.  I'll devote tomorrow's post to filling in some of your early post-Flood era knowledge gaps.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're filling in our "knowledge gaps" about something that never happened. So we should feel pretty free to ignore anything about your illogical, irrational, internally-inconsistent fairytale anyway.

                  And in the meantime, are you going to come up with a reference for your figure of 2170 B.C.? Or did you just make it up on the spur of the moment?

                  And you know I'm starting to regret even bringing up this pyramid thing. Why? Because you're actually making some points? Hardly. I regret it because it's facilitating your DaveDance™. Instead of answering all the hard questions you've been presented with over just the last few days, you get to dance around some other topic you know nothing about.

                  But I'm not really going to let you slide, Dave. You still need to face the fact that your "hypothesis" makes two mutually contradictory predictions (among all its other fatal flaws). Your "hypothesis" predicts a crash in biodiversity in the millennium following the "flood" while at the same time predicting an explosive increase in biodiversity during the same time. How do you reconcile these two contradictory predictions, Dave? You're not going to be able to just ignore this problem and hope it goes away, because it's not going to go away.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 27 2006,12:49

                  And please don't leave out the ice age.  And the migrating families to the western hemisphere.  And the tower of babel (that had to occur before the pyramid also).  Then the population is split (12 times?) with different "tribes" (languages I think) migrating to different regions.  So the population for Egypt settlement is reduced further.

                  But we have to account for the HLA-B alleles (61 at least as of the last count) that are common between the pyramid builders and the Native Americans too.

                  Geez Dave.  Lot's of 'splainin' to do I see.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,12:51

                  Yeah dave, instead of "educating" us on the "post-flood era" (by basically saying "the bible says so, therefore it totally happened, who cares how"), why not spend that time you have on your hands (time you claimed you didn't have so many times before) to answer to Eric's question?

                  Oh that's right, I forgot: you're too chicken to even dare to attempt answering it.

                  You really are completely lost without your precious AiG quotes, are you dave?

                  Oh well, post your silly post tomorrow... And then I'll post mine: The one that shows how you LIE and LIE some more on the informational increase issue.

                  I hope that's ok with you.  ;)
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,13:01

                  BTW dave: Love the new sig!

                  "A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell" eh?

                  :D

                  Maaan, you can't even get your analogies straight!

                  But then, from what you have said, you don't even know what an analogy is.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,13:25

                  Quote (Faid @ Dec. 27 2006,13:01)
                  BTW dave: Love the new sig!

                  "A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell" eh?

                  :D

                  Maaan, you can't even get your analogies straight!

                  But then, from what you have said, you don't even know what an analogy is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  davey,
                  which one of these is "alien" in this context?
                  < http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alien >
                  < >

                  number 4 seems to fit best from what you've said in the past (and as you've come out as an ID supporter!;)
                  < >

                  Is that the sky-daddy for you now?
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 27 2006,13:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This is just stupid.  You've already made the assumption that one of these things is a constructed "ship".  How do you know that?  How do you know it isn't simply a naturally occurring (non-designed) organism?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,13:35

                  Guys guys take it easy on dave.

                  Poor guy was obviously typing down his "analogy", when even he realised it didn't, well, seem analogous enough.

                  So, he just stuck the "alien" part on the motor too, to make the two sentences seem more alike. No explanation given, of course; none needed in Davesworld.


                  So, this "analogy" may suck, but it is a clear giveaway of what goes on inside HonestDave's mind.

                  Thumbs up!

                  :D
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 27 2006,13:40

                  Now, why do I get the feeling that dave will consider this a MAJOR issue, and, once again, neglect to answer all those questions posed at him, to deal with it?

                  Go go AFDave Dancing Shoes!  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,13:43

                  By the way, I did a quick Google search. Searching for great pyramid giza 2170, and I got 460 hits. Doing the same search with 2650 instead of 2170 get me over nine thousand hits.

                  But which one do you think Dave went with?
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 27 2006,14:30

                  Here is a great link explaining the method and process for dating the Great Pyramids.

                  < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html >

                  Turns out, there old....Older than Dave needs to make his myth work.
                  Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Dec. 27 2006,14:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,11:43)
                  You guys are too funny ... just keep 'em coming.  I'll devote tomorrow's post to filling in some of your early post-Flood era knowledge gaps.

                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave your siggy is just silly. I will agree on this. Almost everything in biology looks designed. But looking and being are not the same Dave.

                  What really puzzles me is why on Earth you think the Universe is only about 6K years old. That is plain flat out weird.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,15:55

                  Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 27 2006,12:30)
                  Here is a great link explaining the method and process for dating the Great Pyramids.

                  < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold.html >

                  Turns out, there old....Older than Dave needs to make his myth work.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But remember: the only valid way to date something, in Dave's opinion, is to look it up in the Bible and see what date the Bible gives for it.

                  Other than that, according to Dave, it is in principle impossible to date anything.
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Dec. 27 2006,16:13

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 27 2006,15:55)
                  Other than that, according to Dave, it is in principle impossible to date anything.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I often felt that way during my slumps when I was a young man  :D
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 27 2006,16:21

                  Dave,

                  You promised you would get back to me with the criteria used to determine the different 'kinds' of animals loaded on to the ark.

                  And just how did those American cacti get to and from the ark?
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 27 2006,16:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:05)
                  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, hi. So Dave, Mt. St. Helens. I did some work there right after the blast. What do you think the rebound was like? I'm guessing you don't really know much about it. Just a guess but, if  you are using that as an example of how 180 years is enough time to create millions of people, feed them and create the pyramids, stonehenge and the americas, I'm thinking that you might have a little problem.

                  If by "rapidly restored" you mean "not rapidly restored" then I suppose you would be right. Is that what you meant? The devil will be in your details on that one. Deer can do well on salmonberry shoots but the "ecology" is still in the process of restoring. But  I guess it all depends on your definitions of ecology and restoring and what contitutes an ecosystem that can allow people to go from
                  8 -> 180 years ->  minimum 10 million. (Does this seem like a good number?)

                  I assume that human population modeling is similar to other types of population modeling in that you have to figure out the limiting factors. Calorie availability is a big one. You would have to show that the food supply for exponential growth was available. You have to show this as converters rather than reservoirs not just because food spoils but because they started with zero. Desolation.
                  The converters would have to show that the available reservoirs could support the conversion rates necessary. The math to do this in marine systems is pretty hairy. I assume it is a little easier on land but erosion rates would have been pretty high at first since there were no plants to hold in the soil so you would have to take that into account.

                  By my quick calculations, it couldn't happen. But I left out a lot of things. A big one would be how efficient your converters were.

                  Then infant mortality rates. Exponential growth relies on very low infant mortality.

                  Also, if you define "ecosystem" in the normal sense, you are including competition (the thing that drives natural selection). You would have to account for competition within your converters. That involves a little calculus but it's not too hard. The trick is figuring out your factors.

                  My guess is that you can't do this. Only because you are not smart. Other people could probably do it but I don't think you can. Go ahead though, feel free to prove me wrong. So far you have a zero average in that department but it's not through my lack of giving you opportunities.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,16:49

                  Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 27 2006,12:48)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,11:43)
                  You guys are too funny ... just keep 'em coming.  I'll devote tomorrow's post to filling in some of your early post-Flood era knowledge gaps.

                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave your siggy is just silly. I will agree on this. Almost everything in biology looks designed. But looking and being are not the same Dave.

                  What really puzzles me is why on Earth you think the Universe is only about 6K years old. That is plain flat out weird.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That is one of the fundamental questions.  Why would anyone believe that the world, this entire universe in fact, is only 6k years old.  The vast majority of Christians don't even believe that.  The only ones who do believe that this universe is only 6k years old are the ones who have decided to worship a book instead of the god it supposedly describes.  

                  I don't even think they could accurately be called Christians any more.  They are really idolaters.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,16:50

                  Let's step this down a grade level for our Greek friend ...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The hypothetical spaceship is "alien" because we are not familiar with the source of the technology.

                  The rotary motor is "alien" because we ALSO are not familiar with the source of the technology.

                  ... even though both of us think we are familiar--you say ToE, I say God--neither one of us can demonstrate which it is with repeatable experiments.

                  :p
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,17:03

                  Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,17:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,14:50)
                  The hypothetical spaceship is "alien" because we are not familiar with the source of the technology.

                  The rotary motor is "alien" because we ALSO are not familiar with the source of the technology.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, there is no "technology" in a bacterial flagellum to be familiar with.

                  You are, once again, assuming what you're trying to prove. You want to win the argument without even arguing it.

                  If you think there's some "technology" in the bacterial flagellum, then show us some evidence it was manufactured, rather than evolved. You don't actually have any evidence of that, do you, Dave? There is nothing about any flagellum that indicates it was manufactured. No sign of any sort of process, other than the assembling of proteins in the bacterium itself, a process that, big surprise to you, quite a bit is known about.

                  You're not arguing that no one knows how you get from DNA to proteins, are you, Dave? And you certainly have no evidence that the DNA itself was ever manufactured.

                  So where's the "technology," Dave? You haven't presented us any evidence for the use of "technology" in a flagellum at all.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,17:23

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,17:03)
                  Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Liar.

                  < http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aborigi....4501146 >
                  < >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Synopsis
                  This guide is ideal for travellers who want to understand Australia's 50,000-year-old cultural tradition. More than 60 Indigenous people have contributed to this guide, together with some of Lonely Planet's most experienced guidebook researchers. Includes an introduction to Indigenous languages.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Like all Aboriginal art, cave and rock paintings are inseparable from the 50,000-year-old Aboriginal society and culture. Aboriginal people did not develop a written language but communicated their religion, laws and history through song, poetry, painting and carving.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  < Link >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A startling discovery of 70,000-year-old artifacts and a python's head carved of stone appears to represent the first known human rituals.

                  Scientists had thought human intelligence had not evolved the capacity to perform group rituals until perhaps 40,000 years ago.

                  But inside a cave in remote hills in Kalahari Desert of Botswana, archeologists found the stone snake [image] that was carved long ago. It is as tall as a man and 20 feet long.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Link - < oldest_ritual >
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,17:27

                  Deleted another dup post.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,17:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,15:03)
                  Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave, it tells us no such thing. Because, unlike you, we don't subscribe to the jaw-droppingly inane idea that the universe is contemporaneous with written human records. Everyone else here realizes that the universe existed billions of years before humans (even illiterate humans) came upon the scene.

                  You simply cannot imagine how that could be true, because you're beholden to the idea that you, and other humans, are not only the most important thing in the entire universe, but that they're the reason the universe was created in the first place.

                  That's rather a 14th-century view of things, don't you think?

                  And in the meantime, despite having presented absolutely no evidence in the past eight months that there's anything remotely "funky" about the "assumptions" (or even that there are any assumptions) involved with radiometric dating (you haven't even discussed the majority of techniques) you persist in your totally wrong belief that the only way to date anything is to look it up in your Bible. You know, that one that isn't inerrant.

                  Are you going to get to my question, the one that's at the bottom of every message I post, sometime this year, Dave? Because the year's almost over.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,17:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,15:03)
                  Idolaters.  Pfft.  Malum, my friend ... just the simple fact that written history only goes back 6000 years should tell you something is seriously wrong with the Deep Time Story.  Add to that all the funky assumptions of RM dating and it turns out that Deep Timers are more "idolaters" than YECers are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First, you are not my friend and I am not your friend.

                  Second why in blue blazes do you think written history on this one little planet is any indicator of the age of this universe, other than your idle worshiping the Bible that is?

                  Edit- Make that 'idol' instead of 'idle'.  -Although, in this case, ... :D
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 27 2006,18:07

                  Gee, I wonder why Dave had time to post on another thread and multiple times here...yet he just ignored my questions/comments.

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 27 2006,18:10

                  It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 27 2006,18:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,18:10)
                  It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I say you are a < Liar! >
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 27 2006,18:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,16:10)
                  It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Not more likely. What—you think humans were just instantly literate? Why would you think that, Dave? Do you have any reason whatsoever for thinking so, other than hoping your Bible story is true?

                  And besides, written history goes back 6,000 years (or more). Evidence of human habitation goes back much further than that. There's evidence of human habitation even in the New World going back much further than that.

                  So the fact that written records go back 6,000 years or so lends exactly no support whatsoever to the notion that the universe is 6,000 years old, especially in light of the entire libraries of contradictory evidence. All the written evidence does is put an absolute minimum value on the age of the universe. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think it also sets a maximum age for the universe.

                  How far away is the Andromeda galaxy again, Dave?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 27 2006,18:47

                  How far away is your other neuron, Dave?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,18:50

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,16:10)
                  It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The total lack of any hint of logic or rationality in that statement can only be described as breathtaking.  It only proves my assumptions that you are a Bibliolotor and a modern day Cargo Cultist trying to use the forms and language of science in an attempt to co-opt the power of science without the least understanding of science, its forms, or its language.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,18:52

                  Deleted duplicate post.  Posting with a PocketPC can be challenging at times.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 27 2006,19:08

                  I agree, Malum.

                  Dave's hypothesis is made of coconuts.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,20:31

                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 27 2006,17:08)
                  I agree, Malum.

                  Dave's hypothesis is made of coconuts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You, sir, are slandering coconuts.
                  Posted by: PuckSR on Dec. 27 2006,22:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's quite simple.  History only goes back 6000 years.  So mankind most likely has only been around for 6000 years also, not 200,000.  This, then, lends support to the Biblical record from which we then infer that the universe is also 6000 years old.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That makes a lot of sense....
                  North American Native people did not develop a written language until AFTER europeans arrived.....so they most likely didnt exist until Europeans arrived????????
                  That is just horribly, horribly, horribly, horribly dumb....

                  Even you have to admit that Native Americans existed for a couple of centuries before the Europeans arrived....but they lacked a written language....

                  Then, when Europeans arrived AND SHOWED THEM HOW TO BE LITERATE....only 1 tribe developed a written form of its language....

                  Did it ever occur to you that pre-historic man didnt have any need for literacy....
                  Especially considering that until recently....only a small minority of the population was literate?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 27 2006,22:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,07:27)
                  1) Longevity did not decrease until quite some time after the Flood
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I'm not even going to ask you to prove this statement but, with only 180 years between the flood and your date for the pyramid, how, exactly, is 'longevity' supposed to get you from 8 people to million plus?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,02:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,16:50)
                  Let's step this down a grade level for our Greek friend ...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The hypothetical spaceship is "alien" because we are not familiar with the source of the technology.

                  The rotary motor is "alien" because we ALSO are not familiar with the source of the technology.

                  ... even though both of us think we are familiar--you say ToE, I say God--neither one of us can demonstrate which it is with repeatable experiments.

                  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  haha reallly dave?

                  If by "alien" you mean "we don't know who made it", (which is stupid to claim, but anyway) then once again, congrats dave. you just created another tautology. Do we know "who made" the cell, dave? the Earth?

                  So your analogy becomes:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on a Hi-tech alien spaceship  ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship found in a Hi-tech alien spaceship ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (once again, BraveSirDave... is the SUN a "REAL factory?")

                  On the other hand, if "alien" means what it's supposed to mean, that is "of different origin" or "out of place", then how does that work in the cell/flagella comparison? Is the flagellum "alien" to the cell?

                  So, my young padawan, either your analogy doesn't work, or it's not an analogy at all.

                  Now go play with your Jesus Action Figure, and let the grown-ups talk about grown-up stuff.

                  :p
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,02:44

                  Whoa... Heavy...

                  Guys I just figured something out.

                  The United States of America were created as a single sovereign nation under the Constitution about 220 years ago (and please correct any mistakes I'm making here, ok?). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, written by the founders of the States, is central to the ideas, beliefs and principles that USA must stand for.
                  about 10-11 generations later, these very ideas are respected and honoured by all the descendants of the people that formed this Country. Even immigrants from distant lands accept and embrace these principles and ideas, that are (in principle, I'm not making a speech here) behind America's greatness.

                  Now, let's see...

                  The entire Earth was repopulated right after the Flood, by Noah and his family, after GOD HIMSELF saved them from the world-wide Flood he caused. He gave them instructions and promises, he even put a friggin rainbow in the sky as a sign of them (light was not refracted before that time, apparently :) )

                  Then after 180 years, or 9 generations, what do we see?
                  The immediate descendants of those people, children and grandchilden mostly (they -somehow- lived for centuries, remember? ) completely forgetting poor old Yahveh, worshipping false gods with animal heads, and even constructing HUGE TOMBS for kings they worshipped as gods!

                  Well dave, that settles it: USA>>God.

                  I guess you're lucky it wasn't founded on Christian beliefs!


                  :D
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,02:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,14:50)
                  ... even though both of us think we are familiar--you say ToE, I say God--
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't use a false dichotomy dave, a large number of biologists say God by way of evolution.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,02:56

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,02:47)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,14:50)
                  ... even though both of us think we are familiar--you say ToE, I say God--
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't use a false dichotomy dave, a large number of biologists say God by way of evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And a large number of ID "proponentsists" say it's design by way of um no wait
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,03:01

                  Dave,

                  It must really suck big time to have a faith that is so weak it cannot survive discovering that the universe is older the 6k years.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,03:50

                  A few examples of DAVE'S vocabulary:

                  Primary age: the age Geologists accept first, and make all others up.

                  Alien: Something we have no idea where it came from, or how it was created. (dave sees his housemaid from Latvia every morning and goes "GAH! what the heck are you"? )

                  Intuition: Something that is not based on logic or reasoning, and we use it when we make a logical analysis to come to reasonable estimates.
                  It also cures common cold, keeps mosquitos away and cleans stains in a flash.

                  Metaphor: Whatever, I dunno, prolly some Norse God or something.

                  Honest mistake: When, you know, you say something and then say the exact opposite and then you claim you never said the first thing and then you say you said it, but you meant to say something else entirely and then you say that that other thing you meant to say is not what you claimed you meant to say and you never said it was and then you run away.

                  Please feel free to add more definitions, everyone.
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Dec. 28 2006,05:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Honest mistake: When, you know, you say something and then say the exact opposite and then you claim you never said the first thing and then you say you said it, but you meant to say something else entirely and then you say that that other thing you meant to say is not what you claimed you meant to say and you never said it was and then you run away.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You need to add "...petulantly and repeatedly claiming victory" at the end there.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 28 2006,06:29

                  Don't forget
                  quote mine real science: to falsely claim 'A. Scientist' supports creationism, but instead...uh proves evolution and disparages creationism all the while AFD with Ted Haggard wild eyes is thinking the opposite"

                  Truth: True lies

                  Jeremiad: Begging

                  Sin: Virtue.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 28 2006,08:00

                  quantitative: qualitative

                  qualitative: quantitative
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 28 2006,08:37

                  Ice Age: A mechanism for distributing animals between far-flung continents, a time of abundant bioactivity, growth, and diversification.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,08:45

                  Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,09:03

                  Portuguese (also known as Schrodinger's Language): A language of the Iberian that, due to a freak linguistic time paradox, was created from mixing French with Spanish in 1143- and, at the same time, developed separately from Vulgar Latin, as early as the 5th Century (see: AFDavian Quantum Linguistics).
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 28 2006,09:20

                  And of course the mother load of AFDism and all his creo. twits.

                  honesty:affectation, bad faith, bigotry, cant, casuistry, chewing gum, chicken, crocodile tears, deceit, deception, dishonesty, display, dissembling, dissimulation, double-dealing, duplicity, false profession, falsity, fraud, glibness, goop, hooey, imposture, insincerity, irreverence, lie, lip service, mockery, pharisaicalness, pharisaism, phoniness, pietism, pretense, quackery, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, sham, soft soap, speciousness, spinach, sweet talk, two-facedness, unctuousness

                  sincerity:deceitfulness
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,09:37

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 27 2006,10:52)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  [Quote=Ericmurphy]Except, Dave, that these "facts" are all fantasies dreamed up by you and your creationist brethren.....You don't have a clue how science works, Dave. You can't just point to some random passage in the Bible and claim that proves anything. [/Quote]

                  I debated posting to the forum because I find most of these discussions to be fruitless one way or the other.  I believe in a Young Earth just as Dave does on this thread.  But I do not believe I can argue it purely on scientifc grounds, anymore than an evolution can argue his entire scientific beliefs on scientific grounds.  Sure each theory has science that points to certain aspects of them, but neither are "bullet proof" from a scientific perspective.

                  I hold to a young earth because of my faith, and solely my faith.  The problem is that neither are fully scientifically testable.  True science requires you to observe the activities, recreate them and develop hypothesis or laws based on testable and observable means.  The truth is that many of the evolutionary theories are not testable and are built on top of other theories.  I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.

                  On the other hand I cannot prove that creationism occured solely based on scientific principles.  At the core it is faith based.  My faith and personal relationship with God demands me to hold the Bible as truth.  I cannot hold the Bible as partial truth or some truth sprinkled through fiction.  The Bible is either truth or it is blasphemy.  I must hold to one or the other.  I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.  How can I prove miracles?  I cannot.  How can I prove the actions of God?  I cannot.  Job 38-40 give a good example of the mysteries of God.  When Job was confronted by his friends and they chided him and tried to get him to question God based on his experiences, God answered, "Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations fo the earth? declare, if thou has understanding."  and then he ends His speach to Job in Chapter 40 "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."  I cannot contend with God.

                  The overall and arching complaint that I have with evolution is this idea that the utterly complex and highly organized and highly ordered physical universe was created by chance.  The order is so vaste that we as scientist haven't even come close to scratching the surface.  It is on the backbone of order that evolutionist create their theories.  I am unable to understand how randomness allows me to determine that an eclipse will occur on a certain date 10,000 years from now and which set of cities will be impacted by the eclipse.  How can randomness create gravity,time, heat, math....  Everything around us is based on order.  And the order is intricately weaved throughout the entire universe.  It is not just the planets moving around other celetial bodies, but also having to rotate.  I am unable to comprehend how order can be so inextricably weaved throughout the universe solely based on randomness.

                  Additionally evolution claims that mutations were randomly brought about due to external stimuli.  And that these mutations and changes eventually produced a logical orderly progression.  No intelligence is claimed to have brought this about, yet article after article by evolutionists have the undertones of order.  You read such statements as "life would not be quelled, but raised it's head and animal x continued to adapt to the changing environment"  Evolution must follow a single ordered path.  If evolution was random you would still see evidences of it occuring today on a much grander scale.  Why do we not see one example of an Australopithecus ramidus.  Can't the jump still be made?  Why is evolution forward movement  if it is only random based.  Why are all hominids based on a single lineage?  If it was purely random based on external stimuli, couldn't some hominids have been created parallel to others ( a branching out) outside of this linear hominid path?  Why can't an ape still make the jump to Australopithecus?  Is the hominid movement linear?  Is there knowledge amongst the evolutionary system to ensure that previous jumps don't occur again?  There is no concerted explanation amongst evolutionists on why Ardipithecus ramidus went extinct never more to come about except for the idea that the next jump was made which in essence made ramidus obsolete.  Intelligence must even be ascribed to evolution if one is to hold fully to that belief.

                  I find the idea of evolution to require just as much faith to believe in as creationism.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,09:40

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,08:45)
                  Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I love this one.  I will have to remember it.  :D
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 28 2006,09:50

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,10:37)
                  The overall and arching complaint that I have with evolution is this idea that the utterly complex and highly organized and highly ordered physical universe was created by chance.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So what's stopping you from believing that evolution happened according to God's plan?  That theory that organisms evolved from a common ancestor does not seem to contradict your belief in an ordered universe.  Your problem is with the very concept of "chance" rather than with any scientific theory of evolution.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 28 2006,09:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I hold to a young earth because of my faith, and solely my faith.  The problem is that neither are fully scientifically testable.  True science requires you to observe the activities, recreate them and develop hypothesis or laws based on testable and observable means.  The truth is that many of the evolutionary theories are not testable and are built on top of other theories.  I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well thats nice, but what you 'believe' or what your uneducated opinion is, means nothing, nobody gives a ####.

                  Why don't you send off an email to the Nobel committee and get them to withdraw the 2006 physics prize calibrating Cosmic Microwave Background radiation which so far sets the date of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old
                  < How to Avoid Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Sickness >
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Dec. 28 2006,09:59



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The difference between that "evolutionist" and AFDave is that after the 3 years and the new fossil, the evolutionist changed his mind about his thesis and went back to work, whereas Dave would just keep making more and more convoluted and dishonest arguments to make it appear that the evidence still supported his unchangeable conclusion, all the while declaring victory every time he spoke.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2006,10:08

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,09:37)
                  I find the idea of evolution to require just as much faith to believe in as creationism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  really? Then you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

                  Do you believe in the literal truth of the Ark story? You must, you've already said that all or none of the bible is true.    Have you not seen how destroyed AFDave gets every time that comes up?

                  You can argue that evilution also has it's assumptions, as does the bible fairy tale. We're however using computers, which are not mentioned in the bible and the "assumptions" about the laws of the universe hold true to such an extent that quantum theory provides a usable framework for construction advanced items such as the computer you are reading this on. So, weigh up A) the bible B) Actual science and I think you'll find that the airplane you last flew on had nothing whatsoever to do with the bibble.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  True science requires you to observe the activities, recreate them and develop hypothesis or laws based on testable and observable means.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, does it. I guess you dont believe in plate tectonics then? It's hardly possible to re-create the formation of the crust of the earth, and so this is all hearsay as far as you are concerned? Pah. What's your theory as to how the earth got to look as it does? Let's hear it????


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  volution must follow a single ordered path.  If evolution was random you would still see evidences of it occuring today on a much grander scale.  Why do we not see one example of an Australopithecus ramidus.  Can't the jump still be made?  Why is evolution forward movement  if it is only random based.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How ignorant! How many millions of years do you have to wait around and watch for evolution in action? Pathetic. You've been reading too much UD! If I dont have a video tape of it happening, I refuse to believe it! That's not how real "science" works.
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So the universe could have been created 15 seconds ago, with all our memories intact? So, gawd created the universe 15 seconds ago and made it look like it's 15 byo, and WHY DID HE DO THIS? WHAT A BASTARD YOUR GOD MUST BE!
                  Is this some sort of test perhaps? Make it look old, but TRUE BELIEVERS will see through the charade and note that it's 15 seconds old really? WHAT IS THE POINT? Are you 10 years old? Do you really think this way? What a evil bastard you worship. So is your position that gawd COULD not have made the universe look 15 seconds old IF HE WANTED TO? Ha. Some all powerfull gawd you worship.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,08:45)
                  Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.

                  I love this one.  I will have to remember it.  :D

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah, funny huh? But the continents race around @ 150MPH in "your" version of the creation event. And on their way they are boiling the seas!

                  Go read a non-fiction book!
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 28 2006,10:19

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,10:37)
                  The overall and arching complaint that I have with evolution is this idea that the utterly complex and highly organized and highly ordered physical universe was created by chance.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Welcome, dgszweda. OK, what does evolutionary theory which deals with changes in life forms over time, have to do with the creation of the universe?
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 28 2006,10:32

                  Quote (improvius @ ,)
                  Your problem is with the very concept of "chance" rather than with any scientific theory of evolution.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heh, imagine how problematic "chance" would be in an unordered universe!
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2006,10:59

                  dgszweda, let me ask you 1 question.

                  If you had been raised either atheist or *any* other religion that did not use the bible as it's source, would reading the bible be enougth to convert you into a believer, if you read it *say* when you were 20 years of age?

                  Are there any buddists (Not a religion!;) out there who also believe in ID?

                  My contention is that you were raised by a believer who transfered the "believe" meme to you before you were old enough to understand what it was you were letting into your  still forming mind.  

                  Can *anybody* point me out a ID'er who does not believe in the christian god? If the evidence is so overpowering (or, LOL overwhelming) then It seems to be this overwhelmingevidence would be converting people all over the world, whatever their pre-existing religion was!

                  As this is not happening (or i'm sure the disovery people would be crowing about it) then what does this tell us about this so called overwhelmingevidence?

                  You know what, over on overwhelmingevidence.com it'd be nice if they put on the website the overwhelmingevidence itself! Then we can all have a read and be overwhelmed!

                  Honestly, why don't they collect this overwhelmingevidence  together in one place, i'll bring my microscope and we will all have a look together!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 28 2006,11:05

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,07:37)
                  I debated posting to the forum because I find most of these discussions to be fruitless one way or the other.  I believe in a Young Earth just as Dave does on this thread.  But I do not believe I can argue it purely on scientifc grounds, anymore than an evolution can argue his entire scientific beliefs on scientific grounds.  Sure each theory has science that points to certain aspects of them, but neither are "bullet proof" from a scientific perspective.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One thing that would probably help you a great deal is to realize that evolution isn't remotely random. Yes, the seeds of evolution are more or less random; pseudorandom would probably be a good description (although not strictly accurate in the mathematical sense). But evolution itself is emphatically non-random. We've been trying to pound this seemingly-simple concept into AF Dave's head for months now, with little to show for our efforts.

                  Another thing that would help, if you're honestly interested in learning more about the Theory of Evolution, is to discover what the theory is and is not about. The Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life; it covers the origin of species. And it most emphatically does not cover, indeed has nothing whatsoever to do with, the origin of the universe, the laws of nature, gravity, particle physics, etc. Those are all covered by entirely separate (and very very different) physical theories.

                  It's a common mistake among creationists, especially YECs, to think that the ToE (Theory of Evolution) is really a ToE (a Theory of Everything). It's not.

                  Furthermore, it is far from true (it's the opposite of true) that one must accept Evolution on faith just as one must take Creationism on faith. The Theory of Evolution is supported by physical evidence. One can be persuaded by the evidence, or not (and in my experience, most people who are not persuaded by the evidence lack the necessary technical expertise to make a rational judgment on the evidence). Your point about a scientist teaching a particular hypothesis for years only to find out it's contradicted by new evidence is a strength, not a weakness, of scientific theories. In the fullness of time, and despite human weakness and foibles, science is self-correcting.

                  Religion, on the other hand, is not. Virtually all of the biblical Genesis is contradicted by evidence, as I and others have been pointing out to AF Dave to the point of exhaustion for eight months now. But when new evidence comes to light (as has happened for over 200 years now) which contradicts the biblical account, the Bible is not revised or updated, as science is. It remains exactly as it was, and becomes increasingly in conflict with observation as time goes on.

                  You are correct that one must accept the Bible on faith, since there is nothing else supporting it. It is not necessary (and it is actively discouraged) to take the Theory of Evolution on faith. One can, with sufficient training (and I guarantee you that Dave's protestations to the contrary, he for one doesn't even begin to have the necessary training), have an informed opinion on the strength of the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. Almost unanimously, those with the requisite training are of the opinion that that evidence is rock-solid.

                  One of the tenets of the punk rock movement of the 1970s was that anyone should be able to get up on stage and play music. While the idea isn't completely without merit, it certainly wasn't true in all cases. There were plenty of acts producing "music" that almost everyone would agree was unlistenable.

                  AF Dave takes a punk-rock approach to science. He is of the opinion that any layman, after reading a few Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica articles (along with huge swaths of AiG pseudoscience), is qualified to make assessments of evidence that real scientists take decades of understanding in order to evaluate. Dave's results are much more hilarious than any bad seventies punk rock.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,11:10



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the other hand I cannot prove that creationism occured solely based on scientific principles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You cannot prove that creationism occurred based on [bold]any[/bold] scientific principles.  'Creationism' and evolution are not two equally supported choices, there is no scientific bases for creationism.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,11:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The truth is that many of the evolutionary theories are not testable and are built on top of other theories.  I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In this one paragraph you seem to say that you have a problem with the TofE because parts of it can't be tested.  Then you say you have a problem with the TofE because parts of it are tested and corrected.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,11:31

                  LONG LIVES WELL SUPPORTED OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
                  Not much time today ... but here's some snippets ...

                  There are other lists that refer to long-lived ante-Diluvian patriarchs besides the Book of Genesis ...

                  See < here >

                  There is controversy about Sumerian counting of years which I will explore here later, but suffice to say for now that there is  good extra-Biblical corroboration to the idea that prior the Flood, men lived much longer lives than they do now.  This, of course, agrees with known genetic data that genomes were much less degraded in the past.

                  I will give you the population formula I am using later today ...

                  Combine all this and it is no problem for the Great Pyramid to be built soon after the Flood.  How many years exactly?  Maybe not as little as 180, but certainly 300-400 years is no problem at all ...

                  More to come on this.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,11:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  True science
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It has been my experience that when anyone in the Cult of Creationism uses these words they end up meaning-

                  'true science' = whatever I think I can twist to agree with my enterpratation of the Bible.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,11:52

                  Creationists claim that 'parts of the ToE cannot be tested'.  Would Dave, or any other creationist, list for me the parts of the ToE that, in their opinions, cannot be tested.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 28 2006,11:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave



                  Posts: 1415
                  Joined: April 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2006,08:26  
                  OK fine.  I can bash UD as good as anyone.  Look at this piece from UD ... DS is so dumb ... he really thinks this will have an effect on ToE!  Can you believe that?

                  Quote
                  SILENT MUTATIONS
                  "Silent" mutations are not always silent  Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function
                  [Published 21st December 2006 07:21 PM GMT]
                  A mutation in a human gene that does not change the resulting amino acid can nevertheless change a protein's function, according to an online report from Science. The research marks the first time that the phenomenon has been confirmed in mammals.

                  "The habit we all have of disregarding nucleotide changes that don't change protein sequence may not be a good one," coauthor Michael Gottesman at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., told The Scientist. "This may be a generalizable phenomenon that may lead to changes in function we haven't been thinking about."
                  < http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38329/ >
                  UD Article

                  DS then says ...    
                  Quote
                  Whatever the mechanism it really makes hash out of neutral theory and molecular clock theory.

                  Also note I’ve blogged in the past about how a design theoretic view predicts things like this. In this comment I described how the NTSC video signal evolved as intelligent designers added additional ways of encoding information to the carrier without effecting the preexisting ways and said we should look for DNA to have multiple encoding schemes one atop the other.
                  Poor guy.  I wonder how far away his other synapse is.  (Thanks SPH)

                  --------------
                  THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 28 2006,11:56

                  Quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list @ ,)
                  Early Dynastic I

                  Ante-diluvian kings, legendary, or earlier than ca. the 26th century BC....

                     * Alulim of Eridu(g): 8 sars (28800 years)
                     * Alalgar of Eridug: 10 sars (36000 years)
                     * En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 12 sars (43200 years)
                     * En-Men-Ana 1, 2
                     * En-Men-Gal-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 8 sars (28800 years)
                     * Dumuzi of Bad-Tibira, the shepherd: 10 sars (36000 years)
                     * En-Sipad-Zid-Ana of Larag: 8 sars (28800 years)
                     * En-Men-Dur-Ana of Zimbir: 5 sars and 5 ners (21000 years)
                     * Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppag: 5 sars and 1 ner (18600 years)
                     * Zin-Suddu 1
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                   28,800
                  +36,000
                  +43,200
                  +28,800
                  +36,000
                  +28,800
                  +21,000
                  +18,600

                  =241,200 years of kings before

                  + 2,600 BC

                  = a start of rule at 243,800 BC!

                  + 2006 AD

                  = 245,806 ybp!!!

                  When did your universe start again AFdave?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,11:56



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That would have been the god Loki, the trickster right?
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,12:06

                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 28 2006,09:50)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well thats nice, but what you 'believe' or what your uneducated opinion is, means nothing, nobody gives a ####.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wouldn't say it is uneducated.  I am quite an educated man, specifically in the sciences, and I have worked with some of the leading minds of the day.  What might be better is that instead of getting confrontational it might be interesting to learn from each other.  I often call these conversations unfruitful, because it is doubtful any of us will change our positions, but it may be interesting why people who believe in a young earth believe in one.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,12:10

                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 28 2006,10:19)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Welcome, dgszweda. OK, what does evolutionary theory which deals with changes in life forms over time, have to do with the creation of the universe?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You are correct, they do not have anything to do with each other, except that most who hold to one hold to the other.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 28 2006,12:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,09:31)
                  LONG LIVES WELL SUPPORTED OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
                  Not much time today ... but here's some snippets ...

                  There are other lists that refer to long-lived ante-Diluvian patriarchs besides the Book of Genesis ...

                  See < here >

                  There is controversy about Sumerian counting of years which I will explore here later, but suffice to say for now that there is  good extra-Biblical corroboration to the idea that prior the Flood, men lived much longer lives than they do now.  This, of course, agrees with known genetic data that genomes were much less degraded in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Once again, Dave's propensity to post arguments that undercut his other arguments rears its lovely head.

                  Dave, did you notice that many of the reigns of these Sumerian kings are measured in tens of thousands of years? 18,000 years, 21,000 years, 28,000 years, 43,000 years. If I add up the reigns of just the first few kings listed, I come up with 367,200 years. Doesn't that present a slight problem for your 6,000-year-old-universe "hypothesis"?

                  So you're posting data that directly contradicts your own "hypothesis." Clearly, you don't even think these ages are remotely accurate. They couldn't be accurate within two orders of magnitude. Yet they're in written records, Dave. The same kind of records your Bibble is.

                  So what basis do you have for believing that these reigns lasted any longer than, say, a few decades, Dave? There really isn't that much difference between being off by two orders of magnitude and three orders of magnitude, is there?

                  I think a much stronger case can be made for the inherent unreliability of written records than can be made for extended human lifetimes, just using evidence you yourself have presented.

                  I doubt that's what you were thinking when you posted that Wiki page, Dave, but that's pretty much the effect it has on me. You claim Adam lived for 800 years or so, and now you're claiming obscure Sumerian kings lived for tens of thousands of years. Why should I give either claim any credence? I think translation errors coupled with exaggeration account for both stories much better than thinking either one is even remotely accurate.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I will give you the population formula I am using later today ...

                  Combine all this and it is no problem for the Great Pyramid to be built soon after the Flood.  How many years exactly?  Maybe not as little as 180, but certainly 300-400 years is no problem at all ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're assuming Noah and his fellow survivors started immediately breeding like rabbits (or, actually, more like bacteria), and immediately moved to Egypt to pump out future manual laborers for the pyramids. But you still have to account for the repopulation of the rest of the planet. You seem to have forgotten than evidence of human habitation is spread throughout the world, and we see no evidence of any sort of patter of radiation within historical times. In other words, evidence of civilization in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and even the New World seems to have happened almost simultaneously (at least on any reasonable timescale). So how many people do you really need to generate in a few hundred years? A lot more than you'd need just to build a couple of pyramids.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 28 2006,12:18

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,08:45)
                  Plate Tectonics: Continental drag race.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  -Continental demolition derby.

                  Up: down
                  Right: wrong
                  Happy: terrified
                  Stoned: stoned
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,12:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There is controversy about Sumerian counting of years which I will explore here later, but suffice to say for now that there is  good extra-Biblical corroboration to the idea that prior the Flood, men lived much longer lives than they do now.  This, of course, agrees with known genetic data that genomes were much less degraded in the past.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Translation:

                  "See guys, I don't have just my fairytale as proof that humans lived 900 years, I have other fairytales too! Never mind that those speak of hundreds of thousands of years; I'll find a way to cook the numb... I mean find evidence that will show they were wrong about that, but right about the rest! Praise Yahveh!"

                  "And there's always 'Genomic Perfection' to explain away how that happened! because, you know, it has been scientifically proven that our super-duper perfect genomes would make us live a thousand years, if it weren't for those baaaad mutations! It's a FACT I tell you!"

                  :D

                  Oh BTW, how many centuries after the Fall did the Flood take place again, dave? "Perfect Genomes" you say?

                  :D

                  Man, you can't even keep your own fairytales straight.

                  :D

                  56 children on average, huh? I suppose that perfect genome made women fertile until they were 80? Not that much of a miracle with Sarah, then.

                  :D

                  And when were those Pyramids built again? Care to back it up with some archaeological evidence? Don't forget to squeeze the Tower of Babel in there somewhere, too...

                  :D

                  And what "population formula" does your friend Jan Peczkis use dave? how many people were alive at the time of the Pyramids, according to that?

                  :D

                  How was there an explosive increase in both biodiversity and biomass the first years after the flood, dave?

                  :D

                  ...And with a rapidly deteriorating genome and the tiniest (2! ), inbreeding population?

                  :D

                  ...And in the middle of an Ice Age?

                  :D

                  Aaaand let's not forget... Is the sun a real factory, dave?

                  :D

                  You have nowhere to run, little mouse.

                  Why don't you just admit, like dgszweda does, that your FAITH is not based in any science whatsoever, and you think that "Goddidit" without even taking the least contradictory evidense into consideration, and get it over with? You know you want to.

                  Oh and, don't give me that "little time" crap: You were wasting time in the UD thread since morning. Jeez, you do you think you're fooling?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,12:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,09:31)
                  LONG LIVES WELL SUPPORTED OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
                  Not much time today ... but here's some snippets ...

                  There are other lists that refer to long-lived ante-Diluvian patriarchs besides the Book of Genesis ...

                  See < here >

                  There is controversy about Sumerian counting of years which I will explore here later, but suffice to say for now that there is  good extra-Biblical corroboration to the idea that prior the Flood, men lived much longer lives than they do now.  This, of course, agrees with known genetic data that genomes were much less degraded in the past.

                  I will give you the population formula I am using later today ...

                  Combine all this and it is no problem for the Great Pyramid to be built soon after the Flood.  How many years exactly?  Maybe not as little as 180, but certainly 300-400 years is no problem at all ...

                  More to come on this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The Hebrew scribes mined the Code of Hammarabi for most of the ten commandments; filed the serial numbers off the Epic of Gilgamesh and renamed it the Arc of Noah; and took the Sumerian's word for it that people lived a really, really long time 'way back when'.  Is there anything in Genisis that they didn't ah, borrow from the Sumerians?
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,12:35

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 28 2006,10:59)
                  My contention is that you were raised by a believer who transfered the "believe" meme to you before you were old enough to understand what it was you were letting into your  still forming mind.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I will respond to your more refined response.  I will stay out of the unecessary attacks that are more personal in nature.  And I will attempt to concentrate my responses on the discussion as well.

                  I do not classify Intelligent Design to be the same as Creationism, although I am sure that many IDers are creationists.

                  I do not hold to the belief that I believe what I believe because my parents "brainwashed" me.  I do not believe in a static faith.  I believe because I have a personal relationship with God.  My faith is in the Bible.  We all have faith, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have faith.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 28 2006,12:36

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 27 2006,16:41)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,10:05)
                  You mean you've never read about how rapidly the ecology was restored at Mt. Saint Helens?  Surely you've read about that, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, hi. So Dave, Mt. St. Helens. I did some work there right after the blast. What do you think the rebound was like? I'm guessing you don't really know much about it. Just a guess but, if  you are using that as an example of how 180 years is enough time to create millions of people, feed them and create the pyramids, stonehenge and the americas, I'm thinking that you might have a little problem.

                  If by "rapidly restored" you mean "not rapidly restored" then I suppose you would be right. Is that what you meant? The devil will be in your details on that one. Deer can do well on salmonberry shoots but the "ecology" is still in the process of restoring. But  I guess it all depends on your definitions of ecology and restoring and what contitutes an ecosystem that can allow people to go from
                  8 -> 180 years ->  minimum 10 million. (Does this seem like a good number?)

                  I assume that human population modeling is similar to other types of population modeling in that you have to figure out the limiting factors. Calorie availability is a big one. You would have to show that the food supply for exponential growth was available. You have to show this as converters rather than reservoirs not just because food spoils but because they started with zero. Desolation.
                  The converters would have to show that the available reservoirs could support the conversion rates necessary. The math to do this in marine systems is pretty hairy. I assume it is a little easier on land but erosion rates would have been pretty high at first since there were no plants to hold in the soil so you would have to take that into account.

                  By my quick calculations, it couldn't happen. But I left out a lot of things. A big one would be how efficient your converters were.

                  Then infant mortality rates. Exponential growth relies on very low infant mortality.

                  Also, if you define "ecosystem" in the normal sense, you are including competition (the thing that drives natural selection). You would have to account for competition within your converters. That involves a little calculus but it's not too hard. The trick is figuring out your factors.

                  My guess is that you can't do this. Only because you are not smart. Other people could probably do it but I don't think you can. Go ahead though, feel free to prove me wrong. So far you have a zero average in that department but it's not through my lack of giving you opportunities.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's funny but I started posting in this thread because of DSDave's definitions. It started out with portuguese but soon hit the harder stuff. His faith he said would stand behind him
                  when the game got rough. But the joke was on Dave, there was nobody even there to bluff. Maybe he'll go back to Missouri, it's hard to believe he hasn't had enough.
                  ;)
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 28 2006,12:38

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,13:35)
                  We all have faith, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have faith.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave doesn't.  If he had faith, he wouldn't need to spend so much time trying to rationalize his beliefs.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 28 2006,12:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,11:31)
                  LONG LIVES WELL SUPPORTED OUTSIDE THE BIBLE
                  Not much time today ... but here's some snippets ...

                  There are other lists that refer to long-lived ante-Diluvian patriarchs besides the Book of Genesis ...

                  See < here >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What Steve and Eric said.  Plus (same Wikipedia article):



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish."

                  First Dynasty of Kish
                  Jushur of Kish: 1200 years
                  Kullassina-bel of Kish: 960 years
                  Nangishlishma of Kish: 670 years
                  En-Tarah-Ana of Kish: 420 years
                  Babum of Kish: 300 years
                  Puannum of Kish: 840 years
                  Kalibum of Kish: 960 years
                  Kalumum of Kish: 840 years
                  Zuqaqip of Kish: 900 years
                  Atab of Kish: 600 years
                  Mashda of Kish: 840 years
                  Arwium of Kish: 720 years
                  Etana of Kish, the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries: 1500 years
                  Balih of Kish: 400 years
                  En-Me-Nuna of Kish: 660 years
                  Melem-Kish of Kish: 900 years
                  Barsal-Nuna of Kish: 1200 years
                  Zamug of Kish: 140 years
                  Tizqar of Kish: 305 years
                  Ilku of Kish: 900 years
                  Iltasadum of Kish: 1200 years
                  En-Men-Barage-Si of Kish, who conquered Elam: 900 years (this is the earliest ruler in the list who is confirmed independently from epigraphical evidence)
                  Aga of Kish: 625 years
                  Then Kish was defeated and the kingship was taken to E-ana.

                  First Dynasty of Uruk
                  Mesh-ki-ang-gasher of E-ana, son of Utu: 324 years.
                  Mesh-ki-ang-gasher went into the Sea and disappeared.

                  Enmerkar, who built Unug: 420 years
                  Lugalbanda of Unug, the shepherd: 1200 years
                  Dumuzid of Unug, the fisherman: 100 years. Captured En-Me-Barage-Si of Kish.
                  Gilgamesh, whose father was a "phantom", lord of Kulaba: 126 years.
                  Ur-Nungal of Unug: 30 years
                  Udul-Kalama of Unug: 15 years
                  La-Ba'shum of Unug: 9 years
                  En-Nun-Tarah-Ana of Unug: 8 years
                  Mesh-He of Unug: 36 years
                  Melem-Ana of Unug: 6 years
                  Lugal-Kitun of Unug: 36 years
                  Then Uruk was defeated and the kingship was taken to Urim.


                  First dynasty of Ur
                  ca. 25th century BC

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  After the Flood, and before the 25th century BCE: 1200 + 960 + 670 + 420 + 300 + 840 + 960 + 840 + 900 + 600 + 840 + 720 + 1500 + 400 + 660 + 900 + 1200 + 140 + 305 + 900 + 1200 + 900 + 625 + 324 + 420 + 1200 + 100 + 126 + 30 + 15 + 9 + 8 + 36 + 6 + 36 = 20290 years

                  Plus, presumably, time for the population to expand post-Flood in order for there to be enough people in Sumeria to have a king.  Oh, and we need an ice age too.

                  So we can add another miracle to Dave's cosmology: Divine Number Theory.  20290<2500.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,12:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I often call these conversations unfruitful, because it is doubtful any of us will change our positions, but it may be interesting why people who believe in a young earth believe in one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If you have even one reason for believing in a young earth that is based on science and not a wacky Irishman's enterpratation of the Bible I'd love to hear it.  I've been reading creationist's writings for thirty years and have yet to hear one.

                  If your belief in a young earth is based solely on your understanding of the Bible then go in peace, I have no problem with you as long as you don't try to claim it's sience and try to teach it as such to children in public schools.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,12:53

                  Cleaning up another duplicate post.  If anyone out there has experience posting to these lists with a PocketPC perhaps you could enlighten me as to the cause of these double posts.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 28 2006,12:58

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,12:45)
                  If your belief in a young earth is based solely on your understanding of the Bible then go in peace, I have no problem with you as long as you don't try to claim it's sience and try to teach it as such to children in public schools.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  MR has hit the nail firmly on the head.  As long as no-one else gets hurt, you are entitled to believe anything you like.  But if you're going to claim your beliefs are based on objective evidence, you'd better be able to produce it.  One side of this "debate" is able to do so.  Guess which one?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 28 2006,13:03

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,10:06)
                  I wouldn't say it is uneducated.  I am quite an educated man, specifically in the sciences, and I have worked with some of the leading minds of the day.  What might be better is that instead of getting confrontational it might be interesting to learn from each other.  I often call these conversations unfruitful, because it is doubtful any of us will change our positions, but it may be interesting why people who believe in a young earth believe in one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just out of curiosity: what sciences are you educated in? Because frankly, without an education in the life sciences, specifically in evolutionary biology, you're probably not really qualified to assess the evidence for the Theory of Evolution (I really hope you don't deny the reality of evolution per se, because that's not really even in dispute. Even AF Dave believes evolution happens; he just doesn't think he believes it).

                  And in order to be qualified to assess the evidence for an old earth, you would additionally need to be educated in the earth sciences, specifically geology, and a background in chemistry and nuclear chemistry would also be helpful.

                  In my experience, an engineering background is worse than useless in assessing such evidence. It's really amazing how many engineers are YECs.

                  But I would think that if it's true you're actually educated in the sciences, and that you have some experience with the publication of scientific papers and the peer review processes, it would be difficult for you to maintain your skepticism of the evidence supporting both the Theory of Evolution and the age of the universe. Such evidence really is pretty overwhelming.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,13:20

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,11:52)
                  Creationists claim that 'parts of the ToE cannot be tested'.  Would Dave, or any other creationist, list for me the parts of the ToE that, in their opinions, cannot be tested.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Sure, I will give you just one, although I am sure I can fill a whole book with these assumptions.  One of the difficulties that I have is that so many assumptions are treated as little facts.  The theory of evolution is based on small changes that occured and built on top of other changes.  There are thousands and thousands if not millions upon millions of changes that took place.  Many of these small changes are hypothesised based on only bones that we have.

                  One thing that frusturates me is that we have evolution based textbooks showing dinosaurs with feathers, or scales and we have movies showing how certain dinosaurs hunted in packs.  Where is this stuff coming from.  It is guesses based on bones that are found.  We have been observing gorillas for decades in real life and still don't understand fully their social structures.  How can we be so presumptuous as to say that with a high degree of certainty we know that Dinosaur X hunted in packs and attacked from the side of it's prey.

                  Back to the original question.  Here is one.  Cynodonts are often discussed as having a diaphragm.  This is based on the absence of lumbar ribs. (Quoted in Kemp, TS (1982), Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammal, Academic Press)  How do we know for sure there was no diaphragm?  Can we do a physical examination of the creature.  I understand the premise of where Kemp was coming from.  But we have many premises on creatures who are alive that we can examine, and we have difficulty getting that right often.  Can we be so positive on something considered millions of years old with only the presence of bones.  To add on top of that for many of the creatures we base hypothesis' on, we don't even have full skeletons and in some cases only a few bones.

                  Granted the whole case of the Theory of Evolution doesn't hold in the balance of whether Cynodonts had diaphragms.  But it just an example of the hundreds of assumptions that are made which then are used to support the next assumption.

                  Now what rests on this idea that Cynodonts had a diaphragm.  Well first Kemp goes on to make a strong case that the helps present a mammalian rib cage and mammalian lung ventilation.  Pough (Pough, F.H., Vertebrate Life)than makes the jump based on Kemp that this dictates that the late Cynondonts had a high level of activity because of Kemps theory.  Bennett and Ruben (The ecology and biology of mammal-like reptiles)though go into great depths that this not linked to diaphragmatic ventilation but is a sign that shows the cynodonts were developing rotational ability in relation to the spinal column and that it was more related to an increase in it's physical activity.  So while some hold to Kemp which they extrapolate to state that only Cynodonts survived during the Late Permian in South Africa because they were endothermic, those who hold to Bennett's idea suggest that since they were transitional they must have had a transitional thermoregulatory capacity and therefore should be expected to exist in the Later Permian age.

                  So which is it and how can we test it?  Was it due to increased lung capacity or greater physical ability?  Do we even conclusively know if they existed in the Late Permian Age.  Maybe if we can autopsy one and examine it we could quickly determine this question.  But we cannot.  It is dead and all we have is the structure of what once lived.  Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact in order to help us shift other theories around in regards to the Late Permian Age.  And around it goes.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 28 2006,13:25

                  dgszweda, what sciences did you say you were educated in?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 28 2006,13:40

                  should we start a new thread for dgszweda?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,13:48

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 28 2006,11:25)
                  dgszweda, what sciences did you say you were educated in?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I think this is a pertinent question at this point.  To base your objections to the ToE on what you've seen in movies, or even what you've seen on the Science channel on cable, does not speak of any true understanding of the theory at all.

                  Yes there are huge quantities of conjecture presented as fact in those shows, but that is an indictment of he quality of the tv shows not the ToE.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,14:02

                  No new thread needed unless he wants his own.  He is quite welcome on mine.  I applaud his decision to post here.  I do not believe it is a waste of time.  There are a few refined responses in the midst of the fog of nonsense and even if there were not, the less-than-refined responses represent human beings who stand in need of the truth as much as anyone else.  I believe my job is to get the truth out to as many people as God drops in my path.  I cannot make these horses drink, but I can lead them to water and that is what I do.  

                  BTW--I do believe in God by faith also, however, as I have explained here before, it doesn't take much faith to believe in the God of the Bible because the evidence for Him is so massive ... far less faith required than the faith required to believe in the Naturalistic Worldview (for lack of a better term).
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,14:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

                  Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

                  I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2006,14:07

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:35)
                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 28 2006,10:59)
                  My contention is that you were raised by a believer who transfered the "believe" meme to you before you were old enough to understand what it was you were letting into your  still forming mind.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I will respond to your more refined response.  I will stay out of the unecessary attacks that are more personal in nature.  And I will attempt to concentrate my responses on the discussion as well.

                  I do not classify Intelligent Design to be the same as Creationism, although I am sure that many IDers are creationists.

                  I do not hold to the belief that I believe what I believe because my parents "brainwashed" me.  I do not believe in a static faith.  I believe because I have a personal relationship with God.  My faith is in the Bible.  We all have faith, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have faith.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  fine, believe all you like, but please understand when the story of the Ark is pushed as literal fact to children then people will stand up and fight against it.

                  Do you support AFDave's position that YEC or ID should be taught as fact to children? That's all I would like to know.

                  edit:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do not hold to the belief that I believe what I believe because my parents "brainwashed" me.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  To me, this has answered my question. Your parents had the same belief that you now hold. My point is how many children of good christians become muslims by age 10? None? The fact is that children believe what they are taught to believe. It's just like what football team you support, you'll more then likely support team X that's local instead of team Y. There's no objective difference, except that you happened to be born near team X.
                  So you may still have had your personal relationship with god, but it might have been based on the Koran if things had been slightly different, but you'd still be he arguing the same case. This is the fundamental difference to me between science and religion. Religion is completley static, despite what you might say and science is not at all (or at least it may appear to be so over short time scales, but there is always something new being discovered that overturns established norms sooner or later. The bible is static and inerrent, right?)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 28 2006,14:08

                  To take just one of this guy's (heck if I'm gonna learn how to type a name that doesn't scan...) f'rinstances:

                  Dude, we know that certain dinosaurs hunted in packs and attacked from the side because there are fossilized tracks of them doing so--theropod dinos loping alongside of sauropod dinos...
                  And the fossilized theropod claws fit into the fossilized tracks...
                  Etc.
                  There's a company that makes it's living helping curious people find the answers to questions like yours>

                  It's called (yeah I know it's kinda funny too, but at least it's shorter and sorta sounds like a word): Google.

                  Of course, even Google wouldn't be able to track down the answers if hard-working curious scientists hadn't spent all that time and energy digging and doing.

                  Maybe if you haven't done much of that you should oughta go do some--really, you can volunteer to help dig up fossils in the badlands of the West!--before you wax too fruitlessly here.

                  Just a thought.

                  Why do you worry about cynodont diaphragms in the first place if those bones were just emplaced there by the guy you believe did it to fool you?  There weren't *really* any cynodonts running around, right, just like there wasn't *really* a Permian.  So don't sweat it.  But don't pretend your idle ruminations about things you don't believe ever existed are of any interest to the rest of us who are busy, um, existing, OK?

                  Hope that was polite enuf and all.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,14:14

                  Hmmm ... I see Steve moved my post from the UD thread over to here.  I guess he perceived that my "ID Bashing" was insincere?  How could he think such a thing?!
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,14:15

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 28 2006,13:03)
                  Just out of curiosity: what sciences are you educated in?

                  But I would think that if it's true you're actually educated in the sciences, and that you have some experience with the publication of scientific papers and the peer review processes, it would be difficult for you to maintain your skepticism of the evidence supporting both the Theory of Evolution and the age of the universe. Such evidence really is pretty overwhelming.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I hold a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry and a double minor in Biology and Mathematics.  I have three years experience as a nuclear chemist developing methods to determine the reliability of nuclear warheads.  The most prominent person I worked with was Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon Lederman at Fermilab in Illinois.  I do not hold advanced degrees, but I think those are highly overrated anyway.  People bow down to those with a PhD, but I have met many PhD's who have difficulty balancing equations.  A PhD is a basically a cheap slave for a tenured staff member.  I worked for a little while at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico with their large radio telescope.

                  I do believe that small changes can occur in a species, it is even observable today, and in reality is all the evolution supports, but I do not believe that all species originated from a single species.  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,14:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

                  Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

                  I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2006,14:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:14)
                  Hmmm ... I see Steve moved my post from the UD thread over to here.  I guess he perceived that my "ID Bashing" was insincere?  How could he think such a thing?!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  not much gets by you does it davey?

                  So, how can biodiversity be increasing and decreasing at the same time?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,14:25

                  Hmmm ... so my "nuclear waste" of creationist thinking has been quarantined
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 28 2006,14:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:25)
                  Hmmm ... so my "nuclear waste" of creationist thinking has been quarantined
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  about that biodiversity?

                  And that mountain hikeing cacti? Up and down it goes, fast thing aint it? "Quick, the water is coming, run up the mountain top!"

                  davey, can you point me to the verse in the bible that says christmas day is on the 25th of december please? Oh, you cant? Odd that.

                  davey, if you found a nuclear reactor lying around on the ground, would you consider it must be designed?
                  Posted by: stephenWells on Dec. 28 2006,14:32

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,14:15)
                  I do believe that small changes can occur in a species, it is even observable today, and in reality is all the evolution supports, but I do not believe that all species originated from a single species.  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can you explain why you don't believe in evolution from a single common ancestor? Wouldn't you expect to see much more variation in, say, the genetic code, if we had multiple independent species origins? And to take a specific example, do you think that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and if not, why not?

                  Also- you seem to be arguing for creation with apparent age. Isn't that dangerously close to Last Thursdayism?
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,14:39

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 28 2006,14:07)
                  Do you support AFDave's position that YEC or ID should be taught as fact to children? That's all I would like to know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I do not believe that non-Christians should be teaching a religious belief.  I am not up on ID as much as probably you are even up on it.  But the last I heard was that ID was really pushing the idea to teach an alternative theory and not to treat evolution as carte blanche fact.

                  On the flipside, I don't think that most school teachers should be teaching evolution.  First, most do a crummy job at it.  Facts aren't straight in most of the science text books, people are misquoted and our children are being brainwashed by a bunch of bumbling text book writers.  So just because you feel confident that someone isn't pushing Intelligent Design down your children's throat, doesn't mean they still aren't getting a bunch of evolutionary mistakes in their classrooms.  If you don't believe me, read some of the textbooks and listen to some of the teachers.  Movies like Jurrasic Park don't help either.  Teachers teaching young children that Velociraptors had flexible tails, because they see it on a movie.  Give me a break.

                  Second, because there is no "Theory of Evolution".  In reality there are "Theories of Evolution".  You can say that there is an overarching theory that all species originated from a single species.  But venturing much beyond that you can probably line up sides on either side of every discussion in our children's text books with die hard evolutionists contradicting each other.  So this idea that id shouldn't be taught as fact, but evolution should be is a reaching as well.

                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.

                  This idea that many of you have that evolution is such a developed "science", I find funny.  It is much more fragmented than many would believe.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,14:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:02)
                  I believe my job is to get the truth out to as many people as God drops in my path.  I cannot make these horses drink, but I can lead them to water and that is what I do.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Now just wait a minute dave...

                  You have, again and again and again, claimed that yor "purpose" here is only to be "educated on the way darwinist fundies think", to use it for your own purposes later. (You have used the phrase "that does not serve my purpose" more than once, IIRC).

                  Do you deny that? You only said it again a few pages ago.

                  And now, that a person of like beliefs is reading this thread, you suddenly switch to "witness" mode, and claim you are doing it to save our poor misguided souls?

                  Dave, WHAT?

                  See, dgszweda, this is your typical dave. But don't take my word for it: I'm a Greek Darwinist fundy evobot, after all, and every word I utter is a lie.

                  Stick around, and see for yourself. See how dave evades, ignores or handwaves away questions he is unwilling (or unable, or both) to answer. See how he switches from one subject to another, leaving issues open and unresolved, only to claim he "beat them down" after a dozen pages. See how he resorts to childish mockery and lame posturing, when he is cornered beyond hope... And casually claims another "victory" and moves on.
                  And, most importantly, see how he deliberately resorts to LIES, just to keep his own ignorance from being exposed (check my sig for a tiny sample).

                  But hey, like I said: I'm just an evil secular darwinist. I might be lying through my teeth.

                  So stick around for awhile, and tell me what you think. You seem honest in your beliefs, and you certainly lack dave's HUGE amounts of arrogance (his first post here was something like "Can any of you smart sciency people, with all your degrees and credentials, explain ToE to me in just 5 sentences?")...

                  ...It should be relatively easy to figure him out. And understand our attitude towards him.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,14:59

                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

                  Remember, lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood by all accounts.  You may not buy 900+ years and I don't buy 25,000 (translation error in this case I think), but all accounts agree that lifespans were long.  150 years is not a stretch at all.

                  You may also think an average of 20 kids per family is crazy, but again, we are dealing with families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family.  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.

                  Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.

                  So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?

                  Yes, of course.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 28 2006,15:10

                  dgszweda writes,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do not hold advanced degrees, but I think those are highly overrated anyway.  People bow down to those with a PhD, but I have met many PhD's who have difficulty balancing equations.  A PhD is a basically a cheap slave for a tenured staff member.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's a cynical view of academia. I've never felt a need to bow down to a PhD/cheap slave. Would you care to elaborate why you feel that way?

                  He then writes,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do believe that small changes can occur in a species, it is even observable today, and in reality is all the evolution supports, but I do not believe that all species originated from a single species. I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Do you have some data that explains your position on evolution? Why is the notion that many small changes (which you agree are observable) can add up to large changes over long periods of time hard to understand?

                  If current measurements show the universe is very old, what other data should we use to extrapolate the creation date of the universe?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 28 2006,15:14

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:15)
                  I do believe that small changes can occur in a species, it is even observable today, and in reality is all the evolution supports, but I do not believe that all species originated from a single species.  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dog Swallowed (or whatever your glom name means).  
                  Can you seriously point at a historical timeline and "say" that this is the point that actual history reverted to apparent age?
                  When you have done that with, say, C14 you can then do that with lake varves, dendochronology, ice cores, historical pottery shard studies, Rb-Sr Isochrons, U-Pb-Th Isochrons, etc. and so on.
                  The independent methods of measurement (some based upon nuclear physics, some on pollen analysis, some on subjective but consistent interpretation of ancient art) that these techniques use agree with each other in a chronology that reaches back on earth to over 4 billion years.  Add in cosmology and we have over 13 billion years of data that is both consistent and self-correcting in nature.

                  How old did you say the earth was?  The universe?

                  If your god is so omnipotent then there is NOTHING I can say to make you look at the evidence.  Just don't hold the printed words in your book as evidence to counter the discoveries of scientists.  The simple statement of "goddidit" is all you need to maintain your worldview.

                  For the consistant chronological measurements mentioned above, your god has to hide within Heisenberg's Uncertainty.  The rest of the measurements are consistent and real and there is nothing you can say to refute them.

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  B.Sc. in chemical engineering.  Minor in chemistry.  Many in the family are PhD's and have vast knowledge in certain areas.  I think you are confusing the nature of a PhD degree.  It is for those who wish to specialise in a specific field.  If math isn't in the field then the PhD may never be able to balance their checkbook.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,15:19

                  For Oldman's benefit, since I guess he missed it the first time ... just this one post should have dispelled two myths that Darwinists commonly hold ...

                  1) That mutations are the ultimate source of diversity in organisms
                  2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity

                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

                  Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So again ....  

                  1) Mutations are not required AT ALL to produce a large degree of variation in a population
                  2) Of course, mutations can and do add variation, but they are not required, and the kind of variation they typically add is often not conducive to survival in the wild.  Search "mutant" at www.answersingenesis.org ... interesting article on mutant dogs.
                  3) Bottlenecks are no problem if H is fairly high to begin with
                  4) Populations can regain their pre-bottleneck diversity very quickly if H is high in the bottleneck pair

                  Faid ... I said (most recently) that this thread is not about "Educating the Skeptics" but rather "Educating AFDave About Skeptics."  My primary mission is to educate children with the truth and this necessarily entails understanding the lies being taught to them.  However, this in no way negates the secondary purpose of people here seeing and accepting the truth.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,15:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

                  Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

                  I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,15:23

                  Cleaning up more PPC carnage.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,15:27

                  dgsweda:

                  1. What is an "evolutionary archaeologist?" Do you mean paleoanthropologist?

                  2. You claimed rather bizarre and contradictory things throughout your statements here.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "My faith and personal relationship with God demands me to hold the Bible as truth. I cannot hold the Bible as partial truth or some truth sprinkled through fiction. The Bible is either truth or it is blasphemy. I must hold to one or the other. I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  and

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Everything around us is based on order. And the order is intricately weaved throughout the entire universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  I think sweda there deserves his own thread, if he's up to supporting his claims.

                  His presence here merely allows Dave one more excuse not to address his own stupidity, like the fact that he's never responded to my demonstration about his lies...

                  and his equally stupid "population" model that has no mortality rates in it.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 28 2006,15:27

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:39)
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm willing to bet they all agreed on common descent.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 28 2006,15:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:59)
                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

                  Remember, lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood by all accounts.  You may not buy 900+ years and I don't buy 25,000 (translation error in this case I think), but all accounts agree that lifespans were long.  150 years is not a stretch at all.

                  You may also think an average of 20 kids per family is crazy, but again, we are dealing with families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family.  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.

                  Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.

                  So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?

                  Yes, of course.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Time to play Count the Unsupported Assertions:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This counts as two - the average family size, plus the assumption that all children survive and have twenty kids of their own.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...150 year lifespan
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's another one.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...all accounts agree that lifespans were long
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Failure to provide any reliable accounts duly noted, but in fairness this is in "support" of the claim above, so I'm not adding to your score.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But that counts.  Four so far.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Whoosh!  Three more go zooming by!


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The Big One.  The barn-door-sized unsupported assertion of the Flood itself.

                  So that's eight unsupported assertions, plus of course the ever-popular All-Purpose Escape Clause:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Would they be the genealogies which start with "And prokaryotes begat eukaryotes," Dave?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 28 2006,15:35

                  Mike, Szweda is a fine old Polish name which means Swede.

                  dgszweda writes,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I do not believe that non-Christians should be teaching a religious belief.  I am not up on ID as much as probably you are even up on it.  But the last I heard was that ID was really pushing the idea to teach an alternative theory and not to treat evolution as carte blanche fact.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Huh? You have to be Christian to teach a religious belief? Would one have to be Christian to teach Kaballa? Is ID a scientific theory or a religious belief? It can't be both.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  On the flipside, I don't think that most school teachers should be teaching evolution.  First, most do a crummy job at it.  Facts aren't straight in most of the science text books, people are misquoted and our children are being brainwashed by a bunch of bumbling text book writers.  So just because you feel confident that someone isn't pushing Intelligent Design down your children's throat, doesn't mean they still aren't getting a bunch of evolutionary mistakes in their classrooms.  If you don't believe me, read some of the textbooks and listen to some of the teachers.  Movies like Jurrasic Park don't help either.  Teachers teaching young children that Velociraptors had flexible tails, because they see it on a movie.  Give me a break.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Right, let's throw out the baby 'cause the bathwater is dirty. If science teachers aren't teaching proper science, the obvious (to me) solution is to better educate the science teachers, you on the other hand think we should stop teaching science or to teach an "alternate theory" based on religious beliefs.

                  Sorry but that's not a solution to your objections.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 28 2006,15:37

                  Yea, I have faith, but even I cannot believe that Dave FarFarFromNeuron brought up AIG's poor li'l mutant dogs again.

                  I mean, sheesh, Dave, the mutant dogs are yet another one of your Portuguese moments!

                  How do you keep doing this to yourself and still manage not to choke on your breakfast every morning?  (Not that, heaven forfend, I would wish to be interpreted as desiring or advocating any such breakfast-disrespecting...)!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 28 2006,15:38

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,16:19)
                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  I have a very large hammer to bash this assertion to smitherrines.

                  HOW MANY ALLELES ARE PRESENT IN THE BREEDING PAIR AFTER THE BOTTLENECK?

                  How many Dave?  Four?  At most?

                  What I have been asking is how you get 61 HLA-B ALLELES fully interspersed in the population in only 250 years (or even 180 years with your latest timeline assertions).  Because in the case of the ark we only had 16 ALLELES TO START WITH NO MATTER HOW WELL MIXED UP THEY ARE AFTER A FEW GENERATIONS!!!!!

                  Dave,
                  The 61 NEW HLA-B ALLELES APPEARED IN THE POPULATION AFTER THE FLOOD AND BEFORE THE END OF THE UCGH ICE AGE!!!!

                  Your genetic diversity argument doesn't address this inconsistency in your UCGH.

                  Please explain to us how these 61 alleles appeared in only 250 (or 180) years.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 28 2006,15:42

                  Quote (afdave @ ,)
                  ...interesting article on mutant dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No shiat. Would you mind explaining please, finally, what the fuck a baboon dog is?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 28 2006,15:44

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 28 2006,15:27)
                  dgsweda:

                  1. What is an "evolutionary archaeologist?" Do you mean paleoanthropologist?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wondered how long it would be before you pounced on that. I note that Davey has never answered questions about why no "creationist archaeologists" have ever found specimens of early man of gigantic proportions or showing signs of advanced decrepitude that bear witness to 800+ year life spans.

                  Heh, any wagers on whether the subjects those "evolutionary archaeologists" were arguing about were completely over szwedas head?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,15:47

                  By the way, stupid. Look at your "quote"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How can M. Nei, in 1975...cite people who published a decade or more later? Is he a time-traveler?
                  Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 28 2006,15:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:59)
                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

                  Remember, lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood by all accounts.  You may not buy 900+ years and I don't buy 25,000 (translation error in this case I think), but all accounts agree that lifespans were long.  150 years is not a stretch at all.

                  You may also think an average of 20 kids per family is crazy, but again, we are dealing with families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family.  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.

                  Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.

                  So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?

                  Yes, of course.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You bad tard.

                  < http://www.sustainablescale.org/Areasof....ts.aspx >

                  large population growth, low infant mortality, longevity, better medicine, the agrarian society, where to start?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 28 2006,16:00

                  Hmm...on the one hand, dgszweda definitely appears at first blush to have enough content to merit his own thread. On the other hand, AFDave probably wants him to stay here and take some of the heat off AFDave's UNSUPPORTED Cut and Paste Hypothesis. So what do you think, gang? A new thread for dgszweda?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,16:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I worked for a little while at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico with their large radio telescope.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  My condolences, it must have been terribly frustrating seeing all that money being waisted capturing and analyzing radio signals that god just made up when he created this universe.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,16:02

                  Richardthughes posted a poignant and somewhat wistful thought on the Uncommonly Dense thread...one that has some bearing here:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Enjoy these days, my friends, for they won’t last for ever. Truly we are spoiled in this golden age of tard. We skip over many tard-laden comments and just feast on the sweetest, tardiest morsels – but already the death knell noises of the flash animation fart have been heard
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I can't agree more. Tempus fugit. Soon we will all be mournfully joining in the refrain: "Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear, the flurries and blizzards of bull?"
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,16:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Evolutionary archeologists?
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 28 2006,16:09

                  deadman:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can M. Nei, in 1975...cite people who published a decade or more later? Is he a time-traveler?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  For Dave, post-flood time is effectively infinite--between any two points of post-flood time, there's an infinite amount of it, enough to accomodate extreme growths in population, the burying of forest after forest, humongous amounts of variability, and frenziedly-racing continents, all while genomes are simulaneously deteriorating and "sin" eats away at everything like hyperRust.

                  Time before the flood, of course, worked differently, well, just because.  There was less of it, for one thing, and very little happened: dinosaurs didn't bite, elephants didn't defecate, and parasites didn't cite, much less plagiarize.

                  This funny behavior of time is all tied into SLoT somehow, which Dave will get around to explaining to us, someday.

                  When he finds the time.
                  Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 28 2006,16:10

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,16:09)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Evolutionary archeologists?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  They were right next to his imaginary friends.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,16:17

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 28 2006,15:47)
                  By the way, stupid. Look at your "quote"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How can M. Nei, in 1975...cite people who published a decade or more later? Is he a time-traveler?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Give poor dave a break, deadman... He obviously cut and pasted a paragraph from his pal Jan's book, without giving it much thought.
                  He works with intuition, not logical analysis.

                  But, dave, this Macaque story seems interesting! What do you say you give us the actual links that you mentioned, and then I give you some other ones, and we figure out if your friend Jan the High School Teacher has it right?

                  But first: Should I go on about your, um, "honest mistake" about Information increase? Or do you have anything to say about it first?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,16:20

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 28 2006,16:00)
                  Hmm...on the one hand, dgszweda definitely appears at first blush to have enough content to merit his own thread. On the other hand, AFDave probably wants him to stay here and take some of the heat off AFDave's UNSUPPORTED Cut and Paste Hypothesis. So what do you think, gang? A new thread for dgszweda?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  steve: the point may be kinda moot, since dgszweda seems to have left the building.

                  Maybe he'll return, though and I can find out why this universe that has so much randomness in it, down to basic QM on one end of the continuum...to crashing galaxies and supernovae on the other......is so "orderly" and neat, in his view.
                  Posted by: mitschlag on Dec. 28 2006,16:28

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 28 2006,16:00)
                  Hmm...on the one hand, dgszweda definitely appears at first blush to have enough content to merit his own thread. On the other hand, AFDave probably wants him to stay here and take some of the heat off AFDave's UNSUPPORTED Cut and Paste Hypothesis. So what do you think, gang? A new thread for dgszweda?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Please, cut Dogswede his own post.  I'm not a member of your gang, just a peeper out of the shadows, but the thread has lost some edge for me since Dogswede popped in.  He seems sincere, but he lacks AFDave's scintillating wit.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 28 2006,16:38

                  Mitschlag:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but he lacks AFDave's scintillating wit.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (My bold on wit, singular.)

                  Aha, another subscriber to the Missing Neuron Theory.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,16:54



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can M. Nei, in 1975...cite people who published a decade or more later? Is he a time-traveler?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Do you think this means those people didn't publish at or before the time of Nei's article?

                  C'mon ... gimme some real objections.  Don't like my population formula?  Gimme your own then.  Show me how I'm wrong ... specifically.  

                  You say you are a better scientist than me.  Fine.  Prove it.

                  Faid ... feel free to refute my "macaque story" if you can.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,17:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,16:54)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can M. Nei, in 1975...cite people who published a decade or more later? Is he a time-traveler?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Do you think this means those people didn't publish at or before the time of Nei's article?

                  C'mon ... gimme some real objections.  Don't like my population formula?  Gimme your own then.  Show me how I'm wrong ... specifically.  

                  You say you are a better scientist than me.  Fine.  Prove it.

                  Faid ... feel free to refute my "macaque story" if you can.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's already done, Dave. Nei cannot cite...in  1975...articles written a decade LATER.

                  Population models MUST include mortality rates, stupid.

                  See how easy that is? Now how about addressing my post here, Dave:
                   
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,17:04

                  oooh... Is that a challenge, dave? Well, first, I'd like a link to the Lewell article... I'm sure your pal Jan has one? No? Something about this "single pair" thing makes my intuition twitch.

                  But first... What about that other thing? Anything to say? Hmmm?

                  (oh and dave, noone says those people didn't publish anything before Nei- they might have or they might have not; the issue is that your post makes it look like Nei quotes  SPECIFIC papers FROM THE FUTURE.
                  Now, I know that's prolly because you just copy/pasted a paragraph from Jan the High Scool Teacher without checking, and missed the context- and that's nothing much, but your attempted excuse is just STUPID.
                  Surely you can see that.)
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 28 2006,17:07

                  Aha!  I see the source of the confusion on the Nei quote ...

                  The "He" is referring to Woodmorappe, not Nei.  I was summarizing Woodmorappe and did not make that clear in the quote of my quote.

                  How about I try that one again tomorrow with Woodmorappe's EXACT words?

                  :D
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 28 2006,17:09

                  Ahh you don't need to cut me my own thread.  AfDave and I have a mutual friend, so I just stopped on by.  I may or may not stay on long since I travel a lot as well.  I will answer a few of your comments though.

                  dgszweda is a crunch of the name Dave Szweda.  And yes Szweda is a fine Polish name :)  Okay no Polish jokes, I know them all already.

                  I do not criticize the one holding the PhD, and yes there are some very smart PhD people out there, maybe even many smart ones.  I was just stating that the degree holds very little in my mind, as much as the research they do.  That is where they really build up there knowledge.  If any of you hold PhD's I apologize, sorry you got paid so little for your research :)  In all seriousness though, I would hold up the credibility of the scientist based on his research and his published work not on his degree.

                  I used the term evolutionary archaelogist to indicate that they were archaeologists who held to the evolutionary view (there are some out there who don't).  And no they weren't speaking over my head.  I will be more than happy to discuss Particle Physics which I enjoy more than biology.


                  I unfortnately have ran out of time for today.  Too many responses to answer so quickly.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,17:22

                  By the way, the macaque article "Woodmorappe" cited was
                  Lawler, S.H., Sussman, R.W., Taylor, L.L., 1995. Mitochondrial DNA of the Mauritian
                  macaques (Macaca fascicularis): An example of the founder effect. Am. J. Phys.
                  Anthropol. 96, 133-141.

                  This is from the abstract cited at   < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....itation > :


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Macaque monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) were introduced to the island of Mauritius approximately 400 years ago. This study compares the mitochondrial DNA of macaques on Mauritius with those from Indonesia and the Philippines. The goal is to measure the amount of evolutionary change that has occurred in this isolated population over 400 years, and to address questions regarding the origin of the Mauritian founders. Amplification of the control region of the mitochondrial genome via the polymerase chain reaction yielded an 1800 base pair DNA fragment which was surveyed for variation using restriction endonucleases. Fifty-two macaques were separated into 17 haplotypes by mapping the restriction sites. No haplotypes were shared among the three populations, and only two closely related haplotypes appeared in the Mauritian sample. Nucleotide variation in the mitochondrial DNA in the Mauritian sample was 10-fold less than the Indonesian and Filipino samples
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, how does this help you again, Dave?

                  Oh, and the drosophilia article by NEI is here < http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Nei/Lab/publications.htm#1975 >  and involves hundreds of generations of a rapidly breeding fruitfly.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,17:28

                  dgszweda: If you know about physics, then perhaps you can tell me why QM, which underpins physics in general...is so replete with randomness and yet you think the universe is not.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 28 2006,17:28

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,17:07)
                  Aha!  I see the source of the confusion on the Nei quote ...

                  The "He" is referring to Woodmorappe, not Nei.  I was summarizing Woodmorappe and did not make that clear in the quote of my quote.

                  How about I try that one again tomorrow with Woodmorappe's EXACT words?

                  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good. Some links would also help.

                  Unfortunately, tomorrow I'm on my way to Berlin, where I'll stay for 6 days... So that makes two IOYs for me, dave: A discussion on the Mauritan Macaques, and of course, demonstrating your dishonesty in the "mutational increase of information" issue.

                  (I would count your IOYs, but we both know that's pointless).

                  So! Be sure to remind me when I get back! In the meantime: I'm pretty much sure you already know what I'm going to say about the second issue (that's why you blatantly avoid discussing it), but you probably don't about the macaque thing...
                  So why don't you check? Start by googling that article, and then browse all the other articles that cite it.
                  I can guarantee you will find some interesting things. I certainly did... Did you know these macaques are prime candidates for experiments for the treatment of AIDS? Can you guess why?  ;)
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 28 2006,17:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,17:54)
                  C'mon ... gimme some real objections.  Don't like my population formula?  Gimme your own then.  Show me how I'm wrong ... specifically.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I already did the calculations.  It looks really bad for you Dave.

                  Here's the permalink:

                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/i...4004 >

                  But since you like the Bible as source material, consider population growth as represented in the Bible during the very period the pyramids were being built.

                  Exodus 1:1 tells us that only 70 descendents of Jacob/Israel entered Egypt.

                  Versus 10-12 tell us they were made slaves and increased EVEN MORE under slave conditions:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  10Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

                  11Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

                  12But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How many did they grow to?  According to Exodus 38:26, they eventually grew to over 600,000 men over 20.

                  This implies a total population of 2 million.

                  But here's the key, infallible Dave, how long did it take to go from 70 (not just 8) to 2 million?  Your Bible tells us in Exodus 12 it was a total of 430 years.

                  So, starting with 8 times the number of original "breeders" it still takes 430 years to get to a couple million.

                  Explain why the Bible in Exodus 1:7 calls this "explosive growth":

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  7And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  when it pales in comparison to the explosion you say happened in just 180 years?

                  Is the Bible wrong or are you?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,17:32

                  Now how about addressing my post here, Dave:
                   
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 28 2006,17:57

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:39)
                  If you don't believe me, read some of the textbooks and listen to some of the teachers.  Movies like Jurrasic Park don't help either.  Teachers teaching young children that Velociraptors had flexible tails, because they see it on a movie.  Give me a break.

                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Yeah, let's blame the teachers. When I taught, I always relied on Hollywood to provide my background information. :D

                  And, hey! I used to eat lunch with a bunch of Christian fundamentalists from different churches. They used to argue over infant vs. adult baptism, whether one needed to go witnessing to enter heaven, and if there was food and/or sex in heaven! I guess they were just as wrong as those "evolutionary archeologists" were, huh? Did you even know your faith was in such danger from dissent?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,18:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,
                  Just for clarification, are you saying that the loss of of the alleles was caused by mutation, or that alleles that were caused by mutations were lost?
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 28 2006,18:10

                  Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Dec. 28 2006,16:44)
                  I note that Davey has never answered questions about why no "creationist archaeologists" have ever found specimens of early man of gigantic proportions or showing signs of advanced decrepitude that bear witness to 800+ year life spans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's obvious that Davey spends too much time on UD or AiG to have found this image:



                  See the humans standing next to the skeleton? Why, it completely supports the following inerrant BibleTM verses:

                  Genesis
                  6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,  2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

                  Numbers
                  13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

                  Deuteronomy
                  1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there

                  2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;  11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

                  2:20
                  (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;  21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.

                  Dave, Dave, Dave  :)  :)  :)

                  How did you manage to miss this?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,18:20

                  dgszweda, here's some other silly comments you made:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why are all hominids based on a single lineage? If it was purely random based on external stimuli, couldn't some hominids have been created parallel to others ( a branching out) outside of this linear hominid path? Why can't an ape still make the jump to Australopithecus? ...There is no concerted explanation amongst evolutionists on why Ardipithecus ramidus went extinct never more to come about except for the idea that the next jump was made which in essence made ramidus obsolete. Intelligence must even be ascribed to evolution if one is to hold fully to that belief.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If you think that the hominid lineage is "linear" and doesn't include side branches, you're very uninformed. There were  hominids existing side-by-side in the past which became extinct --A. africanus and gahri, robustus, boisei and aethiopicus among them. (some lived contemporaneously, all went extinct) See < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html > for an overview.

                  As to why a currently-existing ape "cannot make the ( what, instantaneous?) "jump" to Australopithecus, I have to mark that down as severe ignorance of how biology and evolution work, too.    

                  Your last comment I cited  is virtually unintelligible in terms of actual science...perhaps you can rephrase it in meaningful terms. I can only assume your comprehension skills need honing if you were actually "listening in" on "evolutionary archaeologists" for this muddle.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 28 2006,18:27

                  Quote (notta_skeptic @ Dec. 28 2006,17:57)
                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:39)
                  If you don't believe me, read some of the textbooks and listen to some of the teachers.  Movies like Jurrasic Park don't help either.  Teachers teaching young children that Velociraptors had flexible tails, because they see it on a movie.  Give me a break.

                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Yeah, let's blame the teachers. When I taught, I always relied on Hollywood to provide my background information. :D

                  And, hey! I used to eat lunch with a bunch of Christian fundamentalists from different churches. They used to argue over infant vs. adult baptism, whether one needed to go witnessing to enter heaven, and if there was food and/or sex in heaven! I guess they were just as wrong as those "evolutionary archeologists" were, huh? Did you even know your faith was in such danger from dissent?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Heh, a couple of colleages were technical advisors for the original JP. When Spielberg was told Velociraptor mongoliensis wasn't as big as portrayed, he decided to go with them as planned. During the filming, Utahraptor was discovered.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 28 2006,18:27

                  OK dave. Time, once again, to play Truth or Consequences. You chose "Truth" - or so you keep telling us.

                  Here's the question:

                  Did you actually read that Nei article you keep touting, or are you merely taking Woodforbraine's word for what it says?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,18:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Were they disagreeing about aspects of the ToE?  If so I don't see the relevence since in depth knowledge of cutting edge ToE is not needed in their field of work.

                  Were they disagreeing about archeological topics?  If so I don't see the relevence to the ToE.

                  Are you saying that their being conversant in the ToE caused them to be unable to agree about Archeology?

                  Are you contending that if they had rejected the ToE that they would have been able to agree about Archeology?

                  I really don't understand what point you're trying.to make.

                  Edit-
                  If your only point is that 'scientists' disagree with each other then...

                  DUH!!

                  'Scientists' in every field disagree with each other, a lot.  And the more cutting edge the research they're doing the more they disagree.  Very politely of course.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 28 2006,18:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm actually curious about WHERE this was at, too. I don't know many archaeologists that sit around "research institutes"
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 28 2006,18:44

                  C'mon, guys.  He's a friend of a friend of Dave's.

                  Let's not expect too much in the way of verifiable detail.

                  (No, no, it's the "baboon dogs", again, ah ha ha ha ha ha...!;)

                  [Edit: added in the omitted word "much" in my middle sentence.]
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,18:53

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 28 2006,16:41)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'm actually curious about WHERE this was at, too. I don't know many archaeologists that sit around "research institutes"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What?  Nobody ever offered to pay you to hang out in a nice heated and air conditioned 'research institute' and argue about the ToE over lunch?   :D
                  Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 28 2006,18:55

                  Dave,

                  You keep throwing the:

                  "So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?"

                  Incorrect date.  The majority Eygptologists agree the date is much closer to 2600 BC.

                  Again, you are just wrong, and again, just dishonest.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 28 2006,18:56

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:06)
                  Quote (k.e @ Dec. 28 2006,09:50)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well thats nice, but what you 'believe' or what your uneducated opinion is, means nothing, nobody gives a ####.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I wouldn't say it is uneducated.  I am quite an educated man, specifically in the sciences, and I have worked with some of the leading minds of the day.  What might be better is that instead of getting confrontational it might be interesting to learn from each other.  I often call these conversations unfruitful, because it is doubtful any of us will change our positions, but it may be interesting why people who believe in a young earth believe in one.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What could I possibly learn from you that I didn't learn in 5 seconds in  the playground when I was 5 years old?

                  Ignorance is hereditary and choosing it indicates a weak character.

                  I don’t know if you realize this but there is NOT ONE person who has ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER  that supports creationism.

                  NOT ONE.

                  The last ones were described as having 'breath taking inanity' by the SCOTUS.

                  And you so far are proving to be no different.

                  If you can’t see that, then what did JFC mean when he said something about the blind leading the blind? Dickhead.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 28 2006,19:01

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,18:09)
                  dgszweda is a crunch of the name Dave Szweda.  And yes Szweda is a fine Polish name
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What is it with "Dave" and anti-evolution?

                  Design?  Some cosmic alignment?

                  Or are we just witnessing some random, non-telic coincidence.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,19:11

                  Another dup post bites the big one.
                  Posted by: alicejohn on Dec. 28 2006,20:28

                  I believe dgszweda should have his own thread.  In that thread he and Dave can discuss/debate/agree on what the #### a YEC actually believes.  Once a YEC postion is agreed upon, the science people can jump in.  

                  Dgszweda's YEC beliefs contradict Dave's YEC beliefs in so many areas in a few posts that chaos is assured while everyone tries to address both at the same time.

                  Dgszweda and Dave, on final thought: Please discuss what the YEC thoery is and its strengths.  So for the vast majority of the YEC steam is taken up with "weaknesses" in the TOE.  For the thousandth time on this thread: Perceived weakness in the TOE are not agruments for YEC.  Present agruments/data/theories FOR YEC for a change.  It would be refreshing.
                  Posted by: PuckSR on Dec. 28 2006,21:39

                  To dgszweda---



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I believe that an omnipotent God miraculously created the universe with apparent age.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You hold a minor in mathematics.....
                  I hold a BS in mathematics
                  But hopefully you understand a bit of physics too.....

                  How did the light from the stars reach Earth?
                  a) God created the stars...and the light got here
                  FLAWED...since many stars are millions of light years away
                  b) God created the light
                  FLAWED....Light is projected...so if we are seeing star light that didnt originate from the stars...then God is purposefully deceiving us and making us believe that the stars exist
                  c) God increased the speed of light
                  FLAWED...besides wrecking havoc on other natural laws...it would violate the laws of nature

                  Explain to me the problem of light from stars that are far away....
                  Either God is a LIAR...or you are wrong
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 28 2006,21:43

                  dgszweda said

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Evolution must follow a single ordered path.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I do not understand what you mean here. Are you saying the path of evolution is preordained? Or are you thinking more along the line of the Great Chain of Being? Why only one path?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If evolution was random you would still see evidences of it occurring today on a much grander scale.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This seems like me saying I've studied lots of trees and none of them has produced a major branch in the last two years.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why do we not see one example of an Australopithecus ramidus.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why should we? They became extinct long ago.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why is evolution forward movement  if it is only random based.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What do you mean by 'forward movement'? What would backward movement in evolution look like?


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why can't an ape still make the jump to Australopithecus?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  a) Why do you consider it to be a jump? That would be more like creation than evolution. b) The ancestor is no longer around and c) There is likely no selective advantage for a non-human primate to evolve in that direction these days as the niche is thoroughly exploited by humans.

                  I think a reason why you feel that accepting evolution requires too much faith is because you have too little information on the subject. In a biology minor you would be only scratching the surface of the topic.
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Dec. 28 2006,22:19

                  Since AFDave is stuck in one of his parrot loops (endlessly reposting fully refuted arguments) I thought I'd bring up some ¿new? creo points to the table.

                  While slumming..... er.... skimming through some ICR stuff to try and predict what Dave might throw our way next I ran across a good summary from Dr. D.R.Humphreys about "Evidence for a Young World".

                  Here's the article...
                  < Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Humphreys - ICR >

                  And here's his fourteen points he makes....  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
                  (Earth max age of a few hundred million years.)

                  2. Too few supernova remnants.
                  (7,000 years max)

                  3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
                  (10,000 years max)

                  4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
                  (12 million years max)

                  5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
                  (62 million years max)

                  6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
                  (20,000 years max)

                  7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
                  (less than 1,000 years)

                  8. Biological material decays too fast.
                  ("Old" fossils with surviving DNA imply young earth)

                  9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
                  (Polonium Halo's and other such shenanigans)

                  10. Too much helium in minerals.
                  (Deadman, this one's for you.  :D )

                  11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
                  (Thousands, not millions, of years old)

                  12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
                  (The "Stone Age" only lasted a few hundred years)

                  13. Agriculture is too recent.
                  (From "Stone Age" to "Agriculture" in a few hundred years after the flud)

                  14. History is too short.
                  (Written records only 5,000 ybp)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now, Dave has mentioned a few of these and uses a couple all the time.  He has mentioned #7 and #9 but hasn't really gone in depth.  He has tried #10 and #11 in depth and got clobberred and uses #14 all the time.  I wonder why our resident c&p pro hasn't delved into this basket of "good" arguments to bolster his UCGH.

                  As I read through this diatribe I noticed that Dr. Humphreys specifically attributes ALL of these diverse "evidences" to some type of evolutionary cause.  But I see only #8 as directly pertinent to evolutionary biology.  The remainder of the points are based upon cosmology, physics, geology and anthropology.

                  Do you think Dr. Humphreys has an axe to grind with evolutionists in particular?  Why doesn't he attribute these observations to the proper field of study they belong?

                  Mike PSS
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 28 2006,22:41

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 28 2006,20:19)
                  Do you think Dr. Humphreys has an axe to grind with evolutionists in particular?  Why doesn't he attribute these observations to the proper field of study they belong?

                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, absolutely, they all do.  The bottom line is they just don't like being told that humans evolved instead of being 'made in the image of god'.  Since none of the other branches of science have anything to say about the origins of man they lay every objection at the feet of 'Darwanists'.  Like afdave's idea that physicists, geologists, astronomers, astrophysists, etc., etc. would give a flying eff whether biologists approved of their calculated ages for this universe and the Earth.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 28 2006,23:05

                  Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 28 2006,22:43)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Why can't an ape still make the jump to Australopithecus?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can't you see me standin here I've got my back against the primate machine...

                  I think you know what I mean....

                  Might as well Jump!



                  Jump!
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 28 2006,23:39

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:59)
                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

                  {snip}idiotic rambling{/snip}

                  So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?


                  {snip}wrong answer{/snip}
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, you forgot to add in competition. Or wasn't there any? Was there an unlimited calorie supply, land supply, and no other creatures using those supplies? What about the infant mortality rate? Where is that? Forget the adult mortality rate. Was the erosion rate high due to an absolute lack of vegetation? Don't you have to get functions to be an E.E.?

                  Boy, I wish it were as easy as your model. We'd have plenty of fish in the sea :)


                  Manna from Heaven perhaps?


                  or maybe more like this:

                  3.1.2 Manna, Christ and Easter. The Savior made it clear that he is the bread of life, and that manna symbolized his coming down from heaven (John 6:48-51). Thus, we might expect the pattern that the day on which the manna began and ended might symbolize Christ's birth and resurrection, respectively. We are told both manna dates precisely. In this proposed series of dates, the manna began on the day 16 Iyar (second month) on the Hebrew calendar which was Sun 10 May 1462 BC. That day was also Easter Sunday on the Enoch Fixed calendar. That is also the day associated with the birth of Christ on that calendar because it was the day on which he was taken to the temple on the fortieth day after his birth. Moreover, that morning was the beginning of the priest cycle of 168 days.
                  The day on which the manna stopped was the day after Passover after they had entered the promised land. That was Easter Sunday on the Hebrew Calendar (and our calendar), the day of the waving of the shear offering. That day, Sun 18 Apr 1422 BC, was also the same day on the priest cycle on which the Savior resurrected. Thus, there is a double witness of Easters and of the priest cycle that the manna symbolized Jesus Christ and that these dates are correct.
                  < http://www.johnpratt.com/items...." >
                  Posted by: Michael Tuite on Dec. 28 2006,23:39

                  Mike PSS,
                  I claim #8 for organic geochemistry.

                  Needless to say, their's is a vacuous argument.

                  Michael
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 28 2006,23:59

                  AFD

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  etc etc
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  I don't see a mortality variable in there AFD or were all the plagues, pestillance, crop failures, droughts, floods, wars, genocides and ....ah acts of god (snicker) that were in the OT just Myths....oh ..of course ......they were, that is why you didn't include them in your fornula.

                  OR for that matter a fertility variable.

                  Question:Women in ancient Egypt prevented pregnancy with…
                     
                  a. Plugs made of crocodile droppings
                  b. Drinks of lemon, milk and ground water lily
                  c.  Offerings to the fertility goddess

                  from:-
                  < The Sex Quiz:MYTHS, TABOOS, AND BIZARRE FACTS >

                  NB: According to it I'm an expert on the subject :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,01:45

                  Since Woodmorappe cited a study on Mauritius macaque  (Macaca fascicularis) mitochondrial DNA and claimed it showed that diversity within that group was comparable to other populations, I thought I'd point out that 1) Woodmorappe was wrong even in that cited study and 2) here's some more recent data, with a quote:
                  Smith, D.G., McDonough, J.W., George, D.A. (2006) Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among regional populations of longtail macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in relation to other species of the fascicularis group of macaques. Am. Journal of  Primatology. 2006 Dec. 19


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was sequenced to characterize genetic variation within and among 1,053 samples comprising five regional populations each of longtail macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and rhesus macaques and one sample each of Japanese and Taiwanese macaques...  macaques from Malaysia and Indonesia were far more genetically diverse, and those from Mauritius were far less diverse than any other population studied.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why does it seem that each time Dave pastes Woodmorappe and other creationists like Humphreys...they always seem to BS on claims about cited works?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,01:50

                  Before you move on to making excuses for Woodmorappe ( Jan Peczkis ) Dave, I'd like you to address my post here, DAVE :
                     
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 29 2006,02:12

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,17:09)
                  Ahh you don't need to cut me my own thread.  AfDave and I have a mutual friend, so I just stopped on by.  I may or may not stay on long since I travel a lot as well.  I will answer a few of your comments though.

                  dgszweda is a crunch of the name Dave Szweda.  And yes Szweda is a fine Polish name :)  Okay no Polish jokes, I know them all already.

                  I do not criticize the one holding the PhD, and yes there are some very smart PhD people out there, maybe even many smart ones.  I was just stating that the degree holds very little in my mind, as much as the research they do.  That is where they really build up there knowledge.  If any of you hold PhD's I apologize, sorry you got paid so little for your research :)  In all seriousness though, I would hold up the credibility of the scientist based on his research and his published work not on his degree.

                  I used the term evolutionary archaelogist to indicate that they were archaeologists who held to the evolutionary view (there are some out there who don't).  And no they weren't speaking over my head.  I will be more than happy to discuss Particle Physics which I enjoy more than biology.


                  I unfortnately have ran out of time for today.  Too many responses to answer so quickly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  dgszweda,

                  The few comments/questions you've bothered to answer so far don't address any of the very specific questions you've been asked.

                  You need to get busy backing up your statements or get ready to recieve the full ATBC treatment.

                  Lock your wig Rev. Szweda, let the air out of your shoes, follow the rubber line to your seat. The ride might not be pleasant but it's sure gonna be a rush!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,02:33

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:15)
                  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But if you think the evidence supports a very old universe, then how can you believe in a young universe, regardless of the creation date of the universe? Presumably the universe is at least as old as its creation date. And it's hard to picture how it could be older than its creation date.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,02:43

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,12:59)
                  POPULATION FORMULA

                  P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

                  where ...

                  c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
                  n number of generations
                  x lifespan in generations

                  Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

                  Remember, lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood by all accounts.  You may not buy 900+ years and I don't buy 25,000 (translation error in this case I think), but all accounts agree that lifespans were long.  150 years is not a stretch at all.

                  You may also think an average of 20 kids per family is crazy, but again, we are dealing with families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family.  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.

                  Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.

                  So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?

                  Yes, of course.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  First question, Dave: what's the derivation for your equation, and where's the evidence that it produces valid figures? I don't see any accounting for infant mortality, for example. Do you have any evidence that infant mortality rates were lower, higher, or the same as today's rates?

                  And you still don't have the slightest scrap of evidence for longevity. Why do you think 150 isn't "a stretch"? Because it's not much longer than the oldest living humans today?

                  I think the evidence is that humans had much shorter life expectancy 3,000 years ago. Where's your evidence to the contrary? Do you have any? Or is it just more of your "it's reasonable to suppose" handwaving?

                  You have no evidence that humans 3,000 years ago were closer to some hypothetical "original, perfectly-created state" either, do you, Dave? Once again, you expect us to assume things you're supposed to be proving. Given your honesty track record, I can't imagine why anyone here would do that.

                  Your whole "hypothesis" rests on assertions (such as the age of the pyramids) that at best cannot be absolutely ruled out as possibilities (and many of them, such as your figure for the age of the universe, can). That doesn't give much confidence in your "hypothesis," Dave.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,04:29

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 29 2006,02:33)
                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,12:15)
                  I do not dispute that current measurements show a very old universe, I just don't believe that we can extrapolate that to a creation date of the universe.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But if you think the evidence supports a very old universe, then how can you believe in a young universe, regardless of the creation date of the universe? Presumably the universe is at least as old as its creation date. And it's hard to picture how it could be older than its creation date.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As far as I can tell, he believes in a young earth but an old universe. Which, as far as YEC goes, is a bit more reasonable then daveys YEC + YUC. If reasonableness has a side to it that far off the scale anyway.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,04:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the evidence is that humans had much shorter life expectancy 3,000 years ago
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In general, yep. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers could expect to hit 50 or more if they survived childhood.  As soon as agriculture comes in (the "Neolithic Revolution") and people start living in little stacked boxes..boom. 33-35 years, tops, 20 on average (give or take a few). You should see their teeth, they get worn down *fast* to the pulp because of the grit in stone-ground foodstuffs.

                  In regard to Dave's "population model" -- even a casual glance at Googled sites would have shown him he was wrong...but of course, he tried to fake his way through it. A long time ago, he pulled the same crap here: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=23969 >  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Morris comes up with a formula for population statistics in The Biblical Basis for Modern Science ...

                  P=2*[c^(n-x+1)-1]*(c^x-1)/(c-1), where c=number of boys and number of girls per family, x=average lifespan in number of generations, n=number of generations.  Plug in c=1.25 (2.5 kids total per family), x=1 (1 generation = 43 years, average lifespan of 43 years), n=100 (100 X 43 = 4300 years since Flood), and you get about 10 billion people.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I then pointed out < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24039 > he left out mortality rates.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I noticed you left out infant mortality rates, mortality rates in general from war, disease, famine, etc. You assumed a perfect model without any deaths prior to reproduction? How cute. Try again. This time using standard demographic methods, not fake crap from Morris, kid.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Dave already knew this. He tried to fake his way through. AGAIN. Try again, Dave. Include infant mortality, stillborns (God's little abortions) maternal mortality (women DO die during childbirth even today, Dave, you know), etc.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Dec. 29 2006,04:39

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,15:21)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yet we can quickly surmise great amounts of extrapolated theories and regard them as fact
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First, no scientific theory is ever regarded as 'fact', they are always open to falsification and correction as new evidence is developed.

                  Second, the kind of disagrement you have presented here is the very heart and soul of science.  Both 'sides' will continue collecting evidence until it becomes over whelming for one interpretation or the other (or until someone developes an interpretation of the evidence that does a better job than all of the previous interpretations in explaning all of the data).

                  I did not check the references you gave, do you happen to have a date for them?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Malum,

                  You cannot have it both ways.  You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested.  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested.  That is what the great majority of the ToE covers.  Hypothesis.  They cannot determine whether the creature existed for a certain time period, but they will draw a hypothesis and from the hypothesis draw other hypothesis.  So I believe I answered your question clearly and concisely indicating the a certain point that is used in ToE to date a certain species and how it is not testable.  If you can show me how we can test it, great I would like to hear it.  Otherwise it is purely a hypothesis.

                  I don't have the dates off my head at this moment.  They were 1986, 1992 and 1996 I believe, but I think they were all books as well.
                  Posted by: Faid on Dec. 29 2006,04:53

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 29 2006,01:45)
                  Since Woodmorappe cited a study on Mauritius macaque  (Macaca fascicularis) mitochondrial DNA and claimed it showed that diversity within that group was comparable to other populations, I thought I'd point out that 1) Woodmorappe was wrong even in that cited study and 2) here's some more recent data, with a quote:
                  Smith, D.G., McDonough, J.W., George, D.A. (2006) Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among regional populations of longtail macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in relation to other species of the fascicularis group of macaques. Am. Journal of  Primatology. 2006 Dec. 19


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was sequenced to characterize genetic variation within and among 1,053 samples comprising five regional populations each of longtail macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and rhesus macaques and one sample each of Japanese and Taiwanese macaques...  macaques from Malaysia and Indonesia were far more genetically diverse, and those from Mauritius were far less diverse than any other population studied.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why does it seem that each time Dave pastes Woodmorappe and other creationists like Humphreys...they always seem to BS on claims about cited works?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh shucks, Deadman! Way to spoil my fun!

                  :(

                  But there's < more: >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Knowledge of provenance background is particularly important for studies usingMauritian M. fascicularis. The population on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius wasfounded only 400 to 500 years ago, and the genetic homogeneity of the30,000 descendants (Sussman & Tattersall 1986) suggests this stock holds great promise as aprimate model for immunological studies (Leuchte et al. 2004; Krebs et al. 2005)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Researchers using Mauritian macaques should be particularly cognizant of thehistory of these animals. Though these monkeys have a high degree of genetic homogeneity, their combination of insular mtDNA and continental YDNA suggests thattheir (presumed) Sumatran ancestors received influxes of alleles from Malaysian M. fascicularis. Consequently, if Mauritian long-tailed macaques exhibit a biomedicallyvaluable trait, researchers should be prepared to search for its genetic and evolutionary underpinnings among both Sumatran and Malaysian populations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And < more: >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The majority of the sequences were detected in the few macaques from China, confirming the low degree of genetic variation in macaques from Mauritius.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And < more: >


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The unusual degree of allele sharing in Mauritian Cynomolgus macaques is predictable given the natural history of this population. Anthropological and historical evidence suggests that the macaques were introduced to the island 400 years ago by European seafarers (60). mtDNA analysis of Mauritian origin macaques supports the existence of a population bottleneck at the time of introduction; in fact, the founding population may have included only a single female (61).[See that, dave? the paper Jan the HST cites speaks of a single FEMALE -NOT PAIR] Although low mtDNA divergence does not necessarily correlate with low nuclear gene variability, [hence Lawel's results, perhaps? hmm.] other studies have found the genetic diversity of nuclear genes in this population is lower than in Asian origin Cynomolgus macaques (62). Additionally, a recent study of MHC II sequences detected 20 Mafa-DRB sequences in a survey of 10 Chinese origin Cynomolgus macaques, while only 15 Mafa-DRB sequences were found in a population of 58 Mauritian origin macaques (63).

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (dave, I really HATE editing brackets into posts, but in your case I thought it was necessary... :) )


                  Anyway! Have a happy new year everyone! I'll be back around Jan 3rd. I wish everyone health and joy and fun through the whole year! (and some extra wit for some... :) )
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,05:00



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So I believe I answered your question clearly and concisely indicating the a certain point that is used in ToE to date a certain species and how it is not testable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Questions of endothermy are not used to "date" cynodonts. And a fuller look at the data supporting endothermy is found here: < http://www.nasmus.co.za/PALAEO/jbotha/the_cynodontia.htm >

                  The evidence ( you will see there) is said NOT to be conclusive in any way, but supported by paleontological,  comparative anatomy and paleoclimate data:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Morphological features cannot be used as direct evidence for or against endothermy as those features positively identifying endothermy are usually not preserved in the fossil record (such as blood oxygen carrying capacity, mitochondrial density, lung structure, enzymatic activities, hair, a diaphragm and sweat glands; Ruben, 1995).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So...the picture even on cynodonts is not quite what you made it out to be, but there are certainly other aspects of the fossil record that DO support testable hypotheses: see the recent Tiktaalik fossil, for instance. In addition, data from extant species such as cichlids and many, many others ...supports the theory.

                  Let's get specific, szweda...you claimed to agree that evolution can produce change in species...but you don't think it can result in speciation?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,05:01

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 29 2006,04:39)
                  You cannot have it both ways.  You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested.  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested.  That is what the great majority of the ToE covers.  Hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  dgszweda, is this you?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The underlying problem with all of these arguments is that people are trying to develop theories in which they can "logically" explain the largest supernatural event of God to agree with today's limited scientific reasoning. Things occured in those 6 days which cannot be explained by science. We are trying to resolve our limited minds held within the physical limitations of a creation with a supernatural event created by an omnipotent spirit who has no limitations and is not limited by this physical realm. I feel the answer to us explaining the creation by resolving it with our physical view is answered by

                  Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou has understanding."

                  Why do we feel the need to try to resolve our view with the very literal creation account in Genesis? What does it benefit?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  < here >

                  If so, it's already plain that you'll allow the bibble to trump anything that conflicts with the Genesis account. So why bother even trying to argue your case, you've already decided on a winner, which is not very scientific is it?

                  edit: More < here >
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,05:08

                  Bye, Faid!! *waves* sorry about stepping on your post, but have a good time!
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,05:57

                  The Grand Canyon:

                  < http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 >

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  “As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Nostrils of Satan. I like that!
                  So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Not long till it's gone, we hope. And this is YEC winning? Darwinism (whatever that is) is on it's way out? Much like biological diversity is both increasing (8 humans and a few thousand animals becoming millions of people and species) and decreasing "since the fall"so the genome has been deteriorating rapidly - just look at the poor baboon hound
                  < >
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 29 2006,06:44

                  dgszweda blurted a typical creationist load of equivocating drivel


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Addressing) Malum,

                  You cannot have it both ways.  You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested.  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested.  That is what the great majority of the ToE covers.  Hypothesis.  They cannot determine whether the creature existed for a certain time period, but they will draw a hypothesis and from the hypothesis draw other hypothesis.  So I believe I answered your question clearly and concisely indicating the a certain point that is used in ToE to date a certain species and how it is not testable.  If you can show me how we can test it, great I would like to hear it.  Otherwise it is purely a hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How about you find the specific dating errors .....say a fossil rabbit in pre-Cambrian sediment.
                  There would be a Nobel prize in it BTW.

                  Don't you mean:-

                  Creationists want it both ways.
                  We specifically have no way of testing creationism.

                  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested i.e. that 'god exists'.  That is what the great majority creationism is about.  Hypothesis or more correctly assertion.  

                  We deny 'the creature' existed for a certain time period, but we will draw a conclusion and from that denial, make other assertions.  

                  So I believe I answered your question clearly and concisely indicating a certain point that is used in Creationism.... bold assed duplicity, to give credence, false sincerity and bad faith to disparage the ToE not from data but thruthiness (and how it is not testable).  

                  If you can show me how we can deny anything else, great I would like to hear it.  Otherwise creationism is purely
                  (Choose from the following)
                  A. Mental masturbation
                  B. Flogging a dead horse
                  C. Waiting for the next Crystal Meth delivery.

                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,07:48

                  POST-FLOOD STUDIES:  PRESERVING GENETIC DIVERSITY

                  BOTTLENECKS ARE NO PROBLEM
                  From Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, p. 192 ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck (a severe reduction in numbers followed by a recovery), it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (for old citations, see Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Moore (1983, p.7) has also cited this old assumption as fact. ... A more recent experimental demonstration of this fact is discussed as follows:
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now which part of "NOT LIMITED" do you folks have trouble understanding??

                  Continuing with Woodmorappe ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  This conclusion has subsequently been supported by many other investigators (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He (Woodmorappe) cites a historical example also.        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And from the Lawler abstract ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The evidence of the more severe bottleneck as measured by mitochondrial data may be explained in part by almost exclusive male dispersal in this species, and may support models of founder events in which rapid population growth prevents substantial loss of nuclear variation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, Russell, I'm too cheap to buy the article, although I would if there any question in my mind about Woodmorappe's conclusion (there is not ... it's an obvious conclusion for anyone not wearing "Evolution glasses").  I have examined quite a few of the referenced papers in creationist writings and have found ZERO errors so far.  So you'll forgive me if I have developed a trust for creationist authors.

                  Also, are you not aware of dog breeding history?  Check out this BBC story ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmmm ... "dramatic differences in only 500 years!"  

                  Wait a minute!  Don't tell Eric Murphy!  His world will cave in!

                  Take off those "Evolution Glasses", Eric.  They are messing up your vision and your thinking skills.

                  Bottlenecks are not a problem.

                  Quantitative variation can recover very quickly in a population.

                  ******************************************

                  Here's a good article on dogs also ...

                  < Batten vs a "Professional" Biologist >
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,07:58

                  Oldman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course I knew.  Why should it not be sold there?  You seem to be working from the erroneous assumption that the federal government is supposed to remove all religion from government.  Wrong.  The Founders simply wanted to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a National Denomination ... ala the Church of England.  Your view seems to be the now popular revisionist view of "Remove all vestiges of Christianity from public places and replace them all with the Naturalistic Religion" (i.e. Eternal Matter, Uniformitarian Geology, Billions of Years, Abiogenesis, Macro-Evo, etc.)
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 29 2006,08:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,07:58)
                  Oldman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course I knew.  Why should it not be sold there?  You seem to be working from the erroneous assumption that the federal government is supposed to remove all religion from government.  Wrong.  The Founders simply wanted to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a National Denomination ... ala the Church of England.  Your view seems to be the now popular revisionist view of "Remove all vestiges of Christianity from public places and replace them all with the Naturalistic Religion" (i.e. Eternal Matter, Uniformitarian Geology, Billions of Years, Abiogenesis, Macro-Evo, etc.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Bwhahahahahahhahahaha

                  Of course once GwD goes, so will the 'religious' nonsense.

                  < The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church >


                  EDIT:ooooh nice edit AFD .removal of incriminating statement....so you agree then that creationism=religion and unconstitutional.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,08:16

                  Malum...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [AFD]2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity

                  [Malum]Dave,
                  Just for clarification, are you saying that the loss of of the alleles was caused by

                  mutation, or that alleles that were caused by mutations were lost?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The latter.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 29 2006,08:32

                  AFD some more suggested reading

                  < Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament >
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,08:34

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,07:58)
                  Oldman ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So davey, did you know that creationist literature is being sold in the grand canyon giftshop? And the only way it got there was by overruling all the geologists who worked at the park itself?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course I knew.  Why should it not be sold there?  You seem to be working from the erroneous assumption that the federal government is supposed to remove all religion from government.  Wrong.  The Founders simply wanted to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a National Denomination ... ala the Church of England.  Your view seems to be the now popular revisionist view of "Remove all vestiges of Christianity from public places and replace them all with the Naturalistic Religion" (i.e. Eternal Matter, Uniformitarian Geology, Billions of Years, Abiogenesis, Macro-Evo, etc.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  what's religion got to the with the age of the grand canyon, christinanity specifically?
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 29 2006,08:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:16)
                  Malum...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [AFD]2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity

                  [Malum]Dave,
                  Just for clarification, are you saying that the loss of of the alleles was caused by

                  mutation, or that alleles that were caused by mutations were lost?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The latter.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  In other words, mutations brought about alleles. It's so nice to agree during this holiday season.  :)
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,09:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,
                  How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,09:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now which part of "NOT LIMITED" do you folks have trouble understanding??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What I have trouble understanding is how you think you can tell this bunch of folks - all of whom, with the possible/probable exception of the new creationist on the block - understand this material far better than you do, what Pray and Goodnight (gotta love that combination of names, btw) are saying without ever having read the article. And, no, taking Woodforbraine's word for it is both unwarranted and the sign of an idiot. (I mean that in the best sense of the word, of course.)

                  Sure. Take a pair of any sexually reproducing organism, and any "evolutionist" (i.e. reality-based biologist) will agree that its evolutionary potential is not limited, given enough time for mutation, recombination (which, when you get right down to it, is one form of mutation) and selection. That's our whole thing, remember? The thing you creationists are always expressing your incredulity about?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have examined quite a few of the referenced papers in creationist writings and have found ZERO errors so far.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Really? The chromosome fusion thing checked out after all? Heck! Get them to put that Wieland article back up. And baboon dogs? That seems to you like a ZERO error type situation?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you'll forgive me if I have developed a trust for creationist authors.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. Actually, I won't.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 29 2006,09:14

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 29 2006,10:02)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
                  A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,
                  How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Besides that, he still hasn't even explained how he knows that the first object is a "spaceship".
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,09:55

                  K.e ... the only thing I will bother reading from you about Christianity in America is quotes from Founders or court cases from the founding era, complete with original (not secondary) sources.  If you cannot supply those, then you're wasting your time.  I will not read your biased revisionist speculators.

                  Oldman ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  what's religion got to the with the age of the grand canyon, christinanity specifically?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Religion has nothing to do with the age of the Grand Canyon, actually.  The age of the Grand Canyon is a historical question and it so happens that the historical Book of Genesis (which you seem to view as strictly a religious book) has an account of the Global Flood of Noah, which, it turns out, explains the GC formation quite readily.

                  Ved ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In other words, mutations brought about alleles. It's so nice to agree during this holiday season.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  We don't agree.  Can you prove that all alleles were originally caused by mutation?  I don't think you can.  I think you just assume that they were. Undoubtedly many were because they vary in some cases in only one or two nucleotide positions.  But my view is that the original alleles were created.


                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Really? The chromosome fusion thing checked out after all?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Sorry.  Make that ONE.  We'll see about baboon dogs.

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What I have trouble understanding is how you think you can tell this bunch of folks - all of whom, with the possible/probable exception of the new creationist on the block - understand this material far better than you do,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Some of them do, but some of them have demonstrated right here a woeful lack of basic knowledge as I have pointed out many times.

                  Besides, what is ambiguous about  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ??

                  How in the world can even a wishful thinker like yourself possibly twist this to mean something other than what it says?

                  Malum ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No other definition that the one you yourself would use.  Just the usual plain vanilla every day definition.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 29 2006,10:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (LiarDave):  Besides, what is ambiguous about  


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ??

                  How in the world can even a wishful thinker like yourself possibly twist this to mean something other than what it says?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why is it that Creationists like LiarDave think single out-of-context dishonestly quote-mined statements somehow negate the results of thousands of actual scientific studies?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,10:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:55)
                  Oldman ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  what's religion got to the with the age of the grand canyon, christinanity specifically?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Religion has nothing to do with the age of the Grand Canyon, actually.  The age of the Grand Canyon is a historical question and it so happens that the historical Book of Genesis (which you seem to view as strictly a religious book) has an account of the Global Flood of Noah, which, it turns out, explains the GC formation quite readily.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Then, if it can explain the large, can it also explain the small? Which, you would think would be easier.

                  How did cacti get stored for a year and then get back to australia in time to re-populate the continent to the levels we see today?

                  Was this a scene from the ark?
                  < >

                  Big decks full of cacti on the ark? I imagine tens of thousands of samples would be needed for worldwide re-population. Who did that re-popluation?

                  Sorry if these questions are beneath your notice, I know the big issues are the ones you like to concentrate on.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 29 2006,10:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:55)
                  Malum ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No other definition that the one you yourself would use.  Just the usual plain vanilla every day definition.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So you are saying that both the "spaceship" and flagellum are the result of recent human engineering?  Because that's what "hi-tech" means to everyone else.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,10:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,07:48)
                  Also, are you not aware of dog breeding history?  Check out this BBC story ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmmm ... "dramatic differences in only 500 years!"  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,10:56

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,13:19)
                  For Oldman's benefit, since I guess he missed it the first time ... just this one post should have dispelled two myths that Darwinists commonly hold ...

                  1) That mutations are the ultimate source of diversity in organisms
                  2) That the loss of alleles (caused by mutations) thus eliminates much of the diversity

                  BOTTLENECKS DO NOT LIMIT GENETIC DIVERSITY IF HETEROZYGOSITY (H) IS HIGH TO BEGIN WITH
                  Woodmorappe states that it was once commonly believed that, whenever a population goes through a bottleneck, it possesses only a small fraction of the original genetic diversity of the parent population (example, Nei et al. 1975, p.1) Robert Moore has erroneously cited this old assumption as fact (Moore, 1983, p.7)

                  Here's a couple of studies Woodmorappe cites to support this ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [not the words I would choose] is NOT limited after a bottleneck. (Pray, L.A, and C.J Goodnight. 1995. "Genetic variation in inbreeding depression in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum." Evolution49(1): 176-188.)

                  Nei et al (1975, p.4) has shown that a population started by a single pair will not suffer a large loss in genetic variation (H), provided that the population grows rapidly.  He cites many other investigators who also support this (Ballou and Cooper, 1992, p. 198-9; Barrett and Richardson 1986, p. 21;Berry 1986, p.224;Frankel and Soule 1981, pp. 36-37; and Howard 1993, p. 126).  He cites a historical example also.  A very small number (probably a single pair) of macaques had been introduced to Mauritius island by Dutch sailors some 400 years ago.  The presently large population exhibits lo MtDNA diversity when compared with the macaques on the Philippines.  Yet (H) ... is greater than that found among macaques on the Philippines (Lawler et al. 1995, p. 139)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So again ....  

                  1) Mutations are not required AT ALL to produce a large degree of variation in a population
                  2) Of course, mutations can and do add variation, but they are not required, and the kind of variation they typically add is often not conducive to survival in the wild.  Search "mutant" at www.answersingenesis.org ... interesting article on mutant dogs.
                  3) Bottlenecks are no problem if H is fairly high to begin with
                  4) Populations can regain their pre-bottleneck diversity very quickly if H is high in the bottleneck pair.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave. You just refuse to understand how none of this helps you. This is a really simple issue that I think I can explain to you in two sentences, so here goes:

                  • 16 alleles MAX for HLA-B gene on ark
                  • 500 alleles today for HLA-B gene

                  (Maybe it helps if I bold them)

                  Do you get why this is a problem, Dave? Even if those alleles are appearing at regular intervals from the time Noah kissed the dirt until today (which is your best-case scenario), you still need 490 alleles in about 200 generations. And where did they come from, if not from mutations? They weren't present in the "natural variability" in the human population in 2,500 B.C. Were they "poofed" into existence at some point?

                  How does Woodmorappe help you with this?

                  And remember, Dave. We're not talking about just the survival of a species here. We're talking about how a species diversifies into an average of 1,000 new species in under a thousand years, under your "hypothesis," starting with in most cases a single mating pair. How does Nei help you here, Dave? After all, we're not talking about the genetic variability in a single species anymore. We're talking about the amount of genetic variability in a thousand species. How do you think the genetic diversity in Nei's macaques compares with the genetic diversity of every species of monkey on the planet?

                  You know, you keep citing the same passages, C&Ping them with abandon, without ever dealing with the objections to them that come up immediately on your first posting them. What does that say about your intellectual honesty, Dave? Do you expect that you can just swamp all these fatal objections to your arguments by repeating your arguments over and over without ever addressing their flaws?
                  Posted by: PuckSR on Dec. 29 2006,11:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The age of the Grand Canyon is a historical question and it so happens that the historical Book of Genesis (which you seem to view as strictly a religious book) has an account of the Global Flood of Noah, which, it turns out, explains the GC formation quite readily.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Do most history books begin by giving two different histories?

                  Doesnt almost EVERY history book mention where it got it resources and who wrote it?
                  Sorry....I forget....but who wrote genesis(and before you tell me God...you going to have to show me where it claims that(preferably from the Torah)

                  Even a Jewish scholar will tell you that Genesis is not a "history" book....your going to have to go further ahead into the Old Testament before you get some "historical" documents....


                  BTW....even if Genesis is a "history book"....
                  It doesnt explain the grand canyon.....
                  Unless Noah was in North America at the time....
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,11:15

                  Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 28 2006,15:29)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,17:54)
                  C'mon ... gimme some real objections.  Don't like my population formula?  Gimme your own then.  Show me how I'm wrong ... specifically.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I already did the calculations.  It looks really bad for you Dave.

                  Here's the permalink:

                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/i...4004 >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's yet another example, Dave. You post some claim. Someone else immediately demolishes your claim. You repost your claim, saying (in essence) "Prove me wrong." That same someone else reposts a quote or a permalink to exactly where he proved your claim wrong. Your second response?

                  You repost your claim.

                  Not every effective debating style, Dave. And, worse, it makes you look like a liar.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,11:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Besides, what is ambiguous about    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ??

                  How in the world can even a wishful thinker like yourself possibly twist this to mean something other than what it says?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  In light of what I wrote:

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Sure. Take a pair of any sexually reproducing organism, and any "evolutionist" (i.e. reality-based biologist) will agree that its evolutionary potential is not limited, given enough time for mutation, recombination (which, when you get right down to it, is one form of mutation) and selection. That's our whole thing, remember? The thing you creationists are always expressing your incredulity about?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  what makes you think anyone here is "twisting" any meanings? Beyond that, don't you think it would be wise to read the damm article before you start lecturing us what the authors' meaning is?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,11:47



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:] I have examined quite a few of the referenced papers in creationist writings and have found ZERO errors so far.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] Beyond that, don't you think it would be wise to read the damm article before you start lecturing us what the authors' meaning is?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You know what would be really funny, in light of these two quotes, is if Woodforbraines is lying to you in even citing this alleged paper, because I sure as he11 can't find it in PubMed.

                  Can you explain that, dave? Would this constitute the [guffaw] second instance where you'll have to admit that creationist authors have led you astray?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,11:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential is NOT limited after a bottleneck"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave,
                  What do you think 'evolutionary potrntial' means?  Do you think it's synonymous with 'pre-bottleneck genetic richness'?

                  I wouldn't argue with the idea that a greatly reduced population, given enough time, has just as much 'evolutionary potential' as the pre-bottleneck population, but that is exactly what your mythological scenario doesn't have.  You don't have enough time.  Unless, of course, you're a supper high speed evolutionist.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,11:51

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 28 2006,20:19)
                  Since AFDave is stuck in one of his parrot loops (endlessly reposting fully refuted arguments) I thought I'd bring up some ¿new? creo points to the table.

                  While slumming..... er.... skimming through some ICR stuff to try and predict what Dave might throw our way next I ran across a good summary from Dr. D.R.Humphreys about "Evidence for a Young World".

                  Here's the article...
                  < Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Humphreys - ICR >

                  And here's his fourteen points he makes....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The other thing that's interesting about these various points (aside from that they're uniformly incorrect) is that they're all over the map. They don't converge on any particular date. Some place maximum ages at hundreds of millions of years, some at a few thousand years. And, of course, nary an error bar in sight.

                  My point is that there's no rhyme or reason to any of these objections. Dr. Humphreys seems to be saying that there's no way to tell how old the universe. Other than by referring to the Bible, and I've already told Dave countless times that the Bible is not self-authenticating, and is worthless as an authority without corroborating evidence.

                  In other words, YECs want to toss essentially all of science into the dumpster and replace it with "we don't have a freaking clue."
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,11:59

                  Oh I see ... so Russell and OA, in their wishfully thinking ways, are proposing that what Pray and Goodnight MEANT was more like ...

                  "The results of our first experiment provide evidence that a population's evolutionary potential [given that what we mean by "evolutionary potential" is nothing more than the evolutionary potential in all organisms based on the Assumption of the Truth of ToE] is NOT limited after a bottleneck."

                  IOW ... you think they are merely restating the obvious (to Evos) that all organisms have excellent evolutionary potential.

                  Why make the statement at all then?

                  Nonsense.

                  Guess again.

                  ****************************************

                  PuckSR ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Do most history books begin by giving two different histories?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ever heard of a compilation?  Did you read my piece beginning on p. 82 of my first thread?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW....even if Genesis is a "history book"....
                  It doesnt explain the grand canyon.....
                  Unless Noah was in North America at the time....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course it does.  The Global Flood of Noah provides a perfect explanation for how the GC was formed.  We've been through that in detail.

                  ********************************

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                     *  500 alleles today for HLA-B gene
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Still spouting this nonsense even though your buddy Mike admitted it's only 61 as I showed him in painful detail.

                  *********************************

                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject?  I was pointing out that radical variation can take place in a very short time ... the BBC quote shows that very nicely, thanks.

                  ***********************************

                  Improv ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So you are saying that both the "spaceship" and flagellum are the result of recent human engineering?  Because that's what "hi-tech" means to everyone else.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, I see ... so if the SETI boys succeed in making contact and an alien spaceship comes and lands on earth, you wouldn't consider that to be high-tech because it is not human high-tech?

                  Got it!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,12:01

                  Good news, dave! I believe the Pray & Goodnight paper < does exist >!

                  The bad news for you, though, is that it deals not at all with numbers of alleles. It deals with a handful of measures of "fitness" - a whole other concept which I'm not going to even try to explain to you. You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,12:02



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Malum ...  
                  Quote
                  How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?

                  No other definition that the one you yourself would use.  Just the usual plain vanilla every day definition.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 29 2006,12:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:55)
                  K.e ... the only thing I will bother reading from you about Christianity in America is quotes from Founders or court cases from the founding era, complete with original (not secondary) sources.  If you cannot supply those, then you're wasting your time.  I will not read your biased revisionist speculators.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, the irony!!

                  But in bizzaro Dave's world: irony = sincerity

                  Tell me, Dave, if it's perfectly appropriate to provide religious-based texts about the formation of the Grand Canyon in the GC bookstores, why don't I see The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in NASA bookstores?? After all, it has a perfectly logical, scientific explanation for global warming: a decrease in pirates.

                  And you haven't commented on the photo I posted proving the existence of giants. Aren't you happy to see actual proof of the inerrant BibleTM passages??
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,12:05

                  You know, dave, the more you try to tell us what various authors do or do not mean, without ever reading their papers, the more ridiculous you look.

                  Numbers of alleles, dave. Focus!
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,12:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:59)
                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject?  I was pointing out that radical variation can take place in a very short time ... the BBC quote shows that very nicely, thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, YOU NEED RAPID POST-FLOOD SPECIATION FOR YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" TO WORK.  You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?  And yet, even with artificial selection designed to enhance the differences between breeds, how many new dog species have been created?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,12:07

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 29 2006,02:39)
                  Malum,

                  You cannot have it both ways.  You asked specifically what parts of the Theory of Evolution could not be tested.  I showed one hypothesis that could not be tested.  That is what the great majority of the ToE covers.  Hypothesis.  They cannot determine whether the creature existed for a certain time period, but they will draw a hypothesis and from the hypothesis draw other hypothesis.  So I believe I answered your question clearly and concisely indicating the a certain point that is used in ToE to date a certain species and how it is not testable.  If you can show me how we can test it, great I would like to hear it.  Otherwise it is purely a hypothesis.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can you, non-AF Dave, think of anything about your "appearing old" hypothesis about the age of the universe that cannot be tested? I can think of a few.

                  But here's a more important question: how can your hypothesis about the age of the universe be falsified?

                  Now, see if you can tell me how the theory of evolution can be falsified. I've given examples on this thread numerous times, if you can't come up with a way to falsify it on your own.

                  There are undoubtedly conjectures, hypotheses, etc. all throughout the sciences that cannot, at the moment, be tested. However, notwithstanding that certain details of evolutionary theory (and whether a particular species of dinosaur had a diaphragm or not must be considered a minor detail in the grand scheme of things) cannot be tested presently, there is little doubt in the scientific community that the Theory of Evolution is as well-established and as well-supported as any other scientific theory (and if you think the ToE is counterintuitive, try quantum physics, which you say you have some familiarity with).

                  It seems plain that the main reason that the ToE is criticized by creationists in particular (even for things the theory has nothing to do with) is because that theory, above all others, presents the single greatest challenge to the biblical worldview. Not because it's any less solidly-supported by evidence.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,12:08

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did I claim that alleles increased in a very short time?  Are you reading carefully?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,12:13

                  JohnW ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You got it right ... NO.  Very good.  Millions of species!  Pfft!  You really have not stopped to think about how few kinds really had to be on the ark, have you?  That's ok.  I'll be walking you through it now that we are moving on to Post Flood Ecology and such.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,12:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:08)
                  Are you reading carefully?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Are you sitting comfortably?
                  < >
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,12:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:59)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  BTW....even if Genesis is a "history book"....
                  It doesnt explain the grand canyon.....
                  Unless Noah was in North America at the time....
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Of course it does.  The Global Flood of Noah provides a perfect explanation for how the GC was formed.  We've been through that in detail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, we went through it in detail.  Your arguments were hunted down, shot, stuffed, mounted and put on display in the Museum of Really Wacky Ideas.

                  Unless you now have actual evidence for the Miracle Of Water Flowing Uphill, the Miracle Of Meanders Produced By Rapid Flow, and either the Miracle Of Huge Cliffs In Mud Not Collapsing or the Miracle Of Overnight Erosion Through Thousands Of Feet Of Rock...
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,12:17

                  Malum...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Please tell me you are not going to adopt the ridiculous position of saying that an alien spaceship would not be considered "hi-tech" if one landed on earth?  I really hoped that I was debating intelligent people here.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,12:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,05:48)
                  Wait a minute!  Don't tell Eric Murphy!  His world will cave in!

                  Take off those "Evolution Glasses", Eric.  They are messing up your vision and your thinking skills.

                  Bottlenecks are not a problem.

                  Quantitative variation can recover very quickly in a population.

                  ******************************************

                  Here's a good article on dogs also ...

                  < Batten vs a "Professional" Biologist >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, when you can explain to me how you can get from 16 alleles (MAX) to 500 alleles in 225 generations or so, then you're entitled to assert that genetic bottlenecks are "not a problem" for your "hypothesis. Until you can do that, you're required to admit (and have admitted) that genetic bottlenecks are an insurmountable problem for your "hypothesis."

                  I have been asking you this question for months now, and you have never provided an answer for it. At this point, it's pretty obvious you never will, because you simply cannot. Your "hypothesis" is jammed solid against the baseboards. You claim that mutations are not the major source of diversity, and yet I have presented you with a scenario where your only source of diversity is mutations.

                  Stop the DaveDance™, Dave. Answer this one simple question, or admit you cannot:

                  How do you get from 16 alleles (MAX) on the ark to 500 alleles today without mutations?

                  Then we'll believe you when you say "bottlenecks are not a problem."
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 29 2006,12:19

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:13)
                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You got it right ... NO.  Very good.  Millions of species!  Pfft!  You really have not stopped to think about how few kinds really had to be on the ark, have you?  That's ok.  I'll be walking you through it now that we are moving on to Post Flood Ecology and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  can we do cacti 1st please?
                  < >

                  Please describe for me what happened to a typical cacti from the day of the flood onwards, until things were "normal" again.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,12:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:13)
                  JohnW ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You got it right ... NO.  Very good.  Millions of species!  Pfft!  You really have not stopped to think about how few kinds really had to be on the ark, have you?  That's ok.  I'll be walking you through it now that we are moving on to Post Flood Ecology and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yes, Dave, millions of species.  How many insects were on the Ark?  And the Flood would have wiped out either all freshwater species or all saltwater species (which, Dave?), so unless they were on the Ark too...

                  But please, don't be sidetracked onto these specific questions if you're about to regale us with post-Flood ecology.  This should be good.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,12:27



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where did I claim that alleles increased in a very short time?  Are you reading carefully?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim? You see, it's this level of profound ignorance that makes you such a total waste of time.

                  How many HLA-B alleles were present on "the ark"?

                  How many HLA-B alleles were circulating thousands of years ago when, for instance, the American Indian population was isolated from Asian, European and African populations?

                  How many generations separate the alleged "flood" from the isolation of the American aboriginal population from the others?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,12:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:17)
                  Malum...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Please tell me you are not going to adopt the ridiculous position of saying that an alien spaceship would not be considered "hi-tech" if one landed on earth?  I really hoped that I was debating intelligent people here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave,
                  Until you stop your cowardly behavior and define what you mean when you use the term 'Hi-tech' it is impossible for any of us to say which, if either, belong in that class.

                  Of course, if you'd rather not define your term so you can claim any statement we make is wrong, you can do that.  It would be, if not an out right lie, at least dishonest of you.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 29 2006,12:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:55)
                  K.e ... the only thing I will bother reading from you about Christianity in America is quotes from Founders or court cases from the founding era, complete with original (not secondary) sources.  If you cannot supply those, then you're wasting your time.  I will not read your biased revisionist speculators.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,12:53

                  Kondo,M.,Y.Kawamoto,K.Nozawa,K.Matsybayashi,T.Watanabe,
                  O.Griffiths,andM.Stanley.(1993).Population genetics of crab-eating Macaques
                  (Macacafascicularis) on the island of Mauritius. Am.J.Primatol. 29:167–182.

                  "we found that Mauritian origin Cynomolgus macaques possess multiple extremely common MHCI alleles, with < 50% of animals having the allele combination Mafa-B*430101, -B*440101, and-B*460101. To our knowledge,these are the highest-frequency MHCI alleles ever described in a population of macaques. " All other populations, Dave...exhibit more diversity in MHC alleles. This is why the Mauritian population is viewed as valuable. Genetic bottleneck. Low diversity, high frequency of specific alleles.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,12:54

                  PPC dup post cleanup
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,07:55)
                  Ved ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In other words, mutations brought about alleles. It's so nice to agree during this holiday season.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No.  We don't agree.  Can you prove that all alleles were originally caused by mutation?  I don't think you can.  I think you just assume that they were. Undoubtedly many were because they vary in some cases in only one or two nucleotide positions.  But my view is that the original alleles were created.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just out of curiosity, Dave: how many alleles for the HLA-B gene do you suppose there were before the flood, and why do you think that? Because we know how many there were after the flood: 10.

                  How many alleles for the HLA-B gene do you think Adam had? Eve? At one point you were wondering if Adam had hundreds of alleles for the gene. I assume you no longer think that.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,13:08



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How many alleles for the HLA-B gene do you think Adam had? Eve? At one point you were wondering if Adam had hundreds of alleles for the gene. I assume you no longer think that.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't see that Dave KNOWS what he thinks until he reads some utter BS by Woodmorappe or Humphreys or "Dr." Don Batten... that fit his preconceptions. And even then, he still can't really think, because when they are shown to have exaggerated, twisted, or outright lied about cited data that they merely MINED...Dave can't see it until it is spelled out for him....THEN he "moves on" REAL QUICK.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:09

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,09:59)
                  Eric ...  Still spouting this nonsense even though your buddy Mike admitted it's only 61 as I showed him in painful detail.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're wrong. Again. Mike's chart contained 61 HLA-B alleles that were common across all human populations. It is not an exhaustive list of all HLA-B genes, and you know it isn't, or you wouldn't suddenly, sort of, without ever coming out and saying it, start disputing that there are, in fact, approximately < 500 HLA-B alleles > present in modern human populations.

                  Therefore, you're still stuck with explaining how you get from less than 16 alleles to 500 alleles in 225 generations. You can't do that, can you, Dave?

                  You have not shown anyone that there is only a total of 61 HLA-B alleles in existence, in any detail, let alone painful detail. But even if there were only 61 alleles, you'd still need to get 84% of all the diversity for this one gene from mutations, not from "pre-existing genetic variability," which sort of kills your argument that the vast majority of genetic diversity is not from mutations, doesn't it?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:08)
                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did I claim that alleles increased in a very short time?  Are you reading carefully?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, your "hypothesis" is required to explain where you got 490 extra HLA-B alleles in 225 generations, MAX. You may have less time than that, which is what Mike PSS's chart was about (not the total number of HLA-B alleles).

                  So you did claim that huge increases in the numbers of alleles in a very short time is possible. And, you claimed it happened without mutations. Now deal with it.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 29 2006,13:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,13:17)
                  Malum...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Please tell me you are not going to adopt the ridiculous position of saying that an alien spaceship would not be considered "hi-tech" if one landed on earth?  I really hoped that I was debating intelligent people here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's impossible to determine that, since you haven't even begun to describe this hypothetical "spaceship".  How do you know it isn't just a rock?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:13)
                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need to get from a few hundred "kinds" to millions of species in a few hundred years, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You got it right ... NO.  Very good.  Millions of species!  Pfft!  You really have not stopped to think about how few kinds really had to be on the ark, have you?  That's ok.  I'll be walking you through it now that we are moving on to Post Flood Ecology and such.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, right. You need to get from a few thousand, not a few hundred, "kinds" to a few million species today. Right. Only an average of a thousand or so species from each "kind" on the ark.

                  That will be fun, especially with all the degenerating genomes driving all the complicated eukaryotes to extinction in five hundred years or less.

                  I can hardly wait.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,13:28

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, it can be.  I normally don't realize I'm making claims which I, in fact, are not making.  Why don't you show me my quote where I am claiming that or ... if you can't, stop spouting nonsense.

                  Thanks.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:35

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:28)
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, it can be.  I normally don't realize I'm making claims which I, in fact, are not making.  Why don't you show me my quote where I am claiming that or ... if you can't, stop spouting nonsense.

                  Thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Jesus Christ, Dave, at least pay attention to your own claims.

                  You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.

                  You claim that your "flood" was approximately 4,500 years ago.

                  Today, there are 500 HLA-B alleles. Not 10, not 61, but 500.

                  Your first two claims necessarily imply an explosive increase in HLA-B alleles in less than five millennia, whether you realize it or not.

                  You have 225 generations or so to work with. You need to get from 10 to 500. Explain it, or admit your "hypothesis" is crap.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,13:36

                  It's amusing to watch Dim Dave try to reconcile all the mutually-contradictory claims he's made...and that his "model" requires. Remember, Dave...contrary to Woodmorappe's perversion of the Mauritian Macaque mtDNA data...it's been sequenced and Smith, D.G., McDonough, J.W., George, D.A. (2006) " Mitochondrial DNA variation within and among regional populations of longtail macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in relation to other species of the fascicularis group of macaques."  Am. Journal of  Primatology. 2006 Dec. 19 shows it has the LEAST diversity of macaque populations ...and every citation I can find shows LESS diversity in the Mauritian sample in comparison to other groups.

                  You're not very bright are you, Dave? This is why I termed you "macaque brain" long, long ago.

                  I noticed you didn't amend your "population growth model" to include the mortality rates that all other population models are required to have to even vaguely resemble reality, Dave. And again, you failed to address what I asked you now five times in a row:  
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claim was a lie,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God.

                  (2)On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) You didn't address why you kept claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I posted up FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 29 2006,13:41

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 29 2006,13:35)
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:28)
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes, it can be.  I normally don't realize I'm making claims which I, in fact, are not making.  Why don't you show me my quote where I am claiming that or ... if you can't, stop spouting nonsense.

                  Thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Jesus Christ, Dave, at least pay attention to your own claims.

                  You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.

                  You claim that your "flood" was approximately 4,500 years ago.

                  Today, there are 500 HLA-B alleles. Not 10, not 61, but 500.

                  Your first two claims necessarily imply an explosive increase in HLA-B alleles in less than five millennia, whether you realize it or not.

                  You have 225 generations or so to work with. You need to get from 10 to 500. Explain it, or admit your "hypothesis" is crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  why does anyone bother with this fucktard?

                  He gets destroyed on one front, so ignores it and starts another.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,13:41

                  I are?  I am would be more proper English, no?

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jesus Christ, Dave, at least pay attention to your own claims.

                  You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not talking about HLA alleles in humans.  I'm talking about beetles, dogs and macaques.

                  You pay attention.

                  Now ... Russell?  Are you going to produce my quote or not?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,13:43

                  I will, Dave...after you answer what I asked above.


                  You really DON'T remember what you post...do you? This is likely because you don't even understand WHAT you are posting when you post it.

                  You just post it and it never registers--you have no comprehension of what you post at all. You've done this MANY times...you've even had to COMPLETELY reverse your claims to the EXACT opposite in order to pretend to some semblance of credibility. You're a real piece of work, DimDave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,13:44

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 29 2006,11:35)
                  You have 225 generations or so to work with. You need to get from 10 to 500. Explain it, or admit your "hypothesis" is crap.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, and Dave? You need to do it without relying on mutations, because according to you, mutations are swamped by "pre-existing variation." Since there was hardly any pre-exiting variation, there can't be any mutations, either, can there?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,14:03

                  I'll take a wild guess and say that Dave will soon suddenly "vanish" from the user list rather than answer to his demonstrated lies I posted above.

                  At least "Dr." Don Batten would have been a diversion. I wonder where he is...

                  When the going gets tough, the YEC-CY get on their high horse and hightail it out of town, it appears. Or will DimDave wave his hands furiously and get all huffy...brandishing his tiny fists of rage? Stay tuned for the next installment of "As the YEC Squirms"
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,14:07

                  BWAHAHAHA...my prediction held true. What a surprise. Ladeez and Gennamun, DimDave has left the building.

                  I'm sure he'll return later with a "suitable" excuse, or bluster that he's got MUCH more important things to do than answer to his lack of ethics and morals.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,14:39

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No I don't because I don't claim that.  You guys are the ones that cannot keep things straight.  Again ...

                  1) You guys claim it's some kind of problem to go from 16 HLA-B alleles to 61 (500 if you are Eric) in 250 years.  We've been through this in detail.  Go look it up.

                  2) I claim that the Ark bottleneck is no problem and back it up with evidence

                  3) I claim that bottlenecks do not decrease variability if H is high enough to begin with and back it up with numerous citations

                  Russell reads this and says ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ????????????????  Helllllooooooo!!  McFly!!!  Anyone home?

                  I don't make any preposterous claims about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.  My whole discussion on this topic showed how your 500 number is baseless and at most it is something like 61 for HLA-B.

                  NOW ... we are not even talking about HLA-B.  We're talking about ...

                  BEETLES

                  MACAQUES

                  and DOGS.

                  Now how about those dogs (since the article is free)?

                  How do you explain this, Russell?  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmmm ... "intensive breeding is responsible for the dramatic differences in only 500 years!"  

                  NOT due to genetic origins.

                  Intensive breeding.

                  Hmmmmmmmm .........

                  (Sound of wrench being thrown into Russell's mental machinery &^%$#*&^%)

                  (Explosion! )
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,15:05

                  Why are you ignoring the evidence of your own lies, Davey? Is there now a big white spot in your mind when you look at my posts? But you're not delusional or dishonest, right? Bwahahaha.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,15:10

                  question from John W ( not Russell, who is not on the user list, anyway)  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Russell didn't even mention this.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,15:17

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,12:39)
                  Russell ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No I don't because I don't claim that.  You guys are the ones that cannot keep things straight.  Again ...

                  1) You guys claim it's some kind of problem to go from 16 HLA-B alleles to 61 (500 if you are Eric) in 250 years.  We've been through this in detail.  Go look it up.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No we haven't, Dave. It is 500 alleles, you know it's five hundred, I gave you a link to evidence it's 500, and that's what you have to deal with.

                  Ayala doesn't help you here. There is no "pre-existing genetic variation" to get you there. There's nothing to look up. Why do you think I've been asking you this question for two months?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) I claim that the Ark bottleneck is no problem and back it up with evidence.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your "evidence" is worthless where it's not non-existent. Quoting Ayala over and over again doesn't get you anywhere. Quoting Woodmorappe over and over again doesn't help you. Quoting Nei over and over again doesn't help you either. Problems with all of these quotes have been pointed out to you over and over again to the point of stupidity. Instead of addressing those problems, you pretend they were never raised.

                  Doubt me? Go look it up.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) I claim that bottlenecks do not decrease variability if H is high enough to begin with and back it up with numerous citations
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your citations are worthless. We've pointed out exactly why they're worthless. You can't conjure variability out of thin air after it's lost. But that's exactly what you're trying to do, and you know it. Which basically makes you a liar.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell reads this and says ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You need a reference that backs up your preposterous claim about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ????????????????  Helllllooooooo!!  McFly!!!  Anyone home?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you have cited no references whatsoever for the proposition that you can get large numbers of new alleles in a short amount of time, especially without mutations. You simply haven't. If you think you have, show me the quote. Don't tell me to "look it up," because it's not there.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't make any preposterous claims about the increase in numbers of alleles in a very short time.  My whole discussion on this topic showed how your 500 number is baseless and at most it is something like 61 for HLA-B.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I explained to you where the 61 comes from. Mike's spreadsheet was not an exhaustive list, and you know it. The correct number is 500, and you know it, because you've never disputed it before today. And you've never shown how you can get even one additional allele without a mutation. Let alone 490. In any amount of time, let alone 250 years. Which would be almost 2 mutations a year, or 20 a generation.

                  Edit: Here's where the 500-allele figure comes from, Dave. Look at how the alleles are identified:

                  Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 18 2006,08:23)
                  Dave, please take your AIG figure (which is obviously designed to deceive individuals like yourself with little understanding of biology into drawing the completely erroneous condclusions that you have drawn).

                  Assume that Adam is the "Father" and Eve is the "Mother".

                  "Maa" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-A" GENE (do not mix up the "-A" in the gene name with the "a" in the allele name: HLA-A is a gene, represented by "M" in your AIG figure, for which each human has two alleles. They could be two copies of the same allele, but assume, as in your figure, they are different in both parents. For example, as in your figure, the two parents could be Ma/Mb. Or, you could try to help your case by working it out for Adam who is Ma/Mb and Eve who is Mc/Md.

                  Similarly, "ma" represents the "a" allele of the "HLA-B" GENE (just as above). Adam could be ma/mb and Eve could be mc/md.

                  Go ahead and work out the "genetic richness" of the offspring, if you want. Yes, it will be less than or equal to that of the parents.

                  But then you have to tell us why human populations actually have Ma through Mhp alleles for the HLA-A gene. (That's once through the alphabet for each allele, a-z, then we start with aa-az, then ba-bz, and so forth until we reach the 250 observed alleles at this locus.)

                  Why do human populations actually have ma through msf for the HLA-B gene. (That's 500 alleles.) How genetically rich is our current population at these genes relative to your proposed initial founders?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now how about those dogs (since the article is free)?

                  How do you explain this, Russell?        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmmm ... "intensive breeding is responsible for the dramatic differences in only 500 years!"  

                  NOT due to genetic origins.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Where do you think that genetic variability came from in the first place, Dave? It wasn't "created in," because 4,500 years ago no dog had more than 2 alleles for any gene. Two.

                  And, how is it that in 500 years, no new dog species have arisen? You have hundreds if not thousands of new species arising from every "kind" on the ark in 800 years. What force is preventing further speciation?
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,15:18

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 29 2006,15:10)
                  question from John W ( not Russell, who is not on the user list, anyway)    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Russell didn't even mention this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  He "answered" this, sort of.  Mr. "We're talking about BEETLES, MACACQUES and DOGS" said I was "changing the subject."  From dogs to, um, dogs.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,15:39

                  Boy, you guys need a secretary ...

                  Here ... let me help.

                  I did not say Russell mentioned dogs.  I mentioned dogs.  JohnW changed the subject from "dog variation" to "dog speciation."  And Eric is stuck in an infinite loop of 500 alleles.  And then there is poor Deadman ...

                  There.  Now you are nice and straight again.

                  (As straight as one can be in a condition such as yours, that is)
                  Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 29 2006,15:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,15:39)
                  Boy, you guys need a secretary ...

                  Here ... let me help.

                  I did not say Russell mentioned dogs.  I mentioned dogs.  JohnW changed the subject from "dog variation" to "dog speciation."  And Eric is stuck in an infinite loop of 500 alleles.  And then there is poor Deadman ...

                  There.  Now you are nice and straight again.

                  (As straight as one can be in a condition such as yours, that is)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Failure to answer any questions duly noted.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,15:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,13:39)
                  I did not say Russell mentioned dogs.  I mentioned dogs.  JohnW changed the subject from "dog variation" to "dog speciation."  And Eric is stuck in an infinite loop of 500 alleles.  And then there is poor Deadman ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, Dave: you're stuck with it. You need to explain it. You can't. Until you can, your "hypothesis" is dead in the water. And believe me, that's hardly its only problem. You still have to explain how it is that almost all complex eukaryotes aren't already extinct. There should be none left.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,15:52

                  Oh, I plan on reposting my expose of your lies for as long as I want.

                  I like the fact that it will appear on every page of your thread of lies, as long as I want it to. :)

                  Like I told you a LONG time ago, too, macaque-brain...I own you psychologically: the sheer fact that you can't even **honestly** address your own hypocrisy and lies ...shows it.

                  Fear is your God. Now run, little macaque, RUN!! Skitter away!!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,16:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:41)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Jesus Christ, Dave, at least pay attention to your own claims.

                  You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'm not talking about HLA alleles in humans.  I'm talking about beetles, dogs and macaques.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, it's really not important what you're talking about. Just because this thread has your name on it doesn't mean you get to choose what gets discussed on it.

                  I've presented you with a serious flaw (one of hundreds) in your "hypothesis." Until you address it, and provide evidence that your "hypothesis" can account for it, your "hypothesis" is dead. As in falsified.

                  So I don't care what you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that your "hypothesis" is dead. Now you get to try to resurrect it.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,16:49

                  Having spent several long picoseconds in deep thought contemplating the relative abundance and complexity of the myriad forms of life on this planet, I am now ready to reveal-

                  Malum Regnat's Super-Duper Explains Everything a Whole Lot Better Than Those Snooty Scientists Creator God-Like Entity Theory (V 1.5.3 build 8) (Note 1)

                  In the beginning some god-like entity (Note 2) created bacteria. (Note 3)  The god-like entity was so impressed with his bacteria, and loved them so much, he created all of the 'higher' life forms to be food, shelter, and transportation for the bacteria.  Then the god-like entity packed his bags and went on vacation never to be heard from again. (Note 4)




                  (Note 1) I'm calling mine a theory because I have way more evidence than Dave has for his mere 'hypothesis'.

                  (Note 2) In order to not offend anyone I will refrain from naming this god-like entity.  However, I can say that my exhaustive research has led me to believe that the god-like entity in question is the second cousin once removed of the FSM.

                  (Note 3) Actually the god-like entity created stars, quasars, black holes, galaxies, planets, and all the other stuff that Carl Sagan got all excited about on his show but since none of those things are, like, actually on the earth, we can just ignore them.

                  (Note 4)  There have been reports that the god-like entity was observed playing skiball somewhere in New Jersey, but they remain unconfirmed.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,17:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Russell:] What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim?  [of rapid increase in number of alleles in a very short time]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yes, it can be.  I normally don't realize I'm making claims which I, in fact, are not making.  Why don't you show me my quote where I am claiming that or ... if you can't, stop spouting nonsense.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm. It's possible I "are" not following your trainwreck of thought as closely as I should in order to participate. Maybe you can help me out. I am under the impression that Eric has it about right here:  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.

                  You claim that your "flood" was approximately 4,500 years ago.

                  Today, there are 500 HLA-B alleles. Not 10, not 61, but 500.

                  Your first two claims necessarily imply an explosive increase in HLA-B alleles in less than five millennia, whether you realize it or not.

                  You have 225 generations or so to work with. You need to get from 10 to 500.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Is that not the case?

                  Furthermore, how many generations do you figure elapsed between the alleged flood, and the isolation of the aboriginal American population? Because however many alleles that population shares with the rest of us had to have arisen during those relatively few generations, didn't they?

                  So, no I can't produce a "quote", or - more precisely - I'm not willing to go sifting through all the silliness you spew in search of the quote in question. So, do me a  favor and just tell me what, if anything, is wrong with the above deductions.

                  See, what's going on here is the typical DaveDance of endless equivocation. The reason I want to stick with numbers of alleles is that that is a solid, meaningful, quantifiable measure.

                  Davy, on the other hand, shrinks in horror from anything that can actually be quantified, because that's what it takes to test a hypothesis. Davy would rather stick with fuzzy terms, like "genetic richness" or "variability"
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  1) You guys claim it's some kind of problem to go from 16 HLA-B alleles to 61 (500 if you are Eric) in 250 years.  We've been through this in detail.  Go look it up.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah, we've been round and round, all right. But if you think there was ever a moment where you made a valid point, you're going to have to provide a link. Because I don't remember any such moment. "Go look it up", indeed.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) I claim that the Ark bottleneck is no problem and back it up with evidence
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "No problem"? What does that mean? Let's be specific. Let's talk about something quantifiable, like HLA-B alleles, just for instance.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) I claim that bottlenecks do not decrease variability if H is high enough to begin with and back it up with numerous citations
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A bottleneck, by definition decreases variety. Whatever you're trying to do by equivocating between variability and variety, I'm not buying it. What we're examining here is accumulation of variety, and how much time that accumulation takes.

                  As for your "numerous citations": have you read any of them? Or are you just telling us that Woodhead says they back him up? Because from what I see of the Pray and Goodnight paper, it does nothing of the sort. And Woody's credibility is no better than yours.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do you explain this, Russell? [dog varieties]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why, by mutation and selection. How do you explain it?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,18:03

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 29 2006,15:15)
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do you explain this, Russell? [dog varieties]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why, by mutation and selection. How do you explain it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And before you answer this question by saying "Why, pre-existing genetic variability," Dave, I'm going to remind you one more time that there is no pre-existing genetic variability. Let me see if I can explain to you why this is in a way you have a prayer of understanding:

                  There were two dogs on the ark, right, Dave? A single breeding pair, right? Now, let's suppose that either both dogs were Great Danes, or both were Chihuahuas (although any other breed would do as well). You've already said it was impossible to get from Chihuahas to Great Danes. In that case, if the two dogs on the ark were both Chihuahuas, how do we have Great Danes now? Remember, no matter how you want to look at it, whatever the breed the two dogs were on the ark, they both had, at most, two alleles for every gene in their genome. In other words, there was no "pre-existing variability" in their genomes.

                  So where did it come from, Dave? Where does it come from, other than mutations? And remember, this is not a problem for standard evolutionary theory, which does not postulate that dogs went through a genetic bottleneck of one breeding pair less than five thousand years ago.

                  The part that you're simply not getting is that, as Russell points out, a genetic bottleneck by definition destroys genetic variability. Your inability to grasp this bone-simple concept, and your inability to understand that you can't get back lost genetic variability from "pre-existing genetic variability" (that's what got lost in the first place!) remains as one of the more puzzling aspects of your intellect, Dave. If that's not too strong a word for it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,18:39

                  Okay, Dave has now, after at least a month, decided he no longer believes there are 500 alleles for the HLA-B gene, and thinks the real number is actually 61.

                  He's half right. The number of alleles for the HLA-B gene is not 500. It's < 627. >

                  So, Dave. You now have a choice. You can explain how the HLA-B gene went from 10 alleles to 61 in 250 years or so, or you can explain how it went from 10 alleles to 627 in 4,500 years. I'm easy; I don't care which one you want to tackle.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 29 2006,19:47

                  And, davey, while I kinda hate giving you by-the-numbers instruction, let's keep these few simple points in mind:

                  1. Nobody's saying that a species cannot survive a genetic bottleneck.  It's just a riskier proposition, since all that whole Ayala-reservoir of variability has been pared down to whatever alleles happen to exist for each gene among the few founding members (as few as one fertilized female...) in the new niche (or devastated old niche).

                  2. Nobody's saying that a founding population cannot eventually recover variability after a bottleneck event.  (This, apparently, is the intent of your repitition-loop about the macaques.  But what you aren't getting--because you're willfully refusing to, as usual--is that the macaques, while they appear to be in the course of founding a new population, will have decreased genetic variety for quite some period of time.  Building up a new reservoir of variation--assuming their currently-limited (and perhaps "unrepresentative") variation does not reduce their chances of surviving some environmental challenge in the meantime--Will Take Time, because the reservoir has been pared down, and only the accumulation of new mutations will restore it.)

                  3.  The "flood" represents a bottleneck event.  Whatever wonderful and immense variation existed in the human, dog, macaque, beetle--whatever "kind" you think made it onto the "ark"--genome before the flood was pared away because the whole population didn't get the ride; only two (or seven) individuals got the ride.  (And, no, davey, the two--or seven--don't get to zip and store all the variation available across the entire pre-existing along with them in a fanny-pack.  The variation is reduced because only two--or a few--individuals won the ride-the-ark lotto, and those two only have two alleles each, max, at each gene locus.  You don't get to keep sneaking the "pre-existing variation" past the bottleneck.  Like your too-large can of shaving cream, you've got to chuck it before you go through security: you can't go back and stuff it into the bags you already checked and you're just gonna have to deal with shaving with your sister's hand-soap at the other end of the flight until you've had enough time to make it down to the Wal-Mart--er, that is, until the entire ecosystem has recovered from the "Grand-Canyon"ing-of-Everything for long enough for the Wal-Mart (and all its supporting infrastructure) to recover.)

                  4. Unless and until you begin to indicate some slightest understanding of the problems caused by the genetic bottleneck caused by the arkification of all earth's biosphere, nobody's going to give your "hypothesis" the courtesy of a snicker.

                  5. To wit (singular of wit used advisedly), you not only need to recover the variability of each and every species in an incredibly short time (no time for the mutations to replenish the reservoir, which you deny anyway because all these "fallen" genomes would be deteriorating ever since the "flood" with little to no (whatever it is this week) new information resulting from the mutational copying "errors") for that species, you need time and more time for the much-more explosive growth of variability that would be required for each kind to speciate (davetalk: develop distint breeds within the ark-cestral "kind") into hundreds or thousands of daughter species (sub-kinds, whatever...).  (Meanwhile, back in daveworld, you don't even believe that the breeder-driven variation among dogs has generated even one new species of canid over the exact same time period...  Whether or not you see the problem this contradiction creates for you, please be assured that everyone else does.)

                  6.  This is really a deal-breaker, davey.  This one little problem with your "Hypothesis."  It encapsulates your ignorance (no clue what alleles were when you formulated your crap in the first place), your lack of simple logic, your deep depths of denial, your lack of ethics, your inability to face facts, your inability to juggle the inherent contradictions that multiply everytime you tap your keyboard, your quote-mining and other dishonest tactics, your cowardly refusal to deal with weaknesses and refutations of your "points," and your dishonesty, all in one well-wrapped tortilla.

                  Sorry, dude, but on this one of all the objections that have been raised to your steaming pile of baloney, You Are Outta Here.

                  Which isn't to say that we won't continue to countenance your ongoing expostulations, simply for the entertainment value, but any potential relevance any of your utterances might ever have is not just in shreds at this point (the shredding occurred somewhere toward the bottom of page 1 of Part I), but in sub-atomic smithereens.

                  Trainwreck, meet the end of the line.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,20:36

                  You know, this whole dispute about the number of HLA-B alleles is all part of Dave's plan to muddy the waters and confuse things.

                  The dispute originally arose when Mike PSS < posted > a link to a chart of various HLA-B alleles and which ones are common to all human populations. At this point, Dave < admitted > that there were in fact roughly 500 HLA-B alleles:
                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,09:59)
                  From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Initially, Dave made a big < stink > about not all 500 alleles being listed. Mike agreed that the list was not exhaustive. Then Dave started talking about the frequencies of alleles in different populations, which is irrelevant to Mike's point. The presence of alleles shared between non-admixed populations in the Old and New Worlds is what matters, not the frequency:
                     
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 03 2006,14:59)
                  Mike PSS--

                  Some initial observations on the HLA-B Alleles ...

                  1) I only see 225 lines in the whole chart, not 500
                  2) Of the 225, half of them have fewer than 10 occurrences worldwide
                  3) I see no pattern of frequencies that contradicts anything Woodmorappe has written (and I summarized)

                  What are your observations and how exactly do they pose a problem for my 4500 year timeframe?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave then spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about the frequency of allelic expression in North American populations, and an equally pointless digression into whether those populations were free from admixture. But all of this is only relevant to the issue of the number of alleles in common at the time New and Old World populations became reproductively isolated. It had nothing to do with the total number of alleles.

                  And during this entire time, Dave never disputed that there were a total of 500 (roughly) HLA-B alleles.

                  Dave eventually < figured out > (with Mike's help) that there were only 61 alleles listed on Mike's chart (which again, remember, is not an exhaustive list) that were unambiguously common between New and Old World populations.
                     
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 10 2006,07:39)

                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But this is only the intersection of the two populations, not the union, which is what Dave is trying to claim now. None of this discussion has anything whatsoever to do with the total number of alleles at the HLA-B locus.

                  In other words, until today, Dave never disputed that there were 500 (at least) alleles for the HLA-B gene. I believe, but of course cannot prove, that Dave is aware of what he is doing, and is purposely confusing the issue. Now, however, he has to deal with a significantly larger number of alleles at the HLA-B locus. The correct number (as of 2004) is 627, not 500. Congratulations, Dave. You just made your problem 35% harder for yourself.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 29 2006,21:50

                  For those of us with faulty memories ... *ahem* ... Eric, the Original and Unparalleled Water-Muddier



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave

                  Posts: 1157
                  Joined: April 2006
                   (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,10:38    

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mike PSS...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225

                  alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.

                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You can download both my threads here ...

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                  ... then do a CTRL-F search of the above post date to see the discussion following this quote.

                  *************************************

                  Deadman owns me psychologically!   :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,21:51



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your inability to grasp this bone-simple concept, and your inability to understand that you can't get back lost genetic variability from "pre-existing genetic variability" (that's what got lost in the first place!;) remains as one of the more puzzling aspects of your intellect, Dave. If that's not too strong a word for it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  We must not forget that Dave does not know what an allele is.  He would not be able to tell an allele from a male baboon dog puppy on its death bed.  

                  Dave has found an 'expert' to wave his hands, mumble scientific sounding incantations, and assure him that 'the nasty old bottleneck' would magically go away.  Now Dave won't do anything but cover his ears and yell 'I can't hear you' over and over until he declares victory.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,22:03

                  Nice try, Dave.

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,19:50)
                  For those of us with faulty memories ... *ahem* ... Eric, the Original and Unparalleled Water-Muddier

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  afdave

                  Posts: 1157
                  Joined: April 2006
                   (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,10:38    

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Mike PSS...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  CONGRATULATIONS DAVE.  You have successfully limited the discussion to only 61 out of 225 alleles for the HLA-B gene as it relates to this data table.  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.

                  Please explain to us in very good prose how 61 alleles appeared in 250 years.  If you can explain this then your explanation should hold muster to ALL related HLA-B allele data available and we can test the explanation.

                  Good Luck,
                  Mike PSS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Thank you.

                  Now that we have that behind us, let's just focus on these 61 alleles, shall we?

                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What did you think the point of this pointless reposting of your conversation with Mike PSS was, Dave? Does this in any way refute my point that the discussion of the 61 alleles is pertinent only to how many alleles New and Old World populations had in common before reproductive isolation?

                  Even you seemed to understand this at the time, which is why you posted this:

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I guess my biggest question at this point would be ...

                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  This discussion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the total number of HLA-B alleles, and you know it. I will also note for the record that this specific quote from Mike, which you reproduced here, also states that the total number of HLA-B alleles is 500, and you did not dispute that number.


                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You can download both my threads here ...

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                  ... then do a CTRL-F search of the above post date to see the discussion following this quote.

                  *************************************

                  Deadman owns me psychologically!   :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And given that I posted several quotes and permalinks from your threads, Dave, what was your purpose in posting links to downloads of your threads? Where do you think I got those quotes and permalinks from in the first place?

                  In other words, what was the point of any of this post, Dave, other than to suck up bandwidth and to make it harder to find your totally-discredited claims about the total number of HLA-B alleles?

                  You now have all the evidence you need that you were totally, completely wrong about the number of HLA-B alleles. The correct number is well north of 600. I personally don't care whether you want to handle the 61 alleles common to New World and Old World populations prior to reproductive isolation (less than 10% of the total) which must have arisen before your "ice age" ended, or whether you want to handle the 600+ alleles that have arisen sometime between the end of the flood and the present. Either way is fine, but you're not going to get away with claiming this isn't a problem for your "hypothesis," or alternatively, that you've already "dealt" with it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 29 2006,22:13

                  Also, since Dave is notorious for not following links, I'll quote the wiki entry for HLA-B alleles:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Five loci have over 100 alleles that have been detected in the human population, of these the most variable are HLA B and HLA DRB1. As of 2004 the number of alleles have been determined are listed in the table to the right. To interpret this table simply remember that an allele is a variant of the nucleotide (DNA) sequence at a locus, such that each allele differs from all other alleles in a least one (single nucleotide polymorphish, SNP) position. Most of these changes result in a change in the amino acid sequences that result in slight to major functional differences in the protein.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Here's what the table referred to in the above quote says for the number of alleles at HLA-A, -B, and -C major antigens:

                  • HLA-A: 349
                  • HLA-B: 627
                  • HLA-C: 182

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen >

                  Your move, Dave.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 29 2006,22:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hey! I just thought of a brilliant idea! If you really want to know how they eliminate the possibility of admixture, you could read the paper! Or, alternatively of course, you could just declare the problem impossible and stick with the willfully ignorant approach. And then prattle on for pages and pages about flaws in the research that you can't be bothered to even read.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 29 2006,22:31

                  I make you avoid me Dave. You can't manage to even form a direct response to questions posed to you by a host of people here. I don't run from any questions, Dave. I don't have to. You run from both reality and questions here. You're just like the middle of the road, Dave. A thin skin covering dirt, with a big yellow streak .

                  This thread is all-important to you. Your hysterical shrieks about stevestory ending this thread showed that.
                  And it means nothing to me. You mean nothing to me. I say that to you here, and I'd say it to your face, after I laughed at you.

                  you COULD stay online just once and directly respond to people in real time -- Show that you actually know any of this material on your own. Of course you don't. You didn't even know what an allele was. I'll answer any questions you have at all, on the subjects involved here. You answer mine. 10 questions each. You COULD  agree to answer them here. But you wont...and why? Cowardice. Hypocrisy. Lack of excuses for your lies. All of the above.

                  But, that's okay with me, Dave...I can keep reposting you lying about me directly. It's not a problem at all.

                  So, once again:

                     
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claims about me were lies,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:              

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God. [But you claimed to "know" my religious views, Dave...you didn't, did you? In short...you lied ]

                  (2) On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) Another lie was you claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I asked FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 29 2006,22:32

                  What happened, Dave, you realized that you could not define 'Hi-tech' in a way that would include both items without making a fool of yourself?  You shouldn't mind looking foolish Dave after all aren't you instructed to become a fool for Christ?
                  Posted by: alicejohn on Dec. 29 2006,22:40

                  This thead is becoming chaotic so I do not feel too bad about digressing to a previous topic.

                  I find Dave's argument about an alien spaceship landing on the Earth as an example of Hi-tech odd on several levels.  One of them being: From a creationist perspective, where would the aliens come from?  Science does not preclude the possibility of life evolving on other worlds, but I would think a Biblical creationist would not even consider such a possibility.  Dave, since you produced the example, are alien civilizations possible?

                  I asked a creationist in the office how he would react if evidence of life on Mars is found.  He stated evidence of life anywhere other than Earth is scripturally impossible and if such evidence is found it would shake his faith.  I can't wait to hear how the creationist faithful as a whole will handle the extraterestrial evidence.  Personnally, this perspective is the only reason I have any interest in the current direction of the US space program.

                  Dave: What would your response be if evidence of life is found on Mars??
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 30 2006,00:55

                  People have been busy since I last looked! I see Dave has come back to his half-baked notions on population genetics. I wonder if we're going to have to explain in great detail again just what is meant by an allele.

                  Dave suggested we check the math on his formula for population growth - first time I've ever seen one that doesn't take into account the original population size. Definitely an original formula you have there, Dave. (Quite apart from the failure to include mortality that other people drew attention to).

                  Dave - you promised you'd get back to me on the criteria used to delimit the 'kinds' of animals that were present on the ark. How about it?

                  And how did American cacti get to and from the ark?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,01:11

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:59)
                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject?  I was pointing out that radical variation can take place in a very short time ... the BBC quote shows that very nicely, thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wow! Davey doesn't understand the pertinence of the question or why it hurts his argument, so he flippantly blows it off.

                  Davey still thinks his AiG wonks are gonna supply him a credible answer to the Baboon Dog BS. Talk about FAITH with a Capital F.

                  Maybe this guy can help you with the Baboon Dog thing Davey.



                  You gotta hand it to him though, he's really trying to be annoying enough to get "crucified" banned. He's just too dumb to understand how bad he has to be to have that happen. His genuflecting to Steve to keep the thread open when he thought it was gonna happen was hilarious though.

                  Come on Davey, you CAN do it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,01:11

                  Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 29 2006,22:55)
                  Dave - you promised you'd get back to me on the criteria used to delimit the 'kinds' of animals that were present on the ark. How about it?

                  And how did American cacti get to and from the ark?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't hold your breath on either of these, Richard. We've been begging Dave to answer these two questions, or variations thereon, for six months. He's made a few pathetic stabs at answering, which involved something about being descended from a common gene pool on the "kinds" question (which, of course, means there's basically one "kind"), and something about floating vegetation mats or something for how non-indigenous-to-the-Middle-East plants survived the flood.

                  Dave says he's going to start dealing with post-"flood" ecology any day now, sort of pretending he's made any progress with the current topics, but since both of those topics are sort of pre-"flood," I wouldn't expect an answer any time soon.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,06:22

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS
                  (This is the current topic ... not HLA-B alleles, Eric)

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How in the world do you completely eliminate the possibility of admixture from Euro-Asia-Africa in the peoples listed in this citation??.. You're telling me that there was NO intermarriage (or hanky panky) between these groups and various Euro-Asia-Africa peoples??  Come on!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hey! I just thought of a brilliant idea! If you really want to know how they eliminate the possibility of admixture, you could read the paper! Or, alternatively of course, you could just declare the problem impossible and stick with the willfully ignorant approach. And then prattle on for pages and pages about flaws in the research that you can't be bothered to even read.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah, Russell.  That is a brilliant idea.  That's why I read SEVERAL of the papers referred to by Dr. John Sanford, remember?  And I'm sure you remembered what happened there, don't you?  You tried to say that those papers didn't support my conclusions and I walked you through them in painful detail and showed you that they did.

                  In this case, however, the guy who brought up the objection about HLA-B alleles to me in the first place conceded that I was right and agreed to 16>>61 alleles, not 16>>500.  Why should I hash it out further?  

                  I am thinking about getting the macaque and beetle papers though ... we'll see about that if nothing turns up for free.

                  In the mean time, my current topic is ...

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS

                  ... and I'm waiting on you to comment on the dog article I posted.

                  Are we afraid to talk about dogs?

                  DOGS DOGS DOGS DOGS

                  I want to hear your answer on dogs.

                  ****************************************

                  Richard ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave - you promised you'd get back to me on the criteria used to delimit the 'kinds' of animals that were present on the ark. How about it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm hmm ... Woodmorappe covers that quite well too.  I'll be sharing that.

                  Richard ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave suggested we check the math on his formula for population growth - first time I've ever seen one that doesn't take into account the original population size. Definitely an original formula you have there, Dave. (Quite apart from the failure to include mortality that other people drew attention to).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This will come after the Post-Flood ecology stuff when we talk about Babel, Egypt and China.

                  Alicejohn...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I find Dave's argument about an alien spaceship landing on the Earth as an example of Hi-tech odd on several levels.  One of them being: From a creationist perspective, where would the aliens come from?  Science does not preclude the possibility of life evolving on other worlds, but I would think a Biblical creationist would not even consider such a possibility.  Dave, since you produced the example, are alien civilizations possible?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where would they come from?  I don't know, but the SETI people would say from some other habitable planet.  I do not say they are impossible, no, but I think they are highly unlikely, and it is my opinion that there are not any.  If there are any, my opinion would be that they would have been created by the same God who created us.

                  alicejohn...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I asked a creationist in the office how he would react if evidence of life on Mars is found.  He stated evidence of life anywhere other than Earth is scripturally impossible and if such evidence is found it would shake his faith.  I can't wait to hear how the creationist faithful as a whole will handle the extraterestrial evidence.  Personnally, this perspective is the only reason I have any interest in the current direction of the US space program.

                  Dave: What would your response be if evidence of life is found on Mars??
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I would say that God created it there.  However, I think you are in for a long wait.  Like ... forever.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2006,06:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In 2004, Answers in Genesis of Kentucky (AiG-US) saw $10,423,222 in revenue.

                  In 2005, their revenue dropped to $5,429,923--a nearly 50% decline.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Link >
                  Explain this davey please, in light of the ever growing numbers of people coming over to YEC that you recently claimed (must I get a perma?).

                  This would seem to contradict the charts you posted recently on AIG? Is somebody lying somewhere?

                  EDIT: Please deal with "a year in the life of a cacti" so we can understand how such tricky plants were dealt with in the flood! This will explain alot to the lurkers, do you not think?

                  After all, you can talk about the Grand Canyon all you like, but if the way that cacti were "saved" is illustrated, then that's a big step forwards for you, right?
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2006,06:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,06:22)
                  Are we afraid to talk about dogs?

                  DOGS DOGS DOGS DOGS

                  I want to hear your answer on dogs.

                  ****************************************
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, I hope you dont mind me quoting you but as me and davey are here at the same time....

                  Eric said:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  There were two dogs on the ark, right, Dave? A single breeding pair, right? Now, let's suppose that either both dogs were Great Danes, or both were Chihuahuas (although any other breed would do as well). You've already said it was impossible to get from Chihuahas to Great Danes. In that case, if the two dogs on the ark were both Chihuahuas, how do we have Great Danes now? Remember, no matter how you want to look at it, whatever the breed the two dogs were on the ark, they both had, at most, two alleles for every gene in their genome. In other words, there was no "pre-existing variability" in their genomes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  I cant say it any better then that. Explain DOGS DOGS DOGS in light of the above please. It's a logical puzzle and one that will stop many readers in the tracks from believing anything else you have to say on the subject until you address this point!
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 30 2006,06:42

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 30 2006,06:23)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In 2004, Answers in Genesis of Kentucky (AiG-US) saw $10,423,222 in revenue.

                  In 2005, their revenue dropped to $5,429,923--a nearly 50% decline.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Link >
                  Explain this davey please, in light of the ever growing numbers of people coming over to YEC that you recently claimed (must I get a perma?).

                  This would seem to contradict the charts you posted recently on AIG? Is somebody lying somewhere?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Believe it or not, the latest AIG Shareholders meeting is up on youtube:

                  < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8rdytBtDM >
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2006,06:44



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ken Ham's salary went from $121,764 in 2004 to $60,000 in 2005; CFO James Hatton's salary went from $81,000 to $42,500; General Counsel John Pence's salary went from $93,115 to $46,500; VP of Museum Operations Mike Zovath's salary went from $90,201 to $42,500; VP of Administration Kathy Ellis's salary went from $86,068 to $39,500;
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Luke 12:33-34 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

                  James 2:5 “Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?”

                  Hey, I believe the devil can also quote scripture, so don't worry too much :)

                  EDIT: < Apparently > Ken's in a state where the median household income is $37,270.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Dec. 30 2006,07:15

                  In response to my asking for the criteria used to delimit the 'kinds' of animals that were present on the ark, Dave says


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mmm hmm ... Woodmorappe covers that quite well too.  I'll be sharing that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll believe that when I see it. I predict that your response will be that you will either ignore the question in future or repeatedly assert that Woodmorappe has answered it, without actually telling us what the criteria are.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,09:05

                  I would point you to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) for the straight scoop on AIG finances.  I know of no huge revenue drops.  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2006,09:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,09:05)
                  I would point you to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) for the straight scoop on AIG finances.  I know of no huge revenue drops.  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  well, then you are wrong.

                  Here it is

                  < http://www.discord.org/%7Elippard/AIG-2005-Form990.pdf >

                  in their own handwriting no less. Undisputable.

                  EDIT: About those cacti?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,09:40

                  Let's see how many others here at ATBC believe the latest AiG revelation.

                  Anybody else agree with Oldman and Carlson (and Lippard)?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,10:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,04:22)
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS
                  (This is the current topic ... not HLA-B alleles, Eric)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, what kind of idiot are you? HLA-B alleles are the subject of the "Flood" bottleneck! You think this will allow you to duck the problem HLA-B alleles present for your "hypothesis"? Give me a freaking break! You need to get from 10 (not 16, ten) MAX alleles to 627 alleles in 4,500 years. Or, from 10 alleles to 61 in 250 years. Your choice. But to say HLA-B alleles have nothing to do with the "flood" bottleneck is moronic.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In this case, however, the guy who brought up the objection about HLA-B alleles to me in the first place conceded that I was right and agreed to 16>>61 alleles, not 16>>500.  Why should I hash it out further?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No he did not, Dave. Did you even read my posts? Mike conceded no such thing, you conceded the number was at least 500:
                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Nov. 10 2006,07:39)
                  Maybe I will need to search out another valid data set that has a larger sample size and also tests and lists ALL 500 HLA-B alleles.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  —and the true number is greater than 600. If you think that's wrong, explain why. Otherwise, it's clear that you don't have the intellectual honesty of Joseph Goebbels.  

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In the mean time, my current topic is ...

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS

                  ... and I'm waiting on you to comment on the dog article I posted.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And I'm waiting for you to comment on the SLIGHT PROBLEM your "hypothesis" has in explaining how we got from 10 alleles to 627 alleles in 4,500 years without mutations. Or even with mutations.

                  Do you think other people don't read my posts here, Dave? Because whether or not you do or don't, others do, and can see how you've been exposed as a pathetic, lying fraud.


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are we afraid to talk about dogs?

                  DOGS DOGS DOGS DOGS

                  I want to hear your answer on dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You mean, the answer Russell already gave you?

                   
                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 29 2006,15:15)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do you explain this, Russell? [dog varieties]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Why, by [b]mutation and selection. How do you explain it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You really must think everyone else only reads your posts, Dave. It's just dumbfounding how you think you can get away with this crap.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,10:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,07:40)
                  Let's see how many others here at ATBC believe the latest AiG revelation.

                  Anybody else agree with Oldman and Carlson (and Lippard)?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gee, Dave. It's pretty clear. 2005 revenue: $5,429,923. Or did you not bother to read the document OMITSDDI linked to? The blog he linked to says exactly the same thing. Approximately 50% drop in revenue in one year. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? I mean, other than your
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,07:05)
                  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Given your general lack of knowledge about seemingly everything, your lack of knowledge of AiG's finances is hardly surprising.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,10:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  That's why I read SEVERAL of the papers referred to by Dr. John Sanford, remember?  And I'm sure you remembered what happened there, don't you?  You tried to say that those papers didn't support my conclusions and I walked you through them in painful detail and showed you that they did.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  [guffaw]
                  Yeah, right. Like Kimura? Whose graph you failed to understand? And failed to understand, even when it was explained to you multiple ways by multiple people? Or Crow, whose point you completely missed, but you claimed you didn't, but from whom you claimed you deduced key conclusions that Crow missed? Or Kondrashov, whom, in fact, you did not read?

                  Dave, you are a profoundly silly creature. Fortunately for the future of science and education, you are also a completely irrelevant creature.
                  Posted by: improvius on Dec. 30 2006,10:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,10:40)
                  Let's see how many others here at ATBC believe the latest AiG revelation.

                  Anybody else agree with Oldman and Carlson (and Lippard)?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh-oh.  Suddenly, making a career out of lying to children might not seem so attractive to Dave.  Now that's a real faith-tester, isn't it, Davey?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,11:03

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,06:22)
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS

                  ... and I'm waiting on you to comment on the dog article I posted.

                  Are we afraid to talk about dogs?

                  DOGS DOGS DOGS DOGS

                  I want to hear your answer on dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  OK Davey, let's talk dogs. Let's start with baboon dogs Davey.

                  Short spine

                  In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

                  How do they keep this breed alive Davey? Can you hook me up with a responsible breeder of baboon dogs? Can you link a pic or an article (other than your AiG claptrap) of a baboon dog Davey?

                  Didn't think so.

                  Man, the whistling sound those tiny impotent fists of rage are making while trying to flail away at all the evidence are annoying but you're gonna have to try harder.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 30 2006,11:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,09:05)
                  I would point you to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) for the straight scoop on AIG finances.  I know of no huge revenue drops.  To my knowledge, their revenues have been increasing steadily for a number of years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, ECFA seems to act as an external auditor for churches and ministries, not unlike you see in the financial statements of publicly traded for-profit companies.  It is important to note that such auditors charge is to validate the accuracy of financial statements vis-a-vis the actual financial transactions of the organization and conformance with generally accepted accounting practices.  These auditors do not make any representations regarding the financial viability of the organization.  A company going into bankruptcy can get a clean bill of health from such auditors provided their accounting practices are legit and their financial statements accurate.

                  In other words, the drop in revenue that AIG has reported to the IRS is not something that EFCA, provided they are acting in this role, would comment on.

                  EDIT: Corrected minor grammar errors
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,11:09



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The only dog mutant which comes anywhere near qualifying as useful (from the dog's point of view) is found in that big lovable St. Bernard.

                  It suffers from hyperthyroidism, which means that its overactive thyroid gland enables it to turn food into body heat at an incredible rate, not by choice, but by compulsion. His feet can sometimes be so hot they can melt the snow around him. This makes it easy for him to live in the snowy cold conditions and to play his part in rescuing and or inebriating lost mountaineers. But it has bad points too. He cannot tolerate the heat since he makes so much of his own. It is anything but kind to bring a St. Bernard to a tropical climate. Secondly, he must eat huge quantities of food to survive because he uses it so rapidly and this creates his dilemma. A St. Bernard is best suited to live in the snow and cold, but in such conditions he would normally find nothing to eat and would starve. If man did not artificially maintain the breed, it would soon die out.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  How about this statement Davey? Do you agree or disagree? Would the same thing be true for Newfoundlands Davey? All of the larger breeds?

                  What about my web toed, otter tailed, pointing Labradors Davey? Are they degenerate mutants that couldn't survive in the wild?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,11:16

                  LIE SWALLOWING DEVELOPED TO A FINE ART AT LIPPARD BLOGSPOT

                  Jim Lippard published this piece yesterday ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Friday, December 29, 2006
                  Answers in Genesis revenue declines by 50% in 2005

                  I've just been reviewing the 2005 Form 990 filing from Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, the first one filed since its split from Creation Ministries International in October 2005. (I've previously commented on their 2003 and 2004 Form 990's.) They have seen a huge drop in revenue, which appears to be largely due to a drop in overall donations from the public and decreased attendance at their seminars. They've been spending a lot of money on their creationism museum, and it looks like they are counting on it to be a growing, if not the primary, source of their future revenue. In response to this revenue decline, the senior staff have all taken significant cuts in pay. This drop in revenue is likely not attributable to the CMI split, since that didn't become public knowledge until the end of February 2006.

                  On to the details...
                  < Lippard Blogspot >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And several of the ATBC lemmings here swallowed it whole, much as they have swallowed the Grand Evo Fairy Tale, hook, line and sinker ...

                  Uh ... Mr. Lippard might want to actually READ the Form 990 before publishing his gleeful, foam-at-the-mouth conclusions about AiG.

                  If he actually would take this unprecedented-for-a-typical-skeptic step, he would have noticed this little phrase at the top of the Form 990 ...

                  "For the calendar year 2005, or tax year beginning Jan 1, 2005 and ending Jun 30, 2005."

                  IT'S A SIX MONTH REPORT, YOU ROCKET SCIENTISTS!

                  ***********************************************

                  No wonder skeptics like you swallow all kinds of error such as ...

                  1) There was no Global Flood
                  2) Mutations built all biological structures on earth
                  3) The Flood bottleneck is a problem for creationism
                  4) Natural selection acts at the nucleotide level
                  5) Apes and humans share a common ancestor
                  6) Flagellar motors do not constitute hi-tech
                  7) Crow really didn't mean that degenerating genomes is a "time bomb" when he said that
                  8) Reproductive ability is not merely higher tech ... it's an absolute difference compared to human technology
                  9) Radiometric "dating" gives absolute, trustworthy dates

                  ... and on and on and on ...

                  I'm SO glad academia is in such good hands!
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,11:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How do you explain this, Russell?  
                  Quote
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  Hmmmm ... "intensive breeding is responsible for the dramatic differences in only 500 years!"  

                  NOT due to genetic origins.

                  Intensive breeding.

                  Hmmmmmmmm .........
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------







                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Conclusion

                  Dog breeders have used mutations to change the dog for hunting man's way. They have made many grotesque forms and are still trying to make the 'best' domestic dog. But all results considered, man has still not made a dog into a non-dog or a more doggish dog (every postman can verify this).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  NOT due to Genetics Davey? *Slight edit for context

                  We know you're deluded Davey, it won't get you banned.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,11:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,06:22)
                  ... and I'm waiting on you to comment on the dog article I posted.

                  Are we afraid to talk about dogs?

                  DOGS DOGS DOGS DOGS

                  I want to hear your answer on dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Typical Davey.

                  Pounds his chest and roars a challenge, then flees with his tail between his legs.

                  Maybe he wanted to talk about these "kinds" of dogs?


                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,12:02

                  Mutation and Selection?

                  Responsible for all the "dramatic differences" in modern dogs over only 500 years?

                  Why did the article not say anything about mutations?

                  It said ... INTENSIVE BREEDING was the cause.

                  Are you really telling me that you believe all those "dramatic differences" arose as a result of NEW MUTATIONS which occurred in the last 500 years?  Isn't that kind of fast for your evolutionary timescale?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,12:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you really telling me that you believe all those "dramatic differences" arose as a result of NEW MUTATIONS which occurred in the last 500 years?  Isn't that kind of fast for your evolutionary timescale?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I don't know when they arose. Do you? They are mutations, though.

                  You're in the hilarious position of trying to convince the reality-based community that, yes, evolution happens. We knew that. Mutations and selection.

                  Your problem is reconciling your new-found enthusiasm for the possibilities of evolution with your old-time religion that evolution is impossible. It is, I must say, highly entertaining.

                  Now that you've discovered the amazing possibilities of mutations and selection, tell me this: what would limit these amazing possibilities to what you like to call "micro"- evolution, given 500,000 or 5,000,000 or 500,000,000 years, instead of just 500?

                  Go ahead davy. Give it your best shot!
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,12:35

                  You yourself posted the article that calls them degenerate MUTANTS Davey.

                  What is intensive breeding if not selection of mutants for breeding?

                  So we're back to mutation and selection Davey. 'Splain away!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,13:03

                  Russell ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't know when they arose. Do you? They are mutations, though.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You say that only because you erroneously believe that ALL variation is due to mutation, which, of course, is one of the key differences between you and I.  The truth is that only SOME variation is due to mutation and the variation due to mutation is NOT the kind that helps survival in the wild.

                  Let me tell you the truth about these dogs (in the BBC article).

                  Let's pretend that your ToE story is true for a moment.  OK?  If it is true, then that means that MOST of the "dramatic differences" we see today in modern dogs happened BEFORE 500 years ago, agreed?  I mean ... dogs just didn't evolve overnight according to you ... it took a million years or so.  And if that is your story and you're stickin' to it, then you cannot say that there were any mutations to speak of in the last 500 years, right?  Am I moving too fast?  For the slow folks, 1,000,000 years (a guess for when you say dogs diverged from their LCA) / 500 years is 2000.  IOW 500 years is 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% of the time of total dog evolution, right?

                  So now the light bulb will come on for the bright people on this thread and they will say "Oooooh!  I don't like how this is looking!"

                  "Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him.  Oooops.  This article says that the 'dramatic differences' we see in modern dogs is due to intensive breeding--doesn't say anything about mutations.  And 500 years is such a small time on our scale anyway that these 'dramatic differences' can NOT be due to 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% of the total mutations that have occurred in dog evolution.  Ooooh!  We'd better run from this topic!"

                  "I finally see what Dave's talking about and suddenly I'm having hot flashes!"
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,13:07

                  Wow! Look a whole article on < agriculture >, with no mention of photosynthesis!
                  Obvious conclusion: photosynthesis is irrelevant to agriculture.
                  QED
                  What a moron.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 30 2006,13:15

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,11:16)
                  IT'S A SIX MONTH REPORT, YOU ROCKET SCIENTISTS!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You won one! Remember that feeling. It'll have to keep you going till "darwinism" falls, which will be just after he!! freezes over.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,13:16



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But to say HLA-B alleles have nothing to do with the "flood" bottleneck is moronic.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Which explains why Dave would say it.  Like I said Dave wouldn't know an allele from a male mutant baboon dog on its death bed.

                  The modern-day Cargo Cultist doesn't understand anything you write.  All he does is try to find the right sciency sounding magical incantation to make the objections go away, but since he doesn't really understand the objections most of the time his quotemined magical incantations work against him.  But since he doesn't even understand enough to know they don't magically fix everything for him he keeps chanting them over and over hoping that if he does it just right the magic will work and he will become the hero of the rest of the YEC Cargo Cultists.

                  Heck, apparently Dave can't even define 'Hi-tech'.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,13:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Am I moving too fast?  For the slow folks
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Dave, do you have any idea how ridiculous smugness looks on you? Clearly not.

                  If you have a point with all this dog stuff, I sure don't see it.

                  Look: intensive breeding = mutations + selection.

                  It's as simple as that. (You know, Darwin was very big on selective breeding. Ever read Darwin? No, of course not.)

                  Did those mutations arise during the past 500 years? Did they occur sometime in the past, say, 5,000,000 years and did dog breeders just select interesting recombinations of them? (By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination. It looks like your point is coming down to "it's not one kind of mutation - it's a different kind of mutation!" ).

                  I don't know. Do you?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Oooooh!  I don't like how this is looking!"
                  ...  Ooooh!  We'd better run from this topic!"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yeah. Right. We're just quaking in our boots. Quick! Someone distract davy! Dogs are going to be the Waterloo of ToE!

                  Especially those dreaded... [cue Dragnet theme: dum-da-dum-dum] Baboon Dogs!
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,13:53



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I mean ... dogs just didn't evolve overnight according to you ... it took a million years or so.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, 'dogs' didn't exsist until humans created them by genetically altering wolves.  This was done by selective breading for pre existing traits and for new mutations (like webed feet on some breeds bred to be used around water).  

                  The ToE does not pfredict 'millions of years' for species created by man through gene manipulation.

                  By the way, how do you define 'Hi-tech', Dave?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,14:12

                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Wow! Look a whole article on agriculture, with no mention of photosynthesis!
                  Obvious conclusion: photosynthesis is irrelevant to agriculture.
                  QED
                  What a moron.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Just as I predicted.  Running away from dogs.  And trying to make an irrelevant parallel with photosynthesis and agriculture.  Nice try, but no dice.

                  The truth is ... they didn't mention mutation in the BBC article because it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to their conclusion, which was ...

                  THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN MODERN DOGS ARE DUE TO INTENSIVE BREEDING WHERE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES WERE RESHUFFLED

                  This has absolutely ZERO do to with HOW the previously existing genes cames to be (you say mutation only, I say God+mutation)

                  So ...

                  My point is proven ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS

                  (IOW Eric's signature nonsense is destroyed)

                  ******************************************

                  Malum ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But to say HLA-B alleles have nothing to do with the "flood" bottleneck is moronic.


                  Which explains why Dave would say it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did I say that?  Quote me please.

                  *******************************************

                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you have any idea how ridiculous smugness looks on you? Clearly not.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  This is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, but nevertheless, I don't know of a soul on the planet that could not use a little more humility including me ... smug statements retracted.

                  Russell ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination. It looks like your point is coming down to "it's not one kind of mutation - it's a different kind of mutation!" ).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Oooo ... there's a gem. Recombination is simply a different kind of mutation??!!  Wow.  Are you sure you mean that?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,14:17

                  SO MANY, MANY LIES FROM DAVE -- SO LITTLE TIME TO ANSWER FOR THEM But he still can't manage to address the lies he states he "never said"

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claims about me were lies,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God. [But you claimed to "know" my religious views, Dave...you didn't, did you? In short...you lied ]

                  (2) On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) Another lie was you claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I asked FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43773


                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,14:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now the light bulb will come on for the bright people on this thread and they will say "Oooooh!  I don't like how this is looking!"

                  "Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him.  Oooops.  This article says that the 'dramatic differences' we see in modern dogs is due to intensive breeding--doesn't say anything about mutations.  And 500 years is such a small time on our scale anyway that these 'dramatic differences' can NOT be due to 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% of the total mutations that have occurred in dog evolution.  Ooooh!  We'd better run from this topic!"

                  "I finally see what Dave's talking about and suddenly I'm having hot flashes!"

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Your delusions are showing, Dave.  Nobody here is doing anything but laughing their a's off at your Cargo Cultish inability to understand even the very basic concepts of science.

                  And, by the way, can you define 'Hi-tech'?
                  Posted by: ck1 on Dec. 30 2006,14:25

                  As a long time lurker on this thread I thank you all for the entertainment and for the info provided by the regulars.  But, it seems to me that at this point, there should be some requirement that Dave address all questions before moving on to new topics.  I realize that allowing him free reign emphasizes his scientific vacuity and dishonesty (and breathtaking inanity) for all to see, but realistically, if not expected to meet any standards he seems prepared to continue in this vein for years.  Do you really want that?

                  Dave,  
                  I have read every word you have written on ATBC.  You have not remotely addressed the objections to your hypothesis.  At this point, I for one would like your explanation for the 627 HLA alleles - in your own words, please.  Your move to another topic only illustrates that avoidance and obfuscation (and lying) are your only strategies.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,14:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:59)
                  JohnW ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How much dog speciation has occurred in the last 500 years, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Who cares?  Why are you changing the subject?  I was pointing out that radical variation can take place in a very short time ... the BBC quote shows that very nicely, thanks.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davey, till you can understand JohnW's question and answer it correctly you aren't gonna make any headway on this.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,14:29

                  Another cute little lie from Dave

                  p.9 of his previous thread: It is my opinion that these claims are true ... however, I am not asking anyone to join me in that belief until I show my evidence supporting these claims... Creationism explains everything MUCH better than Evolution does. It explains designs in nature, it explains the human condition, it explains the fossil record, it explains coal beds and oil wells, it explains the races of mankind. It explains dinosaurs and the ice age.
                  ************************************************
                  Now, after getting spanked dozens of times, you've dropped that charade so you can avoid questioning of your "theory that is better than any other."

                  Example: Creationism didn't help you deal with radiocarbon dating, unless you count those piles of faked math from "R.H. Brown" who "POSTULATES" on carbon levels ( never mentions it HAS to be in the atmosphere, too) and increased land mass TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER than the present amount. So you packed up your "scientific" pretense and ran back home to semantic games.

                  Ohhhhh, yeah, real convincing and without a scintilla of evidence.

                  By the way, lots of people have mentioned this, but as CK1 reiterates above...Dave will keep playing his whack-a-Mole Gish gallop Game as long as he is not held to responding to single questions.
                  The only way Dave was pinned down on geologic radiometry by Jon was a concerted effort, same with Fenton Hill zircons, mutations, his hilarious crap on information theory and radiocarbon and all his other major claims.

                  I feel uncomfortable appearing as though I'm asking others to do anything that might impinge on their rights to act and question and post as they wish, though, so...I'm just pointing out that Dave will continue to take advantage of this "divide-and-bullshite" selective answers routine he has.

                  He IS afraid of having his toy taken away, and OTHERWISE, he's NOT GOING ANYWHERE...so IF he were "embargoed" and only presented with select questions, not a barrage...then that would cut down on his escape routes, no?

                  I'd like to hear about baboon dogs, too...since it points out that creationists use lies without substance, flawed "science" and sheer sleight-of-hand rhetorical mummery...kinda like Dave. Oh, and I still haven't even found that there IS a breed of dog called a "baboon dog," other than an Afghan, once in a while , being called that...but it can't be Afghans because I know the males don't die "before maturity" -- I've seen them before...unless they were like transsexual post-operative Afghans. So...what breed IS the "baboon dog?" That should be easier for Dave to answer to than the evidence of his lies I post and will keep on posting
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,14:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination is simply a different kind of mutation??!!  Wow.  Are you sure you mean that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh-oh!
                  I can tell davy's about to pull a brilliant Perry Mason on me, and destroy my whole position... with my own words, even
                  Yikes. I'm cringing.
                  Davy, what's your definition of "mutation"? Here's mine: a heritable change in DNA sequence. Is recombination a heritable change in DNA sequence? Yes. I call that a mutation.

                  Is it "simply" a different kind of mutation? I don't know about that. It's a rather involved process. It is pretty much random, though, so far as I can tell. Do you have a point? Or are you hoping one will come to you?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,14:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Very true if, like with your example of dogs, you start with a species (let's just for giggles say wolves) and selectively breed for traits that have evolved over a million years or so.  Lets look at your qualifier “VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS”, but every once in a while one of those mutations gives you something new like webbed feet found on dogs that were bread for use around water.  

                  Or like when a breeder of Dachshunds discovered he had a white Dachshund puppy.  In the hundreds of years they had been breeding these dogs there had never before been a white Dachshund.  This was a new mutation which the breeder (aware that he was holding a cute little wiggly gold mine in his lap) began to selectively breed for.  


                  By the way, Dave, can you define 'Hi-tech'?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,14:50



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him.

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Which is it, Dave, no mutations or virtually no mutations?  The two statements are not equivalent.

                  And, Dave, I was just wondering, can you define 'Hi-tech'?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,16:03



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You say that only because you erroneously believe that ALL variation is due to mutation, which, of course, is one of the key differences between you and I.  The truth is that only SOME variation is due to mutation and the variation due to mutation is NOT the kind that helps survival in the wild.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wrong, try again.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let me tell you the truth about these dogs (in the BBC article).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Considering your track record for honesty and lack of reading comprehension, no thanks! How long did the BBC article say dogs have been with us? Try again Davey.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Let's pretend that your ToE story is true for a moment.  OK?  If it is true, then that means that MOST of the "dramatic differences" we see today in modern dogs happened BEFORE 500 years ago, agreed?  I mean ... dogs just didn't evolve overnight according to you ... it took a million years or so.  And if that is your story and you're stickin' to it, then you cannot say that there were any mutations to speak of in the last 500 years, right?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wrong again Davey.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  "Dave's been saying all along that massive variation can happen with NO mutations in a very short time and we've been pooh poohing him."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Heh, if you choose to call it pooh poohing Davey, go right ahead. You are very confused about the difference between variation and speciation.

                  Here are some examples of variation Dave,









                  Here are some examples of speciation,






                  That's a racoon dog Davey but I still can't find a pic of a baboon dog.




                  That's a Darwin Fox.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN MODERN DOGS ARE DUE TO INTENSIVE BREEDING WHERE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES WERE RESHUFFLED

                  This has absolutely ZERO do to with HOW the previously existing genes cames to be (you say mutation only, I say God+mutation)

                  So ...

                  My point is proven ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS

                  (IOW Eric's signature nonsense is destroyed)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Davey, you truly are a honeyhole, poke you with a stick and the sweet tard flows.

                  My cousin DM suggests,

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  By the way, lots of people have mentioned this, but as CK1 reiterates above...Dave will keep playing his whack-a-Mole Gish gallop Game as long as he is not held to responding to single questions.
                  The only way Dave was pinned down on geologic radiometry by Jon was a concerted effort, same with Fenton Hill zircons, mutations, his hilarious crap on information theory and radiocarbon and all his other major claims.

                  I feel uncomfortable appearing as though I'm asking others to do anything that might impinge on their rights to act and question and post as they wish, though, so...I'm just pointing out that Dave will continue to take advantage of this "divide-and-bullshite" selective answers routine he has.

                  He IS afraid of having his toy taken away, and OTHERWISE, he's NOT GOING ANYWHERE...so IF he were "embargoed" and only presented with select questions, not a barrage...then that would cut down on his escape routes, no?

                  I'd like to hear about baboon dogs, too...since it points out that creationists use lies without substance, flawed "science" and sheer sleight-of-hand rhetorical mummery...kinda like Dave. Oh, and I still haven't even found that there IS a breed of dog called a "baboon dog," other than an Afghan, once in a while , being called that...but it can't be Afghans because I know the males don't die "before maturity" -- I've seen them before...unless they were like transsexual post-operative Afghans. So...what breed IS the "baboon dog?" That should be easier for Dave to answer to than the evidence of his lies I post and will keep on posting
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'm with you, it's time for Dave to try to answer the hard questions.

                  *Edit, some of the links didn't work
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,16:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,09:16)
                  If he actually would take this unprecedented-for-a-typical-skeptic step, he would have noticed this little phrase at the top of the Form 990 ...

                  "For the calendar year 2005, or tax year beginning Jan 1, 2005 and ending Jun 30, 2005."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And which one is it, Dave? Is it the calendar year 2005? Or is it the six-month period from January to June 2005? How do you know which one it is?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,16:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,11:03)
                  Russell ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't know when they arose. Do you? They are mutations, though.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You say that only because you erroneously believe that ALL variation is due to mutation, which, of course, is one of the key differences between you and I.  The truth is that only SOME variation is due to mutation and the variation due to mutation is NOT the kind that helps survival in the wild.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Two problems with this, Dave. One is, you're comparing two different kinds of selection: natural selection and artificial selection. Obviously, artificial selection works much, much faster than natural selection because humans can prevent animals with undesirable characteristics from breeding at all. It's not difficult to imagine that artificial selection can work hundreds if not thousands of times faster than natural selection.

                  Objection number one disposed of.

                  Now let me make an objection to your scenario, that all these different breeds of dogs come from "pre-existing variation." You don't have any pre-existing variation. Your "flood" got rid of all of it for you, Dave, 4,500 years ago. You started out with two dogs. Each dog had at most two alleles for every gene, for a maximum of four. There was no pre-existing variation to begin with.

                  This isn't a problem for standard evolutionary biology, why? Because there was plenty of genetic variation to begin with, when humans began breeding dogs. There were millions of dogs in the world, Dave, 4,500 years ago, not two. There was plenty of variation in a gene pool that far back. Your gene pool had two swimmers in it. Two.

                  Your only possible source of variation in your dogs, Dave, is mutation. You don't have any "pre-existing genetic variation." What you think is a problem for evolutionary biology is actually a problem for your hypothesis! You need mutation rates far, far higher than evolutionary theory does!

                  Your move, Dave.

                  And by the way, since we're talking about genetic bottlenecks here, you still need to get from 10 alleles after the "flood" to over 600 today. Go get 'em, scooter.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,16:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Just as I predicted.  Running away from dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Really?  Who's running, davy?

                  Baboon dogs? (Run, davy, run! )

                  What limits the kind of evolution you see in dogs in 500 years to "micro-"evolution over 500,000,000 years? (Run, davy, run! )

                  What's your definition of "mutation"? (Run, davy, run! )



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  and trying to make an irrelevant parallel with photosynthesis and agriculture.  Nice try, but no dice.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Irrelevant? Only if you fail to see the point. Did you fail to see the point? Well, color me unsurprised.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,16:26

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,12:12)
                  The truth is ... they didn't mention mutation in the BBC article because it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to their conclusion, which was ...

                  THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN MODERN DOGS ARE DUE TO INTENSIVE BREEDING WHERE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES WERE RESHUFFLED

                  This has absolutely ZERO do to with HOW the previously existing genes cames to be (you say mutation only, I say God+mutation)

                  So ...

                  My point is proven ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS

                  (IOW Eric's signature nonsense is destroyed)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nice try, Dave. Where's your "massive variation"? You didn't have any variation 4,500 years ago. So where did it come from? It didn't exist already, and it didn't come from mutations. So it came from miracles? Out of AF Dave's butt?

                  The truth is, you desperately need ultra-high mutation rates, Dave. Mutation rates that would have driven dogs to extinction. You can't seem to figure this out, but everyone else here sure can.

                  My signature destroys your "hypothesis." You can't answer either of the implied questions: you can't answer where your explosive increase in biodiversity came from, and you can't answer why there's any biodiversity left.

                  Still can't answer either one of those questions, can you, Dave?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Malum ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But to say HLA-B alleles have nothing to do with the "flood" bottleneck is moronic.

                  Which explains why Dave would say it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Where did I say that?  Quote me please.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sure:

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,04:22)
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS
                  (This is the current topic ... not HLA-B alleles, Eric)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------





                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Russell ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination. It looks like your point is coming down to "it's not one kind of mutation - it's a different kind of mutation!" ).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Oooo ... there's a gem. Recombination is simply a different kind of mutation??!!  Wow.  Are you sure you mean that?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's pretty clear from this one statement that Dave has (surprise!) no freaking idea what the term "mutation" means. No wonder he's so far in the weeds.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,16:39

                  MY FRIEND FRANCISCO ... SUCH A GOOD FRIEND :-)

                  This time he helps me refute Russell's idea that ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmm ... I never read anywhere but here that recombination is a "kind" of mutation.  Nope.  I get my definitions from the leading scientists (so as to make Russell happy) ... look what this one says ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
                  p. 58
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  p. 59
                  “The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
                  p. 63
                  “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
                  p. 64
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Hmmm ... does it look like recombination is a "kind" of mutation?  Not to me.  Maybe this is one of those proprietary Evo lexicon things.  Special definitions for "error" and "lie" and "hi-tech" and now "mutation."

                  I always thought a mutation was an error in the DNA and it looks like my friend Francisco agrees.  Recombination is simply what happens when, for example, a male and female mate and have offspring.  The alleles from the mother and father are basically mixed in random fashion but this is an entirely different thing from a random copying mistake (which is what a mutation is).  What is being mixed at random is one of two (or maybe three, sometimes more) pre-determined sequences.

                  ***************************************

                  SO WHAT'S THE  POINT OF ALL THIS?
                  Russell thinks this is my point ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It looks like your point is coming down to "it's not one kind of mutation - it's a different kind of mutation!" ).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Nope.   Not my point.   I say there is only one kind of mutation.  You are the one with the bizarre notion that there is more than one kind (i.e. recombination is a kind of mutation ... of course, mutations happen in different way ... deletion, insertion, etc., but that's not what you were talking about)

                  Again, my point is ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH NO (OR VIRTUALLY NO) MUTATIONS

                  (either way is true ... "none" or "virtually none")

                  ... which, of course, totally refutes your claims that the massive variation we see today couldn't have possibly come from 1 founder pair in a mere 4500 years.

                  With dogs, it only took 500 years for "dramatic differences."

                  So with all other organisms, 4500 years is PLENTY also!!!

                  Have a nice evening!
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,16:50

                  Crabby ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What is intensive breeding if not selection of mutants for breeding?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Almost right. Intensive breeding is selection of CHARACTERISTICS.  Remember, my view (the correct view) is that the vast majority of alleles were DESIGNED--as in, not caused by mutations.  SOME alleles are caused by mutations.  I think if you compare alleles, many times you will find only one nucleotide position difference.

                  But you are missing the point.  The point was that ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH NO (OR VIRTUALLY NO) MUTATIONS

                  ... which refutes people like Eric Murphy.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,16:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  With dogs, it only took 500 years for "dramatic differences."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dogs have been under domestication for much longer. Variation in height, fur and various body parts is not significant except to people who want to emphasize minor differences in said dogs -- as with humans emphasizing skin color or hair texture or nose shape, or height to delineate "race" superficially. More importantly, dogs did not speciate in that time...as would be required of "kinds" off the Ark of Noah, to see the diversity we have today. Variation in phenotypic plasticity is not speciation.  

                  Now, what species are baboon dogs? It's not a dog breed I can identify.
                  Posted by: ck1 on Dec. 30 2006,17:00

                  Dave,

                  Alleles from mother and father are inherited in a random mix only if they are on different chromosomes.  This is called independental assortment.

                  Alleles for genes on the same chromosome are physically linked and are inherited together unless the maternal and paternal chromosomes break and rejoin - this is recombination.  I think this qualifies as a mutational change.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,17:01

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 30 2006,12:29)
                  By the way, lots of people have mentioned this, but as CK1 reiterates above...Dave will keep playing his whack-a-Mole Gish gallop Game as long as he is not held to responding to single questions.
                  The only way Dave was pinned down on geologic radiometry by Jon was a concerted effort, same with Fenton Hill zircons, mutations, his hilarious crap on information theory and radiocarbon and all his other major claims.

                  I feel uncomfortable appearing as though I'm asking others to do anything that might impinge on their rights to act and question and post as they wish, though, so...I'm just pointing out that Dave will continue to take advantage of this "divide-and-bullshite" selective answers routine he has.

                  He IS afraid of having his toy taken away, and OTHERWISE, he's NOT GOING ANYWHERE...so IF he were "embargoed" and only presented with select questions, not a barrage...then that would cut down on his escape routes, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I agree. I think Dave should be forced to answer the question I've been asking him for months now, and which appears in my signature on every message I post:

                  How does your "hypothesis" help in explaining how biodiversity can be simultaneously increasing and decreasing?

                  You claim that the genomes of complex eukaryotes are "degenerating" and will drive most of these organisms to extinction in approximately 300 generations. If this is true, then how are there any such organisms left, since most of them have a generation time of one year or less. They should mostly have become extinct within a millennium of the "flood."

                  You also claim that biodiversity has increased explosively over the last 4,500 years, from a few thousands of "kinds" on the ark to several million species today. This implies an average diversification from one "kind" to one thousand species in that time. Except you recently claimed this happened in as little as 800 years.

                  Clearly, not both of these scenarios can be true. It is unlikely that either one is true, but unless and until Dave deals with this conundrum, he should not be permitted to go off on yet another DaveDance number.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,17:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How does your "hypothesis" help in explaining how biodiversity can be simultaneously increasing and decreasing?

                  You claim that the genomes of complex eukaryotes are "degenerating" and will drive most of these organisms to extinction in approximately 300 generations. If this is true, then how are there any such organisms left, since most of them have a generation time of one year or less. They should mostly have become extinct within a millennium of the "flood."

                  You also claim that biodiversity has increased explosively over the last 4,500 years, from a few thousands of "kinds" on the ark to several million species today. This implies an average diversification from one "kind" to one thousand species in that time. Except you recently claimed this happened in as little as 800 years.

                  Clearly, not both of these scenarios can be true. It is unlikely that either one is true, but unless and until Dave deals with this conundrum, he should not be permitted to go off on yet another DaveDance number.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I like that one just as much as the baboon dogs.

                  Dave likes to pretend this is "his" thread...he's been allowed to dance around such questions for hundreds of pages, thousands of posts. But it's not "his"....

                  He requires feedback so he can pretend to be a "peer" and to promulgate his obviously false views. If he is held to only a small number of questions, he loses his ability to avoid, and his pretense that this is "his" thread.

                  I would argue that this is the thread of anyone participating...and that control over the thread rests with selective questioning and answering. If can cannot play fair-- then it's time to take the ball away from him.  

                  A diversion might be something along the line of a contest IN this thread to find everyone's favorite Dave lies.

                  Or another contest to find the funniest examples of Dave claiming to know things he was later shown not to know.

                  Or a contest of comments where Dave is shown to have adopted mutually contradictory claims, one after the other.  

                  I'm sure there's lots of things we can do to ridicule Dave's ideas and comments here, without falling for his silly games. If he doesn't want to be responsible for supporting his claims, then he can be ignored. He will grow increasingly shrill and increasingly marginalized...until he decides to answer questions directly...then he can play again.

                  It's just an observation on my part...but I don't plan on indulging this known liar and quotemining plagiarist another 6 months at all...he can keep his semantic games up indefinitely--he has no job at the moment and nothing else matters so much to him.

                  He is willing to use any tactic and doesn't care how it appears...witness his refusal to deal directly with examples of  his obvious lies....so he can only be dealt with as you would deal with children...send them for a timeout in the corner until he can act like an adult. If not...well, he's not a child that anyone has to coddle, so he can be simply ignored completely and left to die here. I personally have no problem in doing that...this thread is not all-important to me.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,17:22



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hmmm ... does it look like recombination is a "kind" of mutation?  Not to me.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No one cares what it looks like to you. I told you my definition:

                  a heritable change in DNA* sequence
                  *(I didn't mean to slight my favorite genomes, the RNA viruses, so amend that to read: "genomic molecules")

                  Ayala, in Scientific American, writes      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  a mutation can be considered...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  That's not a definition. So I'm still waiting. What's your definition of "mutation"? Again, I work with this stuff on a day to day basis. Down and dirty. With my own hands. I daresay my definition carries a little more weight than yours, if and when it ever appears, if it indeed differs from mine, if indeed it even exists.

                  Moreover, even if recombination were not mutation, it wouldn't help you: Where did all those "previously accumulated mutations" come from?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I say there is only one kind of mutation. ... ... of course, mutations happen in different way ... deletion, insertion, etc., but that's not what you were talking about)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You are singularly unqualified to tell me what I'm talking about. You say there's only one kind of mutation, then proceed to list a few of them. Do you even read the garbage you write before you hit the "Add Reply" button?

                  You want to take Ayala very strictly and literally when it suits you, but the core of his argument is just Ayala (a former Catholic priest, incidentally) being a dogmatic evolutionist, not recognizing the scientific reliability of the bible.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,17:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,14:39)
                  Again, my point is ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH NO (OR VIRTUALLY NO) MUTATIONS

                  (either way is true ... "none" or "virtually none")

                  ... which, of course, totally refutes your claims that the massive variation we see today couldn't have possibly come from 1 founder pair in a mere 4500 years.

                  With dogs, it only took 500 years for "dramatic differences."

                  So with all other organisms, 4500 years is PLENTY also!!!

                  Have a nice evening!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What? Your assertion that massive variation is possible in a very short time? You think that proves something? You assertion that is supported by exactly zero evidence?

                  No.

                  Where did this "massive variation" come from Dave? It didn't walk off the ark. Your "flood" exterminated ALL of the variation. There wasn't any. So where did it come from? One source, and one source only, Dave: mutation. In fact, your "hypothesis" requires mutation rates astronomically in excess of anything ever observed or even postulated by real theories of evolution.

                  So my claim that massive variation couldn't possibly have come from 1 founder pair in 4,500 years IS UNREFUTED.

                  Scenario 1 (standard theory): there is plenty of variation among, e.g., dogs—mutations or not—because 4,500 years ago the gene pool for dogs had millions of dogs in it.

                  Scenario 2 (AF Dave's "hypothesis"): there could be no variation among dogs without mutation, because 4,500 years ago the gene pool for dogs had TWO dogs in it.

                  Your claim is this, Dave: massive variation comes from nowhere, and explains why there could be so many breeds of dogs today. That's your claim.

                  Does this crap really work with other creationists?
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 30 2006,17:36

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,15:12)
                  THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN MODERN DOGS ARE DUE TO INTENSIVE BREEDING WHERE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES WERE RESHUFFLED

                  This has absolutely ZERO do to with HOW the previously existing genes cames to be (you say mutation only, I say God+mutation)

                  So ...

                  My point is proven ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, dogs and wolves have 78 chromosomes. Humans have 46. Just by looking at the sheer numbers, you can tell that dogs have more genetic variation than humans simply by counting the number of allelic pairs. (Question: Why would "your God" [not mine] create dogs with more DNA than humans?? Wouldn't the "end product" have the greatest amount of DNA??)

                  However, every single dog is still the same species as every OTHER dog. It is still the dog "kind." It has not evolved into other "kinds" (whatever that means).

                  All dog breeds can theoretically reproduce with every other breed. I say "theoretically" because for some breeds it is physically impossible due to size. For small breed mothers, the pups can be too large to carry, and the act of reproduction itself can lead to death. But that doesn't mean they have evolved into separate species, as beetles, cacti, birds, primates, fish, and every other "kind" has. Dogs can easily interbreed with wolves (as long as you can find a willing wolf and a suitably large dog!;), since they are essentially the same species.

                  You see the variation in dogs due to hundreds of years of selective pressure BY HUMANS to breed certain physical characteristics into or out of a type. But how did the millions of beetle species arise? Heck, even one type of beetle found in Spain has only 20 - 59 chromosomes , much less than your average teacup poodle, yet there are millions of beetle species worldwide.< Beetle paper >

                  So, let me recap your position:

                  1.  Dogs come off the ark, ready to be pressured into changing to hundreds of different forms.

                  2. These different forms are all still dogs.

                  3. Beetles come off the ark, ready to change into many millions of species.

                  4. Beetles evolve into millions of species. But dogs don't.

                  Why? Beetles have even less genetic variation than dogs. Why did dogs change less than beetles did?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,17:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,14:50)
                  But you are missing the point.  The point was that ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH NO (OR VIRTUALLY NO) MUTATIONS

                  ... which refutes people like Eric Murphy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this statement is an assertion with absolutely no evidentiary support, or basis in reality, for that matter. It's basically a tautology. "'Massive variation' comes from 'massive variation.'"

                  When are you going to get it through your thick, brainless skull THAT AFTER THE FLOOD, ALL OF THAT VARIATION WAS GONE.

                  A single mating pair of organisms has at most four alleles for any given gene. Which brings us right back to—are you ready Eddie?—HLA-B alleles!

                  10 HLA-B alleles walked of the ark, Dave. AT BEST. It could have been as few as one. 10 is absolutely your best-case scenario.

                  Today, there are over 600 HLA-B alleles. That's a good example of "massive variation."

                  Where does this "massive variation" come from, Dave? Your claim appears to be that "massive variation" comes from "massive variation"!

                  So explain to me, if you can, Dave: how is it that your unsupported assertion that "massive variation" can arise in a short time with no mutations? Where does it come from? Does it just appear magically?

                  Where did those 617 HLA-B alleles come from, Dave?

                  There is simply no way Dave doesn't understand this. A child could understand it. A bright five-year-old could probably understand it. Dave must imagine that, if he shouts "MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH VIRTUALLY NO MUTATIONS" long enough and loudly enough, the tinnitus will scramble our brains and make us agree with him.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,17:47

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,16:50)
                  Almost right. Intensive breeding is selection of CHARACTERISTICS.  Remember, my view (the correct view) is that the vast majority of alleles were DESIGNED--as in, not caused by mutations.  SOME alleles are caused by mutations.  I think if you compare alleles, many times you will find only one nucleotide position difference.

                  But you are missing the point.  The point was that ...

                  MASSIVE VARIATION (DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE) IS POSSIBLE IN A VERY SHORT TIME WITH NO (OR VIRTUALLY NO) MUTATIONS

                  ... which refutes people like Eric Murphy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Intensive breeding is selection of CHARACTERISTICS? Hmm, like short spines that prevent the males surviving to maturity Davey? Didn't you call those dogs degenerate mutants? You DO know what mutant means don't you Davey?

                  NO!

                  Try again Taxi Driver.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,17:57

                  In it's own way, this whole situation is kind of interesting.

                  Boards such as this are a fair means of discussing relevant issues, and it's to the credit of people here that even though Dave is essentially a lone voice, his tactics have been tolerated ( his buddy szweda hasn't re-appeared, probably a good thing for Dave,since I planned on asking szweda his honest opinion on Dave's use of lies and fallacies).

                  Anyway..I generally have a distaste for suggesting group actions, since I value my own intellectual and physical freedoms above all else. Also, I think it's like herding cats...good luck.

                  BUT...The thread started out with Dave claiming to WANT to debate ...and it HAD to deteriorate to this , because Dave has no actual intellectual/evidential weapons at his disposal to deal with the overwhelming evidence against his YEC delusions.

                  That's what I find interesting-- Dave HAD to move increasingly towards the tactics he uses, just as ID/Creationism has always done. He had no choice.

                  In order to counter this...because Dave CAN theoretically keep this charade up indefinitely by continuous loops and avoidance...well...there's not much else to be done.

                  I can only ( and only *want* to) speak for myself, so it's up to each person to decide if they want to set aside things to achieve a goal here or not. If not...like I said, it's not all-important to me. It's up to you folks, really. I am already happy and satisfied that you've destroyed each and every major claim that would support his fantasies. Everything else is just butter on the toast that is YEC.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,18:00

                  Ah, I see that once again, it's time to add this post:

                  SO MANY, MANY LIES FROM DAVE -- SO LITTLE TIME TO ANSWER FOR THEM But he still can't manage to address the lies he states he "never said"

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claims about me were lies,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:              

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God. [But you claimed to "know" my religious views, Dave...you didn't, did you? In short...you lied ]

                  (2) On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) Another lie was you claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I asked FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43773


                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,18:25

                  Hey notta skeptic, you don't need to qualify your statement that all dog breeds can successfully mate, all you have to do is insure the female is the larger of the 2 breeds you are crossing and use artificial insemination if the dog isn't big enough to reach the bitch.

                  You can easily breed toy Labradoodles this way. The possibilities are endless. St Bernardoodles, Spitz Foo dogs, Brittanycuintlis or my nominee for a Dog Dave is likely to own, the Bull Shih Tzu!
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,18:26



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I can only ( and only *want* to) speak for myself, so it's up to each person to decide if they want to set aside things to achieve a goal here or not. If not...like I said, it's not all-important to me. It's up to you folks, really. I am already happy and satisfied that you've destroyed each and every major claim that would support his fantasies. Everything else is just butter on the toast that is YEC.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I second the motion.
                  Another good reason for me to reaffirm that I propose to post my last post to this thread tomorrow, December 31.

                  I'll still check in other AtBC threads.

                  I may even kibitz a little off the record with the sacred order of Holders of Davy's Feet to the Fire on matters of molecular biology.

                  Occasionally, interesting things have spun off of this discussion. I wonder if these spinoffs, should they arise in the future, might merit their own threadlets, for side discussions by rational members of the reality-based community.

                  But I'm pretty sure my 2007 will be time better spent if I relegate afdave to the dustbin of crackpots whose novelty, relevance, and ability to astonish, have worn off.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,18:27

                  UNBELIEVABLE ... THIS CLOWN STILL THINKS THAT AIG'S REVENUE'S DROPPED IN HALF

                  Eric Murphy, Science Pretender, No College Degree, Law Office Worker, Chief Blatherer Against AFDave says ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And which one is it, Dave? Is it the calendar year 2005? Or is it the six-month period from January to June 2005? How do you know which one it is?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Even Jim Lippard, who Eric blindly follows realized his mistake and posted this ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  UPDATE (December 30, 2006): Please note that the 2005 Form 990 filing only covers January-June 2005 (as AiG changed to a July-June fiscal year in 2005), so the heading on this post is inaccurate. I've made an embarrassing mistake by failing to notice those dates on the very top of the first page of the Form 990, and I take responsibility for it. I apologize for the error. If you multiply each of the 2005 figures by two, you will get an approximation to the full-year numbers. While this still yields a decline in revenue from seminars, it shows an increase in overall revenue and donations--and an increase in many salaries, as well.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And Eric wonders why I don't answer him any more.  Truly unbelievable!
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Dec. 30 2006,18:51

                  Hmm, I see Eric as a remarkable autodidact, the AtBC Bulldog, Scourge of Davey the Taxi Driver, The AtBC Air Force Ace, Official Rolled Newspaper Nose Swatter of our Resident Bull Shih Tzu, heehee. Keep it up Eric!

                  Those tiny impotent fists of rage are whizzing around again.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,18:52

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,16:27)
                  UNBELIEVABLE ... THIS CLOWN STILL THINKS THAT AIG'S REVENUE'S DROPPED IN HALF

                  Eric Murphy, Science Pretender, No College Degree, Law Office Worker, Chief Blatherer Against AFDave says ...        

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And which one is it, Dave? Is it the calendar year 2005? Or is it the six-month period from January to June 2005? How do you know which one it is?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Frankly, Dave, I couldn't care less how much money AiG takes in. So far, they've lost at the courthouse every time they tried to get creationism taught in the schools, and that's what's important. If Lippard made a mistake, fine. He's admitted his error. If he states that he was in error, I have no reason to disagree with him.

                  But what's fun is, here I am, almost completely uneducated, no college degree, a high school diploma; but I get to completely kick the crap out of Dave's arguments again and again and again and again. And I'll be able to forever, because Dave will never develop the wit to realize he's actually been defeated with every single argument he's ever come up with here. He still thinks he won his Portuguese argument!

                  So try to make fun of my lack of education, Dave. It makes you look worse, not better. If you can't defeat my arguments—can't even address them—what prayer does your pathetic "hypothesis" have with someone who really knows what they're talking about?

                  None.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Eric wonders why I don't answer him any more.  Truly unbelievable!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I don't wonder why you don't answer me anymore (or ever have, for that matter). I know why you don't answer me.

                  It's because you can't.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,18:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,14:39)
                  MY FRIEND FRANCISCO ... SUCH A GOOD FRIEND :-)

                  This time he helps me refute Russell's idea that ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (By the way: there are many kinds of mutation, including recombination.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hmmm ... I never read anywhere but here that recombination is a "kind" of mutation.  Nope.  I get my definitions from the leading scientists (so as to make Russell happy) ... look what this one says ...

                   [quote]Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
                  p. 58
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, Dave, Dave,
                  The laughs just never end with you.  Tell me, Dave, in your extensive reading of scientific articles have you ever run across the phrase ‘defining their terms’?  Your “friend” (snicker, snicker) Ayala Francisco is telling his readers that, in the context of this article, when he uses the term ‘mutation’ that he will mean “an error in DNA replication…”.  He doesn’t say that this is the only definition of the word ‘mutation’.  He doesn’t even indicate that it’s the only definition that he ever uses, only that this is how he is defining the word for this article.

                  Speaking of defining terms, Dave, can you tell us how you define ‘Hi-tech’ when you use it in your silly little comparison?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,19:37



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I guess, if you want to consider this a "definition", DNA that does not get translated into protein is immune to mutation. Somehow, I think "your friend" would disagree.

                  What a moron.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,19:41

                  Eric ... I'm not making fun of your career or your lack of education.  There are plenty of people without college degrees and in various careers who I respect ... one of my most respected business partners has no college degree.

                  I'm simply helping you understand that you just might be wrong about some things and you might try on some humility on for size.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,19:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,17:41)
                  Eric ... I'm not making fun of your career or your lack of education.  There are plenty of people without college degrees and in various careers who I respect ... one of my most respected business partners has no college degree.

                  I'm simply helping you understand that you just might be wrong about some things and you might try on some humility on for size.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Pot, kettle, black.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,19:49

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Frankly, Dave, I couldn't care less how much money AiG takes in.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm hmmm.  I see.  Now you don't.  You sure did care earlier, though, didn't you! :D  :D
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,19:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,16:27)
                  UNBELIEVABLE ... THIS CLOWN STILL THINKS THAT AIG'S REVENUE'S DROPPED IN HALF
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And speaking of clowns, Dave: do you still contend that there are only 61 HLA-B alleles? Or have you quietly abandoned that position, without ever actually saying so?

                  I have no problem stating, for the record, that there does not appear to be any evidence that AiG's revenues declined, by 50% or indeed at all, from 2004 to 2005.

                  Now—do you have the intellectual honesty to state, for the record, that you have no reason to believe that there are less than 600 HLA-B alleles? Or are you going to continue your cowardly avoidance strategy of just ignoring the issue completely?
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 30 2006,19:57



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And Eric wonders why I don't answer him any more.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Your loss, afdave. If you can't defend your hypothesis from the questions of someone of the scientific caliber of ericmurphy, i.e. an average joe, it really shows that your "scientific theory" is all bluff. Coconuts, all the way down.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,20:00

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,17:41)
                  Eric ... I'm not making fun of your career or your lack of education.  There are plenty of people without college degrees and in various careers who I respect ... one of my most respected business partners has no college degree.

                  I'm simply helping you understand that you just might be wrong about some things and you might try on some humility on for size.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh but you are, Dave. Do you expect anyone to believe you when you say your intention with this statement:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric Murphy, Science Pretender, No College Degree, Law Office Worker, Chief Blatherer Against AFDave says ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  was not to denigrate my academic credentials?

                  But it's okay; it's not like you're hurting my feelings or anything. As mom used to say, "Consider the source."

                  But in the meantime, you'll note (if you actually bother to read my posts, which I really have a hard time believing) that I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong. Given your history—Portuguese, Information Theory, Tyre, etc.—it's pretty clear you have a huge problem admitting when you're wrong. Which, frankly my dear man, is almost all of the time.

                  I'm wrong about all sorts of things all the time, Dave. And when people point it out, and can actually back it up with a credible argument, I have no problem admitting it.

                  I wish I could say the same of you, Dave.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,20:06



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you can't defend your hypothesis from the questions of someone of the scientific caliber of ericmurphy, i.e. an average joe...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ah, would that my average student had the scientific caliber of this "average joe".

                  (Eric, that is. Not [shudder] afdave. What a nightmare that would be! )

                  [Edit: and I mean post-graduate or medical student.]
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,20:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,17:49)
                  Eric ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Frankly, Dave, I couldn't care less how much money AiG takes in.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mmm hmmm.  I see.  Now you don't.  You sure did care earlier, though, didn't you! :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, not particularly. You asked if anyone else thought it was true that AiG's revenues claims had declined by 50% from 2004 to 2005. Based on a pretty casual reading of the IRS Form 990 posted, it looked to me as if it had. So I said so.

                  Now, it turns out that if I had read the form more carefully, I would have noted that the form covered six months, not an entire year. If I'd really given two craps whether AiG was making less money last year than the year before, I would have read it more carefully.

                  Now—what's your excuse for still believing there are only 61 HLA-B alleles? Or do you not believe this anymore, and have just not issued a retraction, because you're too embarrassed to admit you couldn't follow Mike PSS's argument, even after I and several others explained exactly how you had it wrong?

                  Or is it just that you're congenitally incapable of admitting error?
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,20:16

                  WHO'D-A-THUNK THAT A MICROBIOLOGY PROFESSOR WOULD BE ASKING ME FOR A DEFINITION OF "MUTATION"

                  Here you go, Russell ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mutation
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                     For other senses of this word, see mutation (disambiguation).

                  In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Do you see anything in there about recombination being a "kind" of mutation?

                  Unbelievable.

                  And he calls me a moron.  Wow.

                  ********************************************

                  SO ... ONCE AGAIN, WE SEE A SILLY OBJECTION TO THE BIBLICAL FLOOD REFUTED

                  THE OBJECTION:  4500 years (time since the Flood) is not enough time to achieve the diversity in organisms we see today.

                  THE REFUTATION:  Dogs.  So simple ... Dogs.  "Dramatic differences" in only 500 years with virtually no help from mutations.  Almost all pre-existing variation.

                  You see?

                  ****************************

                  Enough for today.

                  Next week ...

                  BEETLES.  MACAQUES.  KINDS.

                  ... and more.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,20:24



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Enough for today.

                  Next week ...

                  BEETLES.  MACAQUES.  KINDS.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Or whatever Others here want to discuss, whether you like it or not. Such as your very posted definition. Dave:

                  "mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA)... [and] can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis "

                  Now, what is recombination? During meiosis, recombination is the re-arrangement of genes ( and therefore base pair sequences) that results in a new combination of chromosomes that is capable of creating a unique gamete.

                  *Points at Dave and laughs and laughs*
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 30 2006,20:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,18:16)
                  SO ... ONCE AGAIN, WE SEE A SILLY OBJECTION TO THE BIBLICAL FLOOD REFUTED

                  THE OBJECTION:  4500 years (time since the Flood) is not enough time to achieve the diversity in organisms we see today.

                  THE REFUTATION:  Dogs.  So simple ... Dogs.  "Dramatic differences" in only 500 years with virtually no help from mutations.  Almost all pre-existing variation.

                  You see?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Still wrong, Dave. And with no excuse for not understanding why you're wrong, after I've explained it to you twice just this afternoon.

                  The reason you can get all kinds of variations in dogs, Dave, through artificial selection, is because there was a lot of pre-existing variation in dogs beforehand (plus a fair number of mutations). Where did that pre-existing variation come from, Dave? It came from previous mutations, over the millions of years that dogs have existed.

                  Now—why isn't the same true under your "hypothesis"? Why can't you do the same thing under the assumption that 4,500 years is plenty of time to do the same thing?

                  Simple.

                  All that pre-existing variation was GONE after the flood, Dave.

                  You don't GET any pre-existing variation, under your "hypothesis." Your "flood" inconveniently removed it, and the only way you can get it back is through a ridiculously-high mutation rate, high enough probably to have driven the whole species to extinction.

                  So no, Dave, you haven't "refuted" anything here. And you bring me to another chestnut, another question you've failed to answer time and time again, and which question has been outstanding for months. Ready? Here it is:

                  How can both of these statements be true:

                  • 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time to get from a few thousand species to a few million species;
                  • 4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species.

                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,20:43

                  Well, Deadman ... you finally posted something noteworthy ... first time for several days ... so I will respond.

                  I must confess that I did not even notice that little piece in the Wikipedia definition.  I have never heard of anyone trying to lump controlled changes under the term "mutation" before today.  This makes 2.  Russell and Wikipedia.

                  I would like to know if there are other sources who include controlled changes in their definitions.

                  This one does not ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Definition of Mutation

                  Mutation: A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. In humans and many other organisms, mutations occur in DNA. However, in retroviruses like HIV, mutations occur in RNA which is the genetic material of retroviruses.

                  In most cases, such changes are neutral and have no effect or they are deleterious and cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and of passing the beneficial change on to its descendants. Mutations are the necessary raw material of evolution.

                  Mutations can be caused by many factors including environmental insults such as radiation and mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes attributed to random chance events.
                  < http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471 >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ... and neither does this one ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  mutation
                  Encyclopædia Britannica Article

                  Page  1  of  1

                  Print PagePrint ArticleE-mail ArticleCite Article
                  Send comments or suggest changes to this article  Share full article with your Readers

                  an alteration in the genetic material (the genome) of a cell of a living organism or of a virus that is more or less permanent and that can be transmitted to the cell's or the virus's descendants. (The genomes of organisms are all composed of DNA, whereas viral genomes can be of DNA or RNA; see heredity: The physical basis of heredity.) Mutation in the DNA of a body cell of a multicellular organism (somatic mutation) may be transmitted to descendant cells by DNA replication and hence result in a sector or patch of cells having abnormal function, an example being cancer. Mutations in egg or sperm cells (germinal mutations) may result in an individual offspring all of whose cells carry the mutation, which often confers some serious malfunction, as in the case of a human genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis. Mutations result either from accidents during the normal chemical transactions of DNA, often during replication, or from exposure to high-energy electromagnetic radiation (e.g., ultraviolet light or X-rays) or particle radiation or to highly reactive chemicals in the environment. Because mutations are random changes, they are expected to be mostly deleterious, but some may be beneficial in certain environments. In general, mutation is the main source of genetic variation, which is the raw material for evolution by natural selection.
                  mutation. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica.  Retrieved December 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9054492 >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ******************************************

                  Eric ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where did that pre-existing variation come from, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We covered that previously.  You had two objections ..

                  1)  Where did the pre-existing variability come from? and
                  2)  How can 4500 years be enough time to regain diversity

                  I just finished covering (2) today.

                  I have covered (1) already, but I would like to cover it more thoroughly ... for this I will need access to the beetle and macaque papers.

                  Hopefully next week.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,20:48

                  Bahahahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN!!! Skitter away, little macaque!!!!


                  SO MANY, MANY LIES FROM DAVE -- SO LITTLE TIME TO ANSWER FOR THEM But he still can't manage to address the lies he states he "never said"

                   
                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claims about me were lies,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:                

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God. [But you claimed to "know" my religious views, Dave...you didn't, did you? In short...you lied ]

                  (2) On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) Another lie was you claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I asked FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43773


                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Would you like to borrow some ethics and morals, Dave?


                  mutation
                  Encyclopædia Britannica Article


                  Page  1  of  1

                  Print PagePrint ArticleE-mail ArticleCite Article
                  Send comments or suggest changes to this article  Share full article with your Readers

                  an alteration in the genetic material (the genome) of a cell of a living organism or of a virus that is more or less permanent and that can be transmitted to the cell's or the virus's descendants.

                  Definition of Mutation

                  Mutation: A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA.


                  That's three definitions of your choosing in a row, macaque-boy. Bwahahahaha
                  Posted by: shadowcatdancing on Dec. 30 2006,20:50

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 30 2006,18:06)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you can't defend your hypothesis from the questions of someone of the scientific caliber of ericmurphy, i.e. an average joe...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ah, would that my average student had the scientific caliber of this "average joe".

                  (Eric, that is. Not [shudder] afdave. What a nightmare that would be! )

                  [Edit: and I mean post-graduate or medical student.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hear! Hear!
                  I would love to have ericmurphy in one of my classes, though since I teach at the college freshman/sophomore level one of my classes would be a waste of his time.

                  AFDave, on the other hand is making the same errors my freshman composition students make.  He confuses claim with proof,  repetition with support, and thinks 'That can't be true' constitutes refutation.  My students fail if they don't learn the difference.  It is disheartening to think he managed to maintain this level of ignorance while obtaining a four year degree.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 30 2006,20:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  SO ... ONCE AGAIN, WE SEE A SILLY OBJECTION TO THE BIBLICAL FLOOD REFUTED

                  THE OBJECTION:  4500 years (time since the Flood) is not enough time to achieve the diversity in organisms we see today.

                  THE REFUTATION:  Dogs.  So simple ... Dogs.  "Dramatic differences" in only 500 years with virtually no help from mutations.  Almost all pre-existing variation.

                  You see?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave seems to think that humans domesticating and breeding animals is responsible for all the diversity in animals seen on earth today.  That is, after all what is responsible for the great diversity in dog breeds.  

                  Hey, Dave, can you define 'Hi-tech'?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,20:56

                  I said much the same thing, Shadowcat.

                  eric = "A" for comprehension, depth of work, clarity, honesty, willingness to work, QUALITY of work

                  AFDave = "F" for comprehension, shallow, sophomoric work deliberately twisted, use of common fallacies, lies and rhetorical games. Lazy research and work that is immediately disposable.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,21:07

                  Odd how Dave seems to vanish when I post.

                  RUN, Dave, RUN. Skitter away, little macaque. Shoo!

                  What a spineless,unethical, dishonorable little twit.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 30 2006,21:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I would like to know if there are other sources who include controlled changes in their definitions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The fact that a common molecular biology method is termed "Site-directed mutagenesis" might be a hint that controlled changes are considered mutations.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHO'D-A-THUNK THAT A MICROBIOLOGY PROFESSOR WOULD BE ASKING ME FOR A DEFINITION OF "MUTATION"

                  Here you go, Russell ...



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mutation
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                    For other senses of this word, see mutation (disambiguation).

                  In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation >


                  Do you see anything in there about recombination being a "kind" of mutation?

                  Unbelievable.

                  And he calls me a moron.  Wow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh, you do realize that recombination "changes the base pair sequence of genetic material," right (the genes themselves aren't necessarily disrupted, but sometimes they are)?

                  One ought to be careful about shooting one's fingers off at someone with advanced knowledge in a subject, especially if one's is at a 9th grade level.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,21:32



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  WHO'D-A-THUNK THAT A MICROBIOLOGY PROFESSOR WOULD BE ASKING ME FOR A DEFINITION OF "MUTATION"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I guess my words of wisdom about smugness didn't seep in.
                  No, davy. I didn't ask you for "a" definition. As you know, I supplied my own perfectly good one. I asked you for your definition. Which, instead of supplying, you C&P'd one from (ahem) Wikipedia.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Wikipedia:]
                  In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [afdave:]
                  Do you see anything in there about recombination being a "kind" of mutation?

                  Unbelievable.

                  And he calls me a moron.  Wow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Do you know what "meiosis" is, genius? Do you know what happens during "meiosis"?  Does recombination result in a change in base pair sequence? Or not?

                  And, gosh! Wikipedia didn't mention anything about insertions or deletions, so I guess they're not mutations either!

                  You know, in middle school my son knew better than to rely on Wikipedia without double-checking in order to avoid embarrassments like this. I guess you never learned that.

                  I repeat:

                  what a moron.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,21:45



                  Step up, step up, see the witless macaque-boy as he skitters from topic to topic, without even the barest hint of comprehension. You'll thrill to his brainless proclamations, marvel as he spins about in a single post, you'll be AMAZED at his juggling of THREE...count 'em....THREE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS AT ONCE. You'll laugh, you'll cry--but mostly you'll laugh. See AFDave, the Skittering Macaque boy !
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,21:48

                  Still waiting for any other definitions of "mutation" that include "controlled changes" ...

                  ... besides Russell and Wikipedia.  

                  Notice this was not included in the other two I posted?  Hmmm ... why would that be?  Maybe for the same reason that Ayala says that “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.” ??

                  Perhaps?

                  Also waiting for some recantations of Eric's Objection #2 above.  Any intellectually honest folks here?

                  Or are we "business as usual" ... giving "A's" to fellow Evos and "F's" to Creos?  Whining about "lies" ... etc.?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,21:48

                  SO MANY, MANY LIES FROM DAVE -- SO LITTLE TIME TO ANSWER FOR THEM

                  Oh, he posts a LOT, but he still can't manage to address the lies he states he "never said"

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 27 2006,00:09)
                  I'll make this even clearer on why your claims about me were lies,  Dave. You made this claim months ago:              

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  June 23 2006,18:22  It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1958;p=22513
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  (1)  My religious views DO incorporate the God of the Bible, although not in any way that you would like -- This does not make my views any less valid than yours, Dave. It means, as I stated, that I reject YOUR VERSION of that God. [But you claimed to "know" my religious views, Dave...you didn't, did you? In short...you lied ]

                  (2) On my charity and concern for children, you stated again that I didn't give "two hoots" for kids...despite that I donate to the United Nations Children's Fund, The American Indian Education Foundation (and I had told you long ago that I was a regional organizer for that) and AIDS Project Los Angeles, which specifically deals with kids. But you feel that's not good enough. You feel and SAY that this is  no "demonstrable great altruism for kids." Thus you justify your lie in that regard.

                  (3) You didn't address your lie that I had  " ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe."

                  (4) Another lie was you claiming that I had said that the sediments of the Grand Staircase could NOT be dated, even after I asked FIVE TIMES for you to stop using that lie. :
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=24870 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27080 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27092 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=27221 >
                  < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=29062 >
                  Of course, I don't expect you to deal with those, Dave -- you're reduced to now saying they were "guesses" which were unqualified and not stated to BE guesses, just presented as absolute statements.

                  So, Dave...all you have to do is answer what I asked:

                  ARE you willing to accept me sending out mailers about your wife being a whore who has sex with strangers for drugs, and that you, Dave, raped your own son...and then excuse me for it so long as I say " it's a guess?"

                  All that you have to do is answer "YES" or "NO" Dave...

                  'Cause it's not a lie if I say MONTHS AFTERWARDS that " it's a guess,"  right , Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Judas was a liar and a false accuser. Therefore he was a "devil." Paul used exactly the same word to describe those who would not be led by godliness ( see Timothy, or the Epistle to Titus as example).

                  But Dave would say "Hey, maybe Judas just made a wrong guess, he can't be held to be a liar."  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=43773


                  What's the matter, Dave? Can't deal with the obvious evidence of your lies?

                  Wouldja like to borrow some ethics and morals, Macaque-boy?
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,22:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Still waiting for any other definitions of "mutation" that include "controlled changes" ...

                  ... besides Russell and Wikipedia.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You're still completely missing the point, bozo. I don't know why the Wikipedia author calls the kind of mutation you get in meiosis "controlled". I wouldn't call it that. In fact, if you had read my posts carefully  you would have noticed that I characterized it as "random". But then, you don't even read your own posts carefully. You only noticed that pesky little "meiosis" word after we pointed it out to you.  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice this was not included in the other two I posted?  Hmmm ... why would that be?  Maybe for the same reason that Ayala says that “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So... you do think that DNA that doesn't get translated into proteins (i.e. the huge majority of it, at least in animals) is immune to mutation?

                  What a moron.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Also waiting for some recantations of Eric's Objection #2 above.  Any intellectually honest folks here?

                  Or are we "business as usual" ... giving "A's" to fellow Evos and "F's" to Creos?  Whining about "lies" ... etc.?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I'll let Eric decide if anything he wrote needs "recanting". I'll be responsible for what I write. And you, of course, will continue to ignore the fact that virtually everything you've posted to this board is indefensible.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 30 2006,22:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Still waiting for any other definitions of "mutation" that include "controlled changes" ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mutation
                  Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Is that authoritative enough for you, or should I check the bible too?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,22:28

                  Dave is left confounded by the recent turn of events
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 30 2006,22:51

                  Argy ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:
                  Quote
                  Mutation
                  Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, well that's a real shocking revelation.  Very good, Argy.

                  Where is the part about "controlled changes" ?

                  No, Russell, it's not embarrassing to say that mutations are "errors" in the company of one with the status of Ayala.

                  What should be embarrassing is your failure to admit that massive diversity is possible in just 500 years with virtually no mutations.

                  Too proud to admit this perhaps?

                  And I'm not missing the point and I note that you have resorted to calling me "bozo" and "moron."

                  Very becoming for a professor.

                  Steve Story will be ashamed of you.  He likes the science establishment to look good.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,22:55

                  Meiosis is controlled by definition, stupid. Recombination occurs when? What does it do? Get a clue, macaque-boy.


                  YOU quoted wikipedia saying CELLULAR -controlled change  LIKE "DURING MEIOSIS" ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  under cellular control during processes such as meiosis
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now you don't like that definition...but ALL the definitions you gave would encompass recombination, stupid.
                  Posted by: shadowcatdancing on Dec. 30 2006,23:05

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,20:51)
                  Argy ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:
                  Quote
                  Mutation
                  Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, well that's a real shocking revelation.  Very good, Argy.

                  Where is the part about "controlled changes" ?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Read the definition. It is inclusive.  Anything that produces "Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome" is a mutation.  That would include recombination.

                  Can you describe the process of meiosis in your own words, not cut and paste, just so we know we're all talking about the same process?  Cutting and pasting a description does not demonstrate that you understand it.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 30 2006,23:09

                  The other two "definitions" you gave DO encompass recombination as well (changes/alterations  in genetic structure )...and THEY don't mention " cellular controlled" either.

                  mutation -- Encyclopædia Britannica Article : an alteration in the genetic material (the genome) of a cell of a living organism or of a virus that is more or less permanent and that can be transmitted to the cell's or the virus's descendants.

                  Definition of Mutation (from < http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471 > )Mutation: A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA.

                  You really are Dim, Dave.

                  Oh, and Dave? The term you want is "unbecoming" ...as in:  "Dave's attempts at sagacity are unbecoming, even for a macaque"
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 30 2006,23:15



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where did that pre-existing variation come from, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   
                  We covered that previously.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, you didn't. You may have tap-danced and hand-waved. But you didn't "cover" it. Of course, if I'm wrong, you'll supply a link to show me, won't you?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You had two objections ..
                  1)  Where did the pre-existing variability come from? and
                  2)  How can 4500 years be enough time to regain diversity
                  I just finished covering (2) today.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No, you didn't. More tap-dancing and hand-waving, but no demonstration of how 4500 years could be enough to regain diversity. A lot of talk of dogs, dogs, dogs... but, no; no numbers, no enumeration of alleles, no scenario starting with a single breeding pair... just tap-dancing and hand-waving. Do you even know the difference?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I have covered (1) already,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Again, no. You haven't. No one here is fooled by the old "oh, I covered that long ago" We've come to demand links. And, on the rare occasions when you produce them, they fail to back you up.    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  but I would like to cover it more thoroughly ... for this I will need access to the beetle and macaque papers.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice, you haven't read them, but you know what they "prove".
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Hopefully next week.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, I won't be checking in. But I'm sure that if anything so momentous as your actually making sense should occur, someone will let me know.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  No, Russell, it's not embarrassing to say that mutations are "errors" in the company of one with the status of Ayala.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  But, davy... You do know Ayala uses "errors" in the same sense we told you about: differences from the parental template. You know, the definition you rejected. You are in the company of no one, except your parallel-universe, spirals-for-eyes, fundy nutcase, fingers-in-their-ears, anti-intellectual throwbacks.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What should be embarrassing is your failure to admit that massive diversity is possible in just 500 years with virtually no mutations.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh? I must have missed the part where you enumerated the mutations. How many mutations were involved? And how do you know how many?

                  And, no, I have not "resorted" to calling you bozo and moron; I've been driven to it.
                  Also, I told you, I'm not a professor. I'm a "Senior Research Scientist" - who does some teaching (though not as much as I used to).
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 30 2006,23:19



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (LiarDave):  And I'm not missing the point and I note that you have resorted to calling me "bozo" and "moron."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Once again you fail to grasp the main point.  When people here refer to you as a liar, or a moron, or a Bozo, they are not casting unsubstantiated aspersions on you Dave.  They are merely stating facts.

                  You have been caught telling deliberate falsehoods, so that makes you a liar.

                  You have demonstrated zero mental ability to reason, or to listen, or to learn, so that makes you a moron.

                  You have demonstrated a combination of willful ignorance and arrogance far beyond any acceptable social norms, so that makes you a Bozo.

                  It's just common sense Dave.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 30 2006,23:21

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,20:51)
                  Argy ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:
                  Quote
                  Mutation
                  Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Oh, well that's a real shocking revelation.  Very good, Argy.

                  Where is the part about "controlled changes" ?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The first two words.

                  If I look up "cookie" in the dictionary, and it doesn't include the word "snickerdoodle," does that mean a snickerdoodle is not a cookie (not a rhetorical question!;)?

                  Also, congrats to Russell on passing the 1000 post mark today. I kind of hope I never achieve that.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 30 2006,23:53

                  Quote (BWE @ Dec. 16 2006,17:08)
                  I love that dave has never mentioned his founders bit after he pointed out that, by "fundy" of course, he meant "Western European" and "Not religious necessarily" and "possibly quite in contempt of those who believe in the virgin birth and literal genesis and the divinity of christ".
                  What was your point again Dave? That the founders weren't "christian" but that they used the word to describe a culture? I forgot. I think I was laughing too hard.

                  Dave, you have c&p'd the word meiosis more than once. I'm curious, Do you know what it means?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Seemed like a repost might be in order: I snipped a bit
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 31 2006,01:33



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Notice this was not included in the other two I posted?  Hmmm ... why would that be?  Maybe for the same reason that Ayala says that “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.” ??

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, please go back and review what that nice English teacher said about context and word meaning.  Maybe, if you really tried hard, you could understand what was being said and stop making such a fool of yourself.

                  We can't expect Dave to understand definitions of 'mutation', he can't even define 'Hi-tech'.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 31 2006,01:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What should be embarrassing is your failure to admit that massive diversity is possible in just 500 years with virtually no mutations.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Perhaps, when you show that such 'massive diversity' is possible starting with just one breeding pair and without human manipulation of the species genome.

                  Also, while your pondering how to do that you could tell us what definition you used for 'Hi-tech' in your silly little comparison.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 31 2006,01:48



                  ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
                  And I'm not missing the point and I note that you have resorted to calling me "bozo" and "moron."

                  ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



                  I think we should stop calling Dave 'bozo', 'moron', and ‘macaque’.  We are being disrespectful to clowns, people with minimal IQ's, and monkeys by comparing them to Dave.

                  'Hi-tech', Dave, what's your definition?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,02:29

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,23:51)
                  Steve Story will be ashamed of you.  He likes the science establishment to look good.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.

                  For several thousand posts, AFDave threw out crazy claims and scientifically-literate people disposed of them in a mostly respectable way. For thousands of posts, AFDave cut and pasted arguments, or just made up his own impossible ones. The AFDave modus operandi never changed. Just imagine whatever he wants, believe his daydreams to be powerful science, don't bother to support it, misunderstand everything he cut and pastes and everything people tell him in response, and don't bother to stop and learn even the basics. There's only so long reasonable people can be respectful towards that kind of behavior.

                  Before I moved to Chapel Hill and added a new job and several extracurricular activities, I had lots of time to police the insults and interfere with people describing the situation in accurate but rude ways. People here know what they're doing, they know that AFDave refuses to learn, they are just arguing with him for the benefit of the lurkers. Well, I submit the lurkers can extract all they need to know from the existing corpus of the thread. It's no longer about them, and the thread is pointless. It's now just AFDave continuing his clueless behavior, and people calling him clueless in response. So my only decision, it being pointless to continue policing the thread, is do I let it continue or call it a day? Well, AFDave still wants to blabber, and several people want to insult him for it, so why should I get in the way? I spend my time checking out the other threads, ones which have some value, and mostly ignore this one. It'll go on til people get tired of it. That doesn't mean I'm totally hands off, it means that I'm mostly ignoring it excepting the occasions when people email me and say, "somebody's committing libel on the AFDave thread, and you might want to put a stop to it" and similar things. If, 10,000 posts along in the thread, it's nothing more than Dave saying stupid things and people commenting on how stupid those things are, so be it.

                  It's really not contributing anything to the board, however, so it would be nice if AFDave would shift this mess to < his own blog >.
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 31 2006,02:51

                  Well Davey-kins looks like you are done and dusted.

                  Don't bother repeating your B.S. unless you want to be WRONG TWICE.

                  Now to support your case that your fake  < Human population bottleneck > on your fake ark would allow the diversity we see today you could find a parallel mamal species that did go through a Population Bottleneck.

                  You would be able to say to everyone "look at how similar we are to Cheetahs, every human is so closesly related we can all exchange skin grafts without an immune response".

                  Now since AFD you have PROVEN you are PATHOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of understanding BASIC science papers and their conclusions I have reproduced in full something a child could understand see the link below (emphasis mine).


                  < Great moments in science - Cheetah extinction >



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The cheetah is very fast. But it might not be able to outrun its own extinction.

                  Cheetahs of at least four different sub-species once roamed through North America, Asia, Europe and Africa. In fact, the name "cheetah" comes from the Hindi word meaning "the spotted one". But today the cheetah exists in sub-Saharan Africa as only one sub-species, with a tiny remnant population barely surviving in northern Iran.

                  We're not sure of the exact numbers, but we do know that cheetahs are endangered. In the mid-1950s, there were 20-40,000 cheetahs in the whole world. By the mid-1970s, their population had halved. How far they've dropped since then is anybody's guess.

                  The Sumerians, way back in 3,000 BC, were the first to use cheetahs as hunting companions. Since then, the pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of France, the princes of Persia, the Mongol emperors of India and the emperors of Austria have continued this tradition. When Marco Polo visited Kublai Khan at his summer residence in the Himalayan Mountains 700 years ago, he found that the mighty Khan kept 1,000 cheetahs to hunt deer and other slower animals.

                  Cheetahs are very inbred. They are so inbred, that genetically they are almost identical.

                  The current theory is that they became inbred when a "natural" disaster dropped their total world population down to less than seven individual cheetahs - probably about 10,000 years ago. They went through a "Genetic Bottleneck", and their genetic diversity plummeted. They survived only through brother-to-sister or parent-to-child mating.

                  If a species does not have much genetic diversity, it will not be able to adapt well to changes in their environment - such a climate change, or new bacteria or viruses. But if they do have a lot of genetic difference from one individual to the next, at least a few of them will be able to survive the changing times.


                  We think they are inbred because of tests involving enzymes, skin grafts and skull shape. The enzyme tests probably give the strongest evidence for inbreeding. The tests involving skin grafts and skull shape give "weaker" evidence.

                  Enzymes are medium-sized proteins which speed up chemical reactions (they are advertised in some washing powders). In your body, enzymes speed up the burning of food for energy by about one million times. (The average human life span is less than 1,000,000 hours, so if you didn't have enzymes in your gut, you couldn't eat your second meal because you would not have finished digesting your first meal!;)

                  According to the enzymes, humans rate at about 70% identical. But laboratory rats and cheetahs rate at 97% identical. Laboratory rats have been inbred for at least 20 generations of brother-to-sister mating. So cheetahs are at least as inbred as laboratory rats.

                  In a skin graft, you transplant skin from one place to another. If you are burnt on your face, the surgeon may graft on some skin from your legs or your buttock. The operation will usually be a success, because your immune system won't reject your own skin. You will almost always reject a skin graft from another person - unless they are your identical twin. But cheetahs will accept skin grafts from each other, and not reject the graft, about 50% of the time. This means cheetahs must all be genetically similar to each other.

                  Their skulls are not symmetrical either, according to an examination of east African cheetah skulls currently in American museums. As an aside, many of these skulls were collected by the American President, Theodore Roosevelt. The left side of the skull is different from the right side, and is not a mirror image. We don't know why, but in general, the more inbred an animal is, the more asymmetrical the skull is.


                  So the evidence seems clear that they are very inbred. But why do some scientists think that cheetahs were reduced to a population of less than seven individuals, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

                  They think less than seven individuals, because it has been shown that if a population is reduced to seven individuals and then expands quickly, the offspring still retain about 95% of their genetic variability. But cheetahs have almost zero genetic variability - there's hardly any difference between them.


                  They think about 10-12,000 years ago, because back then, there was a massive destruction of many different mammalian species, such as mammoths, sable tigers and cave bears. About 75% of all mammalian species died out in North and South America. So this was probably the "disaster" that knocked off most of the cheetahs. Perhaps this disaster was a severe climate change associated with the tailing-off of the last Ice Age.

                  Whatever the cause, some scientists think that the cheetahs got almost totally wiped out - perhaps more than once. Like true copycats, they then built up their numbers with generation after generation of brother-sister inbreeding.
                  Once again, cheetahs are very endangered, because we are stealing their land and killing them, so bringing them closer to the brink of extinction.

                  Now the Hindi name for the cheetah is "the spotted one" - and sure enough, if we keep killing them, you'd be very lucky if you spotted one.


                  © Karl S. Kruszelnicki Pty Ltd 2003.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Now AFD your INSANE PROPOSAL suggests that every single Human on earth is related to the 8 people on a MYTHICAL ARK 4500 years ago.

                  That would mean  all humans would be as closely genetically related as brothers and sisters.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,03:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,18:43)
                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where did that pre-existing variation come from, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We covered that previously.  You had two objections ..

                  1)  Where did the pre-existing variability come from? and
                  2)  How can 4500 years be enough time to regain diversity

                  I just finished covering (2) today.

                  I have covered (1) already, but I would like to cover it more thoroughly ... for this I will need access to the beetle and macaque papers.

                  Hopefully next week.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No, you didn't "cover" it previously, Dave. You ignored my statement that you don't have any "pre-existing variation." There wasn't any. Your "flood" obliterated it. We've been over this two dozen times with you, Dave, and continue to ignore this huge, gaping problem with your "hypothesis."

                  THERE WAS NO "PRE-EXISTING VARIATION" AFTER THE "FLOOD"

                  Nor did you "cover" 2. Your claim is this: "Massive variation" comes from "massive variation." In other words, it comes out of nowhere.

                  You lose.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,03:18

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,19:48)
                  Also waiting for some recantations of Eric's Objection #2 above.  Any intellectually honest folks here?

                  Or are we "business as usual" ... giving "A's" to fellow Evos and "F's" to Creos?  Whining about "lies" ... etc.?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Recantations? I don't think so, Dave.

                  When you can come up with a source for your "pre-existing variation"—you know the variation that was obliterated by your "flood"—then you can come up with some sort of explanation for how several thousand "kinds" became several million species in less than 5,000 years. If you think you've actually answered this question, you're an idiot. Or a liar. Or both.

                  This isn't even argument by assertion.
                  Posted by: OVZ on Dec. 31 2006,03:27

                  Another longterm lurker decloaks:

                  This thread can be educational (thanks to people such as Deadman, I've learnt a lot of unexpected stuff) when it wanders.
                  It can be entertaining when people try to pin Dave down, and scary too; like staring a a cripple with a particularly striking deformity. This is wearing thin.

                  Dave, can't you see that you reliance on what I could charitably call 'debating tactics' could be taken as a hint that you don't actually have much in the way of evidence?
                  Physical things that one can check up on (like going to the Grand Canyon, which I've done, or Tyre, which I haven't).
                  Even virtual things, like googling 'baboon+dog' and somehow failing to turn up a legitimate breed (except, for some reason, Afghans).

                  Re-cloaks (as lots of people come up with good points before me).
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 31 2006,05:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh huh ... and AiG's revenue suffered a 100% drop last year, so no doubt they will be out of business by this time next year, and the NCSE can pack up and go home because the public will realize what honest, ethical sages we have running our universities.   :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

                  (Not going to post Alberts' entire definition are you, Argy?  Just going to keep spouting "heritable change, heritable change, heritable change" and trying to make a parallel with snickerdoodles)

                  (Am I going to have to get the book myself and show how dishonest you guys are YET AGAIN? )
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 31 2006,05:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,05:55)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Uh huh ... and AiG's revenue suffered a 100% drop last year, so no doubt they will be out of business by this time next year, and the NCSE can pack up and go home because the public will realize what honest, ethical sages we have running our universities.   :p  :p  :p  :p  :p

                  (Not going to post Alberts' entire definition are you, Argy?  Just going to keep spouting "heritable change, heritable change, heritable change" and trying to make a parallel with snickerdoodles)

                  (Am I going to have to get the book myself and show how dishonest you guys are YET AGAIN? )
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  just like darwinism has been "about to fall" for 150 odd years. Still here, still waiting.

                  About those cacti? The ones that survived a year underwater (salty or fresh btw), can you please please please describe a day in the life of an American and Australian cacti and how they survived the flood?

                  Aww, go on!

                  < >

                  EDIT: Oh, please could you define "hi-tech" for me? I'm not sure I understand the way you are using it in your sig, and if  i'm not sure of that how can I understand the point you are trying to make? You don't want to be ambigious do you?
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 31 2006,06:09

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,02:29)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,23:51)
                  Steve Story will be ashamed of you.  He likes the science establishment to look good.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.

                  (big snip)

                  It's really not contributing anything to the board, however, so it would be nice if AFDave would shift this mess to < his own blog >.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Normally, I'd be against closing a thread as not to create a martyr, but at this point, I have to agree.  When I realized that Dave neither possesses nor seeks to possess a detailed knowledge of any subject, I lost interest pretty quick.  Debating Bartlett's Book of Semi-Famous Quotations was....well....boring.  Even now, I generally don't even read his posts, but do read those responding to him.  Sorting the wheat from the chaff, if you will.

                  The last time this subject came up he said that if you closed him down, he would take it to his own blog.  Well, he has had plenty of time to hone his patter.  It is time to take it to prime time. Now that I have lived to see him actually get one thing right, I can move on.  I doubt I'll give him any traffic over there.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 31 2006,06:42

                  One caveat: This thread now gets picked up by google and I wonder how many folks come here to see that creationists, er, ... , er, ... Dave, Have I ever mentioned that you have failed to substantively answer even one question I have ever posed? Oh yeah, there was that one... No, come to think of it that was someone else.

                  Unless you count defining "christian" as "atheist". Or maybe when you defined "portuguese" as "what I say it is".

                  I just discovered a new psychological term which might fit you and since this thread is as much about your pathology as anything else I suppose I should provide < a link. >
                  If you feel that I am in error, please feel free to expound on your hypothesis.

                  Sincerely,

                  BWE
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 31 2006,06:53

                  MORE DESCRIPTIONS OF MUTATIONS
                  ... this one from a 2006 Biochemistry textbook by Voet, Voet and Pratt (p. 894) ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  All Mutations Are Random.  The bulk of scientific data regarding mutagenesis is that mutations, whether the result of polymerase errors, spontaneous modification, or chemical damage to DNA, occur at random.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nothing about "under control of the cell".

                  Here's another one ...
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Mutations

                  Mutations; a definition A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.

                  A Mutagen is an agent of substance that can bring about a permanent alteration to the physical composition of a DNA gene such that the genetic message is changed.

                  Once the gene has been damaged or changed the mRNA transcribed from that gene will now carry an altered message.

                  The polypeptide made by translating the altered mRNA will now contain a different sequence of amino acids. The function of the protein made by folding this polypeptide will probably be changed or lost. In this example, the enzyme that is catalyzing the production of flower color pigment has been altered in such a way it no longer catalyzes the production of the red pigment.

                  No product (red pigment) is produced by the altered protein.

                  In subtle or very obvious ways, the phenotype of the organism carrying the mutation will be changed. In this case the flower, without the pigment is no longer red.
                  Mutagens
                  Chemical Mutagens change the sequence of bases in a DNA gene in a number of ways;

                     * mimic the correct nucleotide bases in a DNA molecule, but fail to base pair correctly during DNA replication.
                     * remove parts of the nucleotide (such as the amino group on adenine), again causing improper base pairing during DNA replication.
                     * add hydrocarbon groups to various nucleotides, also causing incorrect base pairing during DNA replication.

                  Radiation High energy radiation from a radioactive material or from X-rays is absorbed by the atoms in water molecules surrounding the DNA. This energy is transferred to the electrons which then fly away from the atom. Left behind is a free radical, which is a highly dangerous and highly reactive molecule that attacks the DNA molecule and alters it in many ways.
                  Radiation can also cause double strand breaks in the DNA molecule, which the cell's repair mechanisms cannot put right.

                  Sunlight contains ultraviolet radiation (the component that causes a suntan) which, when absorbed by the DNA causes a cross link to form between certain adjacent bases. In most normal cases the cells can repair this damage, but unrepaired dimers of this sort cause the replicating system to skip over the mistake leaving a gap, which is supposed to be filled in later.
                  Unprotected exposure to UV radiation by the human skin can cause serious damage and may lead to skin cancer and extensive skin tumors.

                  Spontaneous mutations occur without exposure to any obvious mutagenic agent. Sometimes DNA nucleotides shift without warning to a different chemical form (know as an isomer) which in turn will form a different series of hydrogen bonds with it's partner. This leads to mistakes at the time of DNA replication.
                  < http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/MUT/Mut.Definition.html >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So, once again, Russell is shown to be wrong but won't admit it ... he just keeps calling me "bozo" and "moron."

                  To remind you, Russell said that the "dramatic differences" from
                  < this > article ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... was due to MUTATION and SELECTION.

                  He is mistaken unless he twists the meaning of the word "mutation" to include "changes under cellular control" which would contradict most everything else you read (such as the Biochem book above which says 'all mutations are random';).

                  But whether you have an elastic definition for "mutation" or not, the truth is that the "dramatic differences" came about because of expression of PREVIOUSLY EXISTING information in only 500 years! (so 4500 years is plenty) ... information, which I contend consists of created information + mutation, easily preserved at the ark bottleneck by judicious selection of pairs to ensure that heterozygosity was not unacceptably low.

                  I see that once again, some people are getting tired of having the spotlight of truth shining on their errors, and some want me to go away.  Quite understandable.  It's much easier to avoid your problems than deal with them.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 31 2006,07:04

                  I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MOVING THIS "MESS" TO MY OWN BLOG
                  Carlson, you read me wrong ... I want to be HERE, where the skeptics are.  I have heard that Wesley and Steve are open-minded types and allow people with differing viewpoints to post, and that they do not set time limits on how long they can post.

                  So far this has proved to be true.

                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 31 2006,07:13

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,06:53)
                  information, which I contend consists of created information + mutation, easily preserved at the ark bottleneck by judicious selection of pairs to ensure that heterozygosity was not unacceptably low.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Could you describe the process of "judicious selection of pairs" as this seems to be what your whole argument hinges on.

                  How exactly did Noah do that?

                  Also, how did Australian and Americian cacti survive underwater for 1 year? How were these places re-popluated wit h their native cacti after the flood? Who did that and how?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,07:14

                  Locking the thread would be a fair idea...Dave's had hundreds upon hundreds of posts. His hypothesis is a cold corpse, long past twitching, and he's still trying to give it mouth-to-mouth.

                  I find his lying and desperation distateful, along with all the other underhanded tactics he HAS to use now -- given that he can't answer direct questions and has no real evidence for his hypothesis that is deader than others.

                  Another point: ending the thread forces him to either troll here/elsewhere or open HIS site up for posting.

                  This would enable his friends and family to see his gibberish. Despite Dave saying he showed this thread to people he knows ...only ONE person claiming to know him has even posted here. I think he's lying about the whole matter, frankly.

                  I doubt Dave wants lots of people he knows to see him lying so fanatically. Personally, my first post on his site would be his lies about me that he refuses to deal with here.

                  My vote is now to lock up the corpse to keep Dave from further molesting it. But that's just my opinion.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 31 2006,07:21

                  I think AmazinglyFarcicalDoofus is partially onto something here:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  First of all it has to be said that the latter part of the quote is standard DaveDelusion™. Dave STILL thinks that his ignorant and dishonest regurgitation of AiG bolierplate and all variety of Portugese moments have actually been good cogent arguments. Sorry to disabuse you Davey, but even to a lurker on this thread, you have been laughably ineffective on EVERY topic in which you have tried to poke holes.

                  However, the bit Dave is partially right about is that some people desire his absence so a nice ill-informed, redneck creationist could take his place. However, as usual, AstoundinglyFuckedupDelusionist has missed the point. Said redneck is not more desirable than Davey because he presents a lesser challenge.  Said redneck is more desirable than Davey because he presents some challenge at all. Sorry to disabuse you of your delusions again Davey.

                  Louis

                  P.S. Feel free to declare victory in absence of evidence as usual. I get a crisp ten pound note every time you do. I have a few side bets on the go.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,07:21



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Debate involves a lot more than one-sided questioning and selective answers on your part. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate > (from your favorite source). You choose not to answer direct questions. You lie, avoid, play games, use fallacies and pretense. Any fair judge would agree with this. You choose to give lip service to any semblance of decency or fairness in intellectual exchange. Time to end the game, then.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,07:50

                  By the way, Dave...since you claim to be capable of actual debate, I'd be glad to gut you publicly on your site.

                  Remember, Dave, you're all bold and fierce and filled with deep knowledge that would annihilate any poor Darwinist. I'm all a-tremble.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 31 2006,07:57

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 30 2006,20:06)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  If you can't defend your hypothesis from the questions of someone of the scientific caliber of ericmurphy, i.e. an average joe...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Ah, would that my average student had the scientific caliber of this "average joe".

                  (Eric, that is. Not [shudder] afdave. What a nightmare that would be! )

                  [Edit: and I mean post-graduate or medical student.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gaak! Where did Dave say that? Oh doh. Dave, Eric is one of the smarter and more artculate folks you might meet. Speaking of which, you never met Will Rogers, did you?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave-
                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, I have offered to debate you on every single topic you have brought up and to boot, I have offerred to take EITHER SIDE! When you thought you had something with the founding fathers you were left by defining xian as athiest and claiming that's what you meant. That, dear Dave, is what people mean when they say you lose every time. Rather than lose meaning win as it seems to in your dictionary, lose means lose when you are involved. Can you find a single intelligent response you have ever made to one of my posts? One? I can't. Please refresh my memory.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 31 2006,08:29

                  THE REAL STORY ON AIG FINANCES



                  Deadman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  By the way, Dave...since you claim to be capable of actual debate, I'd be glad to gut you publicly on your site.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Glad to debate you anytime.  But I prefer  a Science Forum.  And I don't consider "debate" to consist of "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" back and forth.  I like to stick with science and history.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,08:31

                  This little rant was the tipping point for me on my opinion of killing this thread:
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,18:27)
                  UNBELIEVABLE ... THIS CLOWN STILL THINKS THAT [...blah,blah, blah]...Eric Murphy, Science Pretender, No College Degree, Law Office Worker, Chief Blatherer Against AFDave says ... And Eric wonders why I don't answer him any more.  Truly unbelievable!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I think a fun exercise would be to watch eric throttle little Dave until Dave's tiny head popped off like a champagne cork (in real debate of course -- if I don't add that, Dave might soil himself).

                  Then repost Dave's smarmy self-indulgent rant above, along with :  
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,19:41)
                  Eric ... I'm not making fun of your career or your lack of education.  I'm simply helping you understand that...you might try on some humility on for size.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Uh-huh. Right. GuttersnipeDave. Skitter away, hypocrite.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,08:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't consider "debate" to consist of "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" back and forth.  I like to stick with science and history.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  If you'll just look back and read any 15 pages of this or your previous thread, you'll see (as you well know) that I don't "just" call you a liar. I dismantle your claims and you refuse to answer questions. This is not debate.

                  You want to debate? Then start dealing with the myriad of questions you have refused to answer. THAT is debate -- a rules-based exchange, eschewing fallacy and intellectual dishonesty and the avoidance you are using even now, and will use even after I post this.

                  Look back just 15 pages from THIS post and tell me how many questions you were asked that you refused to answer?

                  How many did YOU ask that were NOT answered? FIND OUT. GIVE A NUMBER for each of those. Try being honest.

                  You want to keep this thread open because you don't want relatives and friends to know what you are doing, Dave. Any debates could be handled at ANY site...you'd HAVE a "science forum" if you open YOUR site up to comment. Your excuses won't wash, Dave.
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 31 2006,09:34

                  I think the thread has done its job well enough--now it's beginning to look a little sad.  There is no way Dave really believes he is "winning" all these arguments (except for the AiG funding) and he is making himself look like a complete fool.

                  I would recommend closing the thread.
                  Posted by: BWE on Dec. 31 2006,09:52

                  Dave, you said "GOD"!!!

                  We said "Evidence"?

                  You said "through a top-down, proactive approach we can remain customer focused and goal-directed, innovate and be an inside-out organization which facilitates sticky web-readiness transforming turnkey eyeballs to brand 24/365 paradigms with benchmark turnkey channels implementing viral e-services and dot-com action-items while we take that action item off-line and raise a red flag and remember touch base as you think about the red tape outside of the box and seize B2B e-tailers and re-envisioneer innovative partnerships that evolve dot-com initiatives delivering synergistic earballs to incentivize B2B2C deliverables that leverage magnetic solutions to synergize clicks-and-mortar earballs while facilitating one-to-one action-items with revolutionary relationships that deliver viral markets and grow e-business supply-chains that expedite seamless relationships and transform back-end relationships with"
                  (sorry, I don't have the science mumbo jumbo plug in)

                  We said "Huh?"

                  You said " I just schooled ya."

                  Then when we realized you were batshit loony, we poked in on you to yank you rchain a little. A few posters were confounded by your lack of , er, we'll call it "substance" and tried to get through your well ventilated head a little bit os science. But, as was predictable, they just found themselves peeking through the other ear. Oh well.

                  Dave, do you understand that you have lost the founders debate? (Sound of a thousand tiolets flushing)
                  Do you realized that your portuguese argument was NOT a linguistic argument?
                  Do you realize that the HLA gene bit up toward the beginning had you tied in contradictory knots? Ot the Baboon Dogs? or the Information theory sketch you did? Or the Do you realize that you exactly misquote Ayala and McNiel? (And any other scientist who isn't creationist? Do you realize that you have caught yourself quotemining? Do you know that you lied about things you have said? do you know that you have so far failed to bring up even 1 positive proof for your hypothesis other than your holy Babble?

                  Mr, go back to my last post and follow the link. The kind of projection you employ is the tactic of hardcore defects in your ability to pprocess shame. It is very difficult to fix because it is very difficult to get the person whos brains appear to have leaked out to see through their own self-image to get that there is anything wrong.

                  Dave, you have yet to make a point. (other than a point of displaying your pathology.)

                  Happy New year.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 31 2006,10:05



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (Not going to post Alberts' entire definition are you, Argy?  Just going to keep spouting "heritable change, heritable change, heritable change" and trying to make a parallel with snickerdoodles)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That was the entire definition, as provided in the glossary. So yeah, I'll keep spouting the actual definition of the word you, um, keep asking the definition for.

                  And I'll call you an idiotstick.
                  Posted by: Ved on Dec. 31 2006,10:17

                  Quote (afdave @ ,)
                  I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MOVING THIS "MESS" TO MY OWN BLOG
                  Carlson, you read me wrong ... I want to be HERE, where the skeptics are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Mmmm-hmmmm. 'Cause where you are, there are no skeptics. And without anyone to be skeptical of anything, there's really not much chance of finding out whether or not the ideas in your head have anything to do with reality or not.

                  I have to say I'm opposed to closing the thread outright.

                  It seems to be more out of control than ever right now, and is a bit disturbing how nasty it's become, but I do have a fascination with train wrecks, and the science contributions are great. Maybe Russell has the right idea; just walk away from it. I'd say something like this:

                   
                  Quote (anyone feel free to improve and repost this protest letter to dave @ ,)
                  Dave, you are incapable of honestly upholding your end of scientific conversation. You are undebatable. If you want to play with the skeptics in a thread titled YOUR HYPOTHESIS, you are going to have to respect the rules of honest scientific inquiry. Otherwise, you are going to have to deal with the fact that your supposed hypothesis is not science and is illegal to teach as science in public schools in this country.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If everyone just leaves in protest, afdave's already hollow cries of victory will be that much more rediculous.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,10:28

                  When Dave answers these MONTHS-OLD questions that he has NEVER answered (if you claim you have, cite thread page numbers for each and post up those answers, Dave.), then I might change my mind.

                  Until then, my vote is to shut down the thread.

                  I say this for two reasons:

                  1) Dave wants it open and has displayed some of the lowest behavior I have ever seen in anyone calling themselves "Christian." The example I just gave of him addressing eric is just one minor instance.

                  2) Dave COULD open his OWN "science forum" on his site...but it would mean that his behavior would be visible to everyone that goes there...and I view this as a big bonus.

                  *************************************************************************
                  Here are the questions, Dave:

                • Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.

                • The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?

                • Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor. You DO realize that it HAS to be about 2 billion years old given basic physics, right?

                • I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab layer of the Grand Canyon was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood, to the height of  the Kaibab?

                • Your claim is that the fossil sequences we see in the layers of the Grand Staircase is due to preferential sorting and differential swimming abilities of animals, Dave. So...there are mammals in the Morrison formation, like triconodonts, docodonts, multituberculates, etc....but I'd like you to point to MODERN mammals in the formation. Why are there none that you can point to, given that there ARE mammals there? Why wouldn't there BE modern mammals? Remember, the Morrison extends over 1.5 MILLION Kilometers --and NO modern mammals?

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation >  < http://home.arcor.de/ktdykes/dryolest.htm >

                • How did those spider tracks get in the MIDDLE of the Coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in a flood that continues to deposit layers, Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

                • The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this. You were already given citations on this. Look them up and explain your response.

                • Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?

                • Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and flying continents and increased carbon dioxide levels in the ice cores at the time REQUIRED by your claims?

                • How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?

                • You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood -- this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

                • Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.  

                  I have better things to do than wait for DimDave to answer these and I don't believe that he will to any intellectually honest degree, anyway.

                  In the meantime, here's to the hopes of a great new year, with or without Dave Hawkins. Cheers!
                  Posted by: k.e on Dec. 31 2006,10:36

                  AFD slips his ego out of his sock for a second.


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Like your friend AFD? He at least seemed a little more intelligent than you.

                  As usual AFD blows his own feet off.

                  Is there anyone here who thinks AFD behaves any different to a " redneck creationist" .

                  AFD you already said you were the real deal "creationist" which by definition are a subset of the superset "redneck ".


                  AFD preens


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Glad to debate you anytime.  But I prefer  a Science Forum.  And I don't consider "debate" to consist of "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" back and forth.  I like to stick with science and history.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Since you AFD, are pathologically unable to "stick with science and history" that is ......play by the rules that should be the final whistle on your pole dancing on the golf course.

                  You are unable to take the referee's decision and you your pathetic collection of 'moves, evasions, bald assed and blatant displays of egomaniacal self love' have no place on the science and history playing field.

                  You only come here to boost your ego, you do not need this forum for any other reason, and you have made that clear.

                  I vote that AFD take his collection of proven falsehoods back to his bankrupt little creationist slum and just see how many people follow.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,11:00

                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 31 2006,11:17)
                  Maybe Russell has the right idea; just walk away from it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I sympathize. But in the history of the internets, no troll thread ever ended because all the sensible people decided to quit it.
                  Posted by: ck1 on Dec. 31 2006,11:13

                  From a bystander:

                  The novelty has indeed worn off.  (Though I will miss the entertainment if the thread is closed)

                  Unless debate rules can be established and enforced this thread will just continue to deteriorate.  The necessary level of time-consuming moderation is clearly not available.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 31 2006,11:16

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,09:00)
                  Quote (Ved @ Dec. 31 2006,11:17)
                  Maybe Russell has the right idea; just walk away from it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I sympathize. But in the history of the internets, no troll thread ever ended because all the sensible people decided to quit it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I steel myself, for I am easily baited. But nonetheless:

                  Dave, you are incapable of honestly upholding your end of scientific conversation. You are undebatable. If you want to play with the skeptics in a thread titled YOUR HYPOTHESIS, you are going to have to respect the rules of honest scientific inquiry. Otherwise, you are going to have to deal with the fact that your supposed hypothesis is not science and is illegal to teach as science in public schools in this country.
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 31 2006,11:21

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,11:00)
                  I sympathize. But in the history of the internets, no troll thread ever ended because all the sensible people decided to quit it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  So if we did, it'd be some kind of record?

                  What do you say folks?  Shall we abandon DavieDiddle to his AiG fueled dementia and carry on in the other threads?

                  He's said repeatedly that he's real deal, the intractable YEC.  Let's make this his Kurt Wise moment;



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Let's help him stand with Kurt.  But let's leave him alone to do it.
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 31 2006,11:24

                  Well as I have contributed little to nothing to the threads on the "AFD Experience", I guess my vote doesn't count. Anyhow here's my tuppence worth. As part of a vaguely relevant tangent, the ennui with discussing things with Davey is symptomatic of the greater ennui with discussing anything with creationists at all.

                  How many times have we actually encountered an honest creationist who is actually willing to debate rationally and is intellectually honest enough to be convinced by the actual evidence as opposed to their own delusions? I'm not denying that these encounters and people exist, but I am relatively sure that they form the minority of cases.

                  I applaud the patience of people here who have tried to deal with Davey AT ALL, let alone in the (at least initially) respectful manner actually accomplished. I know for a fact  that I lack the patience and tolerance needed to deal with a proven liar like Davey or GoP for more than the opening posts of a conversation. When they start to lie and fuck about, I start to lose interest. I've been down that road too many times.

                  So perhaps close the thread and ban Davey, what's the point in anything else? The benefit any lurkers are getting is long beyond the point of bothering with any new posts. The AFD threads can stand as a sticky, a permanent testimony to a) the unteachability of total blinkered idiots like Davey, and b) more importantly the fact that the asinine arguments of creationist muppets are more than answerable by people with a wide variety of backgrounds and levels of education.

                  Davey isn't learning, as is more than obvious from his most recent declaration of victory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Is it really healthy for anyone to be indulging Davey in his obvious mental illness and delusions?  For let's not mince words, that's what it is. Arguing with the boneheaded creationist over the internet is fun, for a while, but after that while it ceases to be amusing and starts to be aggravating to that creationist's pathology. Who are the known creationists? Ham, Hovind etc. People known for their dishonesty, hucksterism and inability to argue rationally, not for their reasoning abilities and contributions to science.

                  Isn't it the christian book o' fables that has the line "by their works shall ye know them"? We know Davey's works. Time to stop aiding them. He isn't reachable, he isn't educable, he's a pointless fruitcake who isn't coming up with anything new. Lurkers educated, Davey's witterings opposed, mission accomplished.

                  The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship. So leave the thread open, let Davey remain, and let those who want to engage with the moron do so. Science doesn't fear challenge, but its progress can be impeded by distraction with tiresome irrelevancies.

                  Louis
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,11:44

                  Dave, this is the sort of breathtakingly dishonest and astonishingly vapid claim that makes people here think it's time to put a fork in this thread:

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,04:53)
                  But whether you have an elastic definition for "mutation" or not, the truth is that the "dramatic differences" came about because of expression of PREVIOUSLY EXISTING information in only 500 years! (so 4500 years is plenty) ... information, which I contend consists of created information + mutation, easily preserved at the ark bottleneck by judicious selection of pairs to ensure that heterozygosity was not unacceptably low.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's been explained to you dozens of times, to the point of stupidity, that there was no pre-existing information. Your "flood" took care of that. That you refuse, over and over and over again, to deal with this fatal flaw in your "argument" is all the evidence anyone would ever need that you are a lying fraud who brings discredit to Christianity.

                  You simply cannot preserve dozens or hundreds of different alleles in four slots. It simply cannot be done. Not matter how judicious Noah and his co-conspirators were in selecting the lottery winners for the cruise on the ark (what, did Noah take blood tests from all the animals in his copious free time while constructing the ark?), he still lost 99% of any pre-existing variability in every organism on the ark. You have never come up with any way to get around this fatal problem for your "hypothesis" that several thousand "kinds" on the ark diversified into several million species today. A species that goes through a single-breeding-pair bottleneck is lucky to survive. It has no chance of diversifying into an average of a thousand species in 4,500 years. In fact, even if a species doesn't go through a genetic bottleneck of any kind, it still stands no chance of diversifying into a thousand species in 4,500 years.




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I see that once again, some people are getting tired of having the spotlight of truth shining on their errors, and some want me to go away.  Quite understandable.  It's much easier to avoid your problems than deal with them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No. They're getting tired of Air Force Dave's recycled garbage being posted again and again and again, while Air Force Dave demonstrates his inability to learn, his inability to admit error, his inability to answer simple, basic questions about his "hypothesis," and his inability to say anything interesting anymore.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,11:49

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,05:04)
                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What are you talking about, Dave? We already have an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" we can make short work of. What do you think has been happening here for the last eight months?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,11:52

                  Quote (Louis @ Dec. 31 2006,12:24)
                  The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's no confusion between us and the vicious censors at UD. AFDave's original thread got over 6,000 posts. This one's around 4700 so far. To close down AFDave now, after over 10,000 posts, wouldn't be any more censorious than PZ's banning of Charlie Wagner after three years of idiotic comments.

                  Announcement:


                  I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 31 2006,11:55

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,11:38)
                     
                  Quote (Louis @ Dec. 31 2006,12:24)
                  The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's no confusion between us and the vicious censors at UD. AFDave's original thread got over 6,000 posts. This one's around 4700 so far. To close down AFDave now, after over 10,000 posts, wouldn't be any more censorious than PZ's banning of Charlie Wagner after three years of idiotic comments.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Just to be clear, I am not advocating banning Dave. I think banning should only be reserved for the most disruptive and/or profane of individuals. I don't see him rising to that level.  But, I am of the opinion that the thread has outlived its usefulness.  8 months has been plenty of time for Dave to lay out his case for the UCGH.  He hasn't gotten very far into the hypotheses and the subject matter that is behind him is littered with unanswered questions, any of which are hypotheses killers.

                  My suggestion is to publish the final list of unanswered questions, then shut 'er down.  If Dave feels strongly that the dialogue needs to continue, then he needs to exhibit a little pride of ownership and move it to his blog.

                  EDIT:  Nevermind!
                  Posted by: Louis on Dec. 31 2006,12:12

                  Steve,

                  Apologies for any confusion. I wasn't suggesting that we/you etc are like UD in banning Dave/closing thread, as I hope is clear from the bits of my post that precede the quote. I fully agree that Davey has been given a huge amount of attention and freedom, more than I would have given him (or GoP or Skeptic  or.....) as I stated. Reading back, I can see how my phrasing might make one think that....erm.....oops.

                  {blush}

                  Sorry.

                  What I meant was that we don't censor (unlike UD), we don't need to, so I was sort of angling for the "lone voice" thing for Dave, a thread where only he (or perhaps he and select others) could comment. A sort of bathroom wall for trolls and creationists only (an idea I think that's been touted before). Peanut gallery threads could be set up to discuss particularly interesting wankery, rather like the UD discussion thread, but with all the convenience of being under one roof! I realise this might involve a massive increase in moderation workload, so it's probably a crap idea.

                  When I managed a message board I did this, restricting certain posters to one thread and allowing no comments on that thread from others. It works well in the debate format too, with two commenters allowed and peanut galleries for wider discourse. It does work but required more effort. It was sort of my answer to the "censorship" charge. The loons had their own threads, the rest of us got to comment unimpinged by said loons. If a really juicey debate cropped up a debate thread was created for loon plus challenger. It worked quite naturally, the obvious trolls disappeared into obscurity, whilst the genuine loons spouted all their crap and then got bored. The rest of us were then left to discuss it until fresh loons arose. Worked pretty well tbh. The board is still going, although I no longer have the time to contribute.

                  A phased withdrawl is an adequate compromise. My only concern was with the liar and his "I've been banned from ATBC" claims which will undoubtedly be forthcoming. Whilst  we can point to the huge indulgence he's been given, he almost certainly won't and nor will a percentage of his flock bother to find out that such an indulgence existed.

                  Louis
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 31 2006,12:20

                  It's still 2006. My New Year's Resolution hasn't kicked in yet. So, davy, could you kindly explain to me and the patient lurkers:
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So, once again, Russell is shown to be wrong but won't admit it ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  what you think I'm wrong about?
                  Now, I know you don't do any of your own explaining (or thinking, for that matter), so for clarity's sake, just cut & paste my statement and then cut & paste directly next to it the specific* statement you contend disproves it.

                  *Not paragraphs and paragraphs of irrelevant verbiage, hoping that folks will just assume there must be something in there that contradicts me. And it should be specific. Not "the article says X, which sort of implies Y, which could be interpreted to suggest Z, which is incompatible with Russell's definition".

                  If you get that far - which I doubt you will - then we can compare my credibility with your source's. That is, if there really is some incompatibility.

                  Are you prepared to admit you're wrong if you can't meet this simple challenge?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,12:20

                  But the cool thing is, even after the thread is closed, it still exists (and, if necessary, could be made a sticky). I would love to see Dave whine to all his friends (or, he would probably see it as boasting) that he was banned from AtBC. But I wonder if he'd have the testicles to actually point them to this thread so they could see for themselves why he was banned. They could see for themselves if the reason he was banned was because no one here could answer his "arguments." They could decide for themselves if BlackKnightDave actually "won" any of the numerous debates he engaged in here.

                  Given how few people have ever de-lurked who claim to know Dave, I don't think Dave's very proud of his work here.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,12:41

                  Yesterday, Absolutely Fraudulent Dave asked if anyone else agreed that AiG's revenues declined by 50% from 2004 and 2005. Initially, I said I did. Later, Absolutely Fraudulent Dave presented evidence that this was not, in fact, the case. I agreed with Absolutely Fraudulent Dave that he was right, that there was no evidence that AiG's revenues declined by 50% (or at all) between 2004 and 2005.

                  I stated for the record that my initial assessment was incorrect, and moved on. In exchange for that admission, I < challenged > Absolutely Fraudulent Dave to make a similar admission, on the record, that a claim he had made was also incorrect:

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 30 2006,17:53)
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,16:27)
                  UNBELIEVABLE ... THIS CLOWN STILL THINKS THAT AIG'S REVENUE'S DROPPED IN HALF
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And speaking of clowns, Dave: do you still contend that there are only 61 HLA-B alleles? Or have you quietly abandoned that position, without ever actually saying so?

                  I have no problem stating, for the record, that there does not appear to be any evidence that AiG's revenues declined, by 50% or indeed at all, from 2004 to 2005.

                  Now—do you have the intellectual honesty to state, for the record, that you have no reason to believe that there are less than 600 HLA-B alleles? Or are you going to continue your cowardly avoidance strategy of just ignoring the issue completely?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Did Dave reciprocate? Did he admit that his claim was also in error?

                  Did he or didn't he? You get three guesses.
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Dec. 31 2006,12:44

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,11:52)
                  [quote=Louis,Dec. 31 2006,12:24] So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ok, so maybe it is time I posted every few minutes so we can bring this farce to an end.
                  Posted by: Bing on Dec. 31 2006,12:57

                  Just as long as he's not #5000.  I'd hate to give him the ability to crow elsewhere that he's had the last word and single-handedly defeated the Evil Atheist Horde™
                  Posted by: Roland Anderson on Dec. 31 2006,13:20

                  I've enjoyed this thread enormously and I think it should be left as a monument to the intractability of some Creationists - but as a mostly-lurker and occasional poster I think it's running out of steam. AFDave's incredible inability to recognise even the most clear-cut evidence or comprehend the simplest argument is now so obvious that there can surely be nothing left to say.

                  If he ever decides to say that he was censored or run away from anywhere else on the net, then a couple of links to this mega-thread and its predecessor should be enough to silence debate on the subject.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 31 2006,14:21

                  I think one of the best uses that the remaining 250 or so posts would be for the long time lurkers (are there any?) to weigh in.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 31 2006,15:21

                  I only discovered this site about two weeks ago, but in that time I've learned a lot from all of the posters, even Dave.  From everyone else I've learned more about genetics, information theory and, even Portuguese.  From Dave I learned that one of my long held beliefs is wrong.  From my experience of about thirty years dealing with creationists in different venues I had come to the conclusion that all creationists could be placed into one of the following categories-

                  Stupid,
                  Ignorant,
                  Dishonest

                  From Dave I have learned that a creationist can fit into all three categories at the same time.

                  Dave, before the thread gets shut down, could you define 'Hi-tech'?  I didn't think so.
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Dec. 31 2006,15:24

                  Quote (Russell @ Dec. 31 2006,14:21)
                  I think one of the best uses that the remaining 250 or so posts would be for the long time lurkers (are there any?) to weigh in.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nice theory, but it might take a rather long time to get 250 lurkers to post something.  :D

                  But we could lock the thread and then stick it, so it remains as a monument and warning for all to see.  You know, like putting an executed felon's head on a pike.  :D
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 31 2006,17:01

                  Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 30 2006,22:32)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Mutation
                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to: navigation, search

                    For other senses of this word, see mutation (disambiguation).

                  In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation >


                  Do you see anything in there about recombination being a "kind" of mutation?

                  Unbelievable.

                  And he calls me a moron.  Wow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Uh, you do realize that recombination "changes the base pair sequence of genetic material," right (the genes themselves aren't necessarily disrupted, but sometimes they are)?

                  One ought to be careful about shooting one's fingers off at someone with advanced knowledge in a subject, especially if one's is at a 9th grade level.[/quote]

                  Umm, I'd say that Dave functions below an EIGHTH grade level of understanding. I taught those critters for better than a decade - and the ones in general ed., too. Plus a bunch of kids who had extremely low levels of intellectual ability.

                  But they all could understand that a "mutation" is a change in the base pair sequence from the initial DNA. However it occurred: environmental influence, recombinations or single nucleotide changes during mitosis or any of the above during meiosis and gamete formation, they are all changes in the DNA sequence, and hence, 'mutations.'

                  See, Dave, an educated person knows the difference between scientific and layman's terms. For example, did you know that a miscarriage is really a "spontaneous abortion"?  Same words, completely different meaning for a physician or a layman.
                  Posted by: afdave on Dec. 31 2006,17:01

                  SOON, YOU WILL GET TO RETURN TO GOOD OLD ANEMIC CREATIONISTS ... AND LIFE WILL BE SO MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE FOR YOU

                  Aaaah!  Comfortable Oblivion!

                  I got that word "anemic" from Ichthyic here ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  edmund

                  Posts: 35
                  Joined: Jan. 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,21:54  
                  I'm gearing up to teach a course on evolution and creationism in January, and one of the course components consists of making students go discuss these issues online with real live Evolutionists and Creationists ™. (Nothing quite like full immersion in the strangeness of the EvC Web culture-- no offense meant to present company, of course.)

                  Some of the bulletin boards that were pretty active last year in the wake of the Dover decision are pretty anemic now, so I thought I'd ask our illustrious AtBC'ers which boards are most lively these days. Ideally, I'm looking for discussion boards where there's a broad diversity of viewpoints.

                  Thanks for your help!

                  --B Spitzer
                        Report this post to a moderator



                  Ichthyic

                  Posts: 1942
                  Joined: May 2006

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,23:01  
                  ARN (Access Research Network) leans towards the creationist viewpoint, but has the highest number of parties from both sides posting there, AFAICT.

                  Pharyngula has far more traffic, and more discussion, but the creobots that show up there are often a bit on the anemic side (teenagers and the insane).  Still, it's one of the hottest science blogs on the web these days.

                  believe it or not, this little forum here is decent if you want to show your students a consistent, intractable, stereotypical, honest-to-god, Young Earth Creationist.

                  just point them to the AFDave thread.
                   lots of standard creationist boilerplate, combined with a continual shredding of same with actual reference to real scientific works.

                  they will also learn a great deal about how the creationist mindset works, and how they 'argue'.

                  have them try to convince Dave of ANYTHING he off the top disagrees with, and they will get a quick lesson in just how irrational the creationist mindset can be.

                  I tired of it myself months ago (yes MONTHS), but there are many diehards here who never tire of shredding 'ol dave as their morning cup 'o joe.

                  AIG (Answers in Genesis) is probably the largest remaining pure YEC site, if they want to see where most of the YEC arguments online get cut-and-pasted from.

                  Uncommon Descent is pretty much the only place ID gets discussed, but the moderation policy is so draconian that the only thing your students would learn there is how NOT to run a blog.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  See rest of this thread here ...
                  < Edmund is Teaching Creation Evolution v. Class >

                  *************************************

                  For those, on the other hand, who want to continue debating a real, live honest-to-goodness, intractable YEC who has high level contacts at AiG--your #1 enemy apparently ... read the last part of that thread where I said this ...

                  ********************************************

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you won't be able to point them to my thread for much longer.  It appears we've reached the end of Wesley and Steve's tolerance for Creationism.  I think they'd be OK with anemic creationists for the long term (like those mentioned above), but I think they never expected me to be so tenacious, be so popular and cause such a stir.  In any case, they are shutting my thread down at Post #5000 ... I don't know if they are banning me from all threads or not ... we shall see.

                  So now if anyone asks if Wesley and Steve are open-minded, I guess the answer is "Sort of ... but they have their limits."

                  It's interesting ... Steve once said that the AFDave thread is great for science ... no one would ever want to be a creationist after reading Dave's stupidity.

                  Well now we see that that statement, like many statements from the science establishment regarding the Creation/Evolution Controversy ...

                  ... is NONSENSE.

                  I knew when he said it that he didn't really believe his own words and that sooner or later, I would be shut down.  Why would he shut down my thread if I was good for his cause?

                  Doesn't make sense now, does it!

                  Hmmmm ...

                  ****************************************

                  Where will I go?  Not sure yet.  I'd like to go to a Science forum ... we'll see which one can handle me.

                  If I'm banned from here I will post where I am at on <a href="airdave.blogspot.com" target="_blank">AFDave Blogspot</a>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Dec. 31 2006,17:08

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,08:04)
                  I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MOVING THIS "MESS" TO MY OWN BLOG
                  Carlson, you read me wrong ... I want to be HERE, where the skeptics are.  I have heard that Wesley and Steve are open-minded types and allow people with differing viewpoints to post, and that they do not set time limits on how long they can post.

                  So far this has proved to be true.

                  I think the real reason that some people want me gone is that they would prefer to debate an "ill-informed, redneck creationist" that they can make short work of.  Too often, they are left looking foolish after debating ME on a particular topic and this is very uncomfortable.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I just now had to explain to my husband why I was laughing so hard while reading at the computer. Thanks for the New Year's Eve amusement, Dave!
                  Posted by: The_Shadow_Of_Paley on Dec. 31 2006,17:18

                  Like other lurkers, I have learned much from this thread and I would be a bit disppointed to see it go. Nevertheless, it has become large, cumbersome, and riddled with too many topics. If the thread is to be closed, I would make two suggestions.

                  First, do not delete this thread. Make it available to observe but not post. (I am ignorant of message board technology but I'm sure the moderators could manage that.)

                  Second, suggest that Dave start a separate thread for each topic. For example, he could start one for "flood geology," one for his take on the nature of mutations and their role in promoting biodiversity and so on. This would militate against the annoying "Helter-skelter" aspect of this thread. (I know multiple threads might clog up the whole board as well, and this could be a problem. However, the moderators would have to make the judgment call to "lump" or "split" in each  controversial case.)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,17:25

                  Quote (The_Shadow_Of_Paley @ Dec. 31 2006,18:18)
                  Second, suggest that Dave start a separate thread for each topic. For example, he could start one for "flood geology," one for his take on the nature of mutations and their role in promoting biodiversity and so on.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  "Worst. Suggestion. Ever."
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 31 2006,17:26

                  More whining.
                  Your thread is littered with questions you've ignored and scurrilous allegations you've made and failed to back up.
                  < Like this one. >

                  That's why we've all lost patience with you.

                  You really think you're the most "challenging" creationist on the net?

                  Jeez. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,17:36

                  A while back, I would have voted not to give up on the thread. Then, I found myself not really caring one way or the other. Now...well, I feel regret and some frustration, but I also feel utter futility, so I voiced those thoughts.

                  Generally, I agree with the hunter-gatherer concept of "voting with your feet" --moving on when things become intractable ( when there's simply no more peaches in a grove of trees, or cannibals move in next door)  but yeah...Dave has learned lots of tricks that make it APPEAR as though he might be potentially reasonable/logical/honest in the near future ( see above...did he ever respond to the questions posed to him? No.) yet those basic requirements of fair debate remain unfulfilled.

                  In effect, it's like fake peaches appearing and disappearing, giving the illusion of availability. Or, to use an analogy that comes to mind; it's like when I was in Mexico and watched a chicken run around without a head -- an illusion of viability.

                  His agenda dictates his behavior, his lack of supporting evidence means he HAS to use the tactics he does and he can continue indefinitely by continuous looping. Still, I keep poking at him because I'm pretty obsessive *cough*, so truthfully, I should just follow Russell's lead as Ved suggested and resolve not to look back and that's what I'll do, either way (unless the situation changes drastically).  

                  Anyway, I take SOME comfort in the fact that there's LOTS of material here to analyze and compile. There's stuff here that is not found anywhere else, by lots of people in lots of areas: the Info Theory/mutation stuff is great in application to ID/Creationism -- the AI Milano material, the Grand Canyon, "founding fathers" and Geologic radiometry stuff...blah, blah, blah.

                  On another forum, I simply referred to all the arguments *here* against the Strong Anthropic claim/"cosmic design" and put it together into a single cohesive paragraph, and it's really effective.  

                  In sum, if Dave is REALLY so keen on continuing he CAN do so at Fox's blog or his own site. He's not being significantly or unduly "censored". Stevestory offered a valid compromise that Dave can use or squander as he sees fit. Maybe if Dave can start actually debating, I can watch.

                  Whatever you folks choose to do, I'll be happy to think I've made a few friends here that I'd LIKE to keep talking to. I've learned about online debate strategies and a LOT about personally relevant topics. Plus I'll be mining this data, yee-haw. Again, Happy New Year's and cheers!
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,17:36

                  Hey, Dave, before you go, give us a link to some Baboon Dogs.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Dec. 31 2006,17:46

                  Dave, I've dropped by to say, "Good-bye."  You have unintentionally provided me with many laughing-so-hard-I-was-crying moments during your one-wingnut-stand here.

                  Just to be clear, though, you lost both of your last two "debated" points.  Just because something "looks" designed to your *koff koff* "common sense" proves nothing.  Such a fancied resemblance might be the starting point of a scientific investigation.  With enough contextual information, such an investigation might proceed very quickly.  But just claiming a resemblance advances no point, in and of itself.  Your inability to even define any of the necessary parameters of your gibberish responses ("hi-tech," etc.) left you mired in the starting blocks as the rest of the field raced away from you.

                  And the attempt to piggy-back on the laughable Behe's laughable bac-flag claims was particularly revealing (but not of any intelligence or sense of strategy on your part).

                  But that was a "minor" loss for you (not that it wasn't a loss, just that it fades into the backdrop of your page after page of other, similarly-momentous losses...).

                  The killer was a direct body-slam to your flood "hypothesis."  The flood would have incontestably represented a genetic bottleneck for every species that allegedly rode out the waves (were they salt or were they sweet?  Dave remained blithely clueless...).  All pre-existing variation--read: accumulated over LOTS of prior time through inherited variation (including what Dave wants to constrain "mutation" to and including what everybody else understands, which is any event which wreaks an inherited change, including recombination events, in the genes--would have been reduced to two alleles at each genetic locus.

                  Given enough time, and good fortune, and mutation/variation events, variation could eventually be recovered, though the species would be relatively vulnerable throughout that recovery period (just as cheetahs are today, and they've had 10,000 years to recover from an event clearly comparable, to all but one of us post-kindergartners, with the genetic catastrophe of "the flood").

                  (By the way, the fact that we can even tell that cheetahs and the recent founder population of island macaques have been through a recent bottleneck in the first place, compared with most other animals and plants--which we can tell have not been (like, oh, dogs/wolves, humans, beetles, most populations of macaques, etc.)--is itself a body-blow to your hypothesis...but never mind the subtle points.)

                  Without that long-accumulating pre-existing variation, there is no pre-existing variation to be drawn upon by dog-breeders, much less by nature, in attempting to develop dog breeds, much less for the replenishment of all the existing diversity of the biosphere.

                  And that's that, davey.  End of story.

                  Every "kind" would remain as or more genetically-depleted as the cheetahis now.  None of the kinds would have multiplied into variants as different as the felids, bovids, the canids, the cacti-lids (or whatever they would be called), the orchids, the bromeliads, the beetle-ids, and on and on, nigh endlessly.

                  You lost that one, big boy, and your endless attempts to sneak pre-existing variation (whatever you think gives rise to it) past the incontestable bottleneck of the flood has fooled exactly no one, probably not even yourself.

                  The bottleneck dooms the flood hypothesis.  All by itself.  You haven't remotely "refuted" this, on any point or level, in the least degree.

                  You're dead in the water, dude.

                  Were I you, I wouldn't bother treading water, waiting for rescue from an ark, either.

                  Bye, davey.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Dec. 31 2006,17:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, you won't be able to point them to my thread for much longer.  It appears we've reached the end of Wesley and Steve's tolerance for Creationism.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  No, Dave, they, and everyone else, have reached our tolerance for your particular brand of smug ignorance.
                  Posted by: PuckSR on Dec. 31 2006,18:43

                  Dear Dave,

                  I was recently trying to find some entertainment for a New Year's Eve party.  Your particular brand of humor might be amusing to several of my friends.

                  It would be a rather simple performance.  All of my friends who have either recently graduated or will soon graduate with degrees in any of the topics you seem to believe yourself a layman "expert" in would get drunk and try to debate you.

                  The rules would be simple.
                  1.  Each grad would speak to you one-on-one.
                  2.  Every time someone tried to explain a 'basic' error in your ideas....and obviously failed...the other participants would drink
                  3.  Every time a grad accepted a false claim of yours, but was later corrected by one of the other participants...the foolish person would have to drink.
                  4.  If someone failed to explain a complex and elaborate topic to you, no one would have to drink...unless
                     a) You somehow managed to distort both reality and reason and made a comment that boggled the mind
                  or  b)  You refused to accept that the complex topic existed to AT ALL
                  5.  If someone actually succeeded in explaining to you the fallacy of ANY of your many flawed lines of reasoning or scientific understanding.....well....we all know that it will never happen.

                  If it is at all possible that you could attend the party we would all be very pleased.  

                  Happy New Year
                  PuckSR
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 31 2006,19:28



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dear Dave,

                  I was recently trying to find some entertainment for a New Year's Eve party.  Your particular brand of humor might be amusing to several of my friends.

                  It would be a rather simple performance.  All of my friends who have either recently graduated or will soon graduate with degrees in any of the topics you seem to believe yourself a layman "expert" in would get drunk and try to debate you.

                  The rules would be simple.
                  1.  Each grad would speak to you one-on-one.
                  2.  Every time someone tried to explain a 'basic' error in your ideas....and obviously failed...the other participants would drink
                  3.  Every time a grad accepted a false claim of yours, but was later corrected by one of the other participants...the foolish person would have to drink.
                  4.  If someone failed to explain a complex and elaborate topic to you, no one would have to drink...unless
                    a) You somehow managed to distort both reality and reason and made a comment that boggled the mind
                  or  b)  You refused to accept that the complex topic existed to AT ALL
                  5.  If someone actually succeeded in explaining to you the fallacy of ANY of your many flawed lines of reasoning or scientific understanding.....well....we all know that it will never happen.

                  If it is at all possible that you could attend the party we would all be very pleased.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't forget to

                  1. name a designated driver
                  2. have a stomach pump handy

                  If your friend follow those rules with Dumb-Dumb Davie, they'll be so snockered in the first hour that alcohol poisoning will be a real threat.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,20:16

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 31 2006,15:01)
                  Well, you won't be able to point them to my thread for much longer.  It appears we've reached the end of Wesley and Steve's tolerance for Creationism.  I think they'd be OK with anemic creationists for the long term (like those mentioned above), but I think they never expected me to be so tenacious, be so popular and cause such a stir.  In any case, they are shutting my thread down at Post #5000 ... I don't know if they are banning me from all threads or not ... we shall see.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, they've reached the end of their tolerance for tard, Dave. Your "hypothesis" doesn't even rise to the level of coherence expected of creationism, let alone real science.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  So now if anyone asks if Wesley and Steve are open-minded, I guess the answer is "Sort of ... but they have their limits."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're saying 10,000 posts (1,400 of which are yours) aren't sufficient to determine if you've got something interesting to say, Dave? Open-mindedness isn't the issue. Patience for utter, yawning stupidity along with truly breathtaking (and utterly unwarranted) arrogance is.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It's interesting ... Steve once said that the AFDave thread is great for science ... no one would ever want to be a creationist after reading Dave's stupidity.

                  Well now we see that that statement, like many statements from the science establishment regarding the Creation/Evolution Controversy ...

                  ... is NONSENSE.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Not at all, Dave. This thread is GREAT for science. It shows just how absurdly content-free and vacuous creationism really is. Steve's point is, that's all been pounded away at for months, and it's impossible to imagine anyone would need the point driven home any harder than it already is by eight months of your tard. More is just pointless.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I knew when he said it that he didn't really believe his own words and that sooner or later, I would be shut down.  Why would he shut down my thread if I was good for his cause?

                  Doesn't make sense now, does it!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Of course it does, Dave! After reading 1,400 of your posts, I think what's here is more than sufficient evidence of your breathtaking ignorance about just about everything it's possible to be ignorant about. Do you think that would be any more obvious after 14,000 posts? Or 14,000,000?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Where will I go?  Not sure yet.  I'd like to go to a Science forum ... we'll see which one can handle me.

                  If I'm banned from here I will post where I am at on <a href="airdave.blogspot.com" target="_blank">AFDave Blogspot</a>
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And I dare you to leave comments open, and un-deleted. Do you things will go any better for you anywhere else intelligent people can demolish your arguments?
                  Posted by: ck1 on Dec. 31 2006,20:19

                  "I think one of the best uses that the remaining 250 or so posts would be for the long time lurkers (are there any?) to weigh in. "

                  I think I qualify as a lurker, although I have posted on this thread 4 times.  I have followed this thread since the beginning because I am fascinated by the creationist mindset.  In my personal life (I am a biologist - my lab is focussed on genetics and virology), I have only met a creationist once and did not have the opportunity to find out the basis for her beliefs.  My spouse is from Kansas and I became aware of the  shenanigans of the KBOE in 1999 and I have been hooked on the subject ever since.  Dave's arrival here and his dogged persistence presented the opportunity to try to understand this cultural/social/religious phenomenon.  He failed to present a convincing argument on any of the scientific or historic subjects he tackled, but his posts and the responses were (almost) always fascinating to me as a bystander.  I applaud the willingness of this board to give him a soapbox to try to present his case for so long without censorship.

                  So I hope Dave finds another place to argue his viewpoint and a new audience and new adversaries.

                  And I thank the regulars who taught me a lot about subjects I never formally studied like geology and information theory.

                  But especially thanks to Eric for your cogent and spot-on arguments on such a variety of subjects - very impressive.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,20:31

                  Quote (ck1 @ Dec. 31 2006,21:19)
                  But especially thanks to Eric for your cogent and spot-on arguments on such a variety of subjects - very impressive.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeah, Eric does deserve some recognition for his relentlesness. As does Deadman, Russell, and several other people I'm forgetting.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,20:39

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,18:31)
                  As does Deadman, Russell, and several other people I'm forgetting.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Icorygible and Mike PSS, for two. Occam's Afterhshave. Drew Headley. Jon F, as well, although he hasn't been around in a while.
                  Posted by: ck1 on Dec. 31 2006,20:43

                  And Faid
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Dec. 31 2006,20:46

                  If it means anything to you all...

                  I came here trying to find out if my faith in creationism had any basis in science.  I had heard about intelligent design and supposed the people behind it were honest, sincere, Godly people.

                  When I read AFDave’s initial “hypothesis” I believed he was going to demonstrate each of the points to be plausible.

                  Of course, months later, it’s obvious that isn’t true.

                  But I want to say thank you to all those who provided references to refute his uninformed arguments.  It helped me to see how utterly impotent and dishonest the claims of creationists truly are.

                  Thanks.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,20:55

                  LOL. It's kind of like we're rolling the credits.
                  Posted by: The_Shadow_Of_Paley on Dec. 31 2006,21:03

                  Quote (Louis @ Dec. 19 2006,13:21)
                  Eric,

                  Awww come on, give Dave some credit. He's come up with more ways than I thought possible of stamping his foot and screaming "IT'S COMPLEX BECAUSE I SAID SO" like a mentally deficient and heavily spoilt 4 year old.

                  Louis
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  With all due respect, is there such a physical quantity called complexity? Does Dave and other creationists even have the rudiments of a point when they talk about the alleged "complexity" of a flagella whip, human brain, mitochondrian, watch, or AC/DC motor such as those exhibited in Dave's photo essays.

                  < According to this list of definitions > complexity deals with concepts related to the order of algorithms and hence the time required to execute them. Is it even meaningful to say, "What is the complexity of a watch?" as opposed do, "What is the complexity of the algorithm required to draw a cg image of a watch?"

                  However, biologists do talk about a distinction between "simple" and "complex" organisms. Does this "complexity" exists independently of subjective human psychology? Since a human is bigger and has a wider variety of chemical reactions to understand than a bacterium to we can say a human is more "complex" than a bacterium. However, unlike authentic physical quantities such as force, velocity, temperature, or electric current, complexity, as described above, can not be detatched from human understanding or lack thereof. If that is correct, does "complexity" in the biological sense pose any questions of theoretical import at all?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,21:06

                  My nomination for "MVD" (most valuable debater) goes to eric, in defense of scientific sanity.  

                  He was well-informed, dogged, and sharp as a razor on a wider variety of topics. He's sure as #### earned MY respect. I propose he be awarded this acknowledgement as a "signature." : MVD in Defense of Science ( or something to that effect) Can I get a second?

                  Kind of like taking Dave's scalp.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 31 2006,21:14

                  Just popped in to say goodbye and good riddance. I found AFDork in this thread fascinating for about 2 pages (in the car-wreck-with-mulitple-decapitated-bodies kind of way), funny for two more, stupid for pretty much the rest, as far as AFrackinmoronDave is concerned.

                  Good science in here by pretty much everyone other than Davey Doodles on just about every topic one could ever want to know anything about and then a few, but after a while even seeing the same fascinating science over and over and over gets boring.

                  I can't even tell you how long I've been ignoring this waste of bandwidth.

                  I wouldn't have even known this train wreck was closing, but for the fact I read it on another thread.

                  My only hope is that AFDork isn't allowed to mess up all the other threads with his complete lack of lucid thought, or his deformed version of religious apologetics.  He's already begun dipping his toes in the water, trying to derail at least one.

                  After 11,000 comments all about his "hypothesis" (or lack thereof, more like), he can't cry censorship in any reality but his own.

                  Let him bring preach at his own blog, if it's so damned important.

                  Buh bye, Fluff-Fluff.

                  Don't let the door....

                  well, y'know.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 31 2006,21:15

                  Hard to pick one person as the best, but Eric certainly was relentless. I hereby nickname him Tenacious E.

                  EDIT: FYI, I've gotten emails praising Eric's efforts.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Dec. 31 2006,21:19

                  Hmmm..I was just thinking that "Creationist Scalp" might be a good award name.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 31 2006,21:22

                  I'll second (or third or whatever) that, Steve.

                  Eric's patience and tenacity for as long as I followed this nonsense is possibly only matched by Zachriel's with the various Tards he tries vainly to educate.

                  Janie gets bored with them much more quickly, and Kate would have just throttled them all by now.

                  Kudos to Eric.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Dec. 31 2006,22:01

                  Stop it, you're embarrassing me.

                  But thanks. I appreciate it.
                  Posted by: Russell on Dec. 31 2006,22:55

                  My vote also goes to Eric, not only for the astute input, but for letting davy's puerile brain-envy roll off his back.

                  For davy, I hereby dub thee the ultimate iconic Phallocephalic.

                  I guess I'll never know if you ever try to make good on your latest attempt to show I'm wrong. Too late now. I guess I'll just ride off into the sunset assuming that, like all your other claims, you have no idea what you're talking about.

                  Have a nice life, davy.

                  The rest of you - I'll see you on other threads.
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 01 2007,00:59

                  AFD thanks for the memory I can't say I have met anyone who has wasted a marketing opportunity as much as you, your boo hoo hooing is duly noted ...so sue someone.(snicker)

                  Eric great work on picking apart the finer details of AFD's drivel, keeping the fire going under AFD was no mean feat. You have shown how someone like AFD could actually learn if they wanted to.

                  DM; truly a remarkable display of breadth of knowledge, Mike; sharp, Faid; loved your stuff, Russell; thanks for slumming it, Lou... didn't I thank you somewhere else?

                  SteveS; nice chairmanship, a credit to you.

                  Scaryfacts; I understand your pain.

                  Occam's bathroom cupboard.... all good.

                  Argy, BWE a happy new AFD free year.

                  Everyone else have a drink on me, you know who you are.

                  Finally I'd like to thank ME....no one else did, oh and my Mom all the way back to < mitochondrial Eve > (giggle)

                  {Edit for grammer.}
                  Posted by: pzoot on Jan. 01 2007,01:10

                  Long time lurker/addict and while I too will miss the entertainment value of this thread, I'm grateful that the end is near.

                  I don't know what's more amazing: AFDave's cheerful recalcitrance (Ned Flanders on speed?) or the patience of his sparring partners.

                  I find AFDave more than a little sad and worthy of some concern. Not because he's a YEC, per se. I think there's something else going on. There's more than a taint of megalomania, a very thoroughly fortified ego to the point of delusion. Is there inner turmoil at the dismantling of his "hypothesis", or just the construction of higher walls? For his family's sake, I can just hope that he's not like this in person, that AFDave is just a larger-than-life web persona. And I hope his family reads this thread, for better or worse.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,02:02

                  k.e: you and BWE and stevestory and occam's and my cousin crabster and Icthyic ( among many others) kept me vastly ( or is that half-vastly? har, har) entertained while slicing Dave to bits with surgical skill. That made  slogging through this crap lots easier.

                  If I mentioned EVERYONE'S contributions, I'd be typing way too long. You know who you are. You never failed to address each and every damm thing he brought up. You lent moral support, or humor or incisive insight and esoteric epedeictic ( yeah, look THAT one up) energy.  You killed, and we like you, we really, really like you. Now get the he11 off stage. HAPPY NEW YEAR, and belly up to the bar.
                  Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 01 2007,04:54

                  Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,06:52)
                  Quote (Louis @ Dec. 31 2006,12:24)
                  The only, single, reason I can see for allowing this thread to continue and Davey to remain is that we are not UD. We are not Davetard and his crew of pseudointellectual pirates on His Dembkiness's Censor-Ship.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  There's no confusion between us and the vicious censors at UD. AFDave's original thread got over 6,000 posts. This one's around 4700 so far. To close down AFDave now, after over 10,000 posts, wouldn't be any more censorious than PZ's banning of Charlie Wagner after three years of idiotic comments.

                  Announcement:


                  I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'm not so sure. I am also not sure if this is my first post on this thread, I am sure it is my last. I have enjoyed reading many of the informative comments and learning new stuff in the process. Happy New Year, everyone.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 01 2007,07:47

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD GENETIC DIVERSITY



                  Some folks here have claimed that 4500 years (the approximate time elapsed since the Biblical Flood) is nowhere near enough time to achieve the massive diversity we see in species today.

                  I say it's PLENTY of time and one of the most obvious proofs is DOGS.

                  I referred to this article from the BBC ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They [research teams reporting in Science] conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I provided this example as proof that it doesn't require millions of years and mutations to achieve massive diversity and I asked one of our resident molecular biology professors, Russell, how he would explain this radical diversity in dogs in such a short time span.

                  He said "Mutation and Selection", a good orthodox Darwinist answer ... but WRONG.

                  The truth is that virtually all of the "dramatic differences" we see in modern dogs was already there in the dog genome in 1500 AD (500 years ago).  The variation expressed in the last 500 years was NOT due primarily to mutation.  Selection?  Yes.  Lots of artificial selection.  But mutation?  No.  We are all quite familiar with mutation rates in higher mammals and the fact is that very few that have any discernible effect would have occurred in the last 500 years. As Ayala put it ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), p. 63.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So Russell would have been correct if he had said "Recombination and Selection" but his answer of "Mutation and Selection" is INCORRECT.

                  Not only is Russell wrong, but he and other posters here at ATBC seem quite intellectually dishonest because as soon as I was done pointing this out, they began monkeying with the definition of "mutation."  Russell tried to say that "recombination" is a kind of mutation.  But if the normal usage of the word "mutation" includes "recombination", why did Ayala make a distinction?  Why did he say    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ??  This sentence would have been unnecessary.  Ayala might just as well have said that "variation arises from mutations, which include random copying errors and recombination" or something.  But he did not.  He was very clear.  He said most variation comes NOT from new mutations (understood by intellectually honest folk as random errors) but from reshuffling.  Lest anyone like Russell mistake him, Ayala even makes himself even clearer ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  p. 58 [same article]
                  “A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                   Now I have done a pretty extensive search to confirm my (and Ayala's) definition of the word "mutation" and the only definition I have found which vaguely supports Russell's "big tent" definition is Wikipedia, which I posted previously.  All other definitions that I could find defined "mutation" as basically an error... such as this one ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  mutation
                  Encyclopædia Britannica Article

                  an alteration in the genetic material (the genome) of a cell of a living organism or of a virus that is more or less permanent and that can be transmitted to the cell's or the virus's descendants. (The genomes of organisms are all composed of DNA, whereas viral genomes can be of DNA or RNA; see heredity: The physical basis of heredity.) Mutation in the DNA of a body cell of a multicellular organism (somatic mutation) may be transmitted to descendant cells by DNA replication and hence result in a sector or patch of cells having abnormal function, an example being cancer. Mutations in egg or sperm cells (germinal mutations) may result in an individual offspring all of whose cells carry the mutation, which often confers some serious malfunction, as in the case of a human genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis. Mutations result either from accidents during the normal chemical transactions of DNA, often during replication, or from exposure to high-energy electromagnetic radiation (e.g., ultraviolet light or X-rays) or particle radiation or to highly reactive chemicals in the environment. Because mutations are random changes, they are expected to be mostly deleterious, but some may be beneficial in certain environments.

                  mutation. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica.  Retrieved December 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: <
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Now I simply cannot fathom how anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can read this and say "Dave, you moron, mutations include recombination."  C'mon guys!

                  Now we could look at many more examples of species which diversified greatly in a short time, but frankly, I'm convinced.  And as I have said before, I'm not here primarily to try to force willfully ignorant people to see the truth.  As someone famous said,

                  "There is none so blind as one who will not see."

                  ****************************************************************

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK: HOW COULD DIVERSITY BE RETAINED IN A SINGLE PAIR ON THE ARK?
                  I have already dealt with this topic and have cited many papers which support the fact that a single pair can easily be selected with a high enough degree of heterozygosity (H) to ensure a large degree of diversity after the bottleneck.

                  Some have said "Those papers don't support your position.  You haven't even read them."

                  Well ... the quoted portions of the papers I cited certainly DO support my position and I have found that when I have gone and gotten the full paper in the past, it has wound up supporting my position in the majority of cases (Crow for example).  I have found creationist authors to be very thorough and intellectually honest in quoting scientific papers.*  But it is true that I have not read these particular papers because I do not have free access to them.  This is a valid objection and I will see if there are any free papers supporting my position.

                  *NOTE: I have found one confirmed error in a creationist paper -- the chimp chromosome paper.  One is also pending -- the baboon dog paragraph.  I expect an answer to that one some time this month.

                  ****************************************************************

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  I think I have done a very good job answering questions here at this forum.  I have even begun working through the "Deadman 50 List" in spite of the fact that Deadman is one of the most viscious posters at ATBC.  He is quite the poster boy for "Militant Evolutionist."  I think I have made it through Question 12 or so and we'll see how many more I can hit before Post #5000.  I won't have time to get to the Ice Age, Ice Cores, C14 Calibration, Parasites, the Tower of Babel, Egypt and China, the Pyramids and Early Technology, the Prophecies of Daniel and other such fun stuff before Post #5000, but I will probably get to them eventually at whatever forum I end up going to.

                  I think Wesley and Steve do a good job here with this forum and I appreciate the opportunity that I have had to post here.  

                  I do believe that part of the reason Steve wants this thread shut down is because of posters like Deadman and Occam's Aftershave who have both been told to tone it down.  Steve said this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  stevestory

                  Posts: 2824
                  Joined: Oct. 2005

                  (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2006,22:54  
                  On the other hand, I'm getting some email saying "shut down the thread, because it's driving the pro-science folks to look like jerks." so maybe there's something to the idea.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  The person who said this is correct but they should have said "pro-evolution" folks, not "pro-science" folks.  

                  It is true.  This thread is making some "pro-Evolution" folks look like jerks.  Which, of course, helps the Creationist cause.

                  If I could make a couple of suggestions to improve ATBC, they would be ...

                  1) Allow creationists like me to post here indefinitely (provided we don't break rules) -- it is obvious that people (including science teachers like Edmund) WANT people like me around to debate
                  2) Ban posters like Deadman and Occam's Aftershave from certain threads temporarily (like for a week) if they engage in abusive behavior.  Don't try to delete individual offensive posts all the time.  That's too much work.  Just make the rules clear and if they violate them, ban them from the thread for a week.  Pretty soon, they'll stop violating the rules.  Works great in Missouri with speeding tickets.  Works great with my kids, i.e. "time outs".

                  The result will be a nice, fairly polite, informative thread which contains points from both sides of the Evolution/Creation [non] Controversy.  :-)

                  You will find it to be quite boring around here without a good, intractable YEC ... but ... this is your forum, not mine.  If you want it to be a nice, sterile environment with no serious challenges to your beliefs, then that is exactly what you are entitled to have.

                  *********************************

                  I just noticed Alan Fox's post.  His blog title is this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Languedoc Diary: A neutral venue

                  A place where IDers and Darwinists can post without the chance of arbitrary deletion, (obscenity and spam excepted). Self-moderation is requested, no other moderation will be applied.
                  [URL=http://alanfox.blogspot.com/]http......p....tp >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... but he says this ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I'm not so sure. [if AFDave would be welcome]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Which is it, I wonder?

                  **********************************

                  DO DAVE'S FRIENDS KNOW ABOUT THIS THREAD?
                  Yes, they do.  I have told many friends about it ... problem is ... most of them are either too busy with work or school to post ... or, as in Dr. Sanford's case, he declined my invitation to come because he thinks it's a waste of time--he thinks people like you are too closed minded (I think you are stubborn, but not completely closed minded).  He did encourage me in promoting the information in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  He wants me to do a Dynamation on the subject at www.kids4truth.com similar to "The Watchmaker."
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 01 2007,07:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,07:47)
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD GENETIC DIVERSITY



                  Some folks here have claimed that 4500 years (the approximate time elapsed since the Biblical Flood) is nowhere near enough time to achieve the massive diversity we see in species today.

                  I say it's PLENTY of time and one of the most obvious proofs is DOGS.

                  I referred to this article from the BBC ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  They [research teams reporting in Science] conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  < http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2498669.stm >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  so if all the variation we see in modern dogs was there already 500 years ago, and all it took was selective breeding to bring it out, who was doing the selective breeding for all the other species on the earth for the last 5999 years then?

                  I.E you point to dogs as the example why your theory works, but the difference between dogs and almost every other animal on earth (except farmed animals and plants) is that humans have bred the dogs for various reasons (with strong selection pressures) yet nature would have "selected" whatever suited the enviromental pressures acting at the time.

                  My point is that human selection would act towards different ends then random selection, so you cannot use dogs  in this way.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  who did the intensive breeding for the last 5999 years then? What unknown to science process was this?
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 01 2007,08:38

                  Oldman ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  so if all the variation we see in modern dogs was there already 500 years ago, and all it took was selective breeding to bring it out, who was doing the selective breeding for all the other species on the earth for the last 5999 years then?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Keep in mind, we are only talking about kinds which had to be on the ark.  Woodmorappe says that the preponderance of evidence shows the created kind to be equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds).  If this is the case, he says only 2000 animals would have been required on the ark.  For his Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, he intentionally makes his problem more difficult by assuming 16,000 animals on the ark. (p.7).  I don't ask you to accept this yet, because I have not presented evidence for it.  I just mention it to help answer your question.  

                  And your answer is ... the other species were selected naturally as a result of rapid post-Flood migration and isolation due to various mechanisms including distance, physical features (such as mountain ranges), and bodies of water.  Note that there were land bridges prior to the end of the Ice Age because the oceans were lower, i.e. much water was frozen in the polar ice caps.

                  It is well known that a parent population with sufficient heterozygosity will diversify quickly WRT the parent population if broken down into smaller groups and isolated from each other.
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 01 2007,08:45

                  Woodmorappe is a known creationist crackpot AFD and lends no strength to your delusion.

                  The game is over, off you go to your redneck slum.
                  Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 01 2007,08:55



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Recombination

                  We have already introduced the term recombination. This term is widely used in many areas of practical and theoretical genetics, so it is absolutely necessary to be clear on its meaning at this stage. Recombination can occur in a variety of situations in addition to meiosis, but for the present we define it in relation to meiosis. To adapt the definition to other situations, we shall simply replace the words meiotic and meiosis with other appropriate terms.

                  Definition

                  Meiotic recombination is any meiotic process that generates a haploid product of meiosis whose genotype is different from the two haploid genotypes that constituted the meiotic diploid. The product of meiosis so generated is called a recombinant.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  -- Suzuki, Griffiths, & Lewontin, 1981, Introduction to Genetic Analysis (2nd edition), p.140.

                  Those meiotic processes mentioned include crossover and inversion. A little reflection should be sufficient to convince anyone able to understand genetic mechanisms that any genotype that can be generated by the application of a point mutation can also theoretically be produced by one or more recombination events in the presence of sufficient base-pair diversity. Recombination also does not respect reading frame boundaries, so recombination is (as implied above) fully able to produce novel alleles, and is not restricted to shuffling novelty produced solely by other mechanisms. Recombination is, further, a far more common event than point mutation. Noting that one mechanism of generating novel genotypes is more common than another seems to me quite sufficient reason to write in a way that treats those processes as distinct.

                  Seizing upon pedanticism to escape the inevitable observation that genetic variation, however it arises, is sufficient to give selection its needed scope seems to me to be a rather desperate and pathetic strategy.

                  As for the proposed rapid diversification needed to fit an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago, the example of dog breeds doesn't satisfy this. A conspicous lack of diversification of dental formula is seen among dog breeds; no matter what breed you look at, it has the usual canine dental formula. Since mammalian paleontology is based primarily upon dental characters, and one would need to explain how so many various mammalian dental formulas diversified in the limited period of post-flood time, it appears that the example of dog breeds goes primarily to establishing that longer time periods are needed for acquiring the observed diversity in this set of characters.


                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 01 2007,09:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,08:38)
                  And your answer is ... the other species were selected naturally as a result of rapid post-Flood migration and isolation due to various mechanisms including distance, physical features (such as mountain ranges), and bodies of water.  Note that there were land bridges prior to the end of the Ice Age because the oceans were lower, i.e. much water was frozen in the polar ice caps.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  these selection pressures sound very course grained to me, and unsuitable for turning 2000 animals from the arc into the millions of species we see around us today. What selection pressures, for example, are you talking about on a smaller scale?

                  Logically, if 2000 species can turn into 2 Million species (for example) in 5999 years, would we not expect to see new species appearing around us all the time?

                  And beetles are often found in the same areas, but can look totally different, what drove the speciation of these if their enviroment was almost identical (identical if we speak about such large scale features such as montains and enforced isolation)?
                  < >

                  And if 2000 kinds can turn into millions of species, would we not expect the isolated bird population's you've been mentioning alot recently (isloated by sailors 500 years ago) to have already diversified into thousands of species? Just like the beetles must have?

                  EDIT:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  It is well known that a parent population with sufficient heterozygosity will diversify quickly WRT the parent population if broken down into smaller groups and isolated from each other.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If this is well known, can you provide references that support this? And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 01 2007,09:35



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It can't end soon enough.
                  Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 01 2007,09:37

                  Did I mention it can't end soon enough?
                  Posted by: notta_skeptic on Jan. 01 2007,10:11

                  After reading this morning's posts, here's my mental image of Dave:



                  I echo giving Eric some sort of special recognition. Without advanced degrees, without practical lab experience in a scientific field, with grace, humor, and relentless persistance, Eric demolished every single one of Dave's claims with logic and clarity.

                  Eric, once again I ask you: How old would you be in six years if you pursued an advanced degree? And how old would you be if you didn't?

                  I think your ability to write and reason would be welcome at any magazine that writes science articles for the general public.

                  And thanks to the rest of you for the fun ride.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 01 2007,10:14

                  Oldman ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Millions of species" is not correct.  Just briefly ... this list from our friendly Wikipedia gives  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  1,250,000 animals, including:

                     * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
                           o 950,000 insects,
                           o 70,000 molluscs,
                           o 40,000 crustaceans,
                           o 130,200 others;
                     * 58,808 vertebrates:
                           o 29,300 fish,
                           o 5,743 amphibians,
                           o 8,240 reptiles,
                           o 9,934 birds,
                           o 5,416 mammals.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... of which only the mammals, birds and reptiles definitely had to be on the ark ... the others most likely did not.

                  So ... if this is correct, your "millions of modern species" becomes more like 23,000.

                  Pick a happy medium between Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark of say, 10,000 and you have approximately 5000 "kinds" on the ark.

                  This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.

                  Much more believable than 2000 >> Millions.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 01 2007,10:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,10:14)
                  Oldman ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Millions of species" is not correct.  Just briefly ... this list from our friendly Wikipedia gives      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  1,250,000 animals, including:

                     * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
                           o 950,000 insects,
                           o 70,000 molluscs,
                           o 40,000 crustaceans,
                           o 130,200 others;
                     * 58,808 vertebrates:
                           o 29,300 fish,
                           o 5,743 amphibians,
                           o 8,240 reptiles,
                           o 9,934 birds,
                           o 5,416 mammals.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... of which only the mammals, birds and reptiles definitely had to be on the ark ... the others most likely did not.

                  So ... if this is correct, your "millions of modern species" becomes more like 23,000.

                  Pick a happy medium between Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark of say, 10,000 and you have approximately 5000 "kinds" on the ark.

                  This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.

                  Much more believable than 2000 >> Millions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  but if the planet was covered in water, be it a mile or a foot deep, where did  950,000 species of insects live during that year? If they didnt need to be on the ark?

                  And was the water fresh or salty? Where did the fish go that salty/fresh water would kill?

                  What did the insects eat for a year while their normal food sources were underwater?

                  And I suppose, most obvious of all, why did only the species on the ark radiate out into many species?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Why didnt the other
                    * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
                           o 950,000 insects,
                           o 70,000 molluscs,
                           o 40,000 crustaceans,
                           o 130,200 others;
                    vertebrates:
                           o 29,300 fish,
                           o 5,743 amphibians,

                  also radiate out into 4x as many species too?

                  EDIT:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Each year, about 13,000 more species are added to the list of known organisms.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  If we discover 13,000 more a year, does this mean that at some point even you would accept that Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark will someday be too few to support known species today? Doubt it, but do you have a rational reason why not?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,10:59

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,05:47)
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD GENETIC DIVERSITY

                  Some folks here have claimed that 4500 years (the approximate time elapsed since the Biblical Flood) is nowhere near enough time to achieve the massive diversity we see in species today.

                  I say it's PLENTY of time and one of the most obvious proofs is DOGS.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, here's the real reason this thread is being shut down: because you have nothing new to say. And I can prove it. Here's why your "argument" of evolution using dogs is wrong:

                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 31 2006,09:44)
                  It's been explained to you dozens of times, to the point of stupidity, that there was no pre-existing information. Your "flood" took care of that. That you refuse, over and over and over again, to deal with this fatal flaw in your "argument" is all the evidence anyone would ever need that you are a lying fraud who brings discredit to Christianity.

                  You simply cannot preserve dozens or hundreds of different alleles in four slots. It simply cannot be done. Not matter how judicious Noah and his co-conspirators were in selecting the lottery winners for the cruise on the ark (what, did Noah take blood tests from all the animals in his copious free time while constructing the ark?), he still lost 99% of any pre-existing variability in every organism on the ark. You have never come up with any way to get around this fatal problem for your "hypothesis" that several thousand "kinds" on the ark diversified into several million species today. A species that goes through a single-breeding-pair bottleneck is lucky to survive. It has no chance of diversifying into an average of a thousand species in 4,500 years. In fact, even if a species doesn't go through a genetic bottleneck of any kind, it still stands no chance of diversifying into a thousand species in 4,500 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I posted this yesterday, Dave, and it completely refutes your "argument" re dogs. Yet you've never even addressed it. You just repeat your same stupid "argument."

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK: HOW COULD DIVERSITY BE RETAINED IN A SINGLE PAIR ON THE ARK?
                  I have already dealt with this topic and have cited many papers which support the fact that a single pair can easily be selected with a high enough degree of heterozygosity (H) to ensure a large degree of diversity after the bottleneck.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  No. Dave, your papers do not, in fact, support this position. The papers, as Deadman pointed out, support the exact opposite position, that genetic bottlenecks inevitably reduce heterozygosity, that's why they're called bottlenecks. A species is lucky to survive a genetic bottleneck, and there's simply no way any species can diversify into a thousand new species in 4,500 years even if it doesn't go through a genetic bottleneck.

                  Once again, you've never answered this question:

                  How can both of these statements be true:

                  • 4.5 billion years isn't nearly enough time to get from a few thousand species to a few million species.
                  • 4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species

                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,11:09

                  One more post to this thread, for three reasons:

                  1. To hurry along the execution.

                  2. To apologize for perhaps being more than a little cranky when I posted on the last page. (I've had to do that rather frequently, lately.  Sorry, UDoJ's been breaking out in a rash of TardTrolls, so blame them.  I refuse to accept responsibility for things that are clearly my own fault.  Goddidit.)  Seriously, I was a jerk (again), I admit it, I apologize, I'll try not to be a jerk again soon.

                  3. To re-emphasize something that may have gotten lost in my five-year-old-child-like tantrum.  Mucho Goodo Scienceo in this thread, if one takes the time to wade through the AFDaveTardosity.  I really have learned some neat things about all sorts of scientific topics.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 01 2007,12:32

                  Hurry Dave!

                  There's still time for you to

                  Explain why none of the dozens of independent C14 calibration methods show your 100X carbon spike 4500 years ago.

                  Explain how a 500' deep canyon can be carved in limestone, then buried under 17000' of sediment

                  Explain how two dozen sequentially buried mature forests, each with layers of paleosols between them, came to be in Yellowstone

                  Explain how the continents raced around at 100+ MPH then stopped without generating enough heat energy to vaporize everything on the planet

                  Explain where the post-flood scavengers came from, the ones you say ate all those flood carcasses.


                  Finally, we get this desperate sobbing

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  (LiarDave):  I do believe that part of the reason Steve wants this thread shut down is because of posters like Deadman and Occam's Aftershave who have both been told to tone it down.

                  (snip quote from stevestory)

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Davie, that was almost four month ago.  Everyone did 'tone it down', and for four months you've continued to post your lies, evasions, and arrogant denials of reality.

                  Anyone remember how sensitive flower Davie first swaggered in here and bragged about how he had such a thick skin from hanging out in the bar with real fighter pilots?   :D  :D  :D :D :D
                  One more empty claim from Dave 'Big Pussy' Hawkins, the master of baseless bullsh*t.

                  ASIDE:  I too have to give some recognition to ericmurphy, for pulverizing IdiotDave's arguments with such thorough regularity. Eric, you've got some serious horsepower between those ears, and a great clear writing style.  Listen to Notta's advice - Neil deGrasse Tyson has to retire sometime  ;)
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 01 2007,12:41

                  GUYS ... YOU ARE BLINDLY CHEERING ERIC ... AND FALLING INTO HOLES

                  Wordiness does not a scientist make.

                  Last time I checked, science was about searching for the TRUTH about the natural world.  In all your cheering for Eric, have you not noticed that he simply asserts things, often with no support, then chastises me for doing the same in spite of the fact that I DO support what I say?

                  I won't waste space listing all the examples.  The latest one was the AiG Finance Gaffe.

                  Now this nonsense ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric] You simply cannot preserve dozens or hundreds of different alleles in four slots. It simply cannot be done. Not matter how judicious Noah and his co-conspirators were in selecting the lottery winners for the cruise on the ark (what, did Noah take blood tests from all the animals in his copious free time while constructing the ark?), he still lost 99% of any pre-existing variability in every organism on the ark. You have never come up with any way to get around this fatal problem for your "hypothesis" that several thousand "kinds" on the ark diversified into several million species today. A species that goes through a single-breeding-pair bottleneck is lucky to survive. It has no chance of diversifying into an average of a thousand species in 4,500 years. In fact, even if a species doesn't go through a genetic bottleneck of any kind, it still stands no chance of diversifying into a thousand species in 4,500 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No support whatsoever.  Not even an abstract from a paper, much less the whole paper.  Total disregard for all the scientific papers I cited supporting the opposite of what he says. Blood tests?  What in the world does that have to do with it?  Then he says      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric again] I posted this yesterday, Dave, and it completely refutes your "argument" re dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... and people read this kind of stuff and give him "awards" !!  :D :D :D :D :D

                  (not everyone is this gullible ... I am digesting Wesley's piece ... and Oldman has some good questions)

                  ERIC HAS A VERY LARGE KNOWLEDGE GAP IN BASIC GENETICS
                  He thinks you have to have a large population to have large diversity.

                  You do not.

                  All you need is ONE PAIR, provided that H is a reasonable value.

                  Do a Google Scholar search on the phrase "Increased genetic variance after a population bottleneck"

                  ... and see what you get.

                  I will write more on this, but this will get your brains started ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Genetic change after colonization
                  Journal GeoJournal
                  Publisher Springer Netherlands
                  ISSN 0343-2521 (Print) 1572-9893 (Online)
                  Subject Earth and Environmental Science
                  Issue Volume 28, Number 2 / October, 1992
                  DOI 10.1007/BF00177245
                  Pages 297-302
                  SpringerLink Date Wednesday, October 27, 2004

                  Add to marked items
                  Add to saved items
                  Recommend this article

                  Genetic change after colonization

                  Hampton L. Carson1
                  (1) Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology, University of Hawaii, 96822 Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

                  Abstract  Consideration is given to the case of a daughter population of a sexual species that becomes successfully established in an area previously lacking that species, as has occurred recently in the Krakataus. If the new area is isolated geographically and if the number of founder individuals is small, conventional wisdom foresees a reduction of genetic variability within the colony.

                  [Conventional wisdom, right ... i.e. Eric and his YES-people like NottaSkeptic, for example]

                  This might obstruct genetic adjustment to new conditions. Recent studies of the genetics of such bottlenecked populations, however, show that, in some instances, genetic variability for quantitative traits may actually increase rather than decrease after a bottleneck event. Whereas loss of some quasi-neutral biochemical alleles may occur, the quantitative polygenic balances on which adaptation depends can be carried through the bottleneck into the new population. Novel phenotypes may result from natural selection during the generations that immediately follow the bottleneck. Growing shield volcanoes in particular show rapid turnover of their surfaces such that organisms surviving there must continually recolonize or become extinct. Such species, existing as metapopulations, should be prone to bottleneck effects that produce genetic shifts. Examples are given from Drosophila silvestris on the island of Hawaii. The relevance of such genetic shifts to population structure and evolutionary change in populations is discussed, emphasizing the probable role of metapopulation structure.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Hmmmm ... conventional wisdom is wrong, huh?  Could it be?

                  Novel phenotypes?  Genetic variability can INCREASE??  What??!!  Lordy, bless my soul!!

                  How can Eric be wrong ... he's the MVD!!!!!!!!
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,12:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,12:41)
                  Wordiness does not a scientist make.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  :D
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 01 2007,12:53

                  Link for above article ...
                  <a href=""http://www.springerlink.com/content/j14n072115244k35/" target="_blank">http://www.springerlink.com/content/j14n072115244k35/</a>
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 01 2007,12:55

                  Well, as we roll credits, this'll be my scrolling entry.

                  Eric most certainly deserves the laurel for lucid and persevering arguments. Outside Dave himself, he did the best job of exposing the abhorrent mockery of reason and sense that Dave's "CGH" embodies. I've also really enjoyed the posts by Mike, Faid, jeannot and Deadman (plus many others), and the poetic interludes by ke.

                  Now Dave, my last question to you will encompass the Human-Chimp-Gorilla genetic differences that we've discussed in detail throughout this thread and your latest, "Dogs Dogs Dogs FAMILIES" tripe. Can you please tell the world (I will no longer be replying directly) by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems? Face it, Dave -- you have no idea what the genetic variation within an actual taxonomic family actually looks like, nor how it compares to your already delineated boundaries for humans. If your argument had any real-world weight to it (i.e., observable phenomena independent of scripture), you would be forced to conclude that Adam and Eve probably looked like Koko.

                  If you don't like that question (and it is a tough one, Dave), perhaps just confirm this one with a simple yes or no: You (afdave) believe that practically ALL genetic variation found in ALL currently existing dog breeds (simply recombinations of the original material, minus an infinitesimal fraction due to harmful mutations) was originally localized within two founding individuals. Dave, as far as I can tell, that is a faithful representation of your "argument", so you should have no trouble confirming it as your belief. Of course, while I encourage you to do so, you probably won't, since you must suspect a trap and already be seeking your usual cowardly exit. It IS a trap, Dave, but a very simple one of your own devising with no hidden mechanism. I'll tell you right now that if you confirm that statement, anyone with any understanding whatsoever of genetics and/or the history of human domestication will immediately see the inanity of your position. But it IS your position, Dave.

                  Good luck in your future endeavours, Dave. Of course, I don't actually want you to succeed in your ludicrous efforts toward indoctrination, but you've given me so little cause to believe that you could convince any thinking human being of anything (including children) that I can, in good conscience, wish you the best.
                  Posted by: deejay on Jan. 01 2007,13:09

                  Delurking to offer a few thoughts on the end of this thread.

                  Dave's rants got stale for me a long time ago, and I only learned about this thread’s impending demise through the Evolution/Creationism discussion board thread.  I was around at the beginning, back when AFD first appeared on the Thumb to demand short synopses of why people here accepted the evidence for evolution.  In the interests of having a few posts at the end of this thread summing things up, perhaps Dave should be held to that same standard, and maybe he could encapsulate all that “evidence” he has provided for his UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis.

                  Of course, as was noted in response to Dave’s initial request, evidence for evolution doesn’t lend itself to a summary in a glib paragraph or two.  The discussion has to be expanded, and expanding the discussion into irrelevant tangents went a long way to creating such a ongoing train wreck of a thread.  But if there was one benefit to those irrelevant tangents, it was that they showed that Dave was incapable of offering evidence or understanding argument for just about any area of discussion the thread wandered to.  I knew from his first post that Dave would be in way over his head with the science, but that whole discussion on Portuguese was just priceless.  The thread could have been shut down after that.  And please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall seeing any evidence to support an UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis in here, and that’s the best reason to close things down.

                  The worst thing about the ongoing discussion is that it merely feeds Dave’s deluded abilities about himself.  



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think they never expected me to be so tenacious, be so popular and cause such a stir.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                         

                  Dave, if you think you are causing such a stir, I strongly suggest that you continue the discussion on your own blog.  The skeptics will gladly follow you there.  If you ever complain about treatment from the moderators here, you need to remember that they have set an incredibly high standard for you to uphold.  I defy you to allow 11,000 comments from them.  After that, you can complain all you want.

                  And huge props to all those who took the time to debunk Dave’s claims.  I learned a lot about geology in particular, even if Dave didn’t.  I'll also echo those who urge Eric to pursue something bigger after serving such an intensive apprenticeship here.  To quote the Beastie Boys: “A slight distraction can get you paid.”
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Jan. 01 2007,13:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Last time I checked, science was about searching for the TRUTH about the natural world.  In all your cheering for Eric, have you not noticed that he simply asserts things, often with no support, then chastises me for doing the same in spite of the fact that I DO support what I say?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Since I cannot see you Dave, It's impossible for me to tell whether you are 'saying' that with a stright face.  If you are then delusional is the only word I can apply to you.

                  Come on, Dave, it will only take a couple of seconds.  How do you define 'Hi-tech' in your silly comparison?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,14:05

                  Variation is not speciation.

                  VARIATION IS NOT SPECIATION

                  VARIATION IS NOT SPECIATION

                  VARIATION WITHIN A GIVEN SPECIES...IS NOT SPECIATION.

                  Beyond the obvious evidence that says quite clearly that life on Earth and the Earth itself is FAR, FAR older than you'd want, Dave..you have this little problem:

                  Your scenario calls for a small number of breeding pairs to give rise to millions ( yes, millions...you didn't include plants, bacteria or fungi)  of SPECIES not varieties.

                  I agree that SOME **less-complex rapidly breeding** species like drosophilia ( fruitflies) can successfully move through a bottleneck and diversify...this is not in question. But finches are not fruitflies, nor are crocodilians fruitflies, and cacti are not fruitflies.

                  But you need SPECIES, and lots of them...NOT JUST VARIATIONAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A SPECIES.

                  Yes, Dave, phenotypic and developmental plasticity IN a species can allow humans to breed FOR or AGAINST VARIATIONAL TRAITS in dogs...THIS IS TRIVIAL

                  BUT DAVE..WE DON'T BREED MORE **SPECIES** OF NOT-DOGS. YOU NEED SPECIES AND YOU NEED THEM IN 2300 YEARS.
                  WHY DON'T WE SEE ANIMALS CAPABLE OF THIS TODAY?

                  WHY DON'T WE SEE IT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD...???

                  WHY DON'T WE SEE BRED DOGS TODAY BECOMING HYENAS OR CAPE HUNTING DOGS OR DHOLES OR BUSH "DOGS"...NONE OF WHICH CAN INTERBREED WITH LITTLE FIFI THE POODLE?

                  WHY DO DHOLES AND WOLVES HAVE DIFFERENT CHROMOSOME NUMBERS AND CANNOT INTERBREED? WHERE DID THOSE CHROMOSOMES COME FROM OR VANISH TO IN 2300 YEARS?

                  WHY DO DHOLES HAVE A UNIQUE DENTAL PATTERN AMOND CANIDS? 40 TOTAL TEETH AND ONLY TWO MOLARS???

                  CAN WE NOW BREED OUT WISDOM TEETH THAT KILL HUMANS WITHOUT DENTISTRY????

                  Oh, and Dave, where's the answers to the first of the 50 questions in the list I gave you? You sure haven't posted them...nor will you, huh?

                  Oh, and Dave? you have additional problems. See, your scenario means that you have to include ALL FOSSIL MAMMALS. (remember, you have DINOSAURS ON YOUR ARK, so fossil mammals MUST be included, right?)  HERE'S A SMALL LIST THAT YOU BETTER ACCOUNT FOR:

                  Partial List of Known Prehistoric Mammals that have to be accounted for on that big ol' Ark:  http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/pal_list.htm
                  Agriochoerus, Allocyon , Allomyine, Alticamelus alexandrae, American Camel, American mastodon, American Scimitar Cat, Antilocaprid, Aplodontids, Archaeohippus, Archaeotherium, Baluchiterium, Basilosauridae, Barbourofelis, Brontotherids, Camelops, Canimartes, Canis rurestris, Castorocauda,  Chalicotherium, Columbian mammoth, Coryphodon, Desmatochoerinae, Diceratheres, Dinictis, Entelodontidae, Entoptychine, Eohippus, Eporeodon, Equus occidentalia, Equus shoshoensis, Florentiamys lulli, Four-tusked Elephant, Geomyoid rodents, Giant Beaver, Giant Irish Elk, Giant short-faced bear, Giraffe Camel, Haplomys, Harlan's ground sloth, Hemipsalodon grandis, hyaenarctid bear, Hypertragalus, Hypolagus, Hypotemnodon, Hyrachyrus, Indarctus, Jefferson's Ground Sloth, Leptarctus, Mammothus, Megatherium americanum, Megazostrodon, Meniscomyine, Merychippus, Merychyinae, Merycoidodontidae, Mesohippus, Micropternodus, Microtines, Moropus , Mylagaulodon, Nannodectes, Nimravus, Novumbra oregonensis, Ondatrini, Ophiomys, Oreodonts, Palaeoesox fritzschei, Paratylopus cameloides, Perchoerus, Periptychus, Phenacocoelinae, Phobosuchus riograndensis, Plesiadapis, Pleurolicine, Pliohippus, Pogonodon platycopis, Pratilepus, Promerycochoerinae, Prosthennops, Protapirus robustus, Purgatorius, Sabertooth Cat, Scapanus, Simidectes, Tadarida constantinei, Teletaceras radinskyi, Temnocyon ferox, Thylacoleo carnifex, Ticholeptinae, Uintacyon, Uintatherium robustum, Viverravus, Wilmington’s Giant Ground Sloth, Zalambdalestes,  etc., etc.
                  with thousands more recognized ( see list at < http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/pal_list.htm > ) , along with all HISTORICALLY known mammals ...and  prehistoric reptiles < http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/pal_reptiles.htm > AND Dinosaurs (which DimDave says survived the flood ON the ark) ..AND amphibians ( that can't live in water for a year)...  --all fed and cleaned up after by 8 people for a year!!?!?!

                  What "kind" is a Uintatherium? Go look at it's skeleton...How about Chalicotheres? Why do these things as big as horses have claws? Baluchitheres bigger than ELEPHANTS?!?! WHAT "KIND" IS THAT?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,14:28

                  And Dave? You didn't answer any of the questions I gave to you previously. THIS alone...this pretense at "debate" that you keep playing at ...is enough for me to want you to go whine elsewhere.

                  It's funny that you called me a "militant" evolutionist...when in fact, I'm quite open to new developments in evolutionary theory, and I'm intrigued by evo-devo and other emerging data. But YOU term me militant because I don't buy YOUR crap and I argue against it. YOU told another person that it was okay for YOU to be abusive "towards the Pharisees" but whine about my use of words...not because you never abuse others, but because you don't like it directed at you, and you wish to sow disagreement.

                  You're as spineless and transparent of a human as I've ever seen. Now, how about answering some of the questions YOU were given?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 01 2007,14:48

                  Too bad that in his 1400 posts, AFDave never put forth an actual hypothesis. YEC hypotheses are hilarious. Check out this one from the Wikipedia page on Kent "CB4" Hovind:



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Hovind Theory

                  Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Creationism into the self titled “Hovind Theory."[55] He acknowledges many contributors to his theory, but claims that if it be proven false then he will personally take the blame. The theory includes a literal reading of the Biblical acount of Noah: Noah's family and two of every animal (including dinosaurs[56]) safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° Fahrenheit (~-184°C) ice meteor came flying toward the Earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the North and South Poles of the earth.

                  The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the Mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. Also this made "the earth wobble around for a few thousand years" and it made the canopy collapse that used to protect the earth and opened up the fountains of the deep.

                  During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants got buried, and became coal if they’re plants and oil if they’re animals. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind claims that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time.[57] After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.

                  This "theory" has been criticized for being supported by false and/or misleading evidence.[58] The vast majority of scientists do not take Hovind's work seriously and do not agree with his interpretation of the facts.[59]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "...the majority of scientists pointed out that they don't much care for theories which are less detailed and accurate than an episode of Captain Caveman."
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,14:51

                  The strength/breadth/robustness of a theory is at least partially determined by it's ability to withstand intense scrutiny and criticism.

                  In these thousands of posts, each and every one of Dave's major criticisms have been addressed.

                  Each and every one of Dave's relevant questions were  answered. Care was given to ensure that the responses were clear and sufficient to encompass his objections.

                  Dave did not and cannot do the same regarding questions about his delusional version of life on this planet.

                  The evidence supporting evolution far outweighs Dave's objections/criticism...AND is easily superior to his non-existent ability to support his own "theory that is better than any other."

                  THAT is the bottom line.

                  Dave CANNOT and WILL not answer the questions posed to him over just the last 3 pages, much less those scattered throughout the hundreds of pages here in his threads.

                  Plus this post just hastens his departure. :)
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,14:54

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2007,14:48)
                  "...the majority of scientists pointed out that they don't much care for theories which are less detailed and accurate than an episode of Captain Caveman."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Crap.  Sorry to hear that.

                  I was going to publish a book called "God Took A Leak", which would be just as supported by the evidence as AFDave's "hypothesis" AFAICT.

                  That Captain Caveman quote is priceless, and needs to be repeated everywhere.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 01 2007,15:06

                  It's a shame that in the 8 months AFDave's been here making a fool of himself, he could have completely read a Biology 101 textbook and a Geology 101 textbook.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 01 2007,15:06

                  Hey!  I liked Cavey on the Saturday morning cartoon-fests!



                  and he was at least twice as coherent as ArrogantFoolDave!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,15:13

                  Lou: I don't think you were cranky at all earlier. "Cranky" was eric lodging his boot in Dave's upper digestive tract day after day. Plus it was funny.

                  My own disclaimer would be that I didn't give enough praise to everyone who posted -- for increasing my knowledge, my store of amusing phrases/wordplay/insults and for making me more optimistic about things, even as I wanted to weep over the loss of the baiji Chinese river dolphin.

                  Then the thing that pisses me off is that Dave's claim would imply..." hey, we can BREED MORE  river dolphins from the inherent variation found in ANY two dolphins." Freakin' idiot. You're just a symptom of the disease, Dave.

                  That's why I'm taking up your alloted posts.
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 01 2007,15:14

                  If you want to try core sampling (including dendro, Ice, varves, etc., I'll open a thread on my blog. brainwashedgod.blogspot.com

                  One topic threads though. Vit. C gene? Portuguese? American Atheist xian founders? Surew. One topic

                  Happy new year everyone. Very entertaining. Oh my aching head.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,15:16

                  Steve, get your own domain name - Stevepedia, where you paraphrase Wikipedia to get down to the brass tacks.

                  People would pay good money to support such a thing.

                  I'd love to see your article on DaveyDoodles here.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,15:25

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 01 2007,15:13)
                  Lou: I don't think you were cranky at all earlier. "Cranky" was eric lodging his boot in Dave's upper digestive tract day after day. Plus it was funny.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well thanks, but I was feeling rather uncharitable (to understate reality shamefully) at the time.

                  I'm glad you found it funny.  I gotta play to my strengths, and the actual scientists + eric in this thread outshine my scientific knowledge by orders of magnitude.

                  Wise cracks, I can do.  (Well, I crack myself up, anyway.)

                  And now that this thread is gasping its last, desperate breath, you all have re-addicted me.

                  ihateyouall.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,16:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,05:47)
                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
                  I think I have done a very good job answering questions here at this forum.  I have even begun working through the "Deadman 50 List" in spite of the fact that Deadman is one of the most viscious posters at ATBC.  He is quite the poster boy for "Militant Evolutionist."  I think I have made it through Question 12 or so and we'll see how many more I can hit before Post #5000.  I won't have time to get to the Ice Age, Ice Cores, C14 Calibration, Parasites, the Tower of Babel, Egypt and China, the Pyramids and Early Technology, the Prophecies of Daniel and other such fun stuff before Post #5000, but I will probably get to them eventually at whatever forum I end up going to.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're pathetic. You haven't "answered" any of the questions on Deadman's list. Sure, you've spewed some words in the general direction, but none of them amount to an actual answer, not even an "I don't know."

                  Look at the sorts of questions you haven't been able to answer. You don't know where your floodwaters came from ("fountains of the deep" isn't an answer). You have no idea where they went. You don't even know if they were freshwater or seawater. You don't even really know how deep the waters were. You just pulled a figure (5,500 feet) out of your butt, without reference to any sort of evidence or even calculations. You can't define a "kind." You can't say, within even an order of magnitude, how many "kinds" were on the ark, or which ones they were. You can't explain how you could get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million (yes, million) species. You have no explanation for how organisms that can only live in polar climates ended up in the Middle East for Noah to herd onto his ark. You have no explanation for the explosive increase in biodiversity over the past 4,500 years your "hypothesis" requires, nor do you have any answer for why a similar increase in biodiversity over a million times as much time is impossible. You have no explanation for the existence of the sun, or how photons from its core could even get to its surface. You can't explain anything in the universe that's more than 6,000 light years away. You don't have a clue why there's no naturally-occurring Plutonium 239. You have no explanation for the decay products of U-238, or even U-235. The questions go on and on and on and on.
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think Wesley and Steve do a good job here with this forum and I appreciate the opportunity that I have had to post here.  

                  I do believe that part of the reason Steve wants this thread shut down is because of posters like Deadman and Occam's Aftershave who have both been told to tone it down.  
                  On the other hand, I'm getting some email saying "shut down the thread, because it's driving the pro-science folks to look like jerks." so maybe there's something to the idea. The person who said this is correct but they should have said "pro-evolution" folks, not "pro-science" folks.

                  It is true.  This thread is making some "pro-Evolution" folks look like jerks.  Which, of course, helps the Creationist cause.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, the reason this thread is getting shut down is primarily because you haven't been able to support a single assertion you've made in over 1,400 posts, and if you haven't been able to do it by now, you'll never be able to do it. Yes, it's true, your ignorance and pig-headed arrogance do cause people to lose their temper here, and that's a valid reason to shut down the thread. But I can guarantee you, if you were making any sort of progress whatsoever in supporting your "hypothesis," there's no way SteveStory would be shutting down the thread.

                  And no, Dave, the correct wording is not "pro-science." You think you're pro-science, but that's by far the most proposterous belief you've ever stated here. You have no understanding of science, no appreciation for its methodology, and you dismiss 99% of all the scientific work that has ever been done, because it conflicts with your worldview. You reject 100% of cosmology, the vast majority of astronomy and astrophysics, huge swaths of quantum physics, chemistry, geology, all of paleontology, all of anthropology, virtually all of archaeology, you don't have a freaking clue about genetics or information theory; it's hard to find an area of science that you don't dismiss.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DO DAVE'S FRIENDS KNOW ABOUT THIS THREAD?
                  Yes, they do.  I have told many friends about it ... problem is ... most of them are either too busy with work or school to post ... or, as in Dr. Sanford's case, he declined my invitation to come because he thinks it's a waste of time--he thinks people like you are too closed minded (I think you are stubborn, but not completely closed minded).  He did encourage me in promoting the information in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  He wants me to do a Dynamation on the subject at www.kids4truth.com similar to "The Watchmaker."
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Strange, then, that in the eight months this thread has been going, exactly one of your friends came by, said nothing by way of support for anything you've said, posted a few messages containing the same creationist drivel we've heard a million times before, and never came back.

                  Not much to show for over 1,400 posts, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,16:15

                  Quote (notta_skeptic @ Jan. 01 2007,08:11)
                  Eric, once again I ask you: How old would you be in six years if you pursued an advanced degree? And how old would you be if you didn't?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, it would be more like twelve years. Remember; I don't have an undergraduate degree; not even an associate's degree. And I have to support myself. I can't imagine I could get a BS in less than five or six years. Then, if I were to get a graduate degree, it would probably be in astronomy, my first love, which is a six-year program.

                  Twelve years from now I'll be almost sixty. Yikes! Did I just say that?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 01 2007,16:38

                  Preface:

                  I am sure I missed several people in the following poem.  Sorry if it was you.  I tried to include as many names as I could remember.

                  Now, keeping in mind my disclaimer, here is the:

                  Ode to AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis

                  One day the Hawk found a magic scroll
                  With magic reading glasses beside
                  And he read and read and read and read
                  To learn the truth inside

                  And as he read he understood
                  For the very first time
                  That up was down and down was up
                  And to not teach this was a crime

                  So he began to teach his truth
                  Seen only through glasses and scroll
                  To little children, just 8 years old
                  And forums he did troll

                  The Hawk then took his magic scroll
                  And flew it to the bar
                  To tell scientists and lurkers there
                  The truth he learned afar

                  He challenged them to debate him on
                  The preachings of the scroll
                  Telling storied Steve and Dr. Murph
                  This truth would save their soul

                  So people came from far and wide
                  To witness the debate
                  ke assembled himself from rhyme
                  Kristine shimmied in late

                  Lou showed up with both the girls
                  Ambiguous sexuality and all
                  Old Man in the Sky was there
                  Occam’s toiletries joined the ball

                  Deadman brought an ancient skull
                  Shirley brought a hug
                  Arden looked like Fred Murtz
                  Dickie Hughes brought a pet bug

                  Louis flew from 'cross the pond
                  Mike came from project Steve
                  And Steve brought his long pin head
                  Russell said he'd have to leave

                  JuJuquisp came as the bat boy
                  Along with at least one crank
                  And just to guarantee expertise
                  Came Rev. Dr. Flank

                  Bob OH Bob was there as well
                  Along with his friend Faid
                  Blipey was their backup
                  Or at least that's what he said

                  Several came without a name
                  People like BWE
                  another two without a name
                  MCC and GCT

                  Icthyic came with smell of fish
                  Seizure stopped his salad tossing
                  Carlsonjok rode in on his steed
                  Stopped at every crossing

                  Midnight Voice spoke loud and clear
                  At any time of day
                  Stephen Elliot used his real name
                  Jeannot, French to the fray

                  Crabby brought apples by the ton
                  To strengthen and refresh
                  The Keiths all came down from the hills
                  Hundreds in the flesh

                  The knighted earl of dirty toes
                  Brought his funky self
                  JonF came without his H
                  Left home on the shelf

                  Wesley with his fuzzy face
                  Agreed to host the competition
                  And lurkers gathered round the ring
                  To watch Hawk try his mission

                  Up is down and down is up
                  Proclaimed Hawk to the crowd
                  No one can prove me wrong
                  No one here I vow

                  Dr. Murph with oversized head
                  To protect his mighty brain
                  Said Hawk you hold it right there
                  You talk like you’re insane

                  I’m not insane I know it’s true
                  It’s written on the scroll
                  look through these magic glasses
                  And this truth you will also know

                  Dr. Murph with patience great
                  Began at the beginning
                  Showing the Hawk why up is up
                  It left Hawk’s brain a spinning

                  Take off the glasses on your nose
                  Pleaded Murph to Hawk’s thick brain
                  Without the glasses you will see
                  It’s always been the same

                  But if up is up and down is down
                  Where does that leave my god?
                  The magic of the scroll proclaims
                  Up is up is just façade

                  So on and on the debate did rage
                  Through spring, summer and fall
                  ‘till finally storied Steve stepped in
                  This has gone on far too long

                  Hawk has no evidence or facts
                  Nothing new since debate arose
                  And with those glasses cannot see
                  Anything beyond his nose

                  As Hawk looked through his glasses thick
                  It looked just the opposite to him
                  Everyone else could see he lost
                  His glasses proclaimed a win

                  The lurkers just shook their heads
                  A few of them did uncloak
                  Feeling sorry for the Hawkish man
                  Having pity on the bloke

                  So Hawk flew way to his special place
                  The Truth 4 Kids big hall
                  And everyone else let an empty sigh
                  Hawk didn’t learn anything at all

                  So let this be a story now
                  To people young and old
                  Up is up and down is down
                  No matter what the scrolls
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,16:42

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,08:14)
                  Oldman ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And presumably these references will support 2000 species into millions in <5999 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  "Millions of species" is not correct.  Just briefly ... this list from our friendly Wikipedia gives          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  1,250,000 animals, including:

                     * 1,190,200 invertebrates:
                           o 950,000 insects,
                           o 70,000 molluscs,
                           o 40,000 crustaceans,
                           o 130,200 others;
                     * 58,808 vertebrates:
                           o 29,300 fish,
                           o 5,743 amphibians,
                           o 8,240 reptiles,
                           o 9,934 birds,
                           o 5,416 mammals.

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... of which only the mammals, birds and reptiles definitely had to be on the ark ... the others most likely did not.

                  So ... if this is correct, your "millions of modern species" becomes more like 23,000.

                  Pick a happy medium between Woodmorappe's 2000 and 16,000 animals on the ark of say, 10,000 and you have approximately 5000 "kinds" on the ark.

                  This means 5000 "kinds" diversifies to 23,000 species in 4500 years.

                  Much more believable than 2000 >> Millions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nice try, Dave.

                  All of the insects were gone after a year immersed in a mile of water. All of them. Unless they were on the ark. If you can find me an insect that can live for a year underwater with no food, then you're entitled to say that insect could have survived the flood. Which species of beetles can survive a year underwater and without food, Dave? There are 300,000 species of beetles today. How many were on the ark? 3,000 "kinds"? Because even if there were, each one would have to radiate into a thousand species today. Did Noah spend all his time collecting beetles?

                  How about butterflies, Dave? Can butterflies live underwater? Maybe they can stay aloft for a year without food? You do know what butterflies eat, right, Dave? Were there flowers growing up through a mile of water? There are eleven thousand species of butterflies and moths today. How many were on the ark?

                  Ants, Dave. 12,000 species of ants in existence today. How many of them can live a mile underwater for a year? Or were they doing the backstroke for a year with no food? How many different "kinds" of ants were on the ark, Dave?

                  I could go on and on. Since you've never been able to answer whether the "flood" waters were freshwater or seawater, I'll answer that one for you. It was fresh water, Dave. It fell as rain, right? Have you ever seen saltwater rain? So a mile-thick layer of fresh water dilutes the oceans' salinity by, say, 30%. That would sterilize the seas, Dave. There are 30,000 species of saltwater fish in existence today. How many of them could have survived a year in water only 60% as salty as it is today? How many of them were belly-up after a year of living in barely brackish water? Or maybe Noah kept a few onboard, and kept the penguins from eating them.

                  What about all those marine invertebrates? How many coastal molluscs (70,000 species) do you think survived being a mile deeper in water than they're adapted to? Fresh water, Dave. An extra mile of it. How many clams were there on the ark?

                  Lobsters, Dave? Or the other 40,000 species of crustaceans? Do you think Alaskan King Crabs could live a mile deeper in (fresh) water than they were adapted to?

                  How do you think those reptiles survived a year underwater, Dave? You do know that, e.g., crocodiles are not deep-sea reptiles like sea turtles, don't you? Do you think a crocodile could survive a year at sea? There were no intertidal zones, no rivers, no lakes, nothing but deep blue-water ocean over the entire planet.

                  How about land plants, Dave? You wikipedia chart doesn't even list plants. How many land plants can survive a year's immersion in a mile of water, Dave? How many of the more than a million species of plants survived the flood? How many of them were on the ark? Where did Noah store all those seeds? And where did he plant them? He managed to get coastal redwoods and sequoias planted on the west coast of the United States? How did manage that, with North America rushing away from the Middle East at hundreds of miles an hour?

                  Further, your list includes only identified species, Dave. The actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher. How many of the organisms (probably millions of individual species) that are adapted to life in equitorial rainforests could survive a year at sea with no food or water? Do you think O. sumatrana can live for a year at the bottom of the sea?

                  Dave, your "flood" was a slate-wiper to make the comet at the K/T boundary look like an isolated brush fire. Virtually everything would have died. Probably almost everything on the ark died. You think Noah had room for a few thousand "kinds," many of whom eat very specialized diets, plus a year's supply of food for them? Noah would have been pitching dead critters over the side every day, for the entire year. It's unlikely even 5% of them could have survived the year.

                  It's still millions of species, Dave.

                  And you still haven't explained why 4,500 years is more time than 4,500,000,000 years. You still haven't explained why 4,500 years is more than enough time to get from 2,000 "kinds" to millions of species, but a million times longer isn't remotely enough to get from thousands of species to millions of species.

                  It's a simple question, Dave. But you're utterly, desperately clueless as to how to answer it.

                  But the truth of the matter is, even getting from 2,000 "kinds" to 23,000 species is still impossible. 4,500 years isn't remotely enough to have biodiversity increase by a factor of ten. You have absolutely zero evidence that biodiversity is any higher now than it was 4,500 years ago, or at any time since.

                  And—and here's the kicker—your own "hypothesis" predicts massive die-offs in the intervening time as complex genomes degenerated, driving most complex eukaryotes to extinction in as little as 300 generations, or less than 500 years!
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 01 2007,16:47

                  Hey dave, here's a question that I asked your heroes at AiG.  They ran away from it.  Let's see if you do too.

                  *ahem*
                  According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the  creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

                  But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now.

                  That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

                  But wait -- there's more:

                  Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory", all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

                  But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .

                  Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

                  But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .

                  In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

                  If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.

                  Explain, please . . . . . ?
                  Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 01 2007,16:54

                  I knew Eric would come through on "kinds" in the ark.  He did a great job with the "insect kind."

                  My personal interest is in the 'skeeters.  Those marvelous vectors of malaria, yellow fever, etc. etc.

                  I sure would appreciate knowing how those delicate creatures survived the flood.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,16:55

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 01 2007,10:41)
                  GUYS ... YOU ARE BLINDLY CHEERING ERIC ... AND FALLING INTO HOLES

                  Wordiness does not a scientist make.

                  Last time I checked, science was about searching for the TRUTH about the natural world.  In all your cheering for Eric, have you not noticed that he simply asserts things, often with no support, then chastises me for doing the same in spite of the fact that I DO support what I say?

                  I won't waste space listing all the examples.  The latest one was the AiG Finance Gaffe.

                  Now this nonsense ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric] You simply cannot preserve dozens or hundreds of different alleles in four slots. It simply cannot be done. Not matter how judicious Noah and his co-conspirators were in selecting the lottery winners for the cruise on the ark (what, did Noah take blood tests from all the animals in his copious free time while constructing the ark?), he still lost 99% of any pre-existing variability in every organism on the ark. You have never come up with any way to get around this fatal problem for your "hypothesis" that several thousand "kinds" on the ark diversified into several million species today. A species that goes through a single-breeding-pair bottleneck is lucky to survive. It has no chance of diversifying into an average of a thousand species in 4,500 years. In fact, even if a species doesn't go through a genetic bottleneck of any kind, it still stands no chance of diversifying into a thousand species in 4,500 years.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No support whatsoever.  Not even an abstract from a paper, much less the whole paper.  Total disregard for all the scientific papers I cited supporting the opposite of what he says. Blood tests?  What in the world does that have to do with it?  Then he says          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Eric again] I posted this yesterday, Dave, and it completely refutes your "argument" re dogs.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ... and people read this kind of stuff and give him "awards" !!  :D :D :D :D :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, what kind of support do you think I need for the assertion that you cannot fit a dozen alleles into four slots? What kind of support would I need to support the claim that you can't fit six batteries into a flashlight that only holds four?

                  I don't need to cite authorities for these sorts of assertions, Dave. All it takes is logic. Nothing more.

                  I don't need to cite any scientific papers at all, Dave, in support of the assertion that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any one gene. It's simply impossible. What kind of paper do you think I would need to cite to support such a claim?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ERIC HAS A VERY LARGE KNOWLEDGE GAP IN BASIC GENETICS
                  He thinks you have to have a large population to have large diversity.

                  You do not.

                  All you need is ONE PAIR, provided that H is a reasonable value.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, how many batteries can you fit in a flashlight that holds four batteries? Can you fit six batteries? Can you fit ten? Can you fit twenty?

                  If you had the slightest clue what a freaking "allele" was, I would not have to explain stuff like this to you.

                  And remember, Dave, the articles you're referencing are talking about enough genetic variation to keep a species from going extinct. You need vastly, astronomically more variation than that to get a single species to radiate out into thousands of species, especially if you don't have any mutations.

                  Think of the genetic diversity in a single species of fish, Dave. Remember, fish are diploid organisms, so they can have at most two alleles at any one locus.

                  Now, think of the genetic diversity in all fish. All 30,000 species of fish. How many different alleles at all the different genes do you think there are in all 30,000 species of fish, Dave? Most of those fish don't even have the same number of chromosomes! And they certainly don't all have the same genes, or there would only be one species of fish!

                  Now where does all that diversity come from, Dave? You say it doesn't come from mutations. Does it therefore come out of your butt?

                  The truth is, Dave, I don't need to do any research in order to utterly defeat arguments as incredibly brain-dead as yours are. All I need is two brain cells to rub together. If you had any idea how little research I've ever needed to do to blow away your arguments, you'd die of shame.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 01 2007,17:05

                  Scary: HAH! Thanks for that bit of fun. And for pulling Dave up on his decidedly Bibliolatrous NON-Christian idol-worshipping behavior.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 01 2007,17:11

                  A sweeping and deep tip of my very long and narrow hat to Eric!  

                  More tips to Everybody Else, but especially you Main Posters, most of whom have already been mentioned several times.

                  Dave can repeat DOGS, DOGS, DOGS all he likes, but we know who the DOGGED really were!

                  Way to go, all y'all.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 01 2007,17:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Icthyic came with smell of fish
                  Seizure stopped his salad tossing
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gross!
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 01 2007,17:42

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 01 2007,16:42)
                  All of the insects were gone after a year immersed in a mile of water. All of them. Unless they were on the ark. If you can find me an insect that can live for a year underwater with no food, then you're entitled to say that insect could have survived the flood. Which species of beetles can survive a year underwater and without food, Dave? There are 300,000 species of beetles today. How many were on the ark? 3,000 "kinds"? Because even if there were, each one would have to radiate into a thousand species today. Did Noah spend all his time collecting beetles?

                  How about butterflies, Dave? Can butterflies live underwater? Maybe they can stay aloft for a year without food? You do know what butterflies eat, right, Dave? Were there flowers growing up through a mile of water? There are eleven thousand species of butterflies and moths today. How many were on the ark?

                  Ants, Dave. 12,000 species of ants in existence today. How many of them can live a mile underwater for a year? Or were they doing the backstroke for a year with no food? How many different "kinds" of ants were on the ark, Dave?

                  I could go on and on. Since you've never been able to answer whether the "flood" waters were freshwater or seawater, I'll answer that one for you. It was fresh water, Dave. It fell as rain, right? Have you ever seen saltwater rain? So a mile-thick layer of fresh water dilutes the oceans' salinity by, say, 30%. That would sterilize the seas, Dave. There are 30,000 species of saltwater fish in existence today. How many of them could have survived a year in water only 60% as salty as it is today? How many of them were belly-up after a year of living in barely brackish water? Or maybe Noah kept a few onboard, and kept the penguins from eating them.

                  What about all those marine invertebrates? How many coastal molluscs (70,000 species) do you think survived being a mile deeper in water than they're adapted to? Fresh water, Dave. An extra mile of it. How many clams were there on the ark?

                  Lobsters, Dave? Or the other 40,000 species of crustaceans? Do you think Alaskan King Crabs could live a mile deeper in (fresh) water than they were adapted to?

                  How do you think those reptiles survived a year underwater, Dave? You do know that, e.g., crocodiles are not deep-sea reptiles like sea turtles, don't you? Do you think a crocodile could survive a year at sea? There were no intertidal zones, no rivers, no lakes, nothing but deep blue-water ocean over the entire planet.

                  How about land plants, Dave? You wikipedia chart doesn't even list plants. How many land plants can survive a year's immersion in a mile of water, Dave? How many of the more than a million species of plants survived the flood? How many of them were on the ark? Where did Noah store all those seeds? And where did he plant them? He managed to get coastal redwoods and sequoias planted on the west coast of the United States? How did manage that, with North America rushing away from the Middle East at hundreds of miles an hour?

                  Further, your list includes only identified species, Dave. The actual numbers are undoubtedly much higher. How many of the organisms (probably millions of individual species) that are adapted to life in equitorial rainforests could survive a year at sea with no food or water? Do you think O. sumatra can live for a year at the bottom of the sea?

                  Dave, your "flood" was a slate-wiper to make the comet at the K/T boundary look like an isolated brush fire. Virtually everything would have died. Probably almost everything on the ark died. You think Noah had room for a few thousand "kinds," many of whom eat very specialized diets, plus a year's supply of food for them? Noah would have been pitching dead critters over the side every day, for the entire year. It's unlikely even 5% of them could have survived the year.

                  It's still millions of species, Dave.

                  And you still haven't explained why 4,500 years is more time than 4,500,000,000 years. You still haven't explained why 4,500 years is more than enough time to get from 2,000 "kinds" to millions of species, but a million times longer isn't remotely enough to get from thousands of species to millions of species.

                  It's a simple question, Dave. But you're utterly, desperately clueless as to how to answer it.

                  But the truth of the matter is, even getting from 2,000 "kinds" to 23,000 species is still impossible. 4,500 years isn't remotely enough to have biodiversity increase by a factor of ten. You have absolutely zero evidence that biodiversity is any higher now than it was 4,500 years ago, or at any time since.

                  And—and here's the kicker—your own "hypothesis" predicts massive die-offs in the intervening time as complex genomes degenerated, driving most complex eukaryotes to extinction in as little as 300 generations, or less than 500 years!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Here's a question.

                  Just for argument's sake, lets say all the species of plants and animals alive today actually did find some means to survive the flood.

                  That's a great big gimme for ya' Davey.

                  Well then, what was the fucking point of the flood in the first place then, and why was the ark necessary?

                  Just wonderin'.
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 01 2007,17:47

                  Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 01 2007,18:39)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Icthyic came with smell of fish
                  Seizure stopped his salad tossing
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Gross!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Argy - UGH!  Sorry I missed you.  I may have to add a stanza with anyone I missed.

                  Edit:  Thanks as well Deadman
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 01 2007,19:53

                  Nice work Scary- Tip of the hat from k.e.

                  Gee AFD those alleles are giving you h€lles...eh?

                  Thanks to you I have learnt more information I didn't really need.

                  But let me help you out with Lenny's question.

                  Now plainly the ridiculously high mutation rate which would have disastrous consequences for every single child born since your Fantasy Ark is no longer going on...right?

                  All you need to say is that the rate was much higher in the old days and hasn't happened since Jesus was part of a tree...OK?

                  That means the deformities and still births were much higher before 'the nailing'....right?

                  So all you have to do is find the historical record where there were tribes of people with one eye, 2 heads or a foot where their head should be ...right?

                  Well good news AFD .....Get the Iliad out of your library….. it’s  Myth just like the Bible.
                  Posted by: Richard Simons on Jan. 01 2007,20:13

                  I see Dave has still not sorted out what is meant by heterozygosity and alleles, then, when Eric tries to sort him out on this, complains that no references are given. Dave, this is elementary genetics, the kind of thing you'd learn not just in a first genetics course, but something that a university  traditionally includes in an introductory biology course for non-biologists. It is entirely reasonable not to give any references.

                  Given that Dave has not provided any evidence for his 'hypothesis' but persists in going round and round in circles spouting complete and utter rubbish, I agree that the thread might as well fall by the wayside.

                  I'd like to echo the praise given to the regular contributors here - I am impressed by the persistence that has been demonstrated.

                  OT: I would have contributed more often, but I've been having problems logging in. Can anyone help? When I come to the main page, it frequently says I'm logged in, but when I go to, say, ATBC it tells me I am not logged in and I am not allowed to make replies. I've tried logging in, it goes through the procedure and welcomes me, showing my name amongst the list of people logged in, but apparently logs me out when I try to do anything. The problem happens with Netscape and Firefox and I've tried various things like rebooting the computer with no effect. Any suggestions anyone, or who should I contact for help?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 01 2007,20:37

                  You know, one thing I've noticed about Dave is his almost perfect inability to interpret or decode analogies. This debility gave him fits with his "biological machines" "argument," and it prevented him from figuring out what Russell was talking about when he referenced an article about agriculture that didn't mention photosynthesis. Dave thought it was a complete non sequitur. He had the same problem with snickerdoodles, when Argystokes brought them up. Every time someone brings up an analogy, Dave thinks they're trying to change the subject. It's a trait I associate with people with profound schizophrenia, or maybe autism.

                  So I predict that when Dave's brain gets jammed up and grinds to a halt on reading this:


                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 01 2007,14:55)
                  Dave, how many batteries can you fit in a flashlight that holds four batteries? Can you fit six batteries? Can you fit ten? Can you fit twenty?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  he'll say something like, "Why are you suddenly talking about flashlights? And batteries? What does either one of them have to do with evolution or biology?"

                  But I can't think of a way to give him a hint. It's one of those things it's really hard to think of a way to hint about. Unless you think getting hit in the back of the head with a snow-shovel is a "hint."
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 01 2007,23:42

                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 01 2007,16:16)
                  Steve, get your own domain name - Stevepedia, where you paraphrase Wikipedia to get down to the brass tacks.

                  People would pay good money to support such a thing.

                  I'd love to see your article on DaveyDoodles here.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Isn't wikipedia great?

                  Anyway, I don't even have so much as a blog. Reason is, I just don't have anything to say. I don't have any particular expertise in any area, or many novel experiences which would make good stories. I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, nor do I have causes I'm very passionate about.

                  I'm interested in science and before I knew about this place I took some philosophy and philosophy of science classes, and read a bit about epistemology, foundationalism, coherentism, and the 80's creationists, out of curiousity. You know, you wonder, here in the year 2000, how can there be people dumb enough to want to throw away science in favor of some old book of fairy tales? (BTW, Abusing Science is a simply great book on the AFDave types who lost the creationist battles of the 80's)

                  So curiousity got me started, but the reason I follow ID Creationism daily is because it's emotionally rewarding. Seeing low IQ, arrogant, wholly uninformed people like Davetard and Troutmac and Salvador put their lab coats on backwards and pretend to do science is hilarious to me. The Discovery Institute people are theocratic jerks who think they came up with a brilliant plan to drag us back to the middle ages. Their brilliant plan had multiple fatal birth defects, and bystanders like me get to revel in both Schadenfreude and righteousness as it flatlines. That is some emotional satisfaction. Also, I love that shocked feeling you get when, once every few months, a creationist says something so idiotic, something wrong so many ways, that you feel like your brain rebooted on you.

                  When Salvador did that whole "evolutionary algorithms really prove ID because a human designed the computer" thing, I was positively punch-drunk.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Jan. 02 2007,03:00



                  Eric, as I said before, you're AtBC's Bulldog ala Huxley, (STOP MAKIN' 'SCUSES. YOU CAN TEST PAST YOUR HURDLES IN A MATTER OF MONTHS)

                  Davey the Taxi Driver, all you have to do is answer the baboon dog thingy.

                  How do they keep that degenerate MUTANT breed of dogs alive if the dogs die before reaching maturity?

                  I hope your dolts at AiG can answer it before time runs out! Clocks a tickin'. >Insert Michael Kackson laugh here, hee hee he.<
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 02 2007,09:36

                  THE FLOOD BOTTLENECK AND POST-FLOOD GENETIC DIVERSITY
                  A quick background on where we are in this debate ...

                  ATBCers:  (Mainly Eric) "Dave, a single pair could not possibly preserved enough genetic diversity"  and  "4500 years is not enough time to achieve the diversity we see today."  (No scientific papers cited to support his contention)

                  DAVE: "4500 years is PLENTY of time.  Consider dogs." [cites BBC article which refers to a published study in Science] "Dramatic differences in a mere 500 years."

                  RUSSELL:  "Bah.  That's simpy Mutation and Selection in action."

                  DAVE:  "Mutation?  In only 500 years?  Too short a time to have any discernible effect."

                  RUSSELL:  "Well, by 'mutation' I was including 'recombination.'"

                  DAVE:  [cites 3 different sources which DO NOT include 'recombination' in their definition of mutation]

                  RUSSELL:  [Departs.  He has a new year's resolution not to debate me anymore.]

                  WESLEY: [Discussion of recombination which can THEORETICALLY accomplish the same magic that Darwinists ascribe to point mutations.]

                  WESLEY: [Discussion of how dog teeth are all basically the same and this somehow refutes my point.]

                  ERIC:  [Repeats unsupported assertions listed above]

                  DAVE: "Conventional wisdom is wrong.  Genetic diversity not only can be preserved in a bottleneck ... it can actually INCREASE ... and in a very short time." [Cites one of many scientific papers which clearly show this.]
                  < http://www.springerlink.com/content/j14n072115244k35/ >

                  INCORYGIBLE:  [Dead silence WRT to my refutations of Eric's assertions.] "How can you think dogs came from one founder pair, then turn around and say the Great Apes (including humans) did not?" [See my answer below]

                  DEADMAN:  [Dead silence on current debate.  Changes subject.] "Dave, you need speciation for  your theory, not just variation." [We have it.  I will cover it here or somewhere.]

                  STEVE: [Story about Kent Hovind]

                  ERIC:  [Dead silence on current debate. No response on the Carson article.] "You're pathetic, Dave"

                  ERIC:  [Dead silence on current debate. No response on the Carson article.] [Twists my request for scientific support to try to make it look like a stupid question.] "What kind of scientific support do you want that you can't fit a dozen alleles into 4 slots, Dave?"

                  That's not the question, Eric.  I asked for scientific support for your two current objections:  1) That bottlenecks eliminate diversity, and 2) That 4500 years is not enough time to achieve massive diversity.  I supplied you with scientific refutation of these two objections.  Is all you are capable of is dodging and twisting the question?  Come on ... you are the MVD.  This is your moment to shine!  Are you brave enough to give direct answers--with support--to my refutations of your objections?

                  ********************************************************************

                  A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT WESLEY'S PIECE

                  Wesley ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination

                  We have already introduced the term recombination. This term is widely used in many areas of practical and theoretical genetics, so it is absolutely necessary to be clear on its meaning at this stage. Recombination can occur in a variety of situations in addition to meiosis, but for the present we define it in relation to meiosis. To adapt the definition to other situations, we shall simply replace the words meiotic and meiosis with other appropriate terms.

                  Definition

                  Meiotic recombination is any meiotic process that generates a haploid product of meiosis whose genotype is different from the two haploid genotypes that constituted the meiotic diploid. The product of meiosis so generated is called a recombinant.


                  -- Suzuki, Griffiths, & Lewontin, 1981, Introduction to Genetic Analysis (2nd edition), p.140.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  A good definition.  But other sources highlight something very important to the present debate ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  Wesley ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Those meiotic processes mentioned include crossover and inversion. A little reflection should be sufficient to convince anyone able to understand genetic mechanisms that any genotype that can be generated by the application of a point mutation can also theoretically be produced by one or more recombination events in the presence of sufficient base-pair diversity. Recombination also does not respect reading frame boundaries, so recombination is (as implied above) fully able to produce novel alleles, and is not restricted to shuffling novelty produced solely by other mechanisms. Recombination is, further, a far more common event than point mutation. Noting that one mechanism of generating novel genotypes is more common than another seems to me quite sufficient reason to write in a way that treats those processes as distinct.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Notice that word 'theoretically.'  It is the key word in the whole paragraph.  This word sums up Darwinism quite nicely.  What Wesley is saying is that RECOMBINATION and MUTATION are both THEORETICALLY capable of creating all life on earth, so making a distinction between them as mechanisms is nit-picky.  I disagree.  I am into EVIDENCE, not theory.  Isn't that what scientists (even amateur ones like me) are supposed to be into?  And the EVIDENCE says that "recombination does not create new variation", Darwinist wishful thinking notwithstanding.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Seizing upon pedanticism to escape the inevitable observation that genetic variation, however it arises, is sufficient to give selection its needed scope seems to me to be a rather desperate and pathetic strategy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am not seizing upon pedanticism.  I am refuting ATBC notions that 1) bottlenecks necessarily kill diversity, and 2) 4500 years (the time since the global flood) is too short to achieve massive diversity.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for the proposed rapid diversification needed to fit an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago, the example of dog breeds doesn't satisfy this. A conspicous lack of diversification of dental formula is seen among dog breeds; no matter what breed you look at, it has the usual canine dental formula. Since mammalian paleontology is based primarily upon dental characters, and one would need to explain how so many various mammalian dental formulas diversified in the limited period of post-flood time, it appears that the example of dog breeds goes primarily to establishing that longer time periods are needed for acquiring the observed diversity in this set of characters.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am not trying to fit anything into an evolutionary time-scale.  I have been REFUTING the evolutionary Deep Time scenario.  The present debate has nothing to do with dog teeth.  It has everything to do with 1) population bottlenecks, and 2) time needed for diversification

                  *******************************************************
                  Incorygible ... Dogs, despite their "dramatic differences", are much more similar to each other than humans are to any ape.  To demonstrate this yourself, I challenge you to try to get some human-like civil rights passed in Congress for Apes. i.e. limited Social Security benefits, maybe some educational grants, etc.  Good luck!

                  I've enjoyed reading your posts!  You are one of the more coherent posters.  I hope the light bulb comes on for you someday regarding Darwinist nonsense.  You're a decent guy who deserves better!

                  *********************************************

                  Lenny Flank ... You can actually find your name at the Answers in Genesis web site.  Just put your name in the search box and hit ENTER.  I did this long ago and found an article about you and your question you just posed to me.  That response to you, plus my reading of Woodmorappe's book, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study let to an interesting discussion here a few months ago on HLA-B alleles.  I showed (and Mike PSS congratulated me and admitted) that you do not have 16 alleles >> 500.  The numbers are more like 16 >> 61.  So you are incorrect that the "AiG guys ran from your question."  The Woodmorappe book is quite thorough -- cites hundreds of scientific papers to support his conclusions and I presented much of his HLA-B information here.  If you really want to hear AiG's answer, you should buy the book (or download my thread and search it).  

                  But I doubt you will.  It's much easier to simply live in Comfortable Oblivion while badmouthing creationists.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2007,09:52

                  [quote=afdave,Jan. 02 2007,09:36][/quote]
                  I said I wouldn't, but just to move one step closer to the demise of this thread...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Incorygible ... Dogs, despite their "dramatic differences", are much more similar to each other than humans are to any ape.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave, that's what, two correct statements within a week? Marked improvement! Of course, read my < actual post > and you'll see that my question was "by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems?" See...nothing to do with genetic distances among dogs vs. distances among humans/other apes.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  To demonstrate this yourself, I challenge you to try to get some human-like civil rights passed in Congress for Apes. i.e. limited Social Security benefits, maybe some educational grants, etc.  Good luck!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, that's rational. Science, afdave-style, eh? I tell you what -- you use politics to answer questions of relatedness, and I'll use DNA, m'kay? After all, your method tells me that embryos/fetuses with no civil rights and children with no Social Security benefits or grant eligibility aren't human.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I've enjoyed reading your posts!  You are one of the more coherent posters.  I hope the light bulb comes on for you someday regarding Darwinist nonsense.  You're a decent guy who deserves better.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well, I'd ask you to put in a good word with the man upstairs regarding my decency in the face of Darwinism/atheism, but I've heard that just ain't the way he rolls.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2007,09:55

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2007,23:42)
                  Anyway, I don't even have so much as a blog. Reason is, I just don't have anything to say. I don't have any particular expertise in any area, ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




                  I disagree.  I think you have plenty of good stuff to say.

                   
                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2007,23:42)
                  ...the reason I follow ID Creationism daily is because it's emotionally rewarding. Seeing low IQ, arrogant, wholly uninformed people like Davetard and Troutmac and Salvador put their lab coats on backwards and pretend to do science is hilarious to me. The Discovery Institute people are theocratic jerks who think they came up with a brilliant plan to drag us back to the middle ages. Their brilliant plan had multiple fatal birth defects, and bystanders like me get to revel in both Schadenfreude and righteousness as it flatlines. That is some emotional satisfaction. Also, I love that shocked feeling you get when, once every few months, a creationist says something so idiotic, something wrong so many ways, that you feel like your brain rebooted on you.

                  When Salvador did that whole "evolutionary algorithms really prove ID because a human designed the computer" thing, I was positively punch-drunk.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  See?


                  BTW, are you going to < The 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference >?

                  I may try to make that.
                  Posted by: improvius on Jan. 02 2007,10:05

                  I found this thread fascinating for a couple of reasons.  First, since I avoided hard science classes like the plague back in college, I ended up learning quite a bit about biology, chemistry, geology, etc. over the past months.  So here's another big "thank you" to all of the knowledgable people who took the time to craft so many excellent, informative posts.

                  Second, of course, was exploring the mental processes of a die-hard creationist.  It was simply amazing to see the lengths to which Dave would go to dismiss anything that contradicted his worldview.  He forced himself to conjure up arguments and objections to the mountains of evidence against YEC.  With no other options, he even imagined vast sets of data that surely must exist to support his views.  And at one point even he was forced to admit that he evaluated "evidence" based primarily on the worldview of the person presenting it, so that anything contradicting his was flawed by default.  Indeed, Dave's mental block is nigh impenetrable.

                  In a sense, this thread is a microcosm of the creationist problem in our society.  I believe Dave accurately represents a great number of people who are immune to rational discourse on this topic.  And ultiamtely, I think this thread itself may prove to be a very useful tool in dealing with creationism.  As we've seen, any undecided readers have realized just how wrong Dave is.  And while it seems to be too late to educate Dave and the many other YEC's like him, the struggle to do so will undoubtedly help many more.  This is truly an historic document.
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 02 2007,10:08

                  AFD in the Cheetah story I posted earlier it was claimed that it can be shown mathematically that a population bottleneck of 7 or less individuals creates a final population with very low genetic variability (where every Cheetah is more closely related than a human brother and sister) of NOT a 4,000 year time period but 10,000 years.

                  Dogs did not go through that population bottleneck  BUT IF THEY DID as your clearly insane ark proposition suggests, the variability would be MUCH LOWER than Cheetahs as would every other animal species including Humans SINCE you claim without any proof whatsoever that there were only 2 breeding pairs of a limited number of 'animal kinds'.

                  AFD the Alleles count in humans AND EVERY OTHER SPECIES INCLUDING DOGS BLOWS YOUR WINGNUT IDEA completely out of the water.

                  Counting down AFD ......you are wasting precious posts.

                  You remind me of the masochist who went to Madam Lash to be tied up and whipped....she duly tied up the masochist who, quivering in excitement, waited for the lash...Madam Lash being a complete sadist exquisitely applied the cruelest torture ...she didn't touch him.

                  AFD will you be able to get your kicks from your stupefied creationist buddies?
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2007,10:09

                  And oh yeah, regarding my "silence" on Eric's "assertions"...

                  Here are a < couple slides > on bottlenecks and founder effects from a lecture I gave on conservation genetics a month ago. The course was a 2nd-year undergrad breadth requirement for humanities students, to give you some idea of your level of scientific understanding.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,10:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:36)
                  ERIC:  [Dead silence on current debate. No response on the Carson article.] [Twists my request for scientific support to try to make it look like a stupid question.] "What kind of scientific support do you want that you can't fit a dozen alleles into 4 slots, Dave?"

                  That's not the question, Eric.  I asked for scientific support for your two current objections:  1) That bottlenecks eliminate diversity, and 2) That 4500 years is not enough time to achieve massive diversity.  I supplied you with scientific refutation of these two objections.  Is all you are capable of is dodging and twisting the question?  Come on ... you are the MVD.  This is your moment to shine!  Are you brave enough to give direct answers--with support--to my refutations of your objections?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As I suspected, Dave, you don't get the analogy, and you don't get what the analogy refers to.

                  My question: "What kind of support do you want that you can't fit a dozen alleles into 4 slots, Dave?" is the question. Where's your diversity? There isn't any. We're not talking about the survival of the species, Dave, and we're not talking about diversity (eventually) recovering to pre-bottleneck levels. We're talking about sufficient diversity to allow a single species to radiate into an average of a thousand species in 4,500 years. And if you think you've provided the tiniest scrap of evidence for such an absurd scenario, you're out of your tiny little mind.

                  I don't need to provide evidence such a conjecture is impossible. You need to provide evidence that it's possible. Not only have you not done that, Dave; you've presented zero evidence that there's been any change in biodiversity at all in the past 4,500 years.

                  So not only have you not refuted my objections; you've provided no support whatsoever for your assertion.

                  And speaking of dodging and twisting: when you are you going to answer the question that's at the bottom of every single message I post:

                  HOW CAN BIODIVERSITY BE BOTH INCREASING AND DECREASING SIMULTANEOUSLY?

                  It's impossible you've forgotten you need to answer this question. You jst can't answer it.

                  And while we're on unanswerable questions, here's another one:

                  How can the following statements both be true:

                  • 4,500,000,000 years is not nearly enough time to get from a few thousand species to a few million species;
                  • 4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few "kinds" to a few million species.

                  You can't answer that one either, can you, Dave?
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 02 2007,10:14



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2007,23:42)
                  Anyway, I don't even have so much as a blog. Reason is, I just don't have anything to say. I don't have any particular expertise in any area, ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Lets not forget that memorable graph that AFD 'manufactured' for one of the nuclear dating data points with SteveS' connect the dots.

                  Absolutely classic.
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 02 2007,10:23



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  How can the following statements both be true:



                  4,500,000,000 years is not nearly enough time to get from a few thousand species to a few million species;

                  4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few "kinds" to a few million species.


                  You can't answer that one either, can you, Dave?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yeah AFD by your own account GwOD could have just put 2 bacteria and Noah and his sister on the ark and then let evolution do it's job in 4500 years...right?
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 02 2007,10:28

                  SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award"
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,10:33

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:36)
                  That's not the question, Eric.  I asked for scientific support for your two current objections:  1) That bottlenecks eliminate diversity, and 2) That 4500 years is not enough time to achieve massive diversity.  I supplied you with scientific refutation of these two objections.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity."

                  Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 02 2007,10:38

                  I am still fascinated by the bizarre behavior the sacrificial creationist displays. Even after quotemining shamelessly and writing that quoting out of context is nothing more than lying, even after using defeat as a claim to victory and even after the embarrassment of the baboon dogs -baboon dogs fer crissake- he still comes back thinking he is saying something. I'm telling yall, you really need a couple of freshman level physical science classes or the ability to read a WHOLE book or ten on the subject to be able to have this conversation. The dinglefritz oozes between the gaps of knowlege like the beer in the glass full of rocks and sand- only able to support his delusions through severe projection, denial and a complete regression into Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

                  It seemed poignant to me that he wouldn't ever walk out into an open field to debate me on any topic even though I offered to take either side. The exposure risks outweigh the opportunity. That sums up the whole anti-school pretty well I think.

                  I am reminded of the old saying: Don't try to teach a pig to dance. It will frustrate you and annoy the pig.

                  His engagement with Eric based on the mistaken idea that eric was the weak link is also interesting. Is anyone here familiar with the psychological concept of the surround? Very strange. Also very illuminating behavior.

                  Dave,
                  Your weakness of mind and strength of stupidity is astounding. I will open up a thread on core samples at brainwashedgod.blogspot.com today or tomorrow because I would like to see how you would refute the evidence but I am doubtful you can rise to the occasion.

                  Scary, nice poem, this thread definitely deserves an epitaph. I think you did well.

                  John Locke's epitaph also seems somehow appropriate given Dave's radical crash and burn on the founders:

                  "Stop, Traveller! Near this place lieth John Locke. If you ask what kind of a man he was, he answers that he lived content with his own small fortune. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. This thou will learn from his writings, which will show thee everything else concerning him, with greater truth, than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, indeed, if he had any, were too little for him to propose as matter of praise to himself, or as an example to thee. Let his vices be buried together. As to an example of manners, if you seek that, you have it in the Gospels; of vices, to wish you have one nowhere; if mortality, certainly, (and may it profit thee), thou hast one here and everywhere."
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2007,10:39

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,10:33)
                  Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Provide a place for genetic bottlescarves, of course.

                  (Another one bites the dust. Tick tock, Dave.)
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 02 2007,11:13

                  Incorygible ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, read my actual post and you'll see that my question was "by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems?" See...nothing to do with genetic distances among dogs vs. distances among humans/other apes.


                  Quote
                  To demonstrate this yourself, I challenge you to try to get some human-like civil rights passed in Congress for Apes. i.e. limited Social Security benefits, maybe some educational grants, etc.  Good luck!


                  Well, that's rational. Science, afdave-style, eh? I tell you what -- you use politics to answer questions of relatedness, and I'll use DNA, m'kay? After all, your method tells me that embryos/fetuses with no civil rights and children with no Social Security benefits or grant eligibility aren't human.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK, OK, I'll quit trying to be funny and answer the question. What objective standard?  Don't sequence differences work pretty well?  Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule?  I don't know the number, but isn't it less that 1/2 of a percent?  And I thought I read recently that humans and apes are more like 6% different now that they are figuring out that "silent DNA" isn't really silent.

                  ******************************************

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity."

                  Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not?

                  I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow.

                  ******************************************

                  Improv ... It's funny that you think the world view of the greatest scientist in history--Sir Isaac Newton--is a "problem."  No my friend, Darwinism is the problem, a 150 year "black eye" on the otherwise beautiful face of science.

                  But, as my new avatar highlights, there is hope for the prospect of banishing that old impostor called Darwinism into well deserved oblivion!
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 02 2007,11:18

                  Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I find it interesting that we all agree the only thing Dave has won was the point about AiG's finances and Dave immediately creates an avatar to celebrate his win.

                  If Dave "won" all those other arguments, why didn't he create a Portuguese avatar or a dog avatar or a Grand Canyon avatar?

                  Again, I'm probably reading too much into it.

                  Incorygible and Improvius – Sorry I missed you two as well as Argy with my poem.  I’ll put in an edit.

                  k.e. and BWE, thanks for the kudos.   It was fun to write.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 02 2007,11:44

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,11:13)
                  Incorygible ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Of course, read my actual post and you'll see that my question was "by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems?" See...nothing to do with genetic distances among dogs vs. distances among humans/other apes.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  OK, OK, I'll quit trying to be funny and answer the question.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You might want to read it first.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What objective standard?  Don't sequence differences work pretty well?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Indeed.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes. Which really makes them a rather poor example of genetic diversity emerging from small founding populations, eh? (You do know the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, right?) So if I was arguing that genetic diversity could arise rapidly (e.g., the genetic diversity we find among species of the same supposed 'kind' today), dogs certainly would not be my case study of choice. Of course, I'm not arguing that...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I don't know the number, but isn't it less that 1/2 of a percent?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Could very well be (and almost certainly is if we're talking genome-wide divergence). Don't know, don't care, wasn't the question I asked.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And I thought I read recently that humans and apes are more like 6% different...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Sounds about right for the current comprehensive figure...

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  now that they are figuring out that "silent DNA" isn't really silent.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  ...not that this has anything to do with it whatsoever.

                  Dave, how could you have read what I wrote (even just enough to enjoy it) and yet not notice what I said. My question was not "compare the genetic distance between dogs (same species) to the genetic distance between e.g., humans and chimps. It was to compare the genetic distances found within animal families to those found among great ape species. After all, you have stated (read: parroted) that the created "kind" was probably on the level of the family. You know what a family is, right? (Probably not, since this is a trick question that answers itself.) Why not pick one and compare the genetic distance for species within it. (Maybe start with Hominidae? Just a hint.)

                  Edit: Actually, with so few posts left and Dave's track record, maybe the above hint is too obtuse for wee Dave.

                  Dave, Hominidae is a FAMILY consisting of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You have stated that the created kinds were probably on the level of the FAMILY. Humans and chimps are actually two VERY CLOSELY RELATED species of the SAME FAMILY (much closer than the average distance between family members if we were to pick two species at random from some shared family). I asked for an OBJECTIVE STANDARD (no scripture, no handwaving about "non-biological" differences) by which we could confidently separate humans from (other) apes and yet still be able to group all those emerging family members after the flood into the same 'kind' in order to keep the ark's passenger list feasible. You suggested sequence differences, and I would agree. Problem is, those aren't going to separate humans and chimps (they would separate out the 'rangs and gorillas into separate kinds first). And if you want to use a figure of ~5% sequence divergence for your delineation of kinds, you can't fit the planet's biodiversity on the boat. You wouldn't be trying some special pleading when it comes to humans, would you? Because that's not allowed in an objective standard (or in rational debate).

                  So, if we figure that 'kind' ~ biological family, then it stands to reason that Adam and Eve (and by extension, God, given that whole "in His image" thing) were probably hairy apes, based on the shared characteristics of surviving members of this 'kind'. There's also a good chance that they were largely arboreal, which explains how they reached God's untouchable fruit (not to mention fruit-monopolization itself). No way of knowing if they shared the same fecal fascination exhibited by apes in captivity (does the garden count as captivity?).
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2007,12:53

                  Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,11:18)
                  If Dave "won" all those other arguments, why didn't he create a Portuguese avatar or a dog avatar or a Grand Canyon avatar?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 02 2007,13:02

                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,13:53)
                  'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I will at least say this:  The avatar makes his point pretty clear--clearer than anything else I've seen.

                  You gotta give him kudos for that.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Jan. 02 2007,13:03

                  Man, you guys must have nothing to do over the holidays.  So many posts, it is difficult to go through them all or even stay abreast of what is going on.  I think there were three questions out there for me, so I will post responses, but I am not so sure if I captured all of the questions:

                  1) Question #1: Don't blame the teachers.  Well I wasn't blaming the teachers, they aren't the ones writing the textbooks.  I was making a statement that so many of you are upset with having ID taught in schools because of the lousy science behind it, yet the evolution that you hold dear is being slopply taught because of the poor curriculum.  A lot of the curriculum contradicts itself, teachers aren't trained enough to understand and teach it, and the evolutionary hypothesis' are updated so frequently that often times the information in the textbooks is out of date.  So I am not sure either stance is good.  Don't teach ID because of lousy science, but please continue to teach lousy evolution because of the curriculum.

                  2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.  Einstein said "I at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." (Letter to Max Born 12-Dec-1926, quoted in Einstein: The Life and Times ISBN 0-380-44123-3).  Quantum Mechanics is much more complex than to say that randomness exists and is proved by Quantum Mechanics.  The goal of QM is still the unification theory and there is still much, much understanding on how randomness is associated more with the viewing of the object than with the object itself.  Randomness is present in QM because of our inability to calculate the actuality.  We must rest on a probability.  An example I used often was with a ball on a slope and a pencil on it's head.  If I place a ball on a sloping board, Newtonian physics will explain that the ball will fall to the direction of the floor.  Gravity is a macro force and is well understood and we are only examining one variable.  Now we look at a pencil and try to stand it on it's head.  It will fall in one direction, and only one direction.  But we cannot predict which direction it will fall.  Our gravitational calculations will not work they are not deterministic for this action.  That is because we are dealing with many more forces with less understanding and less of an ability to measure them.  It could be the slight gradiations on the tip of the lead, a wind current, maybe even tidal forces.  Because we cannot calculate these forces, we will do a sampling of the falls, and then use that as a probability or a "randomness" of what will occur.  The current thinking is that we will either find these "hidden variable theories" which will continue to help us refine Quantum Mechanics, or that we will have to live with the randomness because of our inability to delve past it (uncertainty), which is held to more in Richard Feynman's book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

                  3) Comment #3: I don’t know if you realize this but there is NOT ONE person who has ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER  that supports creationism.

                  I am not sure why k.e. has to resort to vulgar name calling such as "Dickhead".  I thought we were all past 6th grade here.  Why can't the comments and responses be based on civilized responses.  The fact that someone believes something different from you shouldn't cause others to resort to ridicule.  Maybe this would be a good time to learn.  Even if you don't think someone understands what you are saying shouldn't force you to resort to name calling.  Maybe you should continue to understand what the thinking is.

                  To answer your question.  Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible.  If you look at today's world, there are such people as Edward Bourdreaux, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans.  As far as credibility goes, Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner was a literal 6 day creationist.  The object of my response was not to list every available scientist.  I only needed to list one scientist with credibility to show your absolute statement in capitals was incorrect.  I hope that in the future if one of your relatives or yourself must use an MRI, that you either have a belief in the credibility of Dr. Damadian's invention or you avoid it for the "quack science" that it is.

                  4) Question #4 from PuckSR: How did the light from the stars reach Earth?

                  That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation.  Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise?

                  Now I asked the question, why don't we see any evolutionary jumps between species right now?  A few of the responses I have heard are:

                  1)There is no selective advantage.  Do all evolutionary changes require with absolute certainty a selective advantage?  Does sexual enjoyment among humans relate to a selective advantage?  Animals do not share this enjoyment, yet produce just as many if not more young than humans.  Was sexual enjoyment an evolved trait.  On the flipside is homosexuality a practice that will disappear since it has no selective advantage.  Two partners who cannot produce offspring naturally should not be a selective advantage.   Some scientist claim that "Pleasure is nature's way of rewarding good behavior". (Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, "Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good", MacMillan 2006).  If the belief is that evolution is a random act with external influences that prefer selective advantages, than how does it reward good behavior?  How is good behavior a selective advantage unless it relies on some intelligence to guide the behavior.

                  2)the ancestor is no longer around For most hominid species it is unclear why they went extinct.  There are a lot of hypothesis, but very little conclusive evidences.  Such certainty is derived for why certain hominids were replaced by other hominids.  In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.  Not a very good sampling for 6-7 million years of evolution.  That isn't even a good sampling for a national election, let alone a 7 million year evolution span.  Some species such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis is based on a cranium a few fragments of a lower jaw bone and a few teeth.  Yet the species is created, fitted into the evolutionary chain and then used to support other arguments such as the new dating for when humans diverged from chimpanzees, which is used to base other hypothesis and on and on goes the building blocks.  Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence.  Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.  They were only around 30,000 years ago.  Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.  In fact every single hominid overlapped others by as much as 100,000 years in many cases.  Why is there no overlap in this generation, or even close to any kind of overlap.

                  I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2007,13:15

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
                  2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.
                  Posted by: dgszweda on Jan. 02 2007,13:18

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:15)
                  Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03)
                  2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Can you provide some quotes or sources for this?  I provided a quote for Feynman.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2007,13:22

                  Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it?

                  EDIT: I'm moving the dgszweda stuff to its own thread.
                  Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 02 2007,13:43

                  And while I'm here, Dave:  how much dog speciation in the last 500 years?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,13:48

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,09:13)
                  Eric ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity."

                  Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not?

                  I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're just not getting it. When Carson is talking about genetic diversity recovering after a genetic bottleneck, he simply is not talking about the kind of genetic diversity you are. I don't distrust Carson, Dave; I distrust your totally wrong misinterpretation of what he's saying. You're talking about the amount of genetic diversity of—at minimum—the family level, if not the class or order level, not the species level, in order for you to get from your several thousand species to the several million species in existence today (I can see you didn't even touch my landfilling of your claim of 23,000 species today).

                  You not talking about "preserving" diversity, Dave. You're talking about a staggering, explosive increase in diversity that makes the Cambrian explosion (which lasted two thousand times longer) look like a wet firecracker in comparison.

                  And this statement:

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  is verging on incomprehensibility. First, according to you, there should have been no mutant alleles before the flood, correct? Which makes one wonder why there would be any heterozygosity at all, but no matter. My question is, How does Noah tell by looking at it whether a particular critter (ant, beetle, flower, lobster) has high heterozygosity? Did he have a knowledge of genetics unknown until Gregor Mendel's time? And second, as I've pointed out to you to the point of exhaustion, the difference between minimal heterozygosity and maximal heterozygosity is too small to matter when you have a founding population of two individuals. As Lenny pointed out to you most recently, with two individuals you have at most four alleles for any locus. Without additional mutations in the future, how do you ever get more than four total alleles in the entire population of descendants? This is why the HLA-B gene presents such a crushing blow to your "hypothesis" with respect to genetic diversity. You started out, 4,500 years ago, with a maximum of 10 alleles (and it would probably have been significantly less). Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Out of your butt?

                  And you still haven't explained (or even addressed, or acknowledged) the problem your "genetic degeneration" argument, which predicts the mass extinction of all complex eukaryotes in less than a thousand years, presents for your "explosive increase in diversity" argument, which predicts the exact opposite.

                  So which is it, Dave? Is biodiversity increasing? Or is it decreasing? Or is it doing both at the same time? And what evidence do you have that biodiversity has headed in either direction over the past 4,500 years?
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2007,14:12

                  Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,13:02)
                   
                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,13:53)
                  'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I will at least say this:  The avatar makes his point pretty clear--clearer than anything else I've seen.

                  You gotta give him kudos for that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well it is certainly the clearest and most concise point from Dave, but I believe that the clearest and most concise point about Dave was this:

                  < Explanation of AFDave >
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2007,14:20



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, he's already said they came from mutations. That was shortly before changing the subject and henceforth refusing to discuss it.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,14:20

                  So Dave, just to make this simple for you, and before you waste a lot of your time trying to educate a dunce like me on how a genetic bottleneck won't prevent one "kind" from radiating into a thousand species in a few thousand years, let's try this:

                  You accept that a diploid organism cannot have more than two alleles at a given locus, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  You accept, therefore, that a mating pair of diploid organisms cannot have more than four alleles for a given locus, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  Therefore, you accept that, without additional mutations, there cannot ever be any more than four, total, alleles for any given gene in any population that is descended from that initial breeding pair, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  I must warn you that failure to answer these three questions will be taken as an admission that you have absolutely no freaking idea what I'm talking about, and therefore don't have the knowledge of straightforward Medelian genetics that any seventh grader should have.

                  I'm assuming I don't need to supply references for my first two assertions, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,14:42

                  Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Eric, he's already said they came from mutations. That was shortly before changing the subject and henceforth refusing to discuss it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Which, of course, directly contradicts his claim that "pre-existing variability" is a much greater source of genetic diversity than mutations are. But since 590 out of 600 alleles are from mutations, I guess he's wrong about that, unless you don't think that 590 is a majority of 600.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 02 2007,14:43

                  Re "This is truly an historic document. "

                  You misspelled hysteric. ;)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 02 2007,14:48

                  Heh heh heh.

                  Nice, Eric.  

                  Even on its last gasps, this thread retains its own inimitable brand of humor.

                  Humor in which poor davey has ever been the straight man (no assertion regarding your sexual preferences intended, davey, not to worry...), but humor nonetheless.

                  Eric's latest is a wonderful example of (voice slows W A Y down and gets V E R Y deep) the "how simple do we have to make it for this doofus" brand of humor.

                  No need to duck, davey.  I guarantee it'll go right over your head.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 02 2007,15:07



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Heh heh heh.

                  Nice, Eric.  

                  Even on its last gasps, this thread retains its own inimitable brand of humor.

                  Humor in which poor davey has ever been the straight man (no assertion regarding your sexual preferences intended, davey, not to worry...), but humor nonetheless.

                  Eric's latest is a wonderful example of (voice slows W A Y down and gets V E R Y deep) the "how simple do we have to make it for this doofus" brand of humor.

                  No need to duck, davey.  I guarantee it'll go right over your head.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yep!  Eric shot Davie down in flames, Davie's machine is just a smoking hole in the ground, and now Eric is strafing the wreckage.   :p
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,15:12

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)
                  Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Before you answer this particular question, Dave, I should point out to you that if you do think a reference is needed here, it's pretty late in the game to be demanding support for what should have been a foundational issue at the very beginning of your "genetic richness" debate several months ago.

                  Also, I never got an answer from you: do you now accept that the human HLA-B gene has at least 600 alleles, or don't you?
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 02 2007,15:28

                  Dave says    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DEADMAN: [Dead silence on current debate. Changes subject.] "Dave, you need speciation for your theory, not just variation." [We have it. I will cover it here or somewhere.]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yet here is what I DID say:    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Your scenario calls for a small number of breeding pairs to give rise to millions ( yes, millions...you didn't include plants, bacteria or fungi) of SPECIES not varieties.

                  I agree that SOME **less-complex rapidly breeding** species like drosophilia ( fruitflies) can successfully move through a bottleneck and diversify [IN VARIATION]...this is not in question...

                  But you need SPECIES, and lots of them...NOT JUST VARIATIONAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A SPECIES.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Dave says    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I am into EVIDENCE, not theory. Isn't that what scientists (even amateur ones like me) are supposed to be into? And the EVIDENCE says that "recombination does not create new variation", Darwinist wishful thinking notwithstanding.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Well, then you should be able to give the evidence that actually supports your claims on all the subjects we've discussed on your thread...things like carbon dating being wrong ( which you claim is supported by some guy assuming variables without any underlying evidence at all)

                  At any rate, Dave, I wanted to point out what is obvious to everyone else, but not to you:
                  What Carson is dealing with is polygenic traits...traits that are differentialy affected/created by the  influences of MANY UNDERLYING GENES.

                  Variation, following a bottleneck event or inbreeding is GENERALLY expected to decrease by a proportion F, the inbreeding coefficient of the population (WRIGHT, Sewall., 1951 The genetical structure of populations. Ann. Eugen. 15:323-354)

                  When variation underlying a quantitative trait is controlled by POLYGENICALLY, by genes that act additively within and between loci, the additive genetic variance within a population **CAN** increase. (remember EPISTASIS, Dave?)  

                  This phenomenon has been observed for:
                  (1) morphometric traits (Bryant et al. 1986 ; Bryant  and Meffert 1995, Bryant and Meffert 1996) and
                  (2) behavioral traits (Meffert and Bryant 1992; Meffert 1995) in the house fly, and for
                  (3) fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster (Lopez-Fanjul and Villaverde 1989; Garcia et al. 1994) and Tribolium castaneum (Fernandez  et al. 1995).

                  One explanation for the increased additive genetic variance following bottlenecks is dominance, the interaction between alleles within a locus. Alan Robertson (The Effect of Inbreeding on the Variation Due to Recessive Genes . Genetics. 1952 Mar;37(2):189–207.), showed that when genetic variance is caused by rare recessive genes, inbreeding or bottlenecks can temporarily increase the additive variance. Willis and Orr (1993) examined the effect of the degree of dominance on the expected additive variance following a bottleneck and found that a broad range of dominance coefficients could cause an increase in additive variance.

                  Another explanation is epistasis, the interaction among loci. Theoretical work has shown that genetic drift during a bottleneck can "convert"  additive x additive [meaning additive TIMES additive, multiplying, in other words]  variance (Goodnight 1988; Whitlock et al. 1993) and other forms of epistatic variance (Cheverud and Routman 1996) into additive genetic variance. Thus, provided the proportion of epistatic variance in the ancestral population is high enough, a founder event may result in an increase in additive genetic variance.

                  Bryant, Edwin H.; Combs, Lisa M.; McCommas, Steven A. Morphometric Differentiation among Experimental Lines of the Housefly in Relation to a Bottleneck. Genetics. 1986 Dec;114(4):1213–1223.

                  Bryant, Edwin H.; McCommas, Steven A.; Combs, Lisa M. The Effect of an Experimental Bottleneck upon Quantitative Genetic Variation in the Housefly. Genetics. 1986 Dec;114(4):1191–1211.

                  Bryant, E. H. and L. M. Meffert, 1995 An analysis of selectional response in relation to a population bottleneck. Evolution 49:626-634.

                  Bryant, E. H. and L. M. Meffert, 1996 Nonadditive genetic structuring of morphometric variation in relation to a population bottleneck. Heredity 77:168-176.

                  Cheverud, J. M. and E. J. Routman, 1996 Epistasis as a source of increased additive genetic variance at population bottlenecks. Evolution 50:1042-1051.

                  Fernandez, A. and C. Lopez-Fanjul, 1996 Spontaneous mutational variances and covariances for fitness-related traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 143:829-837

                  Goodnight, C. J., 1988 Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42:441-454.

                  Lopez-Fanjul, C. and A. Villaverde, 1989 Inbreeding increases genetic variance for viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1800-1804

                  Meffert , L. M., 1995 Bottleneck effects on genetic variance for courtship repertoire. Genetics 139:365-374

                  Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant, 1992 Divergent ambulatory and grooming behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 46:1399-1407.

                  Whitlock, M. C., P. C. Phillips, and M. J. Wade, 1993 Gene interaction affects the additive genetic variance in subdivided populations with migration and extinction. Evolution 47:1758-1769.

                  Willis, J. H. and H. A. Orr, 1993 Increased heritable variation following population bottlenecks: the role of dominance. Evolution 47:949-956.

                  This is not NEW, Dave, it's been known or suspected for a long time...but it is LIMITED and doesn't give the kind of variation YOU need to sustain a "complex" species AND PRODUCE DAUGHTER SPECIES FROM A PAIR OF ORGANISMS, following a genetic bottleneck 2300 years ago, not **JUST** a "SMALL POPULATION" of MULTIPLE individuals like those found in the Drosophilia example .

                  DID THOSE DROSPHILIA IN YOUR CITATION SPECIATE? CAN YOU SHOW THAT MAMMALS WOULD UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES? NO and NO.

                  In short, Dave, again you don't KNOW what the he11 you're talking about.

                  It works fine with SOME VARIATION in SOME TRAITS in SOME RAPIDLY BREEDING species, not ALL variation in ALL Traits in ALL species. AND DAVE? VARIATION IS NOT SPECIATION. VARIETIES OF DOGS =/= (does not equal) NEW SPECIES

                  The above data was taken from Wang,Jinliang, et al (1998)  Bottleneck Effect on Genetic Variance: A Theoretical Investigation of the Role of Dominance. Genetics, Vol. 150, 435-447, September 1998 which gives the mathematical basis for such models. Available online at < http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/1/435 >
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 02 2007,15:52

                  Let me say this in childlike terms so you can "get" it, Dave:
                  YOU need HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of SPECIATION events that resulted in ALL the species we see from a VERY SMALL number of "kinds"

                  YOU are going to argue that this is possible in 2300 years, but NOT in millions of years ( as eric and others pointed out)

                  You think that SOME variation increase IN SOME polygenic traits in SOME rapidly-breeding SMALL (not a pair) populations can help you produce THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SPECIES?  

                  YOU are an idiot.

                  YOU are arguing against yourself. You say " speciating evolution CAN happen, but only in small time spans, not large ones"  How freakin' DUMB are you?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,16:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:36)
                  That response to you, plus my reading of Woodmorappe's book, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study let to an interesting discussion here a few months ago on HLA-B alleles.  I showed (and Mike PSS congratulated me and admitted) that you do not have 16 alleles >> 500.  The numbers are more like 16 >> 61.  So you are incorrect that the "AiG guys ran from your question."  The Woodmorappe book is quite thorough -- cites hundreds of scientific papers to support his conclusions and I presented much of his HLA-B information here.  If you really want to hear AiG's answer, you should buy the book (or download my thread and search it).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I see, Dave, that you do not accept that there are over 600 HLA-B alleles, even after I supply you a reference stating exactly that. So why would I even bother sending you references?

                  I told you where your figure of 61 alleles comes from. It has nothing to do with the total number of HLA-B alleles. It's merely an irreducible minimum number of HLA-B alleles that is shared among non-admixed populations of the New and Old Worlds. You didn't dispute that assertion; you merely ignored it. Nor did you give any reason to dispute the total I gave you. In fact, you explicitly stated that you read Woodmorappe and agreed that there were at least 500 HLA-B alleles! I pointed that out to you, and you did not dispute it. Nor has Mike PSS ever admitted, as you claim, that there are only 61 alleles for the HLA-B gene in total. I've pointed this out to you before, and you did not dispute that, either.

                  So what kind of horrifying intellectual dishonesty now permits you to say you still believe there are only 61 HLA-B alleles (which, even if true, would still sink your claim that most variation does not come from mutations, because you'd still need to explain where the majority of HLA-B alleles came from).

                  God, Dave, you are such a fraud.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 02 2007,16:48

                  Quote (k.e @ Jan. 02 2007,10:28)
                  SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll second k.e's suggestion, Dave is a verifiable dolt.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2007,16:54

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,16:10)
                  You didn't dispute that assertion; you merely ignored it.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  color me shocked.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,16:55

                  For shame, Dave.

                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,09:59)
                  Mike PSS--  I followed your links and got nothing.  I think you are primarily interested in the creationist explanation for the HLA-B locus, with 500 known alleles, right?  Now you were saying you have a table somewhere that shows how similar the alleles of various groups worldwide are, or something, right?  Could you reproduce that table here for us?

                  From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  (my emph.)

                  So you < used to think > there were 500 alleles for the HLA-B gene. Now you claim that you don't. Based on what? Your complete misreading of Mike PSS's chart? So you think Woodmorappe was mistaken when he admitted there were 500 HLA-B alleles? What else do you think he was wrong about?

                  And what did you think about my < Wikipedia link > was wrong? You know, the one that counts up 627 HLA-B alleles? What's your basis for thinking that's wrong?

                  Or can you just not keep track of what you believe and what you don't believe?
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 02 2007,16:56

                  Are we there yet?


                  :D


                  :D


                  :D
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 02 2007,17:04

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:03)
                  1) Question #1: Don't blame the teachers.  Well I wasn't blaming the teachers, they aren't the ones writing the textbooks.  I was making a statement that so many of you are upset with having ID taught in schools because of the lousy science behind it, yet the evolution that you hold dear is being slopply taught because of the poor curriculum.  A lot of the curriculum contradicts itself, teachers aren't trained enough to understand and teach it, and the evolutionary hypothesis' are updated so frequently that often times the information in the textbooks is out of date.  So I am not sure either stance is good.  Don't teach ID because of lousy science, but please continue to teach lousy evolution because of the curriculum.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Massive lack of knowledge of education noted. My wife is a middle school science teacher. I am intimately familiar with curriculum, standards and teaching science. I have developed dozens of lesson plans with her. (just background info) . You are teaching students how the scientific method works. None of the problems with evolution that you claim are in the curriculum because they are not relevant. Are you saying that Random Mutation does not occur? Are you saying that Natural Selection does not occur? The textbooks are not covering the subject in the kind of detail that outdates itself easily. Also, most science teachers stress that science is a process of discovery and thus is never the final word. Outdatedness is built into the curriculum. And most science teachers are competent.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics . {snip}
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  whatever.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  3) Comment #3: I don’t know if you realize this but there is NOT ONE person who has ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER  that supports creationism.

                  To answer your question.  Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible.  ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So did Nostradamus. And lots of people before they figured out that the gods' personal intervention in our lives gets relegated to smaller and smaller gaps as science discovers naturalistic explanations that refute the ever growing list of things that turn out to be wrong with literal biblical interpretation. Because of this, the scientists who do support creationist claims are forced to use more and more ludicrous arguments to support their claims. They start to lose their credibility. Not because they are creationists but because they deny evidence. That is not something your average scientist ought to do.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  4) Question #4 from PuckSR: How did the light from the stars reach Earth?

                  That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation.  Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  You missed the point on this one. Light is radiated. If the gods put light out there that wasn't radiated, they were creating a fake. The light wasn't projected from the object.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now I asked the question, why don't we see any evolutionary jumps between species right now?  A few of the responses I have heard are:

                  1)There is no selective advantage.  Do all evolutionary changes require with absolute certainty a selective advantage?  Does sexual enjoyment among humans relate to a selective advantage?  Animals do not share this enjoyment, yet produce just as many if not more young than humans.  Was sexual enjoyment an evolved trait.  On the flipside is homosexuality a practice that will disappear since it has no selective advantage.  Two partners who cannot produce offspring naturally should not be a selective advantage.   Some scientist claim that "Pleasure is nature's way of rewarding good behavior". (Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, "Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good", MacMillan 2006).  If the belief is that evolution is a random act with external influences that prefer selective advantages, than how does it reward good behavior?  How is good behavior a selective advantage unless it relies on some intelligence to guide the behavior.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Wrong. google "homosexual animals ". And this one's likely to ruffle a few of your feathers:


                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  2)the ancestor is no longer around For most hominid species it is unclear why they went extinct.  There are a lot of hypothesis, but very little conclusive evidences.  Such certainty is derived for why certain hominids were replaced by other hominids.  In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.  Not a very good sampling for 6-7 million years of evolution.  That isn't even a good sampling for a national election, let alone a 7 million year evolution span.  Some species such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis is based on a cranium a few fragments of a lower jaw bone and a few teeth.  Yet the species is created, fitted into the evolutionary chain and then used to support other arguments such as the new dating for when humans diverged from chimpanzees, which is used to base other hypothesis and on and on goes the building blocks.  Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence. Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.  They were only around 30,000 years ago.  Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.  In fact every single hominid overlapped others by as much as 100,000 years in many cases.  Why is there no overlap in this generation, or even close to any kind of overlap.

                  I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  where to start? Ask Deadman maybe? He seems to be an expert. DM, How do they determine whether they have a new species? I imagine the florensis episode could illuminate that process. My guess? My guess is that there is a methodology that is consistent. Taxonomy certainly has an arbitrary element (Just think of the poor genus, Sebastes. So many species, so little difference) but determining the evolutionary path an organism has taken is a little easier than telling two species apart. For one thing, there aren't any more of them. We only find the fossils. The reason for that is one of the things that we scientist keep secret when we meet at conferences that include non-scientists. (It's part of the Darwinist conspiracy)
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 02 2007,17:21

                  If SteveStory is really going to let this run to a nice round 5000 comments, then we've got a few to go.

                  Plenty of time to apply the finishing nails to the davey-coffin (speaking metaphorically, dave, not to worry...) and wring a few more laughs out of his osteopatedness.

                  Every additional key he tickles on the topic of bottlenecks, kinds, variability, TIME (fer gosh sake), and biodiversity just piles up the mirth.
                  Posted by: Bing on Jan. 02 2007,18:29

                  Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,13:03)
                  Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Newton died in 1727.  Darwin published OOS in 1859.  1859-1727=132.  Do you think the fact that he was dead for 132 years might have compromised his ability to do research?

                  Offering Newton as an authority and creationist is just as useful as saying he didn't support man's ability to build machines capable of heavier-than-air flight because he died before Wilber and Orville did their thing 176 years later.
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 02 2007,18:30

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,09:36)
                  Lenny Flank ... You can actually find your name at the Answers in Genesis web site.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I know.

                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.

                  And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . .
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,18:49

                  Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
                  I know.

                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.

                  And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . .
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Don't hold your breath, Lenny. I've been asking Dave essentially the same questions for months now, and I haven't gotten any more out of him than you are.
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 02 2007,20:42

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,18:49)
                  Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,16:30)
                  I know.

                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.

                  And I notice I didn't get any from you, either . . . . . .
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Don't hold your breath, Lenny. I've been asking Dave essentially the same questions for months now, and I haven't gotten any more out of him than you are.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  For some odd reason, AiG ran in terror from my simple questions, too.

                  But then, I've always known that creationuts are lethally allergic to answering direct questions.  (shrug)


                  But since we're all picking on Davey, I'd like to see just how nutty he REALLY is . . .

                  Davey, do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?

                  Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?

                  Do you think there are people who are possessed by demons?

                  Think carefully before you answer.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 02 2007,20:55

                  Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,20:42)
                  Think carefully before you answer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  After 11,000+ (let's not forget the original "Creator God Hypothesis") comments, what on this green earth makes you think he'd start now?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 02 2007,21:04

                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,18:55)
                  Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,20:42)
                  Think carefully before you answer.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  After 11,000+ (let's not forget the original "Creator God Hypothesis") comments, what on this green earth makes you think he'd start now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey, don't forget the Chimpanzee thread AND the original Dave has questions about evolution thread! I think those add another 40 pages or so.
                  Posted by: Seven Popes on Jan. 02 2007,21:04

                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,13:41)
                  I are?  I am would be more proper English, no?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave Hawkins, when your kids one day Google your name, examples of your hypocrisy will probably sadden them.  Unless it simply confirms what they see in you day to day, which should sadden you.  SOOO Dave Hawkins, What does your above quote say about your character? Just a few pages after writing:
                   
                  Quote (afdave @ Dec. 07 2006,18:33)
                  Russell-- It doesn't hurt my feelings ... it just raised some questions about your character in my mind.

                  When someone took you to task for your spelling?  It's ok for Dave to correct spelling and grammar,  But if anyone else does it, its a character flaw?

                  And uhhh, Tyre.
                  Posted by: clamboy on Jan. 02 2007,21:57

                  And beetles? And beetles.

                  Howdy, afdave, I wonder if you would have the courtesy to answer one question from this here lurker afore this thread is closed for good and proper:

                  Have you been granted, for many months now, potentially limitless time and internet space here in which to defend your "Creator God Hypothesis"?

                  That's it, yes or no. Please let me thank you now, though, for the opportunity to see a real live biblical-literalist creationist in action. I understand that perspective much more clearly now.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 02 2007,22:21

                  Lenny ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.  :D  :D  :D  Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.  :p
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 02 2007,22:42



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  DM, How do they determine whether they have a new species? I imagine the florensis episode could illuminate that process. My guess? My guess is that there is a methodology that is consistent. Taxonomy certainly has an arbitrary element
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  BWE: I addressed most of dgszweda's claims on his thread. The short answer to this one is cladistics and context. Arbitrariness comes in weighting characters and then lumping and splitting. Me lumper. Me like PAUP 4 parsimony.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 02 2007,22:53

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,20:21)
                  Lenny ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.  :D  :D  :D  Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  How about you just answer the questions, Dave? Since they're the same questions I've been asking you for months now. Or do I have to buy the book, too? What, do you get a cut from the profits or something? Why didn't you just say "AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis," and then put a bunch of links to Amazon where we can get the books?

                  And by the way, looking at the entire thread isn't going to answer Lenny's questions. I've read every single post of yours on this and the other thread, Dave, and I know for a fact you've never answered any of his questions.

                  Here's just a few of mine you haven't answered:
                     
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,11:48)
                  Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do?    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not?

                  I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, you're just not getting it. When Carson is talking about genetic diversity recovering after a genetic bottleneck, he simply is not talking about the kind of genetic diversity you are. I don't distrust Carson, Dave; I distrust your totally wrong misinterpretation of what he's saying. You're talking about the amount of genetic diversity of—at minimum—the family level, if not the class or order level, not the species level, in order for you to get from your several thousand species to the several million species in existence today (I can see you didn't even touch my landfilling of your claim of 23,000 species today).

                  You not talking about "preserving" diversity, Dave. You're talking about a staggering, explosive increase in diversity that makes the Cambrian explosion (which lasted two thousand times longer) look like a wet firecracker in comparison.

                  And this statement:

                           

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  is verging on incomprehensibility. First, according to you, there should have been no mutant alleles before the flood, correct? Which makes one wonder why there would be any heterozygosity at all, but no matter. My question is, How does Noah tell by looking at it whether a particular critter (ant, beetle, flower, lobster) has high heterozygosity? Did he have a knowledge of genetics unknown until Gregor Mendel's time? And second, as I've pointed out to you to the point of exhaustion, the difference between minimal heterozygosity and maximal heterozygosity is too small to matter when you have a founding population of two individuals. As Lenny pointed out to you most recently, with two individuals you have at most four alleles for any locus. Without additional mutations in the future, how do you ever get more than four total alleles in the entire population of descendants? This is why the HLA-B gene presents such a crushing blow to your "hypothesis" with respect to genetic diversity. You started out, 4,500 years ago, with a maximum of 10 alleles (and it would probably have been significantly less). Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Out of your butt?

                  And you still haven't explained (or even addressed, or acknowledged) the problem your "genetic degeneration" argument, which predicts the mass extinction of all complex eukaryotes in less than a thousand years, presents for your "explosive increase in diversity" argument, which predicts the exact opposite.

                  So which is it, Dave? Is biodiversity increasing? Or is it decreasing? Or is it doing both at the same time? And what evidence do you have that biodiversity has headed in either direction over the past 4,500 years?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  and:
                     
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)
                  So Dave, just to make this simple for you, and before you waste a lot of your time trying to educate a dunce like me on how a genetic bottleneck won't prevent one "kind" from radiating into a thousand species in a few thousand years, let's try this:

                  You accept that a diploid organism cannot have more than two alleles at a given locus, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  You accept, therefore, that a mating pair of diploid organisms cannot have more than four alleles for a given locus, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  Therefore, you accept that, without additional mutations, there cannot ever be any more than four, total, alleles for any given gene in any population that is descended from that initial breeding pair, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  I must warn you that failure to answer these three questions will be taken as an admission that you have absolutely no freaking idea what I'm talking about, and therefore don't have the knowledge of straightforward Medelian genetics that any seventh grader should have.

                  I'm assuming I don't need to supply references for my first two assertions, correct?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N

                  Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  and:

                     
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,13:12)
                       
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)
                  Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four?

                  [ ]Y
                  [ ]N
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Before you answer this particular question, Dave, I should point out to you that if you do think a reference is needed here, it's pretty late in the game to be demanding support for what should have been a foundational issue at the very beginning of your "genetic richness" debate several months ago.

                  Also, I never got an answer from you: do you now accept that the human HLA-B gene has at least 600 alleles, or don't you?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And that's just from today.

                  It's looking like you're a liar and a coward, Dave. If there's anyone here who has consistently run away and hidden from hard questions, it's YOU

                  You've got 133 posts left, Dave. Are you going to fritter them all away on contentless posts like this one?
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 02 2007,23:06

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,17:48)
                  Quote (k.e @ Jan. 02 2007,10:28)
                  SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award"
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I'll second k.e's suggestion, Dave is a verifiable dolt.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave is much better than Larry Falafelman. Much better. AFDave is like Gomer Pyle, happy and confused, "I shure don't figure how it is y'all scientists with all yer fancy degrees can't understand that I'm right. Shure as shootin', that's a head-scratcher!" whereas Larry F is like a Soviet Commissar, reading announcements about how the bread production is up 200%, and the meat production is up 300%, and you know the shelves are empty and it's just a boring lie you'll hear today, and tomorrow, and the next day...
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,01:36

                  130  :)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,01:55

                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,10:55)
                  BTW, (stevestory) are you going to < The 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference >?

                  I may try to make that.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It looks like it will be held around the Chapel Hill area, which means that I'll be loitering around the vicinity, even if I'm not a participant.

                  BTW, if anyone's attending, and will be around Chapel Hill, make sure you bring a Taser or a nightstick or something for all the bums you're going to have to deal with. It's out of control around here. Really a blight on Chapel Hill.
                  Posted by: Faid on Jan. 03 2007,02:56

                  This thread will be closed soon? Oh noes! JUST as dave was about to answer all those questions....

                  But wait, I see he's spending his last posts on  lame mockery and stupid gloatings about AiG's profits from selling crap to the gullible. Which makes sense, since we all know he had nothing all along and his only goal was to play martyr. Oh well.

                  It's a shame, though... I won't return to my comp untill tomorrow, and it seems the thread will be over by then. Is there a chance of a slight delay? I'd like a few last words with our honest friend... I know he'd be posting again, but those will just be hit and run attacks of supidity. He'll never "have time" for answers then, either.

                  Not that he has now, but here that makes him look even more dishonest.
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,03:08

                  126  :)
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,03:18

                  Oh my  :O  125!
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,03:21

                  Quote (Faid @ Jan. 03 2007,03:56)
                  It's a shame, though... I won't return to my comp untill tomorrow, and it seems the thread will be over by then. Is there a chance of a slight delay? I'd like a few last words with our honest friend...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  125 posts left...I think you've got two or three more days. Few worries that AFDave'll suddenly post something informative and we'll have to go into overtime.
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,05:24

                  123!  :)
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 03 2007,07:14

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,22:21)
                  Lenny ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  What I did NOT find were. ..  um. . . . answers to my goddamn questions.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... "cuz I was too cheap to buy the book."  Send me your address, Lenny.  I'll buy the book and mail it to you.  Running from questions!  What a funny guy.  :D  :D  :D  Oh ... and do you know what that "ALL" option does?  It downloads ALL of the thread.  Wesley added that for cheap people like you and me who want free answers.  Just do a CTRL-F search for HLA-B and you'll find it.  Now ... let's see who the runner is.  :p
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Why can't you just answer my goddamn questions?  Right here.  In front of everyone.
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 03 2007,07:18

                  You seem to have not answered my questions, Davey (surprise, surprise). so I'll ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.

                  *ahem*

                  Davey, do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?

                  Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?

                  Do you think there are people who are possessed by demons?

                  Think carefully before you answer.
                  Posted by: Tim on Jan. 03 2007,07:19

                  Well, as this thread is facing it's timely brick wall, I thought I'd toss in my tuppence-worth as another long-term lurker.

                  I've been here since before our Air-Force friend crash-landed at ATBC, and have followed every post from the first and will to the last.

                  Overall I've thoroughly enjoyed the rickety journey, and as a non-biologist, non-anthropologist, non-palentologist, non-archaeologist, non-phycisist, non-linguist and non-geneticist, I've garnered some very, very useful info from these circa. 11,000 posts.

                  The patience and layman's language used with which to explain some very basic stuff so that the uneducated can understand it has proven to be invaluable to someone like myself. To that extent I am grateful to the thread-starter for inducing the regulars to make these wonderful explanations. It leads me to realise firstly just how much there is to learn, and secondly just what utterly complex subjects these really are. More than a lifetime's worth of learning, which makes one feel quite humble.

                  Which then compels me to wonder just how a layman (such as the thread-starter) can attempt to not only grapple with some of the more detailed aspects of evolutionary biology, physics, anthropology, genetics, cladistics etc by mere drive-by reading of encyclopaedias (and faux-encyclopaedic websites), but also to overturn and refute the research carried out by the many thousands who have made these subjects their lifetime's work. Humble is not on show here.

                  I have gone from amusement through open-jawed amazement all the way to utter incredulity at what I have witnessed on this thread.

                  The moment of realisation of what we were really dealing with finally hit home during the (non-) debate on the watchmaker analogy. One or two regulars posted wonderfully lucid explanations as to why the watchmaker analogy fails in the context of evolutionary biology, to the extent that not only could I understand it, but that it became obvious; watches don't reproduce.

                  This perfectly simple point just failed to reach the thread-starter, despite repeated (bold-faced, italicised, capitalised ad infinitum) posts of that very point. Either it failed to reach him or he refused to understand it. Beyond that he became really very confused, stating that the 'difference' between a watch and a butterfly was one of complexity, when complexity is one of quantitative similarity, and not a difference at all.

                  Unbe-smegging-lievable.

                  It was at this point that I finally accepted the reality of the situation and capitulated; this thread is doomed.

                  Since that time the thread-starter has begun using the word 'intractable' to describe his YEC position, as well as describing himself as an 'amateur scientist'. The words intractable and scientist form an oxymoron of the highest order, but I'm sure this point is lost on the  thread-starter, just as so many other seemingly simple points are lost.

                  I have more recently spent some time lurking at www.theologyweb.com in the natural sciences area; a regular haunt of G R Morton. The YECs encountered there are quite a bit younger, and a number have switched from YEC through OEC to full appreciation of the scientific world-view, in the face of patient explanation from the resident scientists. The point that at least two recent converts there have cited as their main reason to change their world-view is that of attempting to reconcile starlight with a young universe; ie the YEC God would have to be a con-artist.

                  It is satisfying to see the opening-up of young minds who have been brought up (dare I say brain-washed) in YEC environments when confronted with scientific reason. Without fail they have found the experience both humbling and overwhelming. It is at times like those that I am utterly glad we have threads like this where the studied knowledge and dogged patience of forum-posters can open up heretofore closed minds.

                  I have come to realise however, that the thread-starter, in part due to his age perhaps, and the amount (in time, money and effort) he has invested in his world-view, will never reach this point.

                  Intractable sums up the position of the thread-starter rather nicely here, and I'm sure he would become a little more humble if he ever comes to realise that intractable is exactly what science is not.
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 03 2007,07:56

                  my only regret that this thread is closing is that it will be cut short before a full year is up.

                  You see, AFDave started this thread about 8 months ago. If it had been left for a full year

                  THE EARTH WOULD BE 6001 YEARS OLD!

                  And that's a fact :)
                  Posted by: Reluctant Cannibal on Jan. 03 2007,08:25

                  Another mostly-lurker here, dropping in to say goodbye to this thread. I was going to write a bit more than this, but I find it can be expressed fairly accurately as "< What Tim said >".

                  And AFDave, some impartial advice for you. If you really want to keep this thread going forever, I'm sure that Steve Story would look favourably on an honest attempt to respond to any one of the hundreds of unanswered questions floating around. Or you could even retract one of your more flagrantly wrong assertions (The 61 HLA-B alleles thingie would be a good one, as it is recent and particularly simple to prove).

                  But you won't. I'm sure you are very relieved that the end is in sight. Apart from the considerable cost to you in time, the strain of keeping your stories straight and the constant risk that you might absorb a clue must be taking its toll of you.
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 03 2007,09:05

                  Hey AFDave,

                  You worked out those heat dissipation numbers for the drag-racing continents yet?   :p
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 03 2007,09:43

                  BASIC GENETICS REVIEW FOR ERIC AND OTHERS
                  Now I hope no one is insulted by this title ... "Dave!  Giving a refresher course in genetics!  Guffaw!"  And it is true that a few months ago I didn't even know the exact definition of an allele ... I just knew it had something to do with genes. But whether you are insulted or not, you should read this, because judging from some of your comments, I think I now have a better grip on basic genetics than some of you.  I learn quickly. :-)

                  GENES, ALLELES AND HETEROZYGOSITY
                  Terms we all have thrown around alot lately so we need to be clear about them.  We turn to our trusty friend Wikipedia ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The terms Homozygous, Heterozygous and Hemizygous are used to simplify the description of the genotype of a diploid organism at a single genetic locus. At a given gene or position along a chromosome (a locus), the DNA sequence can vary among individuals in the population. The variable DNA segments are referred to as alleles, and diploid organisms generally have two alleles at each locus, one allele for each of the two homologous chromosomes. Simply stated, homozygous describes two identical alleles or DNA sequences at one locus, heterozygous describes two different alleles at one locus, and hemizygous describes the presence of only a single copy of the gene in an otherwise diploid organism.
                  <
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  OK.  So are we clear? A diploid organism (an individual) can have two alleles at each locus.  If the alleles are the same -- homozygous.  If different -- heterozygous.

                  COMMON (OR WILD) ALLELES, MUTATED ALLELES, RARE ALLELES
                  So we understand individuals.  What about populations?  How many different alleles are there in typical diploid organism populations?  The individual can only have two, but there could be many in a population from which two per individual are selected.  As you would expect, someone has studied this -- G.S. Mani.  According to him, most loci of present-day animals contain between 1 and 5 alleles (disregarding the MHC complex--separate topic discussed already).  (Mani, G.S. 1984. "Darwinian theory of enzyme polymorphism (pp. 242-298) in Mani, G.S., ed., Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.)  Woodmorappe notes ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since most of the pre-Flood animal pairs could have carried 4 alleles per locus, this means that, in most cases, no mutations need have taken place since the Flood to generate the 1 to 5 alleles per locus seen today.  Of course, most loci have fewer than 4 alleles per locus because the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair, and/or some alleles have been lost since the Flood by genetic drift. (Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, p.195)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Also, there is a book with a very interesting title that I want to get: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et. al.  This book (which is about humans, not sure if other mammals are discussed) has a table (pp. 8-9) that shows that the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus, very rare variants excepted.  Continuing with info from Woodmorappe ... Furthermore, there is usually a single allele occurring at high frequency (at least 85%), with 1 to 3 other alleles found at frequencies of 1-15%. (MHC Polymorphism and the Design of Captive Breeding Programs - group of 4 »AL Hughes - Conservation Biology, 1991 - Blackwell Synergy, p. 249).  In fact, of all alleles, most exist at low frequency (Considerations on the conservation of alleles and of genic heterozygosity in small managed … PA Fuerst, T Maruyama - Zoo Biology, 1986 - doi.wiley.com, p. 174).  This is further borne out by the very definition of a polymorphic locus: one where the most common allele occurs at no more than 95% frequency in the population. (Inbreeding: one word, several meanings, much confusion. - group of 2 »AR Templeton, B Read - EXS, 1994 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 60)

                  LET'S DO A LITTLE SPECULATING HERE FOR A MINUTE
                  Notice I'm clearly labeling this part as speculation.  I think it is possible that God originally created only two alleles per locus.  I'm even more confident that He created no more than 4.  But I think there is evidence that there were only 2 originally.  Why do I think this?  Several reasons.  The info just given above about allele frequencies is a big one.  Also, some (probably many) alleles are different from other alleles at only ONE nucleotide position indicating that there is an original designed allele and a mutated version of that same allele which was not designed. The eye color discussion below also makes me think this as you will see because all the various eye colors are controlled by only two different alleles at 3 (maybe more) loci.  Of course, you think that ALL alleles were created by mutation and that is where we differ.


                  So to sum up this section, you read various terms associated with alleles such as "common" and "rare" and "wild" and "mutated."      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  A wild type allele is an allele which is considered to be "normal" for the organism in question, as opposed to a mutant allele which is usually a relatively new modification.
                  [Wikipedia "allele"]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  [URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file....FD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                  I will update these when this thread is closed so you can have the complete thread.

                  ***************************************************************

                  INCORYGIBLE'S REQUEST FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANISMS
                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  [Dave]Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule?

                  [Cory]Yes. Which really makes them a rather poor example of genetic diversity emerging from small founding populations, eh? (You do know the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, right?) So if I was arguing that genetic diversity could arise rapidly (e.g., the genetic diversity we find among species of the same supposed 'kind' today), dogs certainly would not be my case study of choice.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am arguing that phenotypic diversity can arise rapidly, not genetic diversity as measured by sequence differences.  IOW, I am arguing that a single pair of the "dog/wolf" kind possessing a fair amount of heterozygosity (most common alleles included--yes, only 4 per pair, Eric) could rapidly diversify and generate the "dramatic differences" we see today in a very short time.  This founder pair would probably look similar to one another and would be somewhere in the middle of either extremes for any given characteristics.  This is what Ayala is speaking of when he talks about the "much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation."  A vast amount of variation can be stored in just one founder pair with only two alleles per locus.  As we have seen in the case of eye color in humans, only 2 alleles on two different genes (and likely only 2 different alleles on some as yet unknown other genes) cause a wide range of eye colors.  Not lots of alleles as previously thought.  Just several different genes, each with 2 different alleles is probably all that is required for massive diversity in every characteristic.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, Hominidae is a FAMILY consisting of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You have stated that the created kinds were probably on the level of the FAMILY. Humans and chimps are actually two VERY CLOSELY RELATED species of the SAME FAMILY (much closer than the average distance between family members if we were to pick two species at random from some shared family). I asked for an OBJECTIVE STANDARD (no scripture, no handwaving about "non-biological" differences) by which we could confidently separate humans from (other) apes and yet still be able to group all those emerging family members after the flood into the same 'kind' in order to keep the ark's passenger list feasible. You suggested sequence differences, and I would agree. Problem is, those aren't going to separate humans and chimps (they would separate out the 'rangs and gorillas into separate kinds first). And if you want to use a figure of ~5% sequence divergence for your delineation of kinds, you can't fit the planet's biodiversity on the boat. You wouldn't be trying some special pleading when it comes to humans, would you? Because that's not allowed in an objective standard (or in rational debate).

                  So, if we figure that 'kind' ~ biological family, then it stands to reason that Adam and Eve (and by extension, God, given that whole "in His image" thing) were probably hairy apes, based on the shared characteristics of surviving members of this 'kind'. There's also a good chance that they were largely arboreal, which explains how they reached God's untouchable fruit (not to mention fruit-monopolization itself). No way of knowing if they shared the same fecal fascination exhibited by apes in captivity (does the garden count as captivity?).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Yes.  I quoted Woodmorappe's opinion that the created kind probably was roughly equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds).  And you would have a very good point in asking how can we separate humans from the great apes if sequence difference is our objective guide .. EXCEPT ... for the fact that you are overlooking one key item.  

                  You are disregarding two pieces of Biblical information ...

                  "Genesis 1: 26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
                  27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
                  28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

                  ... and ...

                  "Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

                  Now of course, you do not take these statements as authoritative, which is fine for now ... you will in time either in this life or the next, but nevertheless, even with your present dim view of the Genesis record, these passages stand as possible clues to the profound mystery of the differences we see between apes and humans.

                  "In the image of God?"  "Breathed into his nostrils the breath of life?"  Hmmm ... come to think of it, that's a pretty good description.  Think about it.  The Bible claims that God has creative ability, a will, a knowledge of right and wrong, and an appreciation for art and beauty, to name a few.  Well ... guess what.  Mankind has those characteristics also.  And what animal do you know of that has these?  Can you think of one?  I cannot.  So in a very real sense, we see agreement between some observations in the physical world and the record of Scripture.  This is just one example, but it should give a thoughful person pause.  There are many, many other examples of agreement between "God's World" and "God's Word."  It's an exciting study!

                  But I'm sure that hearing this, you will accuse me of special pleading in my objective standard and I am afraid I will be found guilty, although as I think I can show, this special pleading is justified.  As has been stated before, scientific evidence can only get us so far.  (A lot farther that many Bible believers think, but still only so far.

                  **************************************************************

                  A NOTE ABOUT WHAT WE CAN PROVE AND WHAT WE CANNOT PROVE
                  I noticed some interesting discussion on the "DGSVWEDA THREAD" about items taken on faith and items not taken on faith and this relates somewhat to this Ape/Human discussion.

                  I think it is very important to note that neither side of the current debate -- Evolutionist or Creationist -- can prove exactly how "Goddidit" or how "Evolutiondidit" whether we are talking about Apes and Humans or the Flood or the exact demarcation of kinds or what have you.

                  We are both in the predicament of being a little like detectives investigating a crime scene.

                  But thankfully, there are a lot of clues.  And in my study of science and history, I have found that overwhelmingly, the clues point toward the truth of the Genesis Record.

                  ***************************************************************

                  A NOTE ABOUT FUTURE DEBATES
                  I am considering where to "set up shop" next.  Thanks to Steve Story for the suggestion to go to < http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php >   He says they have huge traffic and this may be perfect for me.  Second choice would be at my own blog airdave.blogspot.com   If I do that, I would welcome anyone from here and would of course open up comments.  And I may do both.  We shall see.  As you can tell from Steve's efforts, moderating comments can involve some work and I'm not sure I want that workload.  In any case, I have many topics yet to cover (including about 35 questions still to go on the Deadman "50" List, the Ice Age and Ice Cores, the Tower of Babel and the founding of China and Egypt, questions like Argy's parasites and "Did Adam and Eve have an immune system" etc.)

                  ********************************************
                  MY NEW FAVORITE WORD
                  Unbe-smegging-lievable.  Thanks, Tim.

                  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  Posted by: Tim on Jan. 03 2007,10:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,09:43)
                  ********************************************
                  MY NEW FAVORITE WORD
                  Unbe-smegging-lievable.  Thanks, Tim.

                  :D  :D  :D  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Welcome.

                  Use it wisely.  :)
                  Posted by: improvius on Jan. 03 2007,10:12

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43)
                  I am arguing that phenotypic diversity can arise rapidly, not genetic diversity as measured by sequence differences.  IOW, I am arguing that a single pair of the "dog/wolf" kind possessing a fair amount of heterozygosity (most common alleles included--yes, only 4 per pair, Eric) could rapidly diversify and generate the "dramatic differences" we see today in a very short time.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Wrong.  You most certainly ARE arguing that genetic diversity can arise rapidly - even though you don't realize it.  Going back to dogs, for example, you are arguing that the rather large genetic differences we see in canidae arose over the past 4000 years.  Forgetting about the relatively miniscule changes at the allele level, you have to account for < a red fox having 36 chromosomes and a dog having 78. >
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,10:30

                  Gee, Dave, thanks for the lecture on basic genetics. It's not like I teach concepts such as alleles, polymorphism and heterozygosity to humanities students (not to mention more advanced concepts in conservation genetics to upper-year science students) every year or anything. (Which reminds me that -- surprise, surprise -- you did not address those lecture slides comparing genetic variation to effective population sizes, including the all-important N=2.)

                  In your newfound knowledge of these basic concepts, did you happen to run across any explanations for patterns of polymorphism that might give you some sense of equilibrium in this debate? I dunno, maybe a simple equation or something? No need to Weinberg about the math -- it's not Hardy. But if you don't get it right away, no need to fixate on it -- it's just one more thing you don't understand but think you do.

                  In the meantime, you've stumbled across the proper definition of polymorphism (most common allele at a frequency <95%). Of course, >90% of my artsies got that question right on their midterm, and they're not obnoxiously giving "reviews" of genetics to scientists. But here's one they also got right but you probably wouldn't:

                  Polymorphism is a measure of genetic diversity within:
                  (a) individuals
                  (b) populations
                  © species
                  (d) families
                  (e) created kinds

                  (Hint: the field you have now stumbled blindly into is known as ____ genetics.)

                  Because Dave, it's not enough to show that there are generally 1-4 alleles per locus within populations. Never mind those "rare" alleles (that shouldn't exist according to your "CGH") or the many, many exceptional loci that exhibit greater polymorphism (like HLA, which was ignored by you -- not "discussed" -- previously). You have to show 1-4 alleles per locus within a kind, which you have claimed is roughly equivalent to the biological family. Do some homework, Dave, and you might see how laughable this is.

                  I'm not going to bother with compiling all the evidence to show that you thought Ayala (and your "recombination of existing genetic variation" laugher) was describing genetic diversity as opposed to phenotypic diversity (maybe someone else wants to do this, now that Dave claims he was talking about phenotypic diversity all along). We (myself, Eric, etc.) have been asking you to explain genetic diversity this entire time. Phenotypic diversity was never at issue, but genetic diversity most certainly still is. It has to come from somewhere, Dave. Where? (You know exactly what orifice Eric has suggested.)

                  And good job at avoiding scripture in your "objective standard". I knew you couldn't do it, dishonest Dave. I'm going to continue to disregard those pieces of biblical information you think are so important, despite your hopes for me (and veiled threats). And it's not because I'm blinded by my atheist worldview. It's because the description of some deity breathing life into dust really doesn't explain anything at all to me about biology, regardless of whatever lightbulbs it flares up in your fevered brain.

                  The fact remains that you have no objective way of knowing if the created "man" kind initially included chimps (and gorillas and 'rangs). After all, chimps are a VERY closely related species within man's family. How do you know that they are not a fallen offshoot of Adam's line, arisen through exactly the processes you propose and defend for post-Ark biodiversity? You have no basis to claim they are not. Perhaps YOU should be lobbying for ape civil liberties? Wouldn't that be a lark if you get to the pearly gates and God demanded an explanation for those insulting, dehumanizing photos and captions you posted of gorillas on this board, eh?

                  Thanks for the laughs, and not failing to disappoint in your swan song.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,10:34

                  Do you believe this jerk?

                       
                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,07:43)
                  BASIC GENETICS REVIEW FOR ERIC AND OTHERS
                  Now I hope no one is insulted by this title ... "Dave!  Giving a refresher course in genetics!  Guffaw!"  And it is true that a few months ago I didn't even know the exact definition of an allele ... I just knew it had something to do with genes. But whether you are insulted or not, you should read this, because judging from some of your comments, I think I now have a better grip on basic genetics than some of you.  I learn quickly. :-)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're educating us on basic genetics, Dave? I've been trying to get you to understand that no diploid organism can have more than two alleles per locus for months!

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  GENES, ALLELES AND HETEROZYGOSITY
                  Terms we all have thrown around alot lately so we need to be clear about them.  We turn to our trusty friend Wikipedia ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The terms Homozygous, Heterozygous and Hemizygous are used to simplify the description of the genotype of a diploid organism at a single genetic locus. At a given gene or position along a chromosome (a locus), the DNA sequence can vary among individuals in the population. The variable DNA segments are referred to as alleles, and diploid organisms generally have two alleles at each locus, one allele for each of the two homologous chromosomes. Simply stated, homozygous describes two identical alleles or DNA sequences at one locus, heterozygous describes two different alleles at one locus, and hemizygous describes the presence of only a single copy of the gene in an otherwise diploid organism.
                  [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homozygous%2C_Heterozygous_and_Hemizygous[/URL]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  OK.  So are we clear? A diploid organism (an individual) can have two alleles at each locus.  If the alleles are the same -- homozygous.  If different -- heterozygous.  
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're joking, right? How many dozens of times have I pointed this out to you just in the last few weeks, genius? But now you're explaining it to me? Are you for real?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  COMMON (OR WILD) ALLELES, MUTATED ALLELES, RARE ALLELES
                  So we understand individuals.  What about populations?  How many different alleles are there in typical diploid organism populations?  The individual can only have two, but there could be many in a population from which two per individual are selected.  As you would expect, someone has studied this -- G.S. Mani.  According to him, most loci of present-day animals contain between 1 and 5 alleles (disregarding the MHC complex--separate topic discussed already).  (Mani, G.S. 1984. "Darwinian theory of enzyme polymorphism (pp. 242-298) in Mani, G.S., ed., Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.)  Woodmorappe notes ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since most of the pre-Flood animal pairs could have carried 4 alleles per locus, this means that, in most cases, no mutations need have taken place since the Flood to generate the 1 to 5 alleles per locus seen today.  Of course, most loci have fewer than 4 alleles per locus because the Ark animals did not always carry the maximum possible four per pair, and/or some alleles have been lost since the Flood by genetic drift. (Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, p.195)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Also, there is a book with a very interesting title that I want to get: The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et. al.  This book (which is about humans, not sure if other mammals are discussed) has a table (pp. 8-9) that shows that the overwhelming majority of polymorphic loci have no more than four alleles per locus, very rare variants excepted.  Continuing with info from Woodmorappe ... Furthermore, there is usually a single allele occurring at high frequency (at least 85%), with 1 to 3 other alleles found at frequencies of 1-15%. (MHC Polymorphism and the Design of Captive Breeding Programs - group of 4 »AL Hughes - Conservation Biology, 1991 - Blackwell Synergy, p. 249).  In fact, of all alleles, most exist at low frequency (Considerations on the conservation of alleles and of genic heterozygosity in small managed … PA Fuerst, T Maruyama - Zoo Biology, 1986 - doi.wiley.com, p. 174).  This is further borne out by the very definition of a polymorphic locus: one where the most common allele occurs at no more than 95% frequency in the population. (Inbreeding: one word, several meanings, much confusion. - group of 2 »AR Templeton, B Read - EXS, 1994 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 60)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Utterly irrelevant, Dave. That your "hypothesis" can accommodate genes with two, or four, or even six alleles, helps you not even slightly in dealing with the small number of genes that have hundreds of alleles. If they didn't get there through mutations, how did they get there?

                  How do you get from 10 to 627 HLA-B alleles, Dave?
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,10:58

                  Again, please do answer this one, Dave:

                  Given your proposed and defended post-Flood processes for generating genetic and phenotypic diversity (thousands of species arising from each created kind, with kind~family), how do you KNOW that chimpanzees are not Fallen descendants of Adam? After all, they are not mentioned in the Old Testament (kind of strange for something designed so similarly to Eden's #1 Dominionator, eh?). They are well within the range of any biological standard for kind delineation you have offered (closer than most, actually). That they lack (although not absolutely) in some of the "non-biological" man-makers you have mentioned is easily explained by Sin. Could they not be Fallen men? Should you not be worried about this? Maybe you should be calling for that congressional assessment after all? How do you KNOW that chimps aren't your relative, Dave? There but for the grace of God, perhaps?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,11:02

                  Since Dave not only could never bother to answer my questions, and in fact pretended he'd never seen them, and then further had the unmitigated gall to pretend that he was instructing us on these simple, basic facts of elementary genetics, I'll take the liberty of answering them for him:

                   
                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)
                  So Dave, just to make this simple for you, and before you waste a lot of your time trying to educate a dunce like me on how a genetic bottleneck won't prevent one "kind" from radiating into a thousand species in a few thousand years, let's try this:

                  You accept that a diploid organism cannot have more than two alleles at a given locus, correct?

                  [X]Y
                  [  ]N

                  You accept, therefore, that a mating pair of diploid organisms cannot have more than four alleles for a given locus, correct?

                  [X]Y
                  [  ]N

                  Therefore, you accept that, without additional mutations, there cannot ever be any more than four, total, alleles for any given gene in any population that is descended from that initial breeding pair, correct?

                  [X]Y
                  [  ]N

                  I must warn you that failure to answer these three questions will be taken as an admission that you have absolutely no freaking idea what I'm talking about, and therefore don't have the knowledge of straightforward Medelian genetics that any seventh grader should have.

                  I'm assuming I don't need to supply references for my first two assertions, correct?

                  [X]Y
                  [  ]N

                  Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four?

                  [ ]Y
                  [X]N
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  So therefore, Dave, you are stuck with exactly the huge problem we've been telling you about for months now. You know there could not have been more than 10 HLA-B alleles on the ark, and there are 670 now. You say that "pre-existing variability" is where genetic diversity comes from, and you now know that cannot be true. So where did the extra 570 alleles, come from? Out of your butt?
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2007,11:04

                  110
                  :D

                  Hey, when this gets down to a hundred, can we just start singing "A hundred bottles of beer" or something?

                  Maybe an AFDave version...
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,11:18

                  Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2007,09:04)
                  110
                  :D

                  Hey, when this gets down to a hundred, can we just start singing "A hundred bottles of beer" or something?

                  Maybe an AFDave version...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Actually, Lou, I'd prefer that we didn't. Only because Dave will whine that he could have gotten through all of Deadman's questions (he thinks he's answered 15 of them; he's answered zero of them) if only everyone hadn't used up all his messages.

                  You know he'll do it.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 03 2007,11:44

                  I think filler posts shouldn't count toward that 5000 limit.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 03 2007,12:11

                  Cory ... I wasn't lecturing you.  I was lecturing the MVD.  :D
                  I know you understand this stuff--at least the basic genetics.  I confess I forgot about your slides, but I wouldn't have had time today anyway.  Maybe another day (another forum?)

                  Explanations for patterns of polymorphism: Have not read many yet, but as you can imagine, I would trust the creationist explanations more because they are more honest, i.e. they don't try to say that their version of "Whodunit" is a proven scientific fact like your camp does.

                  Cory ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Because Dave, it's not enough to show that there are generally 1-4 alleles per locus within populations. Never mind those "rare" alleles (that shouldn't exist according to your "CGH") or the many, many exceptional loci that exhibit greater polymorphism (like HLA, which was ignored by you -- not "discussed" -- previously). You have to show 1-4 alleles per locus within a kind, which you have claimed is roughly equivalent to the biological family. Do some homework, Dave, and you might see how laughable this is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's not laughable at all.  I've cited many papers that show 1-4 alleles per locus in many species.  Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"?  We can only make educated guesses.  Just as you (Evos) can never definitively prove many things about your theory.  It's not possible because of the historical nature of the inquiry.

                  And pray tell, what part of this ...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
                  First, Woodmorappe explains that ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (The origins of HLA-A, B, C polymorphism. - group of 2 »P Parham, EJ Adams, KL Arnett - Immunol Rev, 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 177)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... is unclear to you and Eric?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Phenotypic diversity was never at issue, but genetic diversity most certainly still is. It has to come from somewhere, Dave. Where?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well then we miscommunicated.  

                  I have been arguing all along that ...

                  1) "Dramatic differences" are possible in a very short time, and
                  2) "Dramatic difference" potential can easily survive a single pair bottleneck simply by inclusion of most common alleles in the pair

                  I think of "dramatic differences" as "large phenotypic diversity" ... what about you?  I think of "genetic richness" as "high heterozygosity", i.e. inclusion of most common alleles in the bottleneck pair ... how about you?

                  I thought Eric was trying to refute these two points.

                  If he (and you) are not ... then Hallelujah!  We agree on something for a change.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact remains that you have no objective way of knowing if the created "man" kind initially included chimps (and gorillas and 'rangs).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True, but you also have no objective way of knowing if we share a common ancestor.  Genetics can only give us clues.  We have to turn to other things for more clues.  And to these I have turned.  I am not so myopic or arrogant as to presume that only science can tell us everything there is to know.  

                  Can science tell me that George Washington lived, was a US president, then died?  No.  I rely on written eyewitness testimony for this.

                  Can science tell me about the Hittites?  No, not if by science you mean repeatable measurements.  I know about the Hittites through written eyewitness testimony.

                  And so on and on ...

                  ******************************************

                  Cory, your science training has limited your vision.  You say you reject anything that you cannot prove scientifically, yet you uncritically accept the proposition that matter organized itself into biological structures in defiance of the very scientific laws that you applaud.

                  You accept written eyewitness testimony for many things in your life.

                  You just don't regarding the Origin of Species.

                  Alas, maybe you will someday.
                  Posted by: improvius on Jan. 03 2007,12:27

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,13:11)
                  Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"?  We can only make educated guesses.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You could if they were real.  In fact, it should be the easiest part of creationism to find evidence for.

                  Can't wait to see your response to dogs and foxes, Dave!
                  Posted by: deejay on Jan. 03 2007,12:43

                  from Tim:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Since that time the thread-starter has begun using the word 'intractable' to describe his YEC position, as well as describing himself as an 'amateur scientist'. The words intractable and scientist form an oxymoron of the highest order, but I'm sure this point is lost on the  thread-starter, just as so many other seemingly simple points are lost.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Well put, Tim.  One of many beautiful pearls tossed to our resident swine.
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,13:06

                  Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 03 2007,11:44)
                  I think filler posts shouldn't count toward that 5000 limit.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  104  :)
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 03 2007,13:10

                  .

                  AFDave is shocked, SHOCKED to discover the strange new concept of... population genetics!
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 03 2007,13:30

                  Hah, DenseDave trots out a variation on the musty old creationist standby "WERE YOU THERE?!?" :

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Can science tell me that George Washington lived, was a US president, then died?  No.  I rely on written eyewitness testimony for this.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  We have his bones and hair samples. If he was anonymous, with no historical record, we'd still know this man "X" lived and died--via science. There's also an effort to use genetics to trace his descendants. There's also paintings of him--which are not WRITTEN records. Normally, this hoary old chestnut is trotted out to show "there's JUST as much proof that Jesus lived!!" But don't let that stop you in your unending search for fallacies and ways to avoid answering direct questions, Dave.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,13:32

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:11)
                  Cory ... I wasn't lecturing you.  I was lecturing the MVD.  :D
                  I know you understand this stuff--at least the basic genetics.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, do you even bother to read my posts? You really should; that way it wouldn't take you months to learn things.

                  How many times have I told you what homozygosity means? How many times have I told you what heterozygosity means? How many times have I told you how many alleles an individual organism's genome can contain for a given gene? Or a mating pair? Or a group of eight individuals, five of whom are related?

                  You're not "lecturing" me about anything, Dave. You're just parroting back to me what I've been telling you for months. And don't think no one else will notice.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  And pray tell, what part of this ...

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
                  First, Woodmorappe explains that ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (The origins of HLA-A, B, C polymorphism. - group of 2 »P Parham, EJ Adams, KL Arnett - Immunol Rev, 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 177)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... is unclear to you and Eric?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  It's not unclear. It just doesn't matter. What conceivable difference can it make that individual populations only express a limited number of alleles, Dave? Can you explain what significance that has for your "hypothesis"? You still have to explain where all those alleles came from. You say they're not from mutations. You have finally admitted that they were not present on the ark. That leaves magic, Dave. Is that where you think they came from?

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Phenotypic diversity was never at issue, but genetic diversity most certainly still is. It has to come from somewhere, Dave. Where?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well then we miscommunicated.  

                  I have been arguing all along that ...

                  1) "Dramatic differences" are possible in a very short time, and
                  2) "Dramatic difference" potential can easily survive a single pair bottleneck simply by inclusion of most common alleles in the pair
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And you're wrong. Those phenotypic differences come from where, Dave? And you can't pretend that large genotypic differences don't exist, because they do. 627 alleles, Dave. Where did they come from?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I think of "dramatic differences" as "large phenotypic diversity" ... what about you?  I think of "genetic richness" as "high heterozygosity", i.e. inclusion of most common alleles in the bottleneck pair ... how about you?


                  I thought Eric was trying to refute these two points.

                  If he (and you) are not ... then Hallelujah!  We agree on something for a change.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Dramatic" phenotypic differences is a red herring, Dave. There's no clear-cut connection between the amount of phenotypic difference and the amount of genotypic difference. Your argument on this point is irrelevant to your larger problem, which is how you get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species in less than five millennia.

                  So even though you now understand that an organism can have at most two alleles, you still think that one organism can be significantly more heterozygotic than another one? How is that possible, Dave? How do you get new alleles, which you cannot deny exist, and you cannot deny must have arisen after the "flood" other than through mutations? You cannot.

                  Just because most genes have only a few, maybe one, maybe a handful, of different alleles, does not help you explain where genes with dozens or hundreds of alleles came from.

                  What you still haven't grasped is that heterozygosity will get you, at most, variation. It will not get you speciation, which is what you need. You need speciation at a rate far beyond anything ever contemplated by standard theories. You need to compress four billion years' worth of speciation into 4,500 years, and "heterozygosity" ain't gonna do it for you.

                  And you still can't explain where those extra 570 HLA-B alleles came from.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,13:41

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,12:11)
                  Cory ... I wasn't lecturing you.  I was lecturing the MVD.  :D
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  You're simply not in a position to lecture anybody about genetics, Dave. My breadth-course students -- most of whom had not had any biology whatsoever beyond grade 10 general science -- have no trouble remembering concepts such as alleles and heterozygosity. Punnett squares (which you earlier trumpeted almost as though they were some insightful AiG contribution) are, what, grade 7 material?

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I know you understand this stuff--at least the basic genetics.  I confess I forgot about your slides, but I wouldn't have had time today anyway.  Maybe another day (another forum?)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes, I do. And I'm telling you that Eric -- whom you included in your 'review' by name -- has been spot-on in his comments and questions.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Explanations for patterns of polymorphism: Have not read many yet, but as you can imagine, I would trust the creationist explanations more because they are more honest, i.e. they don't try to say that their version of "Whodunit" is a proven scientific fact like your camp does.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's a joke, right, Dave? I won't bother with the "more honest" bullshit. But I will say that polymorphism has nothing to do with "whodunit". Population genetics, especially at this basic level, is pure, simple math, Dave. You didn't pick up on the clues in my little paragraph about explanations because you don't know one of the most basic concepts involved in the consideration of allele frequencies -- a simple equation that is as obvious as it is useful. And oh yeah -- it doesn't have a thing to do with what you call "macroevolution" (it's actually pure "microevolution", since everything you've been going on about in this vein are concepts related to populations, Davey -- not species, not kinds). So your Creationist sources would be educating you on basic popgen if it helped their case. Odd that you haven't come across it, no? But trust me -- virtually all the people you presumed to lecture know exactly what I was talking about.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Cory ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Because Dave, it's not enough to show that there are generally 1-4 alleles per locus within populations. Never mind those "rare" alleles (that shouldn't exist according to your "CGH") or the many, many exceptional loci that exhibit greater polymorphism (like HLA, which was ignored by you -- not "discussed" -- previously). You have to show 1-4 alleles per locus within a kind, which you have claimed is roughly equivalent to the biological family. Do some homework, Dave, and you might see how laughable this is.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  It's not laughable at all.  I've cited many papers that show 1-4 alleles per locus in many species.  Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"?  We can only make educated guesses.  Just as you (Evos) can never definitively prove many things about your theory.  It's not possible because of the historical nature of the inquiry.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  There you go, trying to equivocate kinds and species again, Dave (neither of which is accurate in this case). A kind (as you have had to define it to fit them all on your boat) is not a species, nor is it a population (for which we actually measure allele frequencies). How many populations make up a typical species? How many species make up a typical kind? Without that information, you cannot extrapolate your mined generality of 1-4 alleles per locus within a sampled population to anything as meaningful as, "see, these are the 1-4 God-implanted alleles for this kind". That's what's laughable, Dave. Tell you what -- you show me that this 1-4 alleles per locus broadly applies to biological families (pick a few representatives -- your choice!;), as opposed to a single species or population, and I will investigate your claims.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  And pray tell, what part of this ...

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  ONLY A FEW ALLELES IN ANY ONE PARTICLUAR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
                  First, Woodmorappe explains that ...          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   
                  To begin with, the huge number of alleles, while true of the human race as a whole, obscures the fact that only a few alleles need have arisen (since the Flood) in any one geographical location:          

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Natural selection can clearly act to select new alleles, but in no indigenous population is there evidence for the large numbers of alleles found in modern urban populations.  It seems likely that the large numbers of alleles found in city populations are the results of admixture.  For example, if the two Brazilian tribes we studied were to form a single population, then the number of alleles would almost double and it would require relatively few such amalgamations to bring the number of alleles up to those found in a provincial town of Europe or Asia (The origins of HLA-A, B, C polymorphism. - group of 2 »P Parham, EJ Adams, KL Arnett - Immunol Rev, 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, p. 177)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  ... is unclear to you and Eric?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Um, how 'bout the part where you explain where those new alleles came from in all these indigenous (and later admixed) populations after the Flood? Eric is quite correct -- at least 617 alleles must have emerged (sure, in localized populations if you want) since then. Mutation is the only option (unless God intervened again?). You have been trying to claim this can't happen. Furthermore, you concede that they have been naturally selected for, which denies you the "harmful mutation" escape hatch. Dave, you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Phenotypic diversity was never at issue, but genetic diversity most certainly still is. It has to come from somewhere, Dave. Where?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Well then we miscommunicated.  

                  I have been arguing all along that ...

                  1) "Dramatic differences" are possible in a very short time, and
                  2) "Dramatic difference" potential can easily survive a single pair bottleneck simply by inclusion of most common alleles in the pair

                  I think of "dramatic differences" as "large phenotypic diversity" ... what about you?  I think of "genetic richness" as "high heterozygosity", i.e. inclusion of most common alleles in the bottleneck pair ... how about you?

                  I thought Eric was trying to refute these two points.

                  If he (and you) are not ... then Hallelujah!  We agree on something for a change.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's nice, Dave. Now explain the genetic diversity that is part of the "dramatic differences" we observe among living organisms on this planet (this is what we've been asking). I don't care what they look like -- we're talking DNA, which has its own "dramatic differences" that cannot be explained by recombination (what is there to recombine?). Nobody ever claimed (though you tried to make it seem like they did) that the extreme phenotypic variation in dogs (not to mention other species), selected by centuries of human domestication, is not in large part a result of recombining existing genetic diversity in canids. We've been trying to get you to tell us where you think that existing diversity came from. Hint: there is no way whatsoever that it could ever have been even mostly contained in two individual dog-type-things within the past 10,000 years, no matter how heterozygous you think they were. A simple scan of the genetic diversity present in canids would convince anybody with two brain cells to rub together that it has been a long, long, long time since any canid Adam and Eve (quite likely longer than anything we call canids themselves have been around). If you continue to claim that it hasn't, then either you haven't got a clue about the existing genetic diversity or  you believe in rates of mutation higher than anything I could postulate with a clear head (probably both). Maybe you should have tried cheetahs? At least their genomes show some evidence of a recent bottleneck.

                  Oh, and if I was to supply you with an actual definition for your "genetic richness", I suppose it would be something along the lines of genetic diversity, a concept I work with and teach in regularly. Genetic diversity (I'm talking within a species) exists at three basic levels: within individuals, within populations, and among populations. (We've also been talking about an even higher level -- that among species and higher taxonomic groups.) Yes, heterozygosity would be a component of genetic diversity/"richness" (i.e., that found within individuals). But just one part, and the only part you can stuff on the Ark. How about polymorphism (i.e., genetic diversity/"richness" within populations)? How about rare alleles and allele frequencies (i.e., genetic diversity/"richness" among populations)? Then we could talk about the importance of genetic diversity (e.g., for conservation) as a source of evolutionary potential and fitness. See Dave, I even do better than you do with invented concepts you pull out of your ass.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The fact remains that you have no objective way of knowing if the created "man" kind initially included chimps (and gorillas and 'rangs).
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  True, but you also have no objective way of knowing if we share a common ancestor.  Genetics can only give us clues.  We have to turn to other things for more clues.  And to these I have turned.  I am not so myopic or arrogant as to presume that only science can tell us everything there is to know.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  That's nice. Neither am I.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Cory, your science training has limited your vision.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  In the land of the blind...

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You say you reject anything that you cannot prove scientifically,
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Oh, REEAAALLLLYYY now? Care to remind me when and where I said I subscribe to such an obvious absurdity? Or are you making things up again? Liar.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  yet you uncritically accept the proposition that matter organized itself into biological structures in defiance of the very scientific laws that you applaud.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I do, do I? By matter organizing itself into biological structures, I assume you mean abiogenesis? Or do I uncritically accept the proposition that plants and animals metabolize matter from their surroundings to organize their own structures? Assuming it's the former, please remind me where I have said anything whatsoever regarding my beliefs about the origins of life. You won't find it, so you'll have to make something up. Then you'll have to show me how whatever theory of abiogenesis you ascribe to me violates any "scientific laws that I applaud". Then you'll have to show me that I have accepted this scientific-law-defying-theory-of-abiogenesis-I-never-voiced uncritically. If you can't do that, then you're making shit up again, Dave. Liar.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You accept written eyewitness testimony for many things in your life.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yep. And reject it for many others. Most recently in a turn in jury duty, for example (much less exciting than it sounds, but I did reject eyewitness testimony). I also reject the eyewitness accounts of flying witches in Salem, Davey. See, I actually incorporate such accounts into a broader field of evidence to see if they coincide. You should try it some time. And in all cases, I know who the professed eyewitness actually was, since this goes a long way toward determining credibility. As you should know better than most, Dave, would-be witnesses LIE. Or make stuff up without even knowing they're doing it.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You just don't regarding the Origin of Species.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The book? Sure I do. My girlfriend gave me an original Sixth Edition in beautiful condition for Christmas (it really is gorgeous). I accept the dealer's account of its provenance. What are you talking about, Dave? Assuming you didn't mean the book, apparently you and I actually both agree on the origin of species -- they emerged from existing biological diversity through mutation, selection, geographical isolation, local adaptation, etc., etc. If you're talking about the origin of kinds, you'll have to tell me what the #### those actually are, how I can recognize them (you know, just so I can be sure they exist before I waste time delving into their origins). You haven't done that. If you're talking about the origin of life, see above, you liar you. That's a topic for another day -- but not with you, Dave, because it involves biochemical concepts you don't have a prayer of understanding within either of our lifetimes.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Alas, maybe you will someday.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  You know, in my own way, I pray for you, too, Dave. But if I was to use the melodramatic, "Alas!", it would only be for the kids through which your nonsensical (but well-adapted) memes will be propagated.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 03 2007,13:55

                  I realize this is utterly futile, Dave, but I enjoy your squeals. You claim to have ANSWERED the "first 15 " of my questions? Can you NAME the questions you've "answered?"
                  I'll repost the first 15 I have on MY little list...and I'd like you to at LEAST name the page numbers where you "answered " them...but of course you won't...once again showing how willing you are to make unsupported ( and amusingly false) claims.
                  A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
                  (1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
                  (2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
                  (3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
                  (4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
                  (5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
                  (6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
                  (7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
                  (8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
                  (9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
                  (10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
                  (11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
                  (12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
                  (13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
                  (14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
                  (15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

                  Let's see, I count 6 in that group that you haven't even TOUCHED, not even peripherally...and I seem to recall that I just re-asked that Barringer meteor crater AGAIN just recently. So, which DID you answer? And please don't say you "answered" about population growth--when you didn't include any mortality rates...and don't say you "answered" the Coconino sandstone/spider tracks one, or the fossil sequence ones, or the dendrochronology one...I refuted "Dr." Don Batten easily, and you dropped it like a hot rock while pretending you were going to set up a "debate" between he and I? And Dave...YOU SURE NEVER PROVIDED A MEANS OF FALSIFYING YOUR "HYPOTHESIS" that is "better than any other" ...

                  SO NAME THE PAGES WHERE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE ANSWERED THESE THINGS. BE BOLD, BE BRAVE .

                  Oh, and Dave, I hope you move to Dawkins' site. I'll be sure ( as a professional courtesy to fellow scientists) to direct them to threads here, which they can peruse for Dave-droppings and sheer hilarity.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 03 2007,14:34

                  Eric ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you even bother to read my posts?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very little.  Sorry.  I've explained why many times.  You want me to read your posts?  Show some honesty, quit misrepresenting me, etc. etc.  It's pretty simple.

                  Cory ...  

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The book?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. The true origin of species.

                  But I do read your posts and I will respond to your latest one manana!  Cheers!  :)
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2007,14:40

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,14:34)
                  Very little.  Sorry.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Almost 11,000 comments and I believe this is the first honest thing I've seen from you.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 03 2007,14:43

                  I used to ... back when I saw some honesty and some brainy content.  Just don't see much these days.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,14:46

                  Dave, I'm going to help you with deadman's question (1), although you're off to a poor start.

                  You've given us "evidence" for your kind/flood/Ark hypothesis, in that the vast majority of polymorphic loci within a species have 1-4 alleles. Cool. Maybe your CGH is correct regarding the kinds, the flood and the boat. Don't you want to, you know, find out?

                  But then you claim:

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'm not forgetting that (how could I?!;), but if you don't mind me asking, why the #### not? You've just given us a perfect baraminological method!

                  See, all you have to do is draw up phylogenies based on shared polymorhpisms. With a broad enough sample of individuals and loci (the scientific community has plenty available to get you started), it would be pretty easy to get around the uncertainty introduced by some trivial mutations at certain loci (after all, almost all mutation is harmful and selection would have removed the vast majority of "mutant", non-Ark alleles). Take a bunch of species, see if they share a suitably significant proportion of their polymorphic alleles at these "1-4" loci (what determines a significant proportion would be easy to determine by comparison to outgroups -- you guys know stats, right?). If they do -- bingo! -- they're the same kind. If they don't, they're different kinds. Kind-demarcation made easy!

                  Remember when you showed us that little drawing where you lopped off the top of an evolutionary "tree" to get a little "forest"? Well, here's how you find the forest through the tree, big guy!

                  Oh sure, there'll be some gray areas in some phylogenies. But that's to be expected, and you could certainly find a few good (and potentially surprising) "kinds" pretty quickly. You guys should be able to outpace those silly molecular phylogenists operating on the ridiculous assumption of continued common descent in no time! Your method will emerge as superior, won't it Dave?

                  You've shown us all the baraminology groups and workshops. Why haven't they thought of this? It's child's play for any scientist to envision such a study, Dave. (Why must I always be coming up with ways to test and potentially advance your hypothesis, huh?) If they have thought of this (and I can't see why not -- it's sitting right there on AiG, that increasingly popular font of scientific information, waiting to be found by both AiG scientists and any amateur scientist like yourself), why haven't they published any results? Dave, with a little impetus, you could do this! You know where to find the appropriate literature and data by now, right?

                  They (AiG et al.) do actually believe the stuff they've made you believe, right, Dave? Because really, all you need is this 1-4 original alleles idea and you're golden. Start looking at some phylogenies and you'll be rewriting taxonomy!

                  Start delineating those kinds, Dave. If your interpretation of the Bible is right -- ####, if it's even close -- you'll have no trouble at all.

                  Oh, and for your salvation, I really hope the method doesn't show shared polymorphisms between humans and chimps (because you know what that would mean...). After all, we've already noted that this is somewhat observed in the HLA locus -- there are more than 10 alleles that humans have in common with chimps. What if those were the ones on the Ark? Uh oh...
                  Posted by: thurdl01 on Jan. 03 2007,14:54

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,14:34)
                  Show some honesty, quit misrepresenting me, etc. etc.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And once again, as has happened many times in this thread, the pot has called the snow drift black.

                  And another lurker in the dying hours of this thread popping his head out to thank all of those who tried to get a point across to someone uninterested in hearing that point.  The information has been wonderful, and the fortification of those posting has been commendible.  For awhile, I was against closing this thread, as it granted AFD the martyrdom that he has so sought, but there really has been less and less point to it as the months have dragged on.  Well done, all, and it is somewhat nice to know that this thread is down to just double digit replies left.  I'm glad to do my part in killing one of them.
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2007,14:57

                  Let me apologize up front for using up a precious post, now that we are down into double digits.  But, this just tickled me when I read it.

                  Y'all may recall that Dave was firmly against Representative-elect Keith Ellison swearing the oath of office for the US House on a copy of the Koran.  Well, this little < tidbit > from today's Washington Post says that Ellison will be taking the oath on Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,15:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,14:34)
                  Cory ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The book?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  No. The true origin of species.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Ah. You threw me with the capitalization and strange use of the term "species". After all, as you just stated on another thread, Creationists share the concept of speciation (i.e., the origin of species) with evolutionists, right? That was you, wasn't it?



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  But I do read your posts and I will respond to your latest one manana!  Cheers!  :)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Excellent! I look forward! But there's really not a whole lot to respond to in my reply to your reply. Instead, I'd rather you respond to the post just previous to this one where I offer you a method for delineating created kinds. Hopefully you will be as excited about it as I am.

                  And psst...Dave...look, obviously the atheist evolutionist establishment wouldn't look too kindly on me blithely offering up this secret info on a research project that will lead to its rapid demise and the long-sought rise of Creation Science. They've been secretly guarding the concept of experimental design for so long, and now I've gone and let you guys in on it. What's worse, you now have an-honest-to-goodness Bible-based scientific study that is cheap and easy -- you can conduct it in some secret location of your choosing (anywhere with access to the internet will do), with no need for applying to the atheist-controlled funding bodies. Plus, it's so well-matched to scriptural Truth that your results will be unequivocal (i.e., even the atheist-controlled journals like Science and Nature will have to publish your results, or be left behind, so to speak). And do I have to remind you that you're about to have a lot more time on your hands? Fuck, if they ever found out about this, I'd be Sternberged in no time. So let's just keep this between you and me, eh? (I'm not worried about the other plebes on this board -- Eric doesn't have the educational background to understand these basic genetic concepts that you've mastered in such a short time, and the rest won't even notice what I say -- they'll just nod their heads at another presumably propaganda-filled post from a fellow evolutionist.) You can have all the glory. Just tap the side of your nose when you receive your Nobel (soon to be renamed Noah) Prize and I'll know you're thinking of this little birdie, eh big guy?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,15:51

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,12:34)
                  Eric ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Dave, do you even bother to read my posts?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Very little.  Sorry.  I've explained why many times.  You want me to read your posts?  Show some honesty, quit misrepresenting me, etc. etc.  It's pretty simple.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Good luck trying to find somewhere I haven't been totally, 100% honest, Dave. Go ahead, give it a try. There's absolutely no reason why I would need to be otherwise. What, you think your arguments are difficult to demolish? Guess again.

                  In the meantime, your own dishonesty on this thread has been sufficiently documented to where I don't think anything remains to be said about it which hasn't already been said.

                  But explain to me, if you possibly can, how you can think you've taught me anything about how many alleles a single diploid organism can have for a given gene, when I've been pointing out the same thing to you for over a month.

                  If actually had read some of my posts, you would have dropped all of your arguments and your young-earth creationism a long time ago.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 03 2007,15:52

                  Why are so many people worried about the "few precious posts" left on this thread?  Is there some secret plan to cut my fingers off also at Post #5000 or something?  Or do you guys' computers block the Dawkins forum IP address?  Or my blog's IP address?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,15:57

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,12:43)
                  I used to ... back when I saw some honesty and some brainy content.  Just don't see much these days.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Kudos for the hypocrisy, Dave. Again, I invite you to scour this thread and your other thread for a single example of dishonesty on my part.

                  Good luck. You'll need it.

                  In the meantime, I think it's pretty obvious who has been demolishing whose arguments, Dave. And it ain't you who's been doing the demolishing.

                  Because what you do see in my posts, whether you'll admit it or not, is unanswerable question after unanswerable question after unanswerable question.
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 03 2007,15:59

                  You're still whining and not dealing with what was asked you, Dave. Why don't you just ooze your way on over to Dawkins' place now? Then show your daddy and your kids and your wife and the rest of your family this thread.

                  Oh, and I LOVE the way you claimed that ALL the "friends" you told about your threads here...just "didn't have the time" to post on 'em...in well over 6 months.

                  DAY-UM, they's some BUSY folks not to have 3 minutes to spare to give you support, Davey--for over six months.

                  Or maybe you're just lying again.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,16:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,15:52)
                  Why are so many people worried about the "few precious posts" left on this thread?  Is there some secret plan to cut my fingers off also at Post #5000 or something?  Or do you guys' computers block the Dawkins forum IP address?  Or my blog's IP address?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's when we blow cover and bring out God's body, Dave. You see, Nietzsche was right (no big revelation -- the carcass had been stinking up his basement for ages before he got around to noticing). Last I checked, Richardthughes was using it as an ironic guitar stand for his Tele.

                  That, or perhaps nobody is all that concerned with tracking you down on your future adventures in cyberspace.

                  But I'll be anxiously awaiting your new baraminology, all the same.
                  Posted by: improvius on Jan. 03 2007,16:07

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,16:52)
                  Why are so many people worried about the "few precious posts" left on this thread?  Is there some secret plan to cut my fingers off also at Post #5000 or something?  Or do you guys' computers block the Dawkins forum IP address?  Or my blog's IP address?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  This is the end of your magnum opus, Dave.  It's what you will be remebered for - a grand monument to the ridiculousness and intractability of creationists everywhere.  Some of us just think it's a shame that we can't pack it with even more of your absurd musings.  It even pains me to add this post, knowing that I'm taking away another opportunity for you to say something incredibly stupid.  Oh sure, you'll keep saying stupid things in other places.  But it just won't be the same.

                  I'm still hoping you respond to the dogs and foxes/baraminology thing.  Because I just know that's going to be fantastically stupid.
                  Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 03 2007,16:34



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT WESLEY'S PIECE

                  Wesley ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination

                  We have already introduced the term recombination. This term is widely used in many areas of practical and theoretical genetics, so it is absolutely necessary to be clear on its meaning at this stage. Recombination can occur in a variety of situations in addition to meiosis, but for the present we define it in relation to meiosis. To adapt the definition to other situations, we shall simply replace the words meiotic and meiosis with other appropriate terms.

                  Definition

                  Meiotic recombination is any meiotic process that generates a haploid product of meiosis whose genotype is different from the two haploid genotypes that constituted the meiotic diploid. The product of meiosis so generated is called a recombinant.


                  -- Suzuki, Griffiths, & Lewontin, 1981, Introduction to Genetic Analysis (2nd edition), p.140.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  A good definition.  But other sources highlight something very important to the present debate ...      

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wesley ...      

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Those meiotic processes mentioned include crossover and inversion. A little reflection should be sufficient to convince anyone able to understand genetic mechanisms that any genotype that can be generated by the application of a point mutation can also theoretically be produced by one or more recombination events in the presence of sufficient base-pair diversity. Recombination also does not respect reading frame boundaries, so recombination is (as implied above) fully able to produce novel alleles, and is not restricted to shuffling novelty produced solely by other mechanisms. Recombination is, further, a far more common event than point mutation. Noting that one mechanism of generating novel genotypes is more common than another seems to me quite sufficient reason to write in a way that treats those processes as distinct.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Notice that word 'theoretically.'  It is the key word in the whole paragraph.  This word sums up Darwinism quite nicely.  What Wesley is saying is that RECOMBINATION and MUTATION are both THEORETICALLY capable of creating all life on earth, so making a distinction between them as mechanisms is nit-picky.  I disagree.  I am into EVIDENCE, not theory.  Isn't that what scientists (even amateur ones like me) are supposed to be into?  And the EVIDENCE says that "recombination does not create new variation", Darwinist wishful thinking notwithstanding.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  The Wikipedia article is in error on this point. I've entered a comment in the talk page there with a verifiable reference, so I expect that it will change shortly.

                  The Wikipedia entry is not evidence, by the way. Nature's review of encyclopedias found that in technical articles of moderate length, domain experts found, on average, four errors within Wikipedia articles. (Encyclopedia Britannica did only modestly better, with an average of three errors per such article.) In this case, the statement in the Wikipedia article was unreferenced. In contrast, I provided < reference to a research article > seeking to characterize the mechanism of genetic novelty, finding that recombination accounted for the events under study and not an alternate mechanism of polymerase slippage.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Seizing upon pedanticism to escape the inevitable observation that genetic variation, however it arises, is sufficient to give selection its needed scope seems to me to be a rather desperate and pathetic strategy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I am not seizing upon pedanticism.  I am refuting ATBC notions that 1) bottlenecks necessarily kill diversity, and 2) 4500 years (the time since the global flood) is too short to achieve massive diversity.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I doubt that there has been any "rebuttal" on either. Handwaving, sure. Rebuttal, no.

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                       

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for the proposed rapid diversification needed to fit an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago, the example of dog breeds doesn't satisfy this. A conspicous lack of diversification of dental formula is seen among dog breeds; no matter what breed you look at, it has the usual canine dental formula. Since mammalian paleontology is based primarily upon dental characters, and one would need to explain how so many various mammalian dental formulas diversified in the limited period of post-flood time, it appears that the example of dog breeds goes primarily to establishing that longer time periods are needed for acquiring the observed diversity in this set of characters.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I am not trying to fit anything into an evolutionary time-scale.  I have been REFUTING the evolutionary Deep Time scenario.  The present debate has nothing to do with dog teeth.  It has everything to do with 1) population bottlenecks, and 2) time needed for diversification

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Read for comprehension, please: "an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago". You are proposing that observed genetic diversity can be accounted for by evolutionary processes since Noah's flood. That is an "evolutionary time-scale".

                  You said that domestic dog breeds demonstrate that divergence of characters occurs on the reduced time-scale that you require. However, you do not account for mammalian divergence of dental formulae with this example. Mammals have all sorts of different dental formulas, many of which would have to arise since Noah's flood, within your reduced evolutionary time-scale. So on the one hand we have the observation that many changes in mammalian dental formulae have happened, and on the other we have your example of domestic dogs, which shows no change in dental formula whatsoever. Your example does not support the notion that observed mammalian diversity in dental formula can be compressed into the evolutionary time-scale of divergence since a Noachic flood.

                  Get it now?


                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Jan. 03 2007,16:36



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Cory, your science training has limited your vision.  You say you reject anything that you cannot prove scientifically, yet you uncritically accept the proposition that matter organized itself into biological structures in defiance of the very scientific laws that you applaud.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  And exactly what 'scientific' laws are you referring to Dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,16:41

                  Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2007,13:02)
                  (I'm not worried about the other plebes on this board -- Eric doesn't have the educational background to understand these basic genetic concepts that you've mastered in such a short time, and the rest won't even notice what I say -- they'll just nod their heads at another presumably propaganda-filled post from a fellow evolutionist.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I guarantee I'll never hear the end of this. Dave hasn't mastered the concepts of analogy or metaphor yet; I doubt he has much of a handle on irony or sarcasm, either.
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Jan. 03 2007,16:46



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You accept written eyewitness testimony for many things in your life.

                  You just don't regarding the Origin of Species.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I'm sure he does accept eye witness accounts for the origin of new species, there have been about 200 references to such accounts listed on the other Dave's thread.

                  Isn't it interesting how much more interested AFDave has become in saving our souls since Dave #2 started posting.

                  Dave, can you say hypocrite?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,16:56

                  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2007,14:34)
                  You said that domestic dog breeds demonstrate that divergence of characters occurs on the reduced time-scale that you require. However, you do not account for mammalian divergence of dental formulae with this example. Mammals have all sorts of different dental formulas, many of which would have to arise since Noah's flood, within your reduced evolutionary time-scale. So on the one hand we have the observation that many changes in mammalian dental formulae have happened, and on the other we have your example of domestic dogs, which shows no change in dental formula whatsoever. Your example does not support the notion that observed mammalian diversity in dental formula can be compressed into the evolutionary time-scale of divergence since a Noachic flood.

                  Get it now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  One of the many, many, many questions Dave has never answered (maybe it's because he doesn't actually read my posts) is, assuming a few thousand "kinds" have since the flood diversified into an average of a thousand species each, why is it that humans have not diversified at all? There is still, and has been for the entire 4,500 years since the "flood," only one species of Homo, to wit, H. sapiens.

                  What is unique about the human genome that prevents it from speciating at all? Were there any other "kinds" on the ark that have not speciated since the "flood"?

                  I doubt Dave will even attempt to answer this, since doing so would require that he admit to actually reading one of my posts.
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 03 2007,17:30

                  Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 03 2007,16:56)
                  One of the many, many, many questions Dave has never answered (maybe it's because he doesn't actually read my posts) is, assuming a few thousand "kinds" have since the flood diversified into an average of a thousand species each, why is it that humans have not diversified at all? There is still, and has been for the entire 4,500 years since the "flood," only one species of Homo, to wit, H. sapiens.

                  What is unique about the human genome that prevents it from speciating at all? Were there any other "kinds" on the ark that have not speciated since the "flood"?

                  I doubt Dave will even attempt to answer this, since doing so would require that he admit to actually reading one of my posts.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  But Eric, we don't know that. Based on Dave's logic, this is just yet another reason to suspect those chimps and gorillas are in our "kind". Only Dave's (and apparently Faid's) "intuition" tells us they aren't. The Bible isn't specific: it doesn't mention apes, but it does warn us of the wages of sin, and we've been fallen for a while. Taxonomy (same family, after all), genetic distance, molecular phylogenies, GULO (remember that?!;), shared polymorphisms, etc. -- and now the demand for some degree of speciation like all other "kinds" on the planet -- all suggest that they are. And we know what kind of "dramatic differences" in phenotype a simple reassortment of Ark genes can produce. If Dave were consistent in his CGH (stop laughing and hear me out!;), he would admit (or at least address the possibility -- after all, we can never clearly delineate the created kinds) the other apes may well be within the human "kind" and wonder exactly what Noah's "genetic richness" would have looked like. But Dave just doesn't like them damned dirty apes.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 03 2007,17:38

                  Quote (incorygible @ Jan. 03 2007,15:30)
                  But Eric, we don't know that. Based on Dave's logic, this is just yet another reason to suspect those chimps and gorillas are in our "kind". Only Dave's (and apparently Faid's) "intuition" tells us they aren't. The Bible isn't specific: it doesn't mention apes, but it does warn us of the wages of sin, and we've been fallen for a while. Taxonomy (same family, after all), genetic distance, molecular phylogenies, GULO (remember that?!), shared polymorphisms, etc. -- and now the demand for some degree of speciation like all other "kinds" on the planet -- all suggest that they are. And we know what kind of "dramatic differences" in phenotype a simple reassortment of Ark genes can produce. If Dave were consistent in his CGH (stop laughing and hear me out!), he would admit (or at least address the possibility -- after all, we can never clearly delineate the created kinds) the other apes may well be within the human "kind" and wonder exactly what Noah's "genetic richness" would have looked like. But Dave just doesn't like them damned dirty apes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Interesting hypothesis. Apes are actually descended from humans!

                  What do you think, Dave? Can you tell one way or another? Maybe chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are just really bad humans who have fallen much further, much faster, than the rest of us.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 03 2007,17:59

                  Nah, the naked apes what fight the wars and produce the serial killers and psychopaths and door-belling god-babblers are clearly the fallen tribe of the hominid "kind."  And this is true regardless of any evilutionary-conspiracy mind-worm maundering.  Listen, my children, and you shall see:

                  I mean, first of all, just use you intuition: don't many people grow bald as they age and their bodies physically degenerate?  And this head-baldness happens in only one lifetime!

                  Well, then, just use your common sense: why should the worst, most sinful members of our "kind" not also expect, over many generations, that their body-fur should also "fall out" (so to speak) as a result of their moral Fall?

                  It's a sign, I tell ya, of Dog'sbane!  Or God's Wrath (or something like that...).

                  Clearly the chimps, gorillas (there were giants in those days...), and orangs are the original model of the garden-dwelling hominid body plan.  And, check this factoid, O Unbelievers, that's where they still dwell today, plucking the fruit off the vine and the termite from the tunnel.

                  And would continue to dwell, peacefully (more or less, unless you believe that science-y Goodall person), were it not for our sinful incursions upon their habitat.

                  And check this other factoid: our unfallen brethren don't even get AIDS.  (Oh, sure, those "scientists" prate about "SIV," but we know that's hokum, and hardly causes them a sniffle, anyways...)  As we all ought to know by now, getting AIDS is the surest sign of the most-fallen among us.

                  [/tardogetics]
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 03 2007,18:02

                  Quote (Malum Regnat @ Jan. 03 2007,16:46)
                  Isn't it interesting how much more interested AFDave has become in saving our souls since Dave #2 started posting.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Reminds me of the old joke about going fishing with Baptists.   If you go fishing with one Baptist, he will drink all of your beer.  If you go fishing with two Baptists, they won't drink any of your beer.
                  Posted by: Steviepinhead on Jan. 03 2007,18:06

                  I guess it all boils down to this, dave:

                  Not only were Adam and Eve holier than thou, they were hairier than thou, too!

                  It's just commonsense.  Use your intuition.

                  (And you realize what follows, don't you, dave?  Yep, the Big Guy himself: major case of back-hair.  And hobbit-feet...)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,18:51

                  I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. You know, how many points your get for comparing yourself to Galileo, etc. Anybody know what I'm talking about?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2007,18:58

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2007,16:51)
                  I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. You know, how many points your get for comparing yourself to Galileo, etc. Anybody know what I'm talking about?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I thought it was called the Crank Index and was found on www.crank.net, but now I'm not finding it.

                  EDIT: It's the crackpot index, and can be found here:
                  < http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html >

                  EDIT EDIT: A stiff middle finger to you, Lou, and a wagging tongue towards the girls!  :angry:
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 03 2007,19:04

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2007,18:51)
                  I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. You know, how many points your get for comparing yourself to Galileo, etc. Anybody know what I'm talking about?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  < Crackpot index >

                  EDIT:  Argy,

                  Jerk.

                  :D

                  EDIT EDIT - Argy, ttthhhhhhbbbbbbbbbbbb!

                  Steve, I wouldn't have said a thing, honest!

                  okimlying.  zippin' my trap and watchin' from here out.

                  :D
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,19:22

                  Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 03 2007,15:57)
                  Let me apologize up front for using up a precious post, now that we are down into double digits.  But, this just tickled me when I read it.

                  Y'all may recall that Dave was firmly against Representative-elect Keith Ellison swearing the oath of office for the US House on a copy of the Koran.  Well, this little < tidbit > from today's Washington Post says that Ellison will be taking the oath on Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  SWEET.
                  Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 03 2007,19:30

                  < talk.origins Home Game (at AE) >
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 03 2007,19:40

                  Go away to the U.P. for the New Year and everything changes.  Gotta get this post in quick before the end times comes.

                  Does Stevestory have an e-mail version of kool-aid for all the thread participants?  I can't think of anything better occurring after this ends.  My numerological analysis shows the number 5000 very prophetic for some reason.  Something to do with "reasoning will return" and "knowledge will flow like hot cocoa".  If that's the case then I know I can't face it so soon.  I've purchase my purple coveralls and have my white sneakers already.

                  I'd like to thank everyone for their continued dilligence of facts.

                  And Eric also gets my vote for persistance in opposition.

                  AFDave,
                  I thank you for teaching me new ways to obfuscate, confuse, and confound a debate opponent.  Your lessons in semantics and verbal manipulation deserve some type of mention.  Too bad the big sky mommy chose for you to reveal these skills in such an unproductive endeavor.

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  Dave, since I believe in radiometric dating techniques does that make me an idiot or a liar?  You said that once, do you want me to find the quote OR DO YOU TRUST THAT YOU SAID THIS!
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,19:41

                  69 posts to go.

                  (Lou--Stifle It)
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 03 2007,19:45



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  p.s.  Dave, since I believe in radiometric dating techniques does that make me an idiot or a liar?  You said that once, do you want me to find the quote OR DO YOU TRUST THAT YOU SAID THIS!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh, come on, Mike, Dave can't even remember what he said on the previous day. Do you really think he can remember what he said weeks or even months ago? I think the fast times and jets may have smoked his brains, and the fast women junked his balls (maybe a bit of neurosyphilis as well?).
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 03 2007,20:05

                  Well well well surprise surprise Flying Blind Dave finally comes clean; he doesn't actually read what he doesn't like. (BTW AFD that was clear to most I think)

                  Great effort genius.

                  Let that be a lesson to all his 'friends'..... AFD thinks the sun shines the brightest out of his own ass. It's a pity the members of your congregation AFD don't read this, they may look more critically at your denials of perfidy on the part of your co-conspirators explanation of 'missing' church money.

                  Keep in mind AFD, that stinking its all about AFD's ego statement is going to follow you around for a long, long, long time, please...... please carry this over to Dawkins' site.

                  As soon as they find out that you are there just to preach like one of those annoying pastors outside a casino the security will be moving you further down the street.

                  Ignorant Scum.
                  Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 03 2007,21:06

                  Re "I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. [...]"

                  This? < The Crackpot Index >

                  Henry
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 03 2007,21:10

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43)
                  INCORYGIBLE'S REQUEST FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANISMS
                  Yes.  I quoted Woodmorappe's opinion that the created kind probably was roughly equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds).  And you would have a very good point in asking how can we separate humans from the great apes if sequence difference is our objective guide .. EXCEPT ... for the fact that you are overlooking one key item.  

                  You are disregarding two pieces of Biblical information ...

                  "Genesis 1: 26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
                  27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
                  28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

                  ... and ...

                  "Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

                  Now of course, you do not take these statements as authoritative, which is fine for now ... you will in time either in this life or the next, but nevertheless, even with your present dim view of the Genesis record, these passages stand as possible clues to the profound mystery of the differences we see between apes and humans.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As we wrap up I noticed another item that needs clearing up from Dave.

                  W-a-a-a-a-y back we were questioning Dave on which verses of the Bible (the KJV specifically) were "God Inspired" and which were "mixed-up in interpretation".

                  We see now that Dave has listed;
                   Genesis 1:26
                               1:27
                               1:28
                               2:7
                  as the infallable word of the big one.

                  Maybe Dave can continue with a verse listing before we close at 5000.
                  Posted by: Crabby Appleton on Jan. 03 2007,21:56

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 03 2007,19:40)
                  Go away to the U.P. for the New Year and everything changes.  Gotta get this post in quick before the end times comes.

                  Does Stevestory have an e-mail version of kool-aid for all the thread participants?  I can't think of anything better occurring after this ends.  My numerological analysis shows the number 5000 very prophetic for some reason.  Something to do with "reasoning will return" and "knowledge will flow like hot cocoa".  If that's the case then I know I can't face it so soon.  I've purchase my purple coveralls and have my white sneakers already.

                  I'd like to thank everyone for their continued dilligence of facts.

                  And Eric also gets my vote for persistance in opposition.

                  AFDave,
                  I thank you for teaching me new ways to obfuscate, confuse, and confound a debate opponent.  Your lessons in semantics and verbal manipulation deserve some type of mention.  Too bad the big sky mommy chose for you to reveal these skills in such an unproductive endeavor.

                  Mike PSS

                  p.s.  Dave, since I believe in radiometric dating techniques does that make me an idiot or a liar?  You said that once, do you want me to find the quote OR DO YOU TRUST THAT YOU SAID THIS!
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Hey Mike, did ya see any Turdy Point Bucks whilst you was up dere?
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 03 2007,22:03

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 03 2007,20:40)
                  Go away to the U.P. for the New Year and everything changes.  Gotta get this post in quick before the end times comes.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oh man, Mike, the UP is one of my favorite places on earth.  January?  Hope you bring your tire chains!  I'm jealous.
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 03 2007,22:25

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43)
                  INCORYGIBLE'S REQUEST FOR AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFYING ORGANISMS
                  Yes.  I quoted Woodmorappe's opinion that the created kind probably was roughly equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds) and at least considering that you might melt if you understood the biomass that excludes .  And you would have a very good point in asking how can we separate humans from the great apes if sequence difference is our objective guide .. EXCEPT ... for the fact that you are overlooking one key item. you keep using that word. I think I will start calling you Vizzini. :p  :p  :p

                  You are disregarding two pieces of Biblical {information} -information in the sense that Shannon uses it?] ...

                  "Genesis 1: 26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our [our as in the trinity?] image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So that makes gol like the big king and us like the little kings? Like feudalism?
                  27 So God created man in His own image; to keep the races pure? in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
                  28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Like Atilla or GW?
                  ...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
                  hmm. that's got to be a lot right there.

                  25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) the AFDave updated what was it again?

                  26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. wow. is that each time?

                  28.  20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

                  29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

                  30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

                  31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
                  dear Mother Earth (may we bask in your grace as revealed to us through our senses)

                  33.  40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

                  34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

                  wow. what's he up to? I can't count that high. My tardometer has turned over too may times. I lost count.

                  36.  40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

                  37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


                  I can't comment any more. i'm using all my fingers and toles to try to figure out how many hundreds of thousands of points Vizzini here earned on that scale. He could have potentially given Dembski a run for his money on those ones.

                  24?
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 03 2007,22:33

                  Rich Uncle with a house on the Menomonie River.  He's got a camp inland too with all the UP toys.  Nothing but silence sometimes.  I try and get there once a year.

                  Tire chains needed this time.  Snow, then rain, then freeze left some tricky spots off the main roads.

                  Turned into a beer and wine fest for a few days.  Didn't have internet but for some reason didn't miss/remember it existed.  Must have been the 5th (or 8th) Stella.  At least we had DirecTV to watch the bowls.  I applaud Boise State; what a game.

                  I saw a few venison-on-the-hoof (along with a few other cuts) but no biggies.  More drinking than driving on this visit.

                  By the Way,
                  Happy New Year to All.
                  Even to you Dave.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2007,22:46

                  Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 03 2007,23:33)
                  Rich Uncle with a house on the Menomonie River.  He's got a camp inland too with all the UP toys.  Nothing but silence sometimes.  I try and get there once a year.

                  Tire chains needed this time.  Snow, then rain, then freeze left some tricky spots off the main roads.

                  Turned into a beer and wine fest for a few days.  Didn't have internet but for some reason didn't miss/remember it existed.  Must have been the 5th (or 8th) Stella.  At least we had DirecTV to watch the bowls.  I applaud Boise State; what a game.

                  I saw a few venison-on-the-hoof (along with a few other cuts) but no biggies.  More drinking than driving on this visit.

                  By the Way,
                  Happy New Year to All.
                  Even to you Dave.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Oooo, Stella. And here I am, stuck with a few Molson XXX's. I've got a few days off so ordinarily it would be Vodka Time, but there are a few South Parks downloading, and when they get here in an hour, I'd rather be pleasantly buzzed than passed out on the floor with the cat jumping on me.
                  Posted by: srasmus1 on Jan. 03 2007,23:35

                  Guess I'll delurk since it's so close to the final countdown.

                  I've been reading these threads since Dave's very first appearance and just want to say thanks to all who contributed. I've never really been moved to put in my two cents, especially since everyone else has had such an easy time shredding Dave's arguments, but I've been following creationist antics since the early Morris and Gish days.

                  And Dave, even though it's obvious that you've murdered your conscience to make room for your bloated pride, and nothing will ever get through to you, here's something to get all swollen up with pride about. You're in the Bible!

                  1 Timothy 6:3-5
                  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

                  We're withdrawing ourselves from you and your perverse disputings, Dave. I hope you find some true humility someday.

                  See ya'll on other threads!
                  Posted by: Mike PSS on Jan. 04 2007,00:02

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2007,23:46)
                  Oooo, Stella. And here I am, stuck with a few Molson XXX's. I've got a few days off so ordinarily it would be Vodka Time, but there are a few South Parks downloading, and when they get here in an hour, I'd rather be pleasantly buzzed than passed out on the floor with the cat jumping on me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Nothing wrong with Canadian brew but I spend a little more because I can only drink beer brewed in the < Reinheitsgebot > tradition.  Put rice, or wheat, or honey junk into my beer and a wicked headache comes forth.  I've drunk for hours at the gasthouse and woke up feeling "stretched" but still functional.  Give me two Buds (or other such U.S. concoction) and I'm a basket case until the next afternoon.

                  Plus, it tastes danm good.

                  I grew up on Canadian brew in the 80's when I lived in Vancouver.  Friday nights had 50cent beer and you could fill a table of draft Carling O'Keefe (or Moosehead) for $20.  I don't have the liver left for adventures like that any more.
                  Posted by: CloneBoySA on Jan. 04 2007,02:05

                  Hi,

                  I just want to get in a last thanks before this thread closes. To all of those who contributed, I stand in humble awe at your depth of knowledge. I have learnt much here, and will miss learning more from you all.  

                  After 5000 posts here, plus the entire original thread, it seems that Afdave still has not learnt anything, except perhaps the shallowness of his knowledge. I wish I could see you in a more favourable light Afdave, but after all this time, I cannot see you as anything more than a man who cannot face up to the fact that he has been wrong, time and time and time again. Every time you are presented with a complete rebuttal to one of your points, you scuttle away, then come back a few days later, claiming victory. I would feel sorry for you, but in a few days, I know you will be thinking "I sure showed those nasty evilutionists a thing or two, so much that they had to close down the thread twice!"

                  Anyway, thanks again to all of you who have provided such enjoyment and knowledge.

                  David

                  PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...
                  Posted by: BWE on Jan. 04 2007,03:09

                  David and goliath? What about letterman? Ha ha! Am am still up working 1:10 am pacific. Big doins this year I guess.

                  55?
                  Posted by: "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on Jan. 04 2007,07:17

                  You seem to have not answered my questions, Davey (surprise, surprise). so I'll ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer or run away.

                  *ahem*

                  Davey, do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?

                  Do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?

                  Do you think there are people who are possessed by demons?

                  Think carefully before you answer.
                  Posted by: thurdl01 on Jan. 04 2007,07:18

                  Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 04 2007,02:05)
                  PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As a fellow David, I know the feeling.  Glad to know there's more of us on the correct side of this whole thing.  Maybe we need a sequel to Project Steve.
                  Posted by: ppb on Jan. 04 2007,09:20

                  Another lurker coming out of the shadows to say thanks to all the regular contributers on this thread.  You are a credit to Science and the persuit of knowledge.

                  I have family and friends who are into creationism, including a former brother-in-law who is a proud graduate of the ICR!  I have a BS in Biology, I've had a life-long interest in Astronomy, and am a great lover of Science in general, so I was never persuaded by the YEC blather.  Still, I have something of a morbid fascination with the mindset.

                  With the recent court battles over ID, I started following events on Panda's Thumb and other sites.  I got drawn into this thread because I've known a number of AFDaves in the past.  I admire all the true professional scientists who have taken the time to dismember the creationist "arguments".  I've held back from contributing myself because I could not have done it as well.

                  I won't be following AFDave to any new forums.  He clearly has nothing new to say.  I will continue to follow PT.  It's great to read about all the exciting discoveries that real scientists are making.
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 04 2007,09:32

                  [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Jan. 03 2007,16:34]    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK AT WESLEY'S PIECE

                  Wesley ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination

                  We have already introduced the term recombination. This term is widely used in many areas of practical and theoretical genetics, so it is absolutely necessary to be clear on its meaning at this stage. Recombination can occur in a variety of situations in addition to meiosis, but for the present we define it in relation to meiosis. To adapt the definition to other situations, we shall simply replace the words meiotic and meiosis with other appropriate terms.

                  Definition

                  Meiotic recombination is any meiotic process that generates a haploid product of meiosis whose genotype is different from the two haploid genotypes that constituted the meiotic diploid. The product of meiosis so generated is called a recombinant.


                  -- Suzuki, Griffiths, & Lewontin, 1981, Introduction to Genetic Analysis (2nd edition), p.140.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  A good definition.  But other sources highlight something very important to the present debate ...      

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.
                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination >

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Wesley ...            

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Those meiotic processes mentioned include crossover and inversion. A little reflection should be sufficient to convince anyone able to understand genetic mechanisms that any genotype that can be generated by the application of a point mutation can also theoretically be produced by one or more recombination events in the presence of sufficient base-pair diversity. Recombination also does not respect reading frame boundaries, so recombination is (as implied above) fully able to produce novel alleles, and is not restricted to shuffling novelty produced solely by other mechanisms. Recombination is, further, a far more common event than point mutation. Noting that one mechanism of generating novel genotypes is more common than another seems to me quite sufficient reason to write in a way that treats those processes as distinct.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Notice that word 'theoretically.'  It is the key word in the whole paragraph.  This word sums up Darwinism quite nicely.  What Wesley is saying is that RECOMBINATION and MUTATION are both THEORETICALLY capable of creating all life on earth, so making a distinction between them as mechanisms is nit-picky.  I disagree.  I am into EVIDENCE, not theory.  Isn't that what scientists (even amateur ones like me) are supposed to be into?  And the EVIDENCE says that "recombination does not create new variation", Darwinist wishful thinking notwithstanding.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Wikipedia article is in error on this point. I've entered a comment in the talk page there with a verifiable reference, so I expect that it will change shortly.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  The Wikipedia article is not in error.  I also have entered a comment there following your comment.  The entire exchange appears below ...    

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  New alleles?

                  Does recombination create new alleles, or does it keep the current ones intact? 5th April 2006

                     Recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries, and therefore can produce novel alleles. One research article describing this says:

                         The asymmetric patterns of polymorphism and the absence of simple dinucleotide variation in 23 kb of sequence are compatible with recombination or sister chromatid exchange, but not polymerase slippage. By inference, recombination should underlie the polymorphisms at (GT)n/(AC)n since they are a subset of (RY)n and they commonly occur in the context of longer (RY)n.

                     Which means that the introductory statement in the main article here:

                         Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.

                     is completely incorrect. Recombination is sufficient to produce novel alleles. It does not necessarily produce novel alleles, though, which is why a misunderstanding such as the quoted statement from the article can become widespread as a meme.

                     Can somebody fix the main article, please? --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

                     Suggested rephrasing of the bad sentence... Was:

                         Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.

                     should become...

                         Because coding regions are relatively uncommon, in most cases recombination breaks and rejoins genetic material outside those regions, with the effect of "shuffling" already-existing loci. But since recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries, from time to time it will bring together parts of differing alleles, resulting in the production of a novel allele.

                     How's that sound? --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

                  [edit] ==================================================

                     I emphatically disagree with Dr. Elsberry. The sentence should remain unchanged. This article is based on one of the leading cell biology textbooks in the world, co-authored by no less an authority than the late president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts.

                     Note that the research article quoted by Dr. Elsberry does not say "recombination is sufficient to produce novel alleles." It simply says "By inference, recombination should underlie the polymorphisms ..." Notice the use of the words "by inference" and "should." These are not words indicative of experimental certainty. I would challenge Dr. Elsberry to produce experimental evidence supporting his idea that "recombination can produce novel alleles." To my knowledge, there have been no experiments confirming this. Rather, all experimentation to date has confirmed the sentence as it stands. Therefore, to implement Dr. Elsberry's proposed change would mislead readers. Now it might be acceptable to say something like ...

                         Experiments to date indicate that recombination only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci. Some evolutionary biologists have proposed that recombination can produce novel alleles by noting that recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries. However, the notion of novel allele production by recombination has not been confirmed experimentally.

                     Readers should be aware that this change proposed by Dr. Elsberry was precipitated by a discussion on the "After the Bar Closes" Forum at Panda's Thumb. It appears that evolutionary biologists such as Dr. Elsberry are keen to propose new mechanisms for the generation of novel alleles in the face of accumulating evidence that RM + NS (Random Mutation + Natural Selection) is insufficient to explain all the biological innovations seen in nature. One participant in the discussion--a microbiology professor--even proposed that recombination is a "kind" of mutation. Of course, this would be a significant departure from all previous understandings of the word "mutation."

                     To make the change proposed by Dr. Elsberry would be misleading to readers and in my opinion would serve to discredit the good name of Wikipedia. --David W. Hawkins 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

                  < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_recombination#New_alleles.3F >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The Wikipedia entry is not evidence, by the way. Nature's review of encyclopedias found that in technical articles of moderate length, domain experts found, on average, four errors within Wikipedia articles. (Encyclopedia Britannica did only modestly better, with an average of three errors per such article.) In this case, the statement in the Wikipedia article was unreferenced. In contrast, I provided < reference to a research article > seeking to characterize the mechanism of genetic novelty, finding that recombination accounted for the events under study and not an alternate mechanism of polymerase slippage.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I appreciate your concern for accuracy in encyclopedias.  I too desire all scientific information in encyclopedias to be accurate.  This is in the interest of us all.  But to say that an article in Wikipedia, which is based upon information from arguably the world's most important cell biology textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, seems desperate, if I may use the terminology of someone famous.  I would also ask, "Have you have voiced your concerns about accuracy to the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica?"  My understanding is that they typically employ PhD's who are specialists (such as youself) in their respective fields to author the various technical articles.
                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                             

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Seizing upon pedanticism to escape the inevitable observation that genetic variation, however it arises, is sufficient to give selection its needed scope seems to me to be a rather desperate and pathetic strategy.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I am not seizing upon pedanticism.  I am refuting ATBC notions that ...

                  1) bottlenecks necessarily kill diversity, and

                  2) 4500 years (the time since the global flood) is too short to achieve massive diversity.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  I doubt that there has been any "rebuttal" on either. Handwaving, sure. Rebuttal, no.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  So are you taking the position of disagreeing with the plethora of scientific papers which support my two statements above and rebut the objections to those statements?  [You do recall the heavily cited Carson paper I posted, I presume?]

                         

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                             

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  As for the proposed rapid diversification needed to fit an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago, the example of dog breeds doesn't satisfy this. A conspicous lack of diversification of dental formula is seen among dog breeds; no matter what breed you look at, it has the usual canine dental formula. Since mammalian paleontology is based primarily upon dental characters, and one would need to explain how so many various mammalian dental formulas diversified in the limited period of post-flood time, it appears that the example of dog breeds goes primarily to establishing that longer time periods are needed for acquiring the observed diversity in this set of characters.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I am not trying to fit anything into an evolutionary time-scale.  I have been REFUTING the evolutionary Deep Time scenario.  The present debate has nothing to do with dog teeth.  It has everything to do with 1) population bottlenecks, and 2) time needed for diversification

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Read for comprehension, please: "an evolutionary time-scale that includes a global flood about 4K years ago". You are proposing that observed genetic diversity can be accounted for by evolutionary processes since Noah's flood. That is an "evolutionary time-scale".
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Fair enough.  Your statement was confusing to me.  Thanks for the clarification.  I would suggest avoiding use of the descriptor "evolutionary" when describing issues related to the YEC model.  I believe it only confuses people as to what you are talking about.

                     

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  You said that domestic dog breeds demonstrate that divergence of characters occurs on the reduced time-scale that you require. However, you do not account for mammalian divergence of dental formulae with this example. Mammals have all sorts of different dental formulas, many of which would have to arise since Noah's flood, within your reduced evolutionary time-scale. So on the one hand we have the observation that many changes in mammalian dental formulae have happened, and on the other we have your example of domestic dogs, which shows no change in dental formula whatsoever. Your example does not support the notion that observed mammalian diversity in dental formula can be compressed into the evolutionary time-scale of divergence since a Noachic flood.

                  Get it now?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  Attempting to change the subject from "diversity in spite of bottlenecks" and "diversity in a short timeframe" to "mammalian dental formulae" by pointing out the fact that I have not yet addressed this new topic seems ... well ... noteworthy.  [I will not be as hard on you as you were on me when you said I had a "desperate and pathetic strategy."]
                  Posted by: Louis on Jan. 04 2007,10:24

                  Steve,



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Oooo, Stella. And here I am, stuck with a few Molson XXX's. I've got a few days off so ordinarily it would be Vodka Time, but there are a few South Parks downloading, and when they get here in an hour, I'd rather be pleasantly buzzed than passed out on the floor with the cat jumping on me.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Stella is known delicately as "Wifebeater" in the UK. Mainly because it's "brewed for the UK market" i.e. filled with crap the Belgians won't touch, which drive you insane and make you fighty. Allegedly. Never had that problem with Molson when in Canuckland, but in both cases YMMV.

                  Now to the broader beer point of lager being like "making love in a canoe", i.e. fucking close to water. Get to your nearest microbrewer and buy something with the foreskin and fingernails of a half dozen rats in it. If you can see through it an wake up the morning after 10 pints of it (as opposed to the morning after that) then it ain't beer. Get a snootful of Lenny's Viking Piss, I've heard awful things about it. It's on the same continent at least. Failing that, get on a plane and I'll take you to a Ringwood pub and buy you some "49er".

                  Mind you, given your vodka comments, you sound like a drinker, so we might have to move to "Old Thumper", which does exactly what it says on the tin.

                  Louis
                  Posted by: k.e on Jan. 04 2007,10:29



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Attempting to change the subject from "diversity in spite of bottlenecks" and "diversity in a short timeframe" to "mammalian dental formulae" by pointing out the fact that I have not yet addressed this new topic seems ... well ... noteworthy.  [I will not be as hard on you as you were on me when you said I had a "desperate and pathetic strategy."]
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  "Attempting to change the subject" Bwhahahahahahaha

                  ....AFD claims subject (diversity) is changed to .....er diversity.

                  You got us there AFD (snicker)

                  "by pointing out the fact that I have not yet addressed this new topic seems ..." ..........Even better!!!!!

                  ...ah Flying Blind Dave YOU HAVE NOT addressed THE OLD  TOPICS let alone the 'new' topic (diversity).

                  You still think you HAVE addressed the old topics though don't you?

                  ......AFD YOU ARE A LIVING LOGICAL FALLACY!
                  Posted by: MidnightVoice on Jan. 04 2007,10:29

                  Is Theaxton's Old Peculiar still available?  :D

                  Or Brains SA?  (Supposed to be Special Ale, but known locally as Skull Attack)
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2007,10:35

                  Now we've got AFDave trying to 'correct' Wesley on Wikipedia. To the very end, this thread does not disappoint.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 04 2007,10:38

                  Quote (thurdl01 @ Jan. 04 2007,05:18)
                  Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 04 2007,02:05)
                  PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As a fellow David, I know the feeling.  Glad to know there's more of us on the correct side of this whole thing.  Maybe we need a sequel to Project Steve.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Yeah, it's my name too. And with David being a top-10 name every decade since the 50s, I'm reasonably certain we could beat project Steve.
                  Posted by: Louis on Jan. 04 2007,10:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Is Theaxton's Old Peculiar still available?  

                  Or Brains SA?  (Supposed to be Special Ale, but known locally as Skull Attack)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yes and yes. Ouch in both cases. Brains is Welsh, and the Welsh have beer that make sheep surprisingly alluring after only a few pints. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just mentioning the power of their beer to....aid in certain (entirely mythical of course) rural activities.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Now we've got AFDave trying to 'correct' Wesley on Wikipedia. To the very end, this thread does not disappoint.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Yup when I read that my jaw  rapidly became in close contact with the floor. The first words I thought were "the fucking GALL of the man", but then I remembered it was AFDave, the world's most unwarrantedly arrogant lunatic.



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Yeah, it's my name too. And with David being a top-10 name every decade since the 50s, I'm reasonably certain we could beat project Steve.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  It's my middle name, so even I could join in this time. (#### those Steves with their exclusivity. They get all the girls and best jobs too. I wanna play! )

                  Louis
                  Posted by: mitschlag on Jan. 04 2007,11:06

                  Quote (thurdl01 @ Jan. 04 2007,07:18)
                   
                  Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 04 2007,02:05)
                  PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  As a fellow David, I know the feeling.  Glad to know there's more of us on the correct side of this whole thing.  Maybe we need a sequel to Project Steve.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Omigod, this is uncanny.  I'm another one.

                  Sayonara, AFDave
                  Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2007,11:39



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The most likely reason Mr. Hawkins is unaware of research demonstrating that recombination can produce new alleles is that he has not taken the time to research the subject. Allelic recombination is well represented in the scientific literature. For example from PNAS | December 10, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 25 | 16348-16353 we have:

                  "Meiotic recombination in the anopheline mosquito is the major mechanism for allelic variation of PfMsp-1 (8); thus, intragenic recombination between unlike alleles generates new alleles in the progeny (10). Recombination sites are confined to the 5' and 3' regions of the gene."

                  Dr. Elsberry's rewrite is concise, accurate, and easy to understand, and should thus be adopted. The references from the quote are (8) Tanabe, K., Mackay, M., Goman, M. & Scaife, J. (1987) J. Mol. Biol. 195, 273-287 and (10) Kerr, P. J., Ranford-Cartwright, L. C. & Walliker, D. (1994) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 66, 241-248. Dphippard 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) David J. Phippard
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



                  Let's see who wins this wikipedia "war".

                  Bye Mr Hawkins!

                  < Link >
                  Posted by: Roland Anderson on Jan. 04 2007,11:58

                  My degree is in German Literature and I have no formal science qualifications beyond GCSE (that's exams taken at 16 for those unfamiliar with the England/Wales system) and even I could understand Wesley's point about recombination creating new alleles in seconds. Once again, Dave is playing on the fact that words have interesting and complex meanings in order to attempt to obfuscate the issue. Yes, a new allele created only by recombination does not result from a point mutation at the time of the recombination - but that doesn't make it any the less a new allele. And the variation required to make a new allele in this way will have come from past point mutations anyway - that's my understanding.

                  I'm sorry, Dave, but in this case (and in many others) your feigned incomprehension doesn't wash. Your attitude towards truth and honesty is contemptible. You know that creation science is a lie. You know that Intelligent Design "theory" is a lie. However, you still push them on kids. This is despicable.

                  This is my last post on this subject so in the vein of credit-rolling may I say thanks to all the posters for the splendid variety of knowledge which has come my way thanks to reading this thread. Good-bye - and good luck!
                  Posted by: incorygible on Jan. 04 2007,12:04

                  Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2007,11:39)
                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  The most likely reason Mr. Hawkins is unaware of research demonstrating that recombination can produce new alleles is that he has not taken the time to research the subject. Allelic recombination is well represented in the scientific literature. For example from PNAS | December 10, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 25 | 16348-16353 we have:

                  "Meiotic recombination in the anopheline mosquito is the major mechanism for allelic variation of PfMsp-1 (8); thus, intragenic recombination between unlike alleles generates new alleles in the progeny (10). Recombination sites are confined to the 5' and 3' regions of the gene."

                  Dr. Elsberry's rewrite is concise, accurate, and easy to understand, and should thus be adopted. The references from the quote are (8) Tanabe, K., Mackay, M., Goman, M. & Scaife, J. (1987) J. Mol. Biol. 195, 273-287 and (10) Kerr, P. J., Ranford-Cartwright, L. C. & Walliker, D. (1994) Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 66, 241-248. Dphippard 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) David J. Phippard
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



                  Let's see who wins this wikipedia "war".

                  Bye Mr Hawkins!

                  < Link >
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Priceless! And to throw another iron(y) on the anvil, I suspect David J. Phippard is the co-author of this recent paper on global genetic diversity and polymorphism (not to mention Plasmodium and malaria), which is rather amusing (assuming he's not one of our many incognito Daves here at AtBC?):

                   

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Title: Global genetic diversity and evolution of var genes associated with placental and severe childhood malaria

                  Author(s): Trimnell AR (Trimnell, Adama R.), Kraemer SM (Kraemer, Susan M.), Mukherjee S (Mukherjee, Susan), Phippard DJ (Phippard, David J.), Janes JH (Janes, Joel H.), Flamoe E (Flamoe, Eric), Su XZ (Su, Xin-zhuan), Awadalla P (Awadalla, Philip), Smith JD (Smith, Joseph D.)

                  Source: MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY 148 (2): 169-180 AUG 2006

                  Document Type: Article

                  Language: English

                  Cited References: 56      Times Cited: 2

                  Abstract: In Plasmodium falciparum, var genes encode adhesive proteins that are transported to the surface of infected erythrocytes and act as major virulence determinants for infected erythrocyte binding and immune evasion. Var genes are highly diverse and can be classified into five major groups (UpsA, B, C, D, and E). Previous serological studies have suggested that the UpsA var group may contain common antigenic types that have important roles in severe childhood malaria. Here, our analysis found that UpsA vars are highly diverse between 22 world-wide parasite isolates, although they could be grouped into two broad clusters that may be separately recombining. By comparison, orthologs of the UpsA-linked Type 3 var and UpsE-linked var2csa were detected in nearly all parasite isolates, and a var2csa ortholog was also present in a chimpanzee malaria R reichenowi that diverged from P. falciparum similar to 5-7 million years ago. Although the specific function of Type 3 var genes is unknown, var2csa is a leading candidate for a pregnancy associated malaria vaccine. Compared to typical var genes, var2csa is unusually conserved but still had only 54-94% amino acid identity in extracellular binding regions. However, var2csa alleles have extensive gene mosaicism within polymorphic blocks that are shared between world-wide parasite isolates and recognizable in P rechenowi suggesting a high rate of self-self recombination and an ancient and globally-related pool of var2csa polymorphism. These studies aid our understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms that shape var diversity and will be important to the development of vaccines against pregnancy associated malaria and severe malaria.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 04 2007,12:17



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I appreciate your concern for accuracy in encyclopedias.  I too desire all scientific information in encyclopedias to be accurate.  This is in the interest of us all.  But to say that an article in Wikipedia, which is based upon information from arguably the world's most important cell biology textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, seems desperate, if I may use the terminology of someone famous.  I would also ask, "Have you have voiced your concerns about accuracy to the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica?"  My understanding is that they typically employ PhD's who are specialists (such as youself) in their respective fields to author the various technical articles.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Funny, usually when somebody like Hawkins has an ace authority, a quote is provided. No quote here. The question is, was Hawkins too tired to provide the quote, or did he not provide the quote because that would bust his bluff?

                  I don't have an Encyclopedia Britannica handy, so I don't know whether or not they make the same error that Wikipedia had. Therefore, I have not contacted them.


                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2007,12:23

                  The sun is setting on our long day here


                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 04 2007,12:39

                  If you look VERY closely at that ship, you'll see the crew swilling grog, tequila and various other refreshing beverages in celebration of a voyage well-done. I'm the one falling overboard with a bottle of Bushmill's in my hand.
                  Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 04 2007,12:44

                  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2007,12:17)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I appreciate your concern for accuracy in encyclopedias.  I too desire all scientific information in encyclopedias to be accurate.  This is in the interest of us all.  But to say that an article in Wikipedia, which is based upon information from arguably the world's most important cell biology textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, seems desperate, if I may use the terminology of someone famous.  I would also ask, "Have you have voiced your concerns about accuracy to the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica?"  My understanding is that they typically employ PhD's who are specialists (such as youself) in their respective fields to author the various technical articles.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Funny, usually when somebody like Hawkins has an ace authority, a quote is provided. No quote here. The question is, was Hawkins too tired to provide the quote, or did he not provide the quote because that would bust his bluff?

                  I don't have an Encyclopedia Britannica handy, so I don't know whether or not they make the same error that Wikipedia had. Therefore, I have not contacted them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  I have a set, and just for fun I'm looking it up now...

                  Stay tuned.

                  [EDIT:  I'm not finding any such assertion in any of the articles on genetics in either the macropedia or the micropedia, near as I can tell.  I have an older edition, though.  '94 limited anniversary edition, leather bound, gilded trim, very pretty.  :)  Just so y'know.)
                  Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 04 2007,14:38

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 04 2007,12:39)
                  If you look VERY closely at that ship, you'll see the crew swilling grog, tequila and various other refreshing beverages in celebration of a voyage well-done. I'm the one falling overboard with a bottle of Bushmill's in my hand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Over there on the right, you'll see afdave all alone in a lifeboat from the good ship UCGH.  Sunk without trace.
                  Posted by: Faid on Jan. 04 2007,14:59

                  A (sort of) Goobye post to dave

                  (no boldcaps, I'm done with that-almost)

                  oh man. Even at the end of this tired old thread, dave manages to embarrass himself again- on Wikipedia nonetheless! What was that dave? "Recombination cannot create new alleles"?

                  Do you know what recombination is?

                  Do you know what an allele is?

                  Face it, dave. You can be many things, but "amateur scientist" is not one of them.
                  Sorry to (yet again) bust your delusions of grandeur,but you are as related to science as Paris Hilton is to Mother Teresa.

                  What happened to Jan Pezckis and his Dancing Macaques, dave?

                  What happened to all that explaining you would do about Sanford, Crow, the Schoen paper and it's supposed relevance?

                  What did your pal Sanford have to say about why, always according to his "theory", all those 'higher genome' animals didn't become extinct after the flood?
                  Or didn't you talk about that- just chatted about evos and how "stubborn" they are?

                  I could, of course, go on (and on, and on) looking backwards in this thread, dave. But what's the use? You'll just claim you "already answered", "sucessfully refuted", "beat down" or "demolished" all those questions, like the HUGE MOUNTAIN of ones before them...

                  ...And, of course, NEVER GIVE A LINK. Or repost the same old assertions and blabber, as if noone ever addressed them.
                  We've come to know you like the plam of our hand by now, dave. And, I must say that, without a doubt, You are the most amazing creationist I have seen.

                  (oh and PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE quotemine this. I'd love to see you do it and then simply quote my next paragraph:)

                  You are the most amazing creationist I have seen, because I have never, NEVER seen such a blatant mix of IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE AND DISHONESTY.

                  You are, of course, ignorant: your complete lack of education in issues others know about from their highscool years is evident in every post. You are even unable to construct a coherent argument without relying on your precious AiG quotes:
                  But that's no big thing. Almost all creationists are, and those that are not, often declare that they had willfully rejected all their previous knowledge for the sake of blind faith. Nothing new.

                  You also are unbelievably arrogant: Your inflated ego always seeks ways to shine through. Saying you are an "amateur scientist", that "you are no expert in genetics YET" (as if it were possible you ever would be), an so on- and of course, combined with your ignorance, this leads to hilarious results:
                  Claiming to have "answered your own question", after a dozen people explain your stupid mistake to you,
                  Gloating about how "you bet" that "Dr. Russel Durbin" didn't know about Lysigony (Lysigony, for crying out loud), and about how YOU, a CREATIONIST, supposedly told him first,
                  And other instances too numerous to mention, except, of course, the most prominent one: The Poruguese Moment, when you "sawed off the branch", only to realize you were sitting on the wrong end... And ever since, act as if you "won", to keep your poor ego from collapsing in tears inside your head.

                  But, then again, that's no biggie either. Many YECs are arrogant: I suppose trying to claim you know better than 99% of scientists requires some amount of arrogance. :)

                  No dave, something else makes you stand out. It's your amazing level of blatant DISHONESTY.
                  At first, it surprised me; I couldn't think how a person that calls himself a christian would distance himself so much from honesty.
                  Then it got me angry; I thought that, in your mind, the fact that you were "on a mission" supposedly gave you the right to lie and ignore and distort and evade the truth, all for the sake of your God, and I resented that...
                  ...But then I realized it wasn't about your God at all; you were lying to protect your fragile little ego. To maintain the image of the Knight in shining armor you had imposed on yourself, to deal with your inferiority complex towards those that are more educated and, well, more smart than you (or do you think it's not clear to all what things like, say, your mocking declaration of other people's titles and credentials, show?)
                  Nowdays, whenever I see you lie (and get caught lying, and lie to cover that up, and then lose track of your lies- see my SIG, dave) I just laugh and laugh. :D

                  But, I see it's going to end soon. This infamous thread will end, and AFDave the Great will leave us, never to return- save to make a cowardly hit-and-run post or two.

                  (Not that anyone's gonna ban you or anything, of course: You'll simply won't stand not being the center of attention. And we both know it.)

                  But wait: there's still time! All you have to do is to offer a single, teensy bit of evidence in favor of your "scientific hypothesis"! How about some archaeological finds related to the Ark? Some evidence or records of an Ice Age in the third millenia BC? Oh oh I know, some proof that humans and dinosaurs coexisted! THAT must be abundant!

                  Come on, champ, you can do it!

                  ...


                  :D

                  Oh man I kill me sometimes, as that other Dave would say.


                  Good-bye, dave with a lowercase d. You are a joke, as your YEC beliefs are a joke. And you know it. You know that there's no way you'll ever get them to be anything more than a joke, as long as the Civilized World, the world of Science and Reason, exists. And you know, deep down in your hearts, underneath all those defense mechanisms that keep your mind from seeing the facts, you know time works against you.
                  That's why you try to fool small kids and gullible minds. And keep praying for the Rupture, of course.

                  Good luck with that. You'll need it.  :p
                  Posted by: Faid on Jan. 04 2007,15:14

                  Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 04 2007,12:39)
                  If you look VERY closely at that ship, you'll see the crew swilling grog, tequila and various other refreshing beverages in celebration of a voyage well-done. I'm the one falling overboard with a bottle of Bushmill's in my hand.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Arrrr! Who took my Ouzo? No fair mates, just because I was on shore leave for New Years...
                  Posted by: bfish on Jan. 04 2007,15:55

                  Boy, when I got back from Christmas vacation I faced 25+ pages of Uncommonly Dense and 25+ pages of AFDave. It was no contest which to read: I caught myself up on the goings on at Uncommonly Dense. I figured I wouldn't return to the AFDave thread. Nothing left to see. Then a comment on another thread said that Mayberry AFD was being closed down, so I figured I'd make a final comment.

                  When I was learning how to ski, I was terribly afraid that an expert skier would come zooming past me at 100 mph and cause me to crash. I remember wishing that beginning skiers were given special jackets, so the good skiers would be able to spot the rookies on the mountain and give them a wide berth. Then I got to be a better skier, and I realized that beginners don't NEED to wear bright orange vests. Good skiers can spot the beginners from a mile away.

                  Dave, you are a dilettante. You understand this a little bit, but you have NO IDEA how much a dilettante you are, and how easily the experts can find you out. They can spot you a mile away. My personal favorite might be your Adventures with Punnett Squares. Not much you can do with a Punnet Square for a single locus. Two alleles on the top and two alleles on the side. Four possible progeny outcomes. Doesn't look very impressive. So the spin-doctors at AIG gave you a Punnet Square with two loci (and another with three? I can't be bothered to look it up). This gave 16 possible progeny outcomes and looked MUCH more impressive. You talked about getting a genotype in one of the middle squares, as if that had any meaning whatsoever beyond what order the alleles were written on the top of the Square. And then, when someone pointed out to you that the Square represented TWO loci, you said, "Good catch." Good catch? Good grief. You had on your orange vest and were snowplowing down the bunny hill.

                  There's nothing wrong with not being an expert on something. We are all amateurs and dilettantes on far more things than we are expert on. But most of us have some degree of self-awareness of what we don't know. We don't walk up to a neurosurgeon and tell her she knows nothing about the brain, but we learned all about it on Wikipedia.

                  Dave, you have spent hundreds of hours researching various scientific fields during the last 8 months. That is to your credit. But during that same period, real scientists, like Incorygible and Russell, have spent much more time than that doing research. It's their job! It's what they do. Ask Argystokes how much time he spends working on and thinking about biology as a first year grad student. My guess is 60 hours a week. Six years from now he might have his PhD. Then he'll work 60 hour weeks as a Post-Doc for another three or four years. That's about 30,000 hours of focused work to be able to call himself an Assistant Professor. You don't catch up to that by doing a few google searches.

                  Dave, I've been reading this thread since Day 1, because you remind me of my brother. I suspect that he believes most of the same things you do. I say "suspect," because I don't know for sure. We can't talk about these things. Fundamentalist religion, that is to say a belief in one book's literal, word-for-word truth and the One True Interpretation of that literalness, is a profound barrier between folks who don't share that belief. My brother and I don't talk about much that is of any real import. I've been reading this thread to get an idea of what my brother believes and how he thinks. I hope I'm wrong that he thinks as you do. It's too depressing.

                  Dave, I'm sorry that science conflicts with your religious beliefs. But the science is the science. It's not evaluated by whether or not we like it.

                  As my last words on this thread, I'd like to thank the many folks who patiently tried to explain to AFDave why he was wrong, even after it was demonstrated that he was incapable of learning, that he actively chooses not to learn. Thank you Incorygible, JonF, Deadman, Eric Murphy, Russell, and everyone else. Wish I could take your class, Incorygible. I bet it's great.

                  -Bill
                  Posted by: deadman_932 on Jan. 04 2007,16:55

                  "Hi, My name is AFDave, and I'm here to burn down the evilushunist House of CARDS!!

                  Oh, Noes!!
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 04 2007,17:14

                  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2007,10:17)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I appreciate your concern for accuracy in encyclopedias.  I too desire all scientific information in encyclopedias to be accurate.  This is in the interest of us all.  But to say that an article in Wikipedia, which is based upon information from arguably the world's most important cell biology textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, seems desperate, if I may use the terminology of someone famous.  I would also ask, "Have you have voiced your concerns about accuracy to the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica?"  My understanding is that they typically employ PhD's who are specialists (such as youself) in their respective fields to author the various technical articles.

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  Funny, usually when somebody like Hawkins has an ace authority, a quote is provided. No quote here. The question is, was Hawkins too tired to provide the quote, or did he not provide the quote because that would bust his bluff?

                  I don't have an Encyclopedia Britannica handy, so I don't know whether or not they make the same error that Wikipedia had. Therefore, I have not contacted them.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  After the evidence in the discussion went up that your sentences were clearly more accurate than the original, I changed the entry using your suggestion. A couple hours later, it was changed back. Is that likely someone from wiki freezing a page during ongoing discussion, or is it more likely we've got a jokester trying to cover up THE TRUTH?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 04 2007,17:39

                  You know, Dave, you're trying to figure out complicated stuff like genotypes, alleles, recombination, meiosis, etc.

                  Why don't you try easy stuff? Like explaining why it is that

                  4,500,000,000 years isn't nearly enough to get from a few thousand species to a few million species;

                  but

                  4,500 years is plenty of time to get from a few thousand "kinds" to a few million species.


                  Especially since you now know that no "kind" on the ark could have been any more "genetically rich" than any other diploid organism in existence today.

                  Can you do that, Dave? In the next 30 or so posts?
                  Posted by: Malum Regnat on Jan. 04 2007,17:41



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  For a good time, call Janie @ 555-UDoJ
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  What about Corporal Kate?

                  Is it my imagination or wasn't Dave arguing the exact opposite about recombination of genes just a few pages back?  You know, back when he was claiming that his 'friend' Francisco said that 'genetic diversity' had some way of magically slipping through a genetic bottleneck.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 04 2007,17:48

                  Quote (Faid @ Jan. 04 2007,15:59)
                  (Not that anyone's gonna ban you or anything, of course: You'll simply won't stand not being the center of attention. And we both know it.)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  AFDave needs a new audience and we need to move on to other things, so I'm afraid I can't let him simply jump to a new thread and carry on as before. Not allowing him to post here once the thread is closed will encourage him to set up shop elsewhere. It's nothing personal, and he's not being banned for misbehavior, it's just in everyone's best interests that we start seeing other people.
                  Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 04 2007,17:52



                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  After the evidence in the discussion went up that your sentences were clearly more accurate than the original, I changed the entry using your suggestion. A couple hours later, it was changed back. Is that likely someone from wiki freezing a page during ongoing discussion, or is it more likely we've got a jokester trying to cover up THE TRUTH?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't see that in the edit history.
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 04 2007,17:55

                  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2007,15:52)


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  After the evidence in the discussion went up that your sentences were clearly more accurate than the original, I changed the entry using your suggestion. A couple hours later, it was changed back. Is that likely someone from wiki freezing a page during ongoing discussion, or is it more likely we've got a jokester trying to cover up THE TRUTH?

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I don't see that in the edit history.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Strange. Well, I promise I did it, and now I'm going to do it again.

                  EDIT: When I went to the "edit this page," my changes were already there, but hadn't taken effect on the main page. Now it appears they have. Weird.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 04 2007,18:02

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 04 2007,07:32)
                  I am not seizing upon pedanticism.  I am refuting ATBC notions that ...

                  1) bottlenecks necessarily kill diversity, and

                  2) 4500 years (the time since the global flood) is too short to achieve massive diversity.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, this is one of those really simple concepts that your religious fantaticism simply prevents you from understanding.

                  Bottlenecks necessarily kill diversity. That's why they're called "bottlenecks." If a reduction in population does not reduce diversity, then it simply does not qualify as a "bottleneck." A genetic bottleneck kills diversity by definition.

                  And when you're talking about a genetic bottleneck that reduces an entire population down to a single mating pair, you're pretty much at the absolute minimum amount of genetic diversity possible. The only way it could go lower is if both members of the pair are homozygotic for every single gene. It doesn't get much worse than that, Dave.

                  If you think that a single mating pair, even if it is heterozygotic for every single solitary gene, can diversify into an average of a thousand species in a few millennia, you're quite simply insane. An entire population, with immense genetic diversity, cannot possibly diversify into a thousand species in that time. If you think it can, I'd like to see some evidence of any organism anywhere who has diversified into even a hundred species in the last five millennia. As has been pointed out to you absolutely to the point of exhaustion, your "hypothesis" requires levels of über-hyper-super-macroevolution vastly, astronomically beyond anything proposed by the Theory of Evolution. So again, why is 4,500 years plenty of time for this to happen, but a million times longer is not nearly enough time?
                  Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 04 2007,18:14

                  Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2007,17:48)
                  It's nothing personal, and he's not being banned for misbehavior, it's just in everyone's best interests that we start seeing other people.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  What?  This board doesn't have a "friend with privileges" setting?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 04 2007,20:52

                  Ooo, more updates from the genetic recombination wiki thread:


                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  In spite of Dr. Phippard's comments, the sentence, as it stands ...

                     Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.

                  is a correct statement. Dr. Elsberry is wrong when he states that it is completely incorrect. Note the following quotes from ...

                  Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:75–97 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.111115 Copyright c° 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved RECOMBINATION IN EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS David Posada1,2, Keith A. Crandall3,4, and Edward C. Holmes5 1Variagenics Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 2Center for Cancer Research,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 3Department of Integrative Biology, 4Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, and 5Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom

                     Recombination can play a dominant role in the generation of novel genetic variants through the rearrangement of existing genetic variation generated through mutation." (p.81)

                  So while novel alleles can arise through recombination, these novel alleles are simply the rearrangement of existing genetic material which, the above authors believe, was originally created through mutation.

                  This article also says ...

                     "Although both [homologous and non-homologous recombination] conform to a broad definition of recombination—[that is,]an evolutionary event that has as a consequence the horizontal exchange of genetic material..." (p.76)

                  "Horizontal exchange of genetic material" is not a phrase which gives the impression of anything truly novel being created.

                  Dr. Elsberry's proposed wording ...

                     Because coding regions are relatively uncommon, in most cases recombination breaks and rejoins genetic material outside those regions, with the effect of "shuffling" already-existing loci. But since recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries, from time to time it will bring together parts of differing alleles, resulting in the production of a novel allele.

                  would lead readers to believe that new genetic information is being created, when in reality, previously existing information blocks are being reshuffled in a way that is not yet completely understood.

                  I would be interested to see what Albert's most recent textbook (2002 version) has to say about this, since this article was based on the earlier version of his textbook. I will comment on that when I can obtain a copy. --David W. Hawkins 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  And the chromosomes still only contain the same 4 bases! No new information, no new information!

                  EDIT: I checked Alberts 2002, couldn't find anything about allelic recombination. It's a damned heavy book, but it doesn't have everything!
                  Posted by: ScaryFacts on Jan. 04 2007,21:00

                  Novice alert:  I have no clue what I am talking about

                  It seems to me Wesley's statement was perfectly clear--it doesn't introduce "new" material, but combines existing material in a new way creating novel material.

                  Isn't that clear or is it just me?
                  Posted by: argystokes on Jan. 04 2007,21:15

                  Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,19:00)
                  Novice alert:  I have no clue what I am talking about

                  It seems to me Wesley's statement was perfectly clear--it doesn't introduce "new" material, but combines existing material in a new way creating novel material.

                  Isn't that clear or is it just me?
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  That's right. The physical material itself isn't new, but the new combination of genetic material can lead to distinctly new properties in a novel protein. And since Dave says we determine information gain/loss by using our intuition, your intuition that says that the material is novel implies that there's been an increase in information!
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 04 2007,21:16

                  Steve Story ...

                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
                  Not allowing him to post here once the thread is closed will encourage him to set up shop elsewhere.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

                  I am planning on continuing with the topics begun here at the Dawkins blog or on my blog and I thanked you for alerting me to some other options.

                  Are you now telling me I can't participate in Skeptic's new Christianity thread after this thread is closed?

                  What would be the reason for that?  Do you think I have taken over that thread?  Or plan to?  

                  I have not, and I don't plan to.  If you will look on that thread, my posts so far consist of a very small percentage of the total content.
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 04 2007,21:20

                  But Dave still has to explain where those extra 617 HLA-B alleles came from. They didn't walk off the ark, so one way or another, they got into the human population. Recombination? Point mutation? Doesn't matter.

                  At least with this one gene, 98% of the alleles currently present in the population must have arisen after Dave's "flood."

                  Where did they come from, Dave?
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 04 2007,21:55

                  See, Dave, it really doesn't matter whether you, personally, think that recombination can add information to a genome. The point is, we know for a fact, absolutely beyond dispute, that one way or another information does, in fact, get added to genomes. Unless you think that going from 10 alleles to 627 alleles for the same gene doesn't involve information being added to the genome.

                  One way or another, you've got to explain where it came from. And, you need to find evidence that it can happen in 4,500 years. As Lenny < pointed out, >

                   
                  Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 01 2007,14:47)
                  Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



                  I know you hate difficult questions, Dave, especially when they're from me (whom you have accused, evidently without a scrap of evidence, of lying and misrepresenting your position). But do you think you could manage to answer this one little problem for your "hypothesis" before you turn into a pumpkin?
                  Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 04 2007,22:24

                  And so like another famous American, AFDave vows to search every AIG, ICR, and DI press release until he finds the real truth about evilution!


                  Posted by: jupiter on Jan. 04 2007,22:48

                  Another semi-lurker checking in.

                  I wholeheartedly concur with the previous accolades for ericmurphy, and add further huzzahs.

                  The notion of being an "autodidact" has acquired a negative connotation. The word suggests a monomaniacal halfwit who acquires the vocabulary and the rudimentary principles of a given discipline; reaches a ground-breaking, precedent-setting, cabal-exposing epiphany that connects only tangentially to said principles and/or violates them savagely; and then sallies forth to do battle. Exhibit A: Larry Falafelman.

                  But ericmurphy reclaims the word. He's read, contemplated, analyzed, and synthesized information across a number of disciplines, and he discusses this information with remarkable facility and clarity. All without the direction of syllabi or the lash of semester finals. He's an autodidact in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. (Cue billowy USA flags and a sonorous voice intoning, "Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal, you sockdologizing old man-trap!" Which was, sadly, the < last human utterance > Lincoln heard.)

                  Which leads me to my next topic, Two Reasons AFDave Has Singled Out ericmurphy For Especial Denigration & Ignorage

                  1. ericmurphy has no financial or professional stake in the evo-darwinian cult. This eliminates AFDave's best-loved and last-stand retort.

                  2. AFDave's authoritarian training, temperament, and beliefs don't allow him to consider a challenge from anyone without the proper credentials. Even though he refuses to acknowledge the validity of, and indeed is antagonistic to, those credentials.

                  But, arguendo, let's honor AFDave's appeal to the supreme authority of eyewitness testimony.

                  Please read < any one of many > studies on the fallibility (and malleability) of eyewitness testimony.

                  And then recall playing "telephone" in fourth grade.

                  Wah-lah! The King James Bible!
                  Posted by: afdave on Jan. 05 2007,01:07

                  AFDAVE'S LAST POST ON THE GOOD OLD CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS THREAD (SNIFF)



                  A PARTIAL LIST OF THE FUN STUFF WE HAVE COVERED HERE AT ATBC
                  1) I showed you how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they say it is only a mirage
                  2) I showed you the contradiction in saying that if a high-tech UFO lands on earth, it must be designed, yet a high-tech rotary motor driving a flagellum in a bacterium is not designed.
                  3) I showed you that the fundamental difference between a butterfly (which reproduces) and a watch (which doesn't) is degree of technological sophistication.  This proves that if the watch was designed, then much more the butterfly.
                  4) You were shown how Talk Origins supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
                  5) I showed you how the broken GULO gene in humans and chimps can just as easily be explained by Common Design as by Common Descent
                  6) I gave you three major objections to the notion of common descent between apes and humans. These objections are large and problematic for ToE.
                  7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
                  8) We discussed supposed human evolution and pointed out how absurd it is to say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, but didn't begin keeping written records until 194,000 years later.
                  9) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
                  10) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
                  11) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
                  12) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
                  13) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
                  14) You were shown how many leading geologists, including Derek Ager, past president of the British Geological Association, have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
                  15) You have been shown that the "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time, and is characterized by gaps, not by a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
                  16) We discussed the fact that the term "Punctuated Equilibrium" was invented because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
                  17) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
                  18) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
                  19) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
                  20) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe.  Some layers claim radiometric dates, but these are "calibrated" by fossils
                  21) Another example of dates being "calibrated" by fossils was Koobi Fora in which dates ranging from approximately 1.6 my to 230 my were obtained.
                  22) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
                  23) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
                  24) You have been shown that radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception and that this creationist contention was confirmed by creationist scientists' own experiments, which some of you say never happens.
                  25) I showed you Ayala's quote where he says that “It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
                  26) I showed that the genetic bottleneck of Noah's Ark need not have been a problem WRT preserving variability.  All that was required would be a fair amount of heterozygosity in the pairs taken on the ark.
                  27) It was claimed that the 500 or so alleles of the HLA-B gene are some sort of problem for creationism, but this was shown not to be true.  The HLA-B gene mutates in response to different environments more rapidly than other genes.  And these mutated genes are then mixed in the various populations of the world.  
                  28) We showed how C14 dating is based upon the flawed assumption of relatively constant carbon levels throughout earth history.  This is an incorrect assumption as the fossil record clearly shows.
                  29) Dr. John Sanford has shown in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, that the Primary Axiom (RM + NS) has now been shown by modern genetics to be utterly false.  This leaves ToE advocates without any mechanism at all to drive evolution.
                  30) Eight alternative mechanisms were proposed, but I showed that they are inadequate.  Sanford is right.  There is no other mechanism.
                  31) I showed you where Allen MacNeill of Cornell has said that the Modern Synthesis of ToE (which he says equates to the Micro-Evo = Macro-Evo extrapolation) is DEAD.
                  32) And ... last but not least, I showed that recombination involves the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information, which is quite a different thing than random mutation.  And neither can serve as a mechanism for creating new biological structures.

                  Wherever I go next, I will be getting into the Tower of Babel, Egypt and China, the Ice Age, Post-Flood ecology, the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, Biblical Archaeology, Ante-Diluvian Man, Christianity and America, the Reformation and Protestantism and other fun topics.  I hope you will join me!

                  *********************************************************************

                  If there were only 1 YEC book that I could recommend to you, it would be Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  He is a semi-retired, prominent, successful Cornell geneticist who has recently rejected Darwinism with it's RM + NS dogma, and has become a Young Earth Creationist as have many competent scientists.  The list grows longer every day.  A lot of the folks here say that YECism is dying and point to the Dover trial.  But the exact opposite is happening.  YECism is growing worldwide ... and quickly.

                  Close runners up to Dr. Sanford's book would be Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood and John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.

                  All three books are heavily documented from the science literature and are quite convincing of the YEC case.

                  Websites you should bookmark are ...

                  www.answersingenesis.org (growing rapidly ... opening a Creation Museum in May)

                  www.icr.org (where the modern YEC revival started ... growing, opened new office in Dallas recently)

                  airdave.blogspot.com (My blog which is inactive at the moment because I have been here at ATBC, but I may restart and enable comments)

                  < http://richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php > (where I will probably be posting soon ... same username as here probably ... "afdave")

                  **********************************************************************

                  You can download both of my CGH threads here ...

                  < AFD_CGH1 >

                  < AFD_CGH2 >

                  ... and here are some search terms for my AFD_CGH1 thread.  Just download them to a text file, then search using CTRL-F.  Here's some I set up for you.  You can also just search terms in the list of 32 items above.

                  INSPIRATION FOR MY TITLE "CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"
                  Search term: < http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf >
                  C.S. LEWIS ARGUMENT FOR GOD BASED UPON UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE
                  Search term: morality as a clue to the meaning of the universe
                  GENESIS IS A WRITTEN, EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT, NOT ORAL TRADITION
                  Search term: reliability of the Genesis Record
                  JOSH McDOWELL ON TYRE
                  Search term: josh mcdowell on tyre
                  TYRE FULFILLMENT REFUTATION EQUIVOCAL AT BEST
                  Search term: trinitysem
                  SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE JUNE 13, 2006
                  Search term: June 13 2006,13:11
                  THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE WORLD
                  Search term: evil in the world

                  ****************************************************************************

                  Thanks to Wesley, Steve and all of you for your hospitality!  I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and I wish you all the best in the future.  Wesley, I had fun arguing with you for ... what was it 3 posts?  Er ... what was that you were saying about no quoted authority at Wikipedia?  Better look again.  Anyway, if you or Argy (I suppose Argy is David Phippard? ) or Incorygible or Deadman or Russell or Chris Hyland or Drew Headley or JonF or Carlson and whoever else want to debate any other particular YEC topics here (as opposed to over at the Dawkins forum), I would suggest one thread at a time on a very narrow topic. Let me know ... you know where to find me!

                  And most of all ... if any of you don't already know Him, I hope you get to know your Creator in 2007!

                  Have a good life!
                  Posted by: ericmurphy on Jan. 05 2007,01:31

                  Quote (afdave @ Jan. 04 2007,23:07)
                  AFDAVE'S LAST POST ON THE GOOD OLD CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS THREAD (SNIFF)



                  A PARTIAL LIST OF THE FUN STUFF WE HAVE COVERED HERE AT ATBC

                  BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBl
                  ahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah
                  BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah
                  ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


                  Dave, I don't know who you think you're convincing with this bogus list of things you've "shown" us. What has in actuality happened with every single one of these points is that your "arguments" were totally blown out of the water. You were unable to support a single one of these "arguments," most of which I (an uneducated wretch) was able to blast down to the bedrock without even doing any research. What actual scientists with actual knowledge and actual research were able to do to your arguments was truly awe-inspiring.

                  Anyone can determine the likely truth of your claims merely by reading this thread and your previous thread. As you should know by now, in light of the half-dozen or so lurkers who delurked in time to make the cutoff on this thread, you managed to persuade essentially no one on a single point you ever tried to make here.

                  But you're living in a world of delusion, Dave. It will be interesting to see how much of your argumentation here is ever picked up by the creationist community at large as an example of how to win an argument against scientists.

                  I've never been able to figure out if you actually believe you've scored any points with these "arguments," Dave. If you do, then I have to say I have serious concerns for your mental health (and given that you've repeatedly posted links to your threads, I'm inclined to think you really do believe you've won these arguments). It would be much better for you if you realize that your arguments here have been roundly defeated, pounded to dust, but that your pride will not allow you to admit that you've been defeated.

                  This thread has been a sad (albeit entertaining) testament to the irrationality, intractability, and immunity to logic or reason demonstrated by your typical, dyed-in-the-wool creationist. And, as your fellow Christian scaryfacts has pointed out, your behavior here has presented Christianity in an extremely poor light. If I had never been exposed to Christians other than yourself, Dave, I would have a uniformly negative impression of the entire religion, and would see it as a direct threat to reason and rationality, if not civilization itself.

                  Fortunately, I am aware that most Christians are not like you, Dave. Some actually seem to have imbibed the true meaning of Christ's message, a message that seems to be entirely lost on you.
                  Posted by: Ichthyic on Jan. 05 2007,01:33

                  ...and so, Cowboy Dave rides off into a sunset of his own making...

                  ostensibly to learn the roots of the Portuguese language, no doubt.

                  don't let that sun fry ya, Dave.

                  well, any more than it already has, anyway.
                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2007,01:34

                  And with that, I'll let AFDave have the last word.


                  Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2007,01:38

                  #### you guys are fast. Anyway, bye everybody. Check < http://airdave.blogspot.com/ > for where he'll be next.
                  end


                  Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
                  Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.